[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] This paper proposes the rethinking of the division of labor between physics education research curriculum developers and classroom instructors. Historically, both curriculum developers and instructors have taken responsibility for fostering students’ conceptual development, epistemological development, and other learning goals related to physics content knowledge and practices or process skills. By contrast, responsibility for fostering productive group dynamics has been taken up almost entirely by instructors. Tutorial and lab developers structure their materials to be used in small groups, but have not generally designed, tested, and refined their materials to minimize problematic group dynamics. In this paper, we argue that the written tutorial can and should do more to prevent negative group dynamics from arising. To make this claim plausible, we describe an example from our own experience. While revising a tutorial, we noticed some problematic dynamics emerging; one of the students was unfairly blamed for a simulation-setting mistake and was later left out of a conversation. We came up with hypotheses about factors that might have contributed to those dynamics. A few of those factors, we argue, could be addressed in part through tutorial revision. While acknowledging that instructors will always have more capacity and hence more responsibility than curriculum writers to foster productive group dynamics, we call for tutorial writers, during the testing and revision of their materials, to monitor how the tutorial impacts team dynamics and to be transparent (in publications and presentations) about how they modified the tutorial to address problematic dynamics they observed.

中文翻译：

---

重新思考教程作者和讲师之间的分工，以促进公平的团队动力

[本文是《课程开发重点丛书：从理论到设计》的一部分。]本文提出了对物理教育研究课程开发人员与课堂讲师之间的分工的重新思考。从历史上看，课程开发人员和讲师都负责促进学生的概念发展，认识论发展以及与物理内容知识和实践或过程技能有关的其他学习目标。相反，讲师几乎完全承担了促进生产性集体动力的责任。教程和实验室开发人员将其材料构造为以小组形式使用，但通常没有设计，测试和改进其材料以最小化有问题的小组动态。在本文中，我们认为书面教程可以而且应该做更多的事情来防止出现负面的团体动态。为了使这一说法合理，我们根据自己的经验描述一个例子。在修订教程时，我们注意到一些有问题的动态现象。其中一名学生被不公正地归咎于模拟设置错误，后来被排除在对话之外。我们提出了有关可能导致这些动态变化的因素的假设。我们认为，其中一些因素可以通过修订教程部分解决。承认教师比课程编写者将始终具有更多的能力，因此比课程编写者更具责任感，可以促进富有成效的小组动态，但我们呼吁教程作者在测试和修订其材料时，