Received: 25 June 2019

| Revised: 14 May 2020

| Accepted: 9 June 2020

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12450

R E S E A RC H PA P E R – M AT H E M AT I C S E D U C AT I O N

Connecting preservice and inservice teacher learning:

Communities of practice

Damon L. Bahr1 | Melissa Newberry1 | Joseph S. Rino2

1
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
2
Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH, USA

Correspondence: Damon L. Bahr, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.

Email: damon_bahr@byu.edu

1 | IN TRO D U C T IO N empowering the teachers and principal to become co-mathe-

The current reform movement in mathematics education
seeks to improve mathematics instruction on at least two
fronts—preservice teacher preparation and in-service teacher
professional development. As a mathematics teacher educa-
tor, the first author joined with the principal and faculty at an
elementary school (Bahr, Monroe, Balzotti & Eggett, 2009)
to create a 3-year program that would synthesize both en-
deavors. The goal of the program was to enhance the mathe-
matics instruction of in-service teachers while also enriching
the clinical component of teacher preparation work with
preservice teachers (PSTs). Creating and implementing the
program fostered some rather interesting dynamics among
groups of teachers and PSTs as they worked together to con-
nect theories underlying reform-based mathematics teaching
with the in-class practice of such.
This program was conceived, created, and implemented
at Lincoln Elementary School (pseudonym), a small K-5
public school in the western United States that served a mid-
dle-class clientele comprised of ~90% Caucasian and 10%
Latino students. Prior to the program's creation, the Lincoln
Elementary School faculty and principal and the lead author,
who had been an elementary teacher himself, had formed a
Community of Practice (CoP; Wenger et al., 2002) that pro-
vided a PST clinical experience site for 6 years during which
time the faculty mentored PSTs and the lead author provided
supervision. The CoP was then transformed when the teach-
ers and the principal joined the first author in taking up a new
joint “mentoring” enterprise that focused on assisting PSTs
connect their on-campus, reform-based mathematics meth-
ods learning with the clinical application of the same thus
matics teacher educators.
2 | CONCEPTUAL GROUNDING
2.1 | Mathematics education reform
movement
Numerous research and reports from around the world are call-
ing for reforms in the teaching and learning of mathematics
that are anything but “patch work” (Liu & Li, 2010, p. 11). For
example, calls in Britain and the United States include a bal-
anced focus on the construction of conceptual understanding
and procedural knowledge (Rittle-Johnson & Schneider, 2014).
Another American reform document, Principles to Actions
(NCTM, 2014; see also Common Core State Standards-
Mathematics, National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010)
emphasizes “Mathematical Practices”––problem solving, rea-
soning and proof, representing, communicating, etc.––while
calling for cohesive curriculum implementation.
2.2 | Interweaving on-campus and clinical
experiences
Considerable responsibility is placed on the mathemat-
ics teacher education community to lead out in this reform
(Ma, 1999) which seeks to fulfill this responsibility in at least
two, well-known and long-used contexts—the delivery of
reform-based professional development of teachers and of

Sch. Sci. Math. 2021;121:61–71. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ssm © 2021 School Science and Mathematics Association | 61
62
|    BAHR et al.
reform-based preparation of PSTs (Dossey et al., 2016). The
latter, teacher preparation, generally includes opportunities
for PSTs to apply the methods they learn on the university
campus in school classrooms where teachers serve as “men-
tors.” Teacher education research has identified features that
characterize successful clinical experiences, but one such
feature that has received a great deal of attention is germane
to this study—the conceptual “interweaving” (Bahr, Monroe,
& Eggett, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2009) of on-campus and
clinical experiences.
Unfortunately, the current reform movement has yet to
produce large-scale change in mathematics teaching and
learning (Hiebert, 2013; NCTM, 2014), making it difficult
for teacher educators to find clinical placements where a re-
form-perspective underlies classroom practice. As a result,
clinical placements often occur in more traditional class-
rooms producing a theory-to-practice disconnect (Feiman-
Nemser, 2001; Zeichner, 2010) between on-campus and
clinical experiences that leaves PSTs ill-equipped to teach
mathematics in any other way than in the traditional ways
they learned mathematics as students (Vacc & Bright, 1999).
Therefore, like many other mathematics teacher educators,
we conduct the professional development of in-service teach-
ers in addition to our teacher preparation efforts. Conducting
professional development not only influences the improve-
ment of teachers’ classroom practice, but also serves to cre-
ate classrooms characterized by the potential for connecting
reform-based theory and practice. It is this effort that drove
our creation of a program that included PSTs and teachers
conjointly learning reform-based methods and this study of
the experience of teachers in the program as described below.
2.3 | The professional development of
mathematics specialists
Multiple mathematics education organizations have called
for and created standards for the professional development
of mathematics specialists (e.g., Association of Mathematics
Teacher Educators, 2017; Conference Board of the
Mathematical Sciences, 2012; National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, 2000, pp. 375–376), and recent studies have
validated the potential influence that specialists can have in
influencing teacher change and promoting improved student
learning (Kessel, 2009; Meyers & Harris, 2008). Typically,
mathematics specialists conduct professional development,
provide model teaching, co-plan, and co-teach with teachers,
and engage in one-on-one mentoring. In one sense, the pro-
fessional development of the Lincoln teachers was delivered
to enable them to serve as specialists to cohorts of PSTs, and
their professional development in mathematics content and
pedagogy as described later in this article parallels the prepa-
ration specialists typically receive. In previous studies, we
found that the Lincoln program influenced changes in teach-
ers’ beliefs and knowledge (Bahr et al., 2009) similar to those
who can be engendered by specialist development programs
(Swars et al., 2018), so we incorporate comparisons to such
programs as means of clarifying the work portrayed in this
article.
2.4 | Communities of practice
The social concept “Communities of Practice” (CoPs) was
used as a lens through which this study was conducted. CoPs
have become a highly regarded means of understanding the
work of communities such as those in which teachers work
(CoP; Wenger et al., 2002). CoPs organically evolve and are
characterized by three defining traits—mutual engagement,
joint enterprise, and shared repertoire. Mutual engagement
refers to the ways in which community members work to-
gether. Members of a community are characterized by a joint
enterprise when they work together to achieve specific pur-
poses, and the notion of a shared repertoire involves the crea-
tion of skills and actions that lead to fulfilling those purposes.
Although CoPs evolve organically, they are intentional.
In many instances, intentionality begins with a “broker”
(Wenger, 1998, p. 109) who facilitates community creation.
Conceptual change, like those associated with the taking up
of a joint enterprise based on reform-based principles, often
involves the importation of practices and perspectives across
boundaries between CoPs—boundary interactions (Wenger,
2000, p. 233)—which change the way the CoPs define their
own identities and practices. Highly skilled brokers span
these boundaries using “processes of translation, co-ordina-
tion and alignment between perspectives. [Bokering] requires
enough legitimacy to influence the development of a prac-
tice, …” (Wenger, 1998, p. 109).
The CoP concept pervaded the investigation of the Lincoln
program. It provided a lens for describing the program's con-
ception, creation, and implementation, a guide for determin-
ing the research questions that structure the study, a vehicle
that steered the data analysis, and a means of conveying the
study's findings and conclusions. For purposes of this study,
the CoP traits defined above will be used to refer to both men-
toring and teaching. Therefore, the terms “joint mentoring
enterprise” (JME), “joint teaching enterprise” (JTE), “shared
mentoring repertoire” (SMR), and “shared teaching reper-
toire” (STR) will be used.
3 | PURPOSES AND RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The first purpose of this article is to describe the formation
of the Lincoln school-first author CoP that was focused on
BAHR et al.
the mentoring of PSTs which then provides a context for re-
porting our study of the intended transformation of that CoP.
The Lincoln principal and faculty agreed to assume the new
role of co-mathematics teacher educators with the first au-
thor through the taking up of a new JME based on reform-
based principles. The teachers then agreed to change their
mathematical teaching practice and acquire a new STR in a
3-year, conjoined teacher preparation-professional develop-
ment program. Following a portrayal of the series of deci-
sions and actions that were designed to facilitate the intended
CoP change, the study itself will be described as framed by
the following four research questions:
1. To what extent did the intended CoP transformation
occur?
2. During the first year of the program, what was the role of
the acceptance of a new JME by the Lincoln teachers in
instigating the intended CoP transformation?
3. How did the continued learning of the new STR and of the
new SMR interact during the program?
4. What were the teachers’ perspectives on the changing mu-
tual engagements among the three types of CoP partici-
pants—three cohorts of PSTs, the university mathematics
teacher educator (first author), and the teachers—during
the program?
4 | T H E FOR MAT ION O F T HE
LI NCO L N S CH O O L COP
The school district where Lincoln School was located par-
ticipated in a formal partnership between area public school
districts and a neighboring university, the university where
the first author was a faculty member specializing in math-
ematics education. He initiated the specific Lincoln School-
university partnership as he gained “entrance” to the school
through his assignment as a PST clinical supervisor. He then
invited the teachers to take up a JME in a manner that com-
municated that he and the teachers would be equal partners
in elementary teacher preparation. By Lincoln's acceptance
of this invitation, a CoP was formed focused on the joint en-
terprise of mentoring PSTs in the application of campus-ac-
quired theory in clinical practice. The first author then sought
to “broker” a “boundary interaction” between Lincoln and
the university by encouraging Lincoln personnel to import
some of the “practices and perspectives” (Wenger, 1998, p.
109) that characterize teacher education.
The brokering of this CoP enabled the teachers to see
themselves as skilled teachers who could learn to transform
their classroom practice into a SMR comprising modeling,
coaching, co-planning, and co-teaching with PSTs. The man-
ner in which he mutually engaged consisted of modeling
the SMR for the teachers, jointly engaging in the SMR with
   
| 63
them, then supporting them in their independent mentoring
of PSTs. His “mentoring of mentoring” involved striking a
fine balance between demonstrating high levels of compe-
tency in teaching children and in mentoring PSTs himself and
helping the Lincoln staff understand that their contribution
was as valuable as his in preparing PSTs. As he mutually
engaged he facilitated their acquiring the SMR in ways that
built them up, developed both professional and personal rela-
tionships, and demonstrated high levels of mutual trust. As a
result, his legitimacy was established as the teachers viewed
him as “one of us” while at the same time respecting him for
his university position and for his knowledge of teaching and
of teacher preparation.
This CoP included a similar type of relationship between
the principal and the first author. Their mutual engagement
consisted of jointly deciding upon PST classroom place-
ments, assessing how well the PSTs and the teachers per-
formed in their mutual engagements, and discussing a myriad
of issues related to teaching and teacher preparation.
The formation of the Lincoln CoP provided excellent
sites for the clinical experiences of PSTs. The teachers men-
tored student teachers as well as pre-student teachers who
participated in 3-week clinical experiences associated with
a number of 3-credit hour methods courses during the two
methods semesters that preceded student teaching. The meth-
ods coursework was postponed during those clinical weeks.
4.1 | Transforming the existing cop through
developing the Lincoln program
Despite the first author being a mathematics teacher educa-
tor who espoused reform-based teaching methods in his on-
campus instruction, he made no initial attempt to connect
those methods with his co-mentoring of PSTs at Lincoln. He
came to recognize the critical role clinical experiences play
in teacher preparation, and observed the disconnect between
the methods he taught on campus and the traditional math-
ematics pedagogy promoted by the teachers with whom he
co-mentored even though they were, on the whole, excellent
teachers. Therefore, he sought for ways to bridge that dis-
connect and enhance the educational experience of the PSTs
whom he taught and supervised.
The research previously cited suggests that such a dis-
connect could be reduced or eliminated if the Lincoln
teachers would adjust their mathematical SMR to align
with reform-based principles. The relationship between the
Lincoln faculty and principal and the first author who charac-
terized the existing CoP led to the conjecture that the Lincoln
teachers might be willing to accept an invitation to take up
a new JME based on those principles. It was further conjec-
tured that if the teachers were willing to take up a new JME,
the Lincoln CoP would change through a series of related
64
|    BAHR et al.
decisions and actions. For example, because teachers base
their mentoring on their classroom practice, taking up a
new reform-based JME would require taking up a new re-
form-based JTE. Thus, the first author considered conducting
professional development at Lincoln School.
Inasmuch as the principles underlying reform-based
mathematics teacher preparation also underlie reform-based
professional development, he envisioned a professional de-
velopment program similar in content to his mathematics
teacher preparation work. This similarity led to further en-
visioning a conjoined teacher preparation-professional de-
velopment program in which teachers and PSTs would take
up a reform-based JTE, mutually engage to learn the same
teaching methodology, STR, together at Lincoln School, and
apply it in the teachers’ classrooms. Thus, the teachers would
be learning a new STR and a new SMR at the same time.
Furthermore, the relationships that characterized the teach-
er-first author mutual engagements would change as the first
author became the teacher's professional developer, and the
teachers would come to identify themselves as not only co-
teacher educators, but also as co-mathematics teacher educa-
tors. In order for this new teacher-PST mutual engagement
to take place, it would have to be accompanied by a new
PST-first author mutual engagement. The first author would
simultaneously serve as a professional developer of teachers
and as a “preparer” of PSTs. This “tri-partite” mutual engage-
ment is graphically depicted in Figure 1.
The first author broached these proposed CoP changes to
the principal whose response was both immediate and posi-
tive. They hammered out a rough vision of the enactment of
the new JTE and prepared to discuss it with the Lincoln fac-
ulty. This vision included 12 teachers and 30 PSTs meeting
weekly for 3 hr in a 3-hr credit methods course which would
involve learning-specific reform-based teaching methods to-
gether, lesson planning that incorporated the methods learned
that day, carrying out the lesson plans immediately thereafter
in a conjoined clinical experience, then debriefing the expe-
rience afterward.
The principal and first author worked together to explain
their vision to the faculty—first to grade level teams then
to the whole faculty. The entire faculty, save one who was
ready to retire, committed themselves to taking up the new
reform-based JME through learning a new STR with PSTs
and set out to work out the details with the principal and first
Teachers PSTs
First Author
F I G U R E 1 Teacher, PST, and first author mutual engagement
[Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
author. Thus, began the transformation of the Lincoln CoP
and the Lincoln program was born.
The Lincoln program worked out by the CoP included
adherence to three research-based teacher preparation prac-
tices—pedagogical methods application in classrooms that
was immediate (Lieberman & Wood, 2003), that allowed
for a gradual increase in PST instructional responsibility
(Association of Childhood Education International, 2007),
and that was supervised by the methods instructor
(Tchoshanov et al., 2001). It consisted of 12 3-hr sessions
that began with partnerships of one teacher and two PSTs,
along with the principal, engaging in a 50-min block devoted
to course activities focused on various pedagogical empha-
ses (see Table 1) along with a focus on whole number. They
spent the next 10 min discussing how to apply that day's
emphasis as they planned the lesson for the day (usually fo-
cused on whole numbers), worked together for the next hour
to teach the lesson, then debrief it. The PSTs then gathered
with the first author and the principal for further debriefing.
Seeking to gradually increase the PSTs’ level of instructional
responsibility, the beginning of the course saw the teachers
teaching their entire classes while the PSTs-assisted individ-
ual students. Then, after a few weeks, each PST taught half
the children in their teachers’ classrooms while the teachers
observed and coached where needed. Near the end of the se-
mester, each PST assumed the role of lead teacher for the
whole class, while the teachers observed and coached and the
other partnered PST-assisted individual students.
This clinical experience was supervised by the methods
teacher along with the principal who was somewhat familiar
with reform-based pedagogy. The principal funded substitute
teachers for the time the teachers were out of their classrooms,
and teachers were additionally incentivized by the provid-
ing and funding of additional five courses at the school site
leading to a license endorsement and graduate credit. These
additional courses included a more advanced treatment of re-
form-based pedagogy along with content emphases beyond
the first course—Rational Numbers, Algebra, Data analysis,
and Geometry. The school district helped to fund the instruc-
tor costs associated with the delivery of these five endorse-
ment/graduate courses which was beyond the first author's
normal teaching load. Another local university that housed
a graduate program in education provided the course credit
recognizing that an undergraduate methods course focused
on reform-based principles would provide the same level of
rigor as in a graduate course. The program commenced at the
beginning of the school year following the program's creation
which coincided with the semester the PSTs enrolled in the
mathematics methods course.
The PSTs moved through the university's teacher prepa-
ration program in cohorts, participating in all the program
courses with the same group of PSTs. The methods semes-
ter described above occurred once a year and at the time
BAHR et al.
of the Lincoln program, four sections of the mathematics
methods course were offered, all which were taught by the
first author. In the first year of the program, only one co-
hort participated. During the second and third years the
program was expanded to two other schools, but the expe-
riences of the teachers in those schools are not within the
purview of this study.
The new CoP included a cycle of changing mutual en-
gagement. The first year, teachers and PSTs participated in
the methods class and the clinical component together in one
semester. The next semester and the summer break saw the
teachers collaboratively continuing their learning in the next
two endorsement courses without PSTs. During the fall se-
mester of the second year when another cohort of PSTs came
to Lincoln, the teachers and PSTs did not participate in the
methods class together but they did work together to apply
the methods being taught the PSTs, albeit the teachers had
already learned those methods to some degree while acquir-
ing their new STR. The second semester of the second year
and the following summer looked like the second semester
and summer of the first year. The mutual engagement that
characterized the first semester of the third year was similar
to that of the second year except the teachers had completed
their endorsement coursework and were becoming adept at
their new STR and in their enhanced SMR. Table 2 tracks the
experience of PSTs and ISTs across the 3 years of the Lincoln
program.
5 | T H E ST U DY O F T HE
TR A N S FO R MAT ION O F T HE
LI NCO L N S CH O O L COP
5.1 | Participants
The participants for this study were the 12 in-service teach-
ers involved in the program, two of them were male, and all
of them were Caucasian. There was one kindergarten, three
first grade, and two teachers for each of the grades 2–5 rang-
ing in experience from 1 to 21 years. Two of these, as men-
tioned, were involved for only the second and third years.
The teachers they replaced were not considered as subjects
for this study. Three cohorts of PSTs, one for each of the
3 years the program was conducted, were an integral part of
the new CoP, and were also not considered subjects. Neither
was the principal although he played an important role in the
program.
5.2 | Data collection and analysis
Assuming the role of a native, participant researcher (Becker
& Geer, 1969), the first author was the vehicle for data
   
| 65
collection. He followed the steps that generally characterize
this means of research: entry, establishment (a natural exten-
sion of his participation in the original Lincoln CoP), data
collection, and data analysis. Data were obtained from the
personal notes kept before and during the study and from
conducting video-recorded interviews of the teachers in the
fall following the third year of the program. Each teacher
was interviewed once using a “General Interview Guide
Approach” (Gall et al., 2006). The research questions were
used as a skeletal outline for conducting the interviews, and
each research question was addressed by asking it in multiple
ways using different wording to ensure responses were in-
ternally coherent. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). These questions
were supplemented when probing deeper into the ISTs expe-
riences was deemed necessary ensuring data were gathered
that related to the research questions while enabling a degree
of freedom and adaptability. Included in the interview ques-
tions were such questions as:
1. How did the program influence you and your teaching,
if at all?
2. What happened to the way you teach during the program?
3. How did having PSTs in your classroom influence your
teaching, if at all?
4. How were the 3 years in the program the same and
different?
5. How would you describe your relationship with the PSTs
assigned to you?
6. What was it like to be in class with your PSTs?
7. What kind of responsibility did you feel for the PSTs?
8. What challenges did you face and how were you benefit-
ted, if at all?
The first author's 9-year engagement with the Lincoln
School faculty, the last 3 years of which involved co-de-
signing and implementing the Lincoln School Program and
gathering data for other studies, also helped to establish the
credibility of the interview data (Williams, 2018).
Analysis of the data obtained from interviewing was con-
ducted via an ad hoc approach (Kvale, 1996) that included note
taking during review of the interview videos. Condensing the
author's personal and interview notes occurred next, followed
by an a priori coding of the notes using codes drawn from
Wenger’s (1998) CoP traits—mutual engagement, joint en-
terprise, and shared repertoire as well as the notions of “brok-
ering,” “boundaries,” and “boundary interactions.” The codes
were placed in categories, then deeper meaning within the
data was sought for by looking for conceptual relationships
within and among the categories. Three super-categories nat-
urally emerged from the data—the influence of the taking up
of the new JME on acquiring the new STR, continuing the
joint enterprise in the second and third program years while
enhancing the STR, and patterns of mutual engagement.
66
|    BAHR et al.
These themes then guided the presentation of the findings as
shown in a later section of this article.
The first author initially analyzed the data working indi-
vidually. Analysis credibility was established by triangulating
statements across participants and data sources and by seek-
ing for negative cases. In order to establish trustworthiness
in coding, the second author conducted a separate analysis—
first verifying the validity of using CoP elements as codes,
then using the codes to conduct a second pass through the
data. After the second author's initial coding and categoriz-
ing, both authors worked together comparing the separate
analyses; differences were negotiated until agreement was
obtained. The role of the second author was critical in en-
suring that potential biases associated with the dual roles the
lead author fulfilled as a participant in and an investigator of
the program did not reduce the credibility and objectivity of
the data gathering and data analysis procedures.
6 | F IN D INGS
6.1 | Moving from “I had to” to “I wanted
to:” the Influence of a new joint mentoring
enterprise
It was conjectured that if the teachers bought in to a new JME,
that is, joining the first author as co-mathematics educators
combined with learning a new SMR, they would also buy in
to learning to teach in reform-based ways, that is, to acquire
a new STR. A number of teachers’ comments validated this
conjecture. Jennifer said, “Having PSTs in my room helps
me want to teach in the ways you taught us in the methods
class—because of having someone in the room.” Four other
teachers each had their own way of describing the influence
of the new JME. Steve stated, “When someone is there and
there is someone you are supposed to be helping, then you go
the extra mile.” Likewise, Betty remarked, “I think it made
me really stop and look at my teaching more because I had
to be a model for them.” Ann affirmed, “It made you con-
tinue doing because you knew someone was coming in every
week, and you were going to have to show them a discovery
lesson or show them something specific.” Helen observed,
“You know, if someone is always looking for it. … You're
going to make sure you have all the parts.” Interestingly,
Jennifer was definite about the influence of having others ob-
serve her teaching with only an implicit allusion to her men-
toring role. The others, on the contrary, explicitly stated that
the new JME influenced their classroom practice.
Taking up the JME affected teaching on the days the PSTs
were not at Lincoln. Ann indicated she was very aware of the
need to continue with the new STR in order to adequately
mentor her PSTs. “… I found myself, earlier in the week,
before [the PSTs] came, thinking, ‘Oh, what am I going to
do?’ and having to try to practice it on other topics so that I
felt comfortable doing it with [the PSTs] so I didn't look like
a fool ….” Helen remarked similarly, but stated her practice
changed without her being aware. “I found I was less likely
to teach differently the rest of the week, and then just pop
up every Tuesday (the day the PSTs were there). … I was
teaching more conceptually than the other way, but I hadn't
realised it because you just start naturally doing it and train-
ing your brain to do it that way….”
Commitment to the new STR was strengthened over
time. Angela indicated that at first it was “new to us” but
after the first year “we kind of knew what was going on.”
Connie added, “The more I did it, the more that I liked it. …
I think the first year that I had them I really realised that this
was good, so then the next year, it was what I wanted to do,
not what I had to do.” The intrinsic value accompanying the
new STR, along with the sense of satisfaction it provided,
prompted its continued use.
6.2 | The second and third years:
continuing the joint enterprise while
enhancing the shared teaching repertoire
By the start of the second year of the program, the teachers
had completed the methods course and two additional en-
dorsement courses with the exception of the two new Lincoln
teachers who committed to participate in the methods course
as a condition of employment. The other teachers did not par-
ticipate in the methods course again but agreed to continue to
support the new PSTs in their methods learning by planning,
implementing, and debriefing lessons together in association
with the weekly clinical component. They asked for a meth-
ods course schedule and used it to ensure that their work with
the PSTs each week focused on the methods emphasis for that
week thus evidencing their commitment to the program. In
TABLE 1 Methods course topics
Week Pedagogical topic
1 Conceptual versus procedural learning
2 Questioning
3 Interpreting student thinking
4 The Learning Cycle (LC)
5 Domains of understanding
6 Assessing learning trajectories
7 Assessing performance quality
8 Differentiating mathematical tasks
9 Organizing discussions
10 Engaging all students in discussions
11 Anticipating thinking
12 Varying lessons according to LC
BAHR et al.    
| 67

other words, in the second and the third years of the program

Semester
the teachers’ continued to apply the STR in their own teaching
and in their mentoring. Jan acknowledged, “It was nice to re-
fresh too with [a new PST] coming in with … kind of freshly

2
learned material, whereas I am going back, reviewing.” Katie

Third PST cohort—

Work with PSTs in

weekly practicum
Math application
said the second year enabled her to synthesize her previous

with teachers
Semester 1 learning with new learning obtained from further endorsement
coursework which improved her mentoring. “It refreshed me
Year 3

about the stuff from the first-year class. In the second year, I
could take the new things I was learning and combine them
with the things the new PSTs were learning. I could help them
with the new things they were learning that I already knew.”
Semester 3

Sixth PD

Angela asserted, “Because I was talking things over with the

course

PSTs I was getting a better a review of the things I had learned

in the first methods class while learning the new stuff in my
classes, which meant I was combining the two.” The teachers
Semester 2

benefitted from a review of previously learned pedagogy, and

Fifth PD
course

by acquiring and sharing their new learning, an indication of

the ongoing influence of PSTs.
Commitment to the program was also strengthened when
the teachers saw changes in student learning. Nan said, “I
Fourth PD course; work with
PSTs in weekly practicum;
teachers new to Lincoln in
Second PST cohort—Math
application with teachers

really like when the kids understand the big things… and
express themselves.” Angela found she could, “tell a big dif-
ference when I used discovery and when I didn't. The kids
Math methods

went way more in depth. We saw how the previous year

Semester 1

helped us and where we needed to adapt and we got better

Year 2

and better and our test scores showed it.” The teachers could
also distinguish between when they used the new STR and
when they did not. Katie added, “We were taught to have
Third PD course

kids investigate the concept on their own. … When I let them

Semester 3

figure it out for themselves, then they have their own strat-
egies and their own ways of figuring it out versus when I
just say this is how you do it, then they have a harder time.”
The teachers recognized differences in their students learning
who were speaking mathematically, growing in their under-
Second PD course

standing, and digging deeper into the mathematics.

Semester 2
Lincoln program 3-year summary

6.3 | Changing patterns of mutual

engagement: “We Learned Together”
First PST cohort— Math methods

Math methods course (First PD

course) with PSTs including

There were three groupings of mutual engagement involving

weekly clinical experience
& application course with

the teachers who transformed organically as the Lincoln CoP

changed—PSTs with their assigned teachers, the first author
with the teachers, and the teachers with each other. Because
the teachers and the PSTs were acquiring the same new STR
Semester 1

in the first year, they were invited to mutually engage in the

teachers
Year 1

professional development in a new kind of mentoring rela-

tionship. Sam described being on “the same page” with his
TABLE 2

assigned PSTs. “To be in a class where the [PSTs] were in

Timeline/

the same classroom where I was and teaching the same con-
Group

cepts that I was teaching, that really helped us understand

PSTs

ISTs

each other more, …. We both had the same understanding of

68
|    BAHR et al.
the same concept, and we both taught them about the same
way…. They were on the same page I was.” Betty added,
“the first year I was scared to death,” then stated that it was
hard to distinguish between PSTs and teacher. “I didn't feel
like they were students and I was the teacher. I felt like we
were equals of learning together. I think that put them at ease.
That put me more at ease. …. We learned together.”
Betty was not the only one who talked about the leveled
playing field. Angela added, “It was fun…when we started
teaching conceptually, because it was kind of new for all of
us, so we were all trying to come up with new ideas …, so it
was fun to collaborate like that and feed off of each other.”
She said to her PSTs, “We will work as a team because I am
as new at this as you are. I am as open to this as you are so
let's try this together and see how it goes.” Jenn remarked that
she … “couldn't say this is how it's done and this is the way I
have always done it. I wasn't the authority figure. Because of
this we were a team and we were trying it out together, just
trying to do exactly what we had been taught.”
Not only was playing field levelled, but also in some in-
stances the mentor–mentee roles were reversed. Some of the
teachers said they learned as much from PSTs as the PSTs
learned from them. “Watching the PSTs teach showed me
how I should teach. It was great to see them do the new way
of teaching. I kinda needed that, too.” Helen said working
with PSTs reminded her that “it really does work.”
As suggested by the previous section, the teachers assumed
a more authoritative stance in the second and third years. Tim
said, “I am getting the hang of this [mentoring]," and as quoted
previously, Katie added, “I could help them with the new things
they were learning that I already knew.” Betty contrasted the
first and second years by saying, “I had more confidence the
second year as the model because I knew what to do.” Helen
described her interactions with PSTs during her first year by
saying that it was hard to be a first year teacher and also mentor
PSTs. “I need to give you advice? You should be giving me ad-
vice.” Her second year characterization in the context of plan-
ning with her assigned PSTs presents quite a contrast—“you
might go this way. Have you thought about what you might say
if they ask you these questions. It was fun to talk about their
plans—‘Have you thought about it this way?’”
The new first author–teacher mutual engagement was
also valued as the teachers engaged with him in new ways.
Betty stated the program allowed “a great professor to help
our faculty—ask questions, give advice. We are better teach-
ers because of (first author).” Nan remarked, “the meetings
went well because (first author) taught us.” Tim said the first
author's coaching was the “best part” of all the professional
development activities. Helen added that her own initial train-
ing as a PST was made more meaningful because of “(the
first author's) coaching,” and Alan stated, “[the first author]
made it look so easy.” The value of the first author–teacher
engagement extended past delivering professional develop-
ment to include a coaching role.
Interestingly, changes in the teacher–teacher mutual en-
gagement were highly regarded as a key benefit of the Lincoln
program. As Nan indicated, “I think the best thing I liked
about it was we were all on the same page. We all were using
the same language, same terminology, with the kids so that
they heard it in kindergarten, they heard it in third grade…
and things were clicking more and so you could add on to it
and build—build this house of math, and you could build on
it …. We trusted because we knew the teachers had taught
them because they were our teachers.” The teacher–teacher
mutual engagement provided one more source of satisfaction.
Implementation of the program was not without chal-
lenges, and the resolution of some of them further attests to
the legitimacy of the Lincoln CoP. First, it was discovered
that 10 min of communication between the ISTs and their
PSTs in preparation for teaching in the teachers classrooms
was insufficient. Katie remarked, “We need to figure out
a way to have more time to plan together.” This quandary
was partially resolved in the second year by inviting the
teachers to share curriculum materials and future plants
with their PSTs a week in advance. The teachers expressed
another concern as the second semester of the program
began. Reflecting the sentiments of the all the teachers,
Tim said they appreciated the released time from teaching
that allowed for participation in the endorsement course-
work, but “we are getting tired of leaving our classrooms
all the time.” Therefore, the CoP decided that three remain-
ing professional development courses that were scheduled
to be held during the school day to be held at the end of the
school day instead. (The other two remaining courses were
delivered during the summer.)
Although there was widespread change in the Lincoln
CoP as suggested by new shared repertoires and new means
of mutually engaging, each IST followed their own trajecto-
ries in acquiring them. In fact, one IST consistently described
her practice in terms of the new STR, but observations of her
practice revealed otherwise.
7 | DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS
The original Lincoln CoP was focused on a general JME in
which Lincoln teachers worked closely with the first author in
preparing PSTs for work in their own future classrooms. The
teachers’ descriptions of changes in the traits that characterize
CoPs evidences an overall CoP transformation. We argue that
accepting the offer of the first author to take up a new JME
led to the taking up of a related JTE and a resulting transfor-
mation of the initial Lincoln CoP. The teachers accepted the
BAHR et al.
invitation to become co-mathematics educators with the first
author, the new JME, and because the teachers lacked skill in
reform-based pedagogy, it required a related commitment to
a new reform-based JTE and the accompanying simultaneous
learning of new shared mentoring and teaching repertoires
based on that same pedagogy. Actualizing these enterprises
involved teachers participating in a 2-year professional de-
velopment, accompanied by a new cohort of PSTs each year,
and which continued a third year following the completion of
the professional development coursework. In the first year of
the program, the teachers were paired with a cohort of PSTs
to participate in a methods course that was both part of the
professional development and the preservice teacher course
work. This arrangement also allowed teachers to provide an
immediate methods application opportunity conjointly for
themselves and for the PSTs. In the second and third years of
the program, the teachers did not participate in the methods
course again, unless they were new to the school, but did as-
sist the PSTs in applying methods in classrooms, the same
methods the teachers had learned the first year.
The data portray a meaningful relationship between the
presence of PSTs in the professional development and in
the teachers’ classrooms and the willingness of the teachers
to change their teaching practice. The teachers developed a
sense of responsibility for helping the PSTs learn the same re-
form-based pedagogy they were learning. Their commitment
to continue learning and using that pedagogy was bolstered
as they discovered teaching in this new was satisfying in and
of itself, that it produced a deeper, more empowering type of
learning among their students, and that they were growing
professionally. Relationships with the PSTs provided an ad-
ditional source of satisfaction for the most part.
The transformed mentoring relationships that resulted
from the teachers learning a new SMR represented a “re-
casting (of) who is considered an expert and rethinking how
teacher candidates and university faculty cross institutional
boundaries ….” (Zeichner et al., 2014, p. 122). Because the
STR was new to both PSTs and the teachers in the first year,
they were positioned on an equal playing field. They were
learning to teach in the same way and using the same lan-
guage as equals while they mutually engaged in instructional
inquiry. In fact, there was an interdependence, or synergy, as
the teachers and PSTs built upon each other's learning. That
connection continued in the second and third years as the
teachers honed their new SMR without participating in the
methods course. This mentoring mirrored the STR they had
started to acquire synergistically with the first year PSTs, and
indeed, the subsequent presence of PSTs increased their abil-
ity to simultaneously enhance their teaching and mentoring.
As the teachers were serving as “boundary spanners”
(Sandholtz & Finan, 1998, p. 24) in helping their PSTs con-
nect their learning in the methods course with their experience
in clinical work, both groups were crossing the usual divide
   
| 69
that separates university teacher preparation and work in the
public schools. Max (2010) refers to this divide as “bound-
ary zone(s), … where elements from two activity systems
enter into contact” thus creating “… the kind of fluctuating
and flexible space in which continuing joint work can occur.”
(p. 216) During the first year, the in-service and preservice
spaces were virtually indistinguishable as the PSTs and teach-
ers mutually engaged. Those spaces reappeared in the second
and third years, but because the teachers’ SMR was acquired
through the acquisition of the STR in the presence of PSTs,
the knowledge hierarchies took on a different flavor than the
norm. In effect, the teachers were saying to the PSTs, “I was in
your shoes just a year or two ago. I travelled the same journey
you are about to embark on. I am going to re-traverse the jour-
ney of learning to teach mathematics in a reform-based way
with you as I help you acquire your own classroom practice.”
The teachers also valued their mutual engagement with
each other. They were enriched by a sense of unity that also
produced cross-grade improvements in student learning as the
teachers in each grade built on the work of previous teachers
who engaged in the same classroom practice they did. The pro-
fessional development and coaching the teachers experienced
mirrored the work of priming the transition of teachers from
their role as classroom teachers to the role of mathematics spe-
cialists. Indeed, each Lincoln teacher became a mathematics
specialist in her or his sphere of influence while accepting the
role of co-mathematics teacher with the first author.
One of the key factors in the development and implemen-
tation of the Lincoln School program was the long-standing
association that the lead author had cultivated over 6 years
prior to its creation. He was a clinical supervisor, but he took
on much more than the occasional visit to the school. He spent
considerable time developing trusting relationships with the
faculty and the principal. He was often seen at faculty meet-
ings when supervision issues were discussed, and he was im-
plicitly and explicitly invited to participate in many informal
conversations around matters relating to curriculum and in-
struction. This relationship with the teachers and the principal
at the school made the proposal of the Lincoln program one
in which the teachers were willing to consider. Because he
had been accepted by the teachers into their world, he was in
a position to invite them into his world—mathematics teacher
education. His role changed as he and the principal facilitated
the development and implementation of the program and he
was an integral part of the new Lincoln School mutual en-
gagements. He continued providing preservice teacher edu-
cator while also providing professional development which
began the mutual engagement of teachers and PSTs. This
work, along with supervising the weekly clinical experience,
enabled him to broker the connection between his university
and the school, encouraging the importation of mathematics
teacher education practices and perspectives from the world
of mathematics teacher education to that of the public school.
70
|    BAHR et al.
The principal of the school played an important brokering
role as well. His support was crucial in enabling the accom-
plishment of the program's goals. He supported the university
by providing space for the class and supported the teachers by
funding their participation. He himself attended the methods
class all 3 years and all the professional development courses,
acquiring university credit alongside his teachers. By fully
engaging in the creation and implementation of the Lincoln
program, the principal exemplified full participation and in-
fluenced a long-term teacher commitment to the program.
This study raises at least three additional questions wor-
thy of investigation. One question of importance concerns the
teachers’ mathematics instruction following the program's
end. That is, how committed to reform-based teaching were
the Lincoln faculty after the program ended and the teachers
were no longer called upon to support PSTs in their methods
course and weekly clinical experience? Did the ending of the
program bring with it an end to the new JME with its ac-
companying reform-based STR? Another question about the
transferability of the Lincoln program could also be asked.
How successful were the two other iterations of the program at
other schools? What elements of the Lincoln CoP before and
after transformation were present in the other interactions and
how did that effect their level of success? Third, to what ex-
tent were the personality traits of the CoP members—faculty,
principal, and university supervisor—unique to the Lincoln
CoP? If such uniqueness existed, to what extent would the
absence of such traits preclude program transferability?
The PSTs obviously played a role as additional partici-
pants in the program. Interestingly, three cohorts totaling ~90
PSTs were all invited to privately declare whether or not they
would support the program, and none of them said “no.” Had
even one of them in any cohort expressed a reluctance to par-
ticipate, it would have been impossible to provide an alterna-
tive set of course activities for that PST thus precluding the
program from being carried out for the cohort to which she
or he belonged.
Regardless of the year, the PSTs were not faced with the
problem of having to be the “sole mediators” as so often oc-
curs when university teacher preparation and public schools
“are not in dialogue” (Zeichner et al., 2014, p. 124). As the
teachers focused on the development of new joint enterprises
and related shared repertoires, they consequently eliminated
the conceptual disconnect that usually characterizes PSTs’ ex-
periences in clinical practice (Zeichner, 2010) as shown in our
previous studies (e.g., Bahr et al., 2009). Eliminating the dis-
connect reduces the tendency for reform-based perspectives
acquired in methods courses to be marginalized (Eisenhart
et al., 1993; Hollingsworth, 1989) which Darling-Hammond
(2009) refers to as the “Achilles heel of teacher education.”
Goodlad et al. (2004) term mutually beneficial partner-
ships between teacher education and schooling as spaces
for “simultaneous renewal”—a synergistic, interdependent
revitalization of both teacher preparation and schooling that
capitalizes on the overlapping missions of both concerns. We
believe the transformed Lincoln CoP became a place where
the interconnected work of teacher preparation and profes-
sional development in mathematics was energized and en-
hanced, synergistically benefitting both endeavors.
R E F E R E NC E S
Association of Childhood Education International (2007). The prepa-
ration of elementary teachers. Association of Childhood Education
International.
Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators (2017). Standards
for preparing mathematics teachers. Association of Mathematics
Teacher Educators.
Bahr, D. L., Monroe, E. E., & Eggett, D. (2013). The Structural and con-
ceptual interweaving of mathematics methods coursework and field
practica in an era of mathematics reform. Journal of Mathematics
Teacher Education, 17(3), 271–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1085​
7-013-9258-z.
Bahr, D. L., Monroe, E. E., Balzotti, M., & Eggett, D. (2009). Crossing
the barriers between preservice and inservice mathematics teacher
education: Anevaluation of the grant school mathematics project.
School Science and Mathematics, 109(4), 223–238.
Becker, H. S., & Geer, B. (1969). Participant observation and inter-
viewing: A comparison. In G. J. McCall, & J. L. Simmons (Eds.),
Issues in participant observation: A text and reader (pp. 322–331).
Addison-Wesley.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Charles W. Hunt Lecture: Teacher ed-
ucation and the American future. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education.
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences (2012). Issues in
mathematics education: The mathematical education of teachers II.
Providence, RI: American Mathematical Association.
Dossey, J., McCrone, S. S., & Halvorsen, K. T. (2016). Mathematics
education in the United States 2016: A capsule summary fact book
written for the thirteenth international congress on mathematical ed-
ucation (ICME-13). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Eisenhart, M., Borko, H., Underhill, R., Brown, C., Jones, D., &
Agard, P. (1993). Conceptual knowledge falls through the cracks:
Complexities of learning to teach mathematics for understanding.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24, 4–40.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a con-
tinuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record,
103(6), 1013–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00141
Gall, M. D., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2006). Educational research: An in-
troduction, 8th ed. Pearson.
Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education
for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage
Publications.
Hiebert, J. (2013). The constantly underestimated challenge of improv-
ing mathematics instruction. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions
for mathematics education research (pp. 45–56. New York, NY:
Springer.
Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning
to teach. American Educational Research Journal., 26(2), 160–189.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028​31202​6002160.
BAHR et al.
Kessel, C. (Ed.). (2009). Teaching teachers mathematics: Research, ideas,
projects, evaluation. Mathematical Sciences Research Institute.
http://www.msri.org/calen​dar/attac​hment​s/works​hops/430/TTM_
EdSer​ies3M​SRI.pdf
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative interview-
ing. Sage Publications.
Learning First Alliance (1998). Every child mathematically proficient:
An action plan. Learning First Alliance.
Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2003). Inside the National Writing
Project: Connecting network learning and classroom teaching.
Teachers College Press.
Liu, J., & Li, Y. (2010). Mathematics curriculum reform in the Chinese
mainland: Changes and challenges. In F. K. S. Leung, & Y. Li
(Eds.), Reforms and issues in school mathematics in East Asia (pp.
9–32). Sense Publishers.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics:
Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and
the U.S. Lawrence Erlbaum
Max, C. (2010). Learning for teaching across knowledge boundaries: An
activity theoretical analysis of collaborative internship projects in
initial teacher education. In V. Ellis, A. Edwards, & P. Smagorinsky
(Eds.), Cultural-historical perspectives on teacher education and
development. (pp. 212–240). Routledge.
Meyers, H., & Harris, D. (2008). Evaluation of the VMI through 2008.
https://www.uvm.edu/sites/​defau​lt/files/​VMI_evalu​ation.pdf
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and
standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2014). Principles to ac-
tions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council
of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state stan-
dards-mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and
procedural knowledge of mathematics. Oxford handbook of numeri-
cal cognition. Oxford University Press.
   
| 71
Sandholtz, J. H., & Finan, E. C. (1998). Blurring the boundaries to pro-
mote school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education,
49, 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224​87198​04900​1003
Swars, S. L., Swars, S. L., Smith, S. Z., Smith, M. E., Carothers, J., &
Myers, K. (2018). Developing the pedagogical capabilities of elemen-
tary mathematics specialists during a K-5 mathematics endorsement
program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21, 123–145.
Tchoshanov, M., Blake, S., Della-Piana, C., Duval, A., & Sanchez, S.
(2001). Students’perceptions of cross-disciplinary team teaching on
site at a PDS. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dallas, TX. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED451174).
Vacc, N. N., & Bright, G. W. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers’
changing beliefs and instructional use of children’s mathematical
thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1),
89–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/749631
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning, and
identity. Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems.
Organization, 7, 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505​08400​72002.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating com-
munities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard
Business School Press.
Williams, D. (2018). Qualitative inquiry in daily life. https://quali​tativ​
einqu​iryda​ilyli​fe.wordp​ress.com/about/
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus
courses and clinical experiences in college-and university-based
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2014). Democratizing teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 122–135. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00224​87114​560908
How to cite this article: Bahr DL, Newberry M, Rino
JS. Connecting preservice and inservice teacher
learning: Communities of practice. School Science and
Mathematics. 2021;121:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/
ssm.12450