This paper describes and analyses the ways subject specific lesson planning frameworks served as boundary objects (Wenger, 1998) in the coordination of the perspectives and actions of researchers and teachers for their mutual benefit. Teachers and researchers bring different understandings and experiences to any research collaboration. Internationally, there has been a push for greater teacher involvement in research as part of increased concern with evidence informed policy and practice (McNamara & Rogers, 2002). The classroom Interaction in Science and Technology Education [InSiTE] study involved a team of 4 university-based researchers and 12 primary teachers over a period of three years. One aim of the InSiTE study was to better understand, and to enhance, classroom interactions in primary science and technology classrooms. Subject specific planning frameworks mediated the development of mutual understanding of what was important within a particular subject and how subject specific teaching might proceed. The initial framework was a reification of research with another group of teachers and reflected understandings of key aspects of technology (Moreland, Jones & Northover, 2001), how these aspects were related to each other, and how the aspects and their relationships were best translated into teaching and learning activities. The final planning framework had two parts. The first part included spaces that prompted teachers to identify and document student conceptual, procedural, societal and technical learning outcomes and how these would come together. The second part prompted teachers to identify and link key learning ideas with macro, meso and micro tasks and also to consider what artefacts they might use and interactions they might have with students. The framework served as boundary object that provided a forum for the negotiation of meaning between teachers and researchers and amongst the teachers about the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Shulman, 1987) relevant for particular topics. The planning framework supported the joint analysis of practice.

The InSiTE study used an interpretivist methodology (Erickson, 1998). It involved 12 primary school teachers and cohorts of students in year 1-8 classrooms (students aged 5 to 12 years). Data were collected over three years via video and audio of lessons, teacher and student interviews about classroom work, and teacher and researcher collaborative planning and analysis meetings. Teacher plans and student and teacher classroom work samples were collected. Themes were discussed with and critiqued by the teachers over the course of the study. Initially, classroom interactions between the teacher and students and the students themselves were analysed for the focus of dialogue. Closer examination and discussion with teachers highlighted the role of their completed planning framework, artefacts, writing and drawing in the development of shared understandings. Analysis and teacher commentary signalled the role of teacher knowledge of their students, what they intended their students to learn, the content and teaching approaches to support student learning as pivotal in successful interaction.

Although the InSiTE teachers were experienced in lesson planning they had not previously used the planning frameworks introduced by the researchers. The InSiTE teachers initially found the requirement to plan for multiple conceptual, procedural, societal and technical learning outcomes very challenging. Teacher and researcher discussion about the significance of the features of the frameworks for both science and technology were important. As the teachers became familiar with the frameworks they used them strategically to support the articulation of, and to extend, their pedagogical content knowledge. The teachers made active use of the completed frameworks in their classrooms to inform their teaching interactions in science and technology lessons. Teacher interactions with and feedback to students focused directly on significant aspects of science and technology. The frameworks were refined and developed through a series of iterations between teacher and researcher planning meetings and classroom work. The developments reified shared understandings about the role and importance of artefacts in supporting learning, interaction around ideas and support for students to make connections between tasks and ideas. The findings of the InSiTE study indicate that the use of a boundary object such as a subject specific planning framework that focuses attention on the breadth of possible learning outcomes and teacher and student interaction can provide a forum for mutual learning about the practice of teaching and research. The planning framework as a boundary object evolved, and became a valued strategic tool of the blended community of practice. Through the interplay of participation and reification the researchers and teachers developed new and shared understandings of classroom interactions around science and technology ideas and practices. We consider that the depth of these insights would not have been achieved without the subject specific planning framework to mediate the development of mutual understanding. The framework created a forum and a means for researcher and teacher roles to evolve to encompass active and mutual, albeit different, support for both teaching and research.