Abstract
Collaboration between teachers is essential for professional development. This work presents two collaborative teacher cycles of inquiry, with the aim of characterizing the dynamics between four higher education teachers involved in a collaborative experience related to the creation, implementation, and evaluation of interdisciplinary inquiry learning spaces (ILS). Written communications between the participants, field notes, the ILS produced, ILS assessment rubrics, and meetings summary were used as data sources. Initially, teachers met to organize the interdisciplinary work, and two subteams were formed, each one with one math teacher and one science teacher. Collaborative work is evident in each subteam and between both teams on dialogue, decision making, action, and evaluation components. The interdisciplinary collaboration had a strong focus on mathematical and science content knowledge as well as pedagogical content knowledge of the ILS. Furthermore, it promoted the reflection on teachers' own practice and their effects on student learning.
TopIntroduction
Increasing the quality of collaboration that occurs in instructional teams is a promising approach to educational improvement (Ronfeldt et al., 2015). In fact, Woodland et al. (2013) adds that collaboration seems to be an essential requisite for achieving school improvement. Therefore, shifting from teachers working alone to professional ethics that emphasizes collaboration is needed (Hattie, 2015). In higher education contexts, collaboration between faculty is relevant to foster innovative educational practices. The importance of the existence of dynamics in higher education that foster the interdisciplinary dialogue and collaboration between higher education teachers is highlighted by researchers as Vieira (2009). Ronfeldt et al. (2015) suggest that it is critical to understand the extension to which teachers collaborate about certain issues and how that collaboration is useful to support their practice. Furthermore, Levine and Marcus (2010) stated that research about teacher collaboration should seek to link specific kinds of collaborative activities to observable changes in classroom practice.
The previous framework shows that interdisciplinary collaboration between higher education teachers for pedagogical purposes is a research field that deserves further attention, which this research aims to give a contribute to. As suggested by Slater (2004), studies that provide rich descriptions of participants’ collaborative experiences may lead to new understandings of the process. The main goal of this work is to characterize the dynamics that occurred between higher education teachers from different scientific fields due to their engagement with an interdisciplinary pedagogical experience of collaboration. This experience involved the planning, creation, implementation, and evaluation of interdisciplinary inquiry learning spaces (ILS). The research question that guided this work is:
- •
Which practices of dialogue, decision-making, action taking, and evaluation occurred during a pedagogical experience of collaboration between higher education science teachers and mathematics teachers regarding the use of inquiry learning spaces (ILS)?
Key Terms in this Chapter
Cycle of Inquiry: Process of high-quality teacher collaboration, in which teachers work closely with colleagues during the workday to examine student learning data and solve problems of instructional practice through a continuous cycle of dialogue, decision making, action taking, and evaluation (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).
Evaluation: Element of the cycle of inquiry in which teachers collect and analyze data about student learning and their teaching performance. Teachers in high-functioning teams will systematically collect and analyze both quantitative information (such as scores on formative and summative assessments of student learning) and qualitative information (such as notes taken during a classroom observation of a colleague and student written work) (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).
Integration of Science and Mathematics: Working in the context of complex phenomena or situations on tasks that require students to use knowledge and skills from science and mathematics (adapted from Honey, 2014 AU20: The in-text citation "Honey, 2014" is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. ).
Action Taking: Element of the cycle of inquiry in which teachers take actions directly related to the improvement of practice which entail a degree of innovation (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).
Teacher Collaboration: Teachers working together, and engaging in reflective dialogue, with the common goal of improving practice and increasing students’ learning (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).
Decision Making: Element of the cycle of inquiry related with allocation, security, boundary, evaluation, and instructional decisions. The most relevant element in decision making is the teacher teams’ decisions about their individual and collective instructional practices and their effects on student learning (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).
Inquiry Learning Space (ILS): Personalized learning resources for students, including a lab, apps, and any other type of multimedia material. ILS follow an inquiry cycle. Inquiry cycles can differ, but the basic GO-LAB cycle consists of the phases Orientation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Conclusion, and Discussion. The aim of an ILS is to provide students with an opportunity to conduct scientific experiments, with guidance through the inquiry process and support at each step (GO-LAB, n.d. AU19: The in-text citation "GO-LAB, n.d." is not in the reference list. Please correct the citation, add the reference to the list, or delete the citation. ).
Dialogue: Element of the cycle of inquiry in which teachers engage in collective dialogue about student learning, the effects of instruction on student achievement, and how to provide an appropriate level of challenge and support to each student (according to Woodland et al., 2013 ).