Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities

Abstract

In this study, we seek a better understanding of how individuals and their daily interactions shape and reshape social structures that constitute a classroom community. Moreover, we provide insight into how discourse and classroom interactions shape the nature of a learning community, as well as which aspects of the classroom culture may be consequential for learning. The participants in this study include two teachers who are implementing a new environmental science program, Global Learning through Observation to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE), and interacting with 54 children in an urban middle school. Both qualitative and quantitative data are analyzed and presented. To gain a better understanding of the inquiry teaching within classroom communities, we compare and contrast the discourse and interactions of the two teachers during three parallel environmental science lessons. The focus of our analysis includes (1) how the community identifies the object or goal of its activity; and (2) how the rights, rules, and roles for members are established and inhabited in interaction. Quantitative analyses of student pre‐ and posttests suggest greater learning for students in one classroom over the other, providing support for the influence of the classroom community and interactional choices of the teacher on student learning. Implications of the findings from this study are discussed in the context of curricular design, professional development, and educational reform. ? 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 905‐935, 2004.

Complex dilemmas of identity and practice

“…These differences may have contributed to differential learning outcomes for the students (Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004). As a result, our research focus branched and we began to pursue the following research questions: What accounts for the observed differences in these two teachers' practice?…”

“…In a previous paper, Enyedy and Goldberg (2004) document the divergent classroom practices of these two teachers and the subsequent learning outcomes for the students. We argue, however, that a focus on classroom practice and outcomes is an important, but limited aspect of what we, as a field, need to consider when attempting understanding of the complexities of teaching and learning.…”

“…While analyzing the similarities and differences in the purpose, organization, and quality of classroom interactions provides a great deal of information about how different practices are related to learning outcomes, these aspects of the enacted curriculum do very little to explain the consequential variation in teaching that we and others have found, nor does it identify the sources of that variation. In the analysis of the classroom practices of these two veteran teachers (Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004), we were left wondering why two competent teachers in similar settings made different choices about how to interact with their students and the curriculum. Was it all a contingent response to immediate concerns in the classroom, or were the differences in classroom practice due in part to some significant differences between the two teachers that would be relevant to other practitioners?…”

“…In the context of the quantitative differences between the test scores of two experienced teachers' classes and qualitative analyses of the teachers' classroom practices (Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004), we use interview data to construct portraits of the teachers' identities. These identity portraits provide a rich and complicated account of the implementation of a reform curriculum that shows the ways that both teachers' choices were rational and reasonable.…”

The development of preservice elementary teachers' curricular role identity for science teaching

“…While a substantial amount of research has focused on in-service teachers' use of science and mathematics curriculum materials (Collopy, 2003;Enyedy & Goldberg, 2004;Fishman, Marx, Best, & Tal, 2003;Lloyd, 1999;Pintó, 2004;Remillard, 1999;Remillard & Bryans, 2004;Roehrig & Kruse, 2005;Schneider et al, 2005), only recently has research begun to explore preservice elementary teachers' use of and learning from science curriculum materials (Davis, 2006;Dietz & Davis, in press;Schwarz et al, in press). The results presented here extend this research by examining preservice elementary teachers' relationships with science curriculum materials through the lens of identity.…”