Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 209–227 | Cite as

Lesson Plans and the Contingency of Classroom Interactions

Empirical Study/Analysis

Abstract

In their examination of elementary science classrooms, Amerine and Bilmes (1988) found that following instructions requires students to understand the relationship between the projected outcome and the corresponding course of actions. One of the most important resources for instructions is the lesson plan, which prescribes the sequence of teaching. However, there is often a gap between what is planned and what actually happens in the classroom. This raises the question of how teachers come to terms with contingent variants and unexpected outcomes that real-time interactions occasion and how lesson plans are configured into these processes. This study examines a teacher education program that uses lesson plans as a central resource for teaching mathematics. The results suggest that classroom teachers use lesson plans as communicative resources to identify problems, specify assumptions about their teaching and act on the evolving contingency of classroom interaction. The interactional contingency is the locus of teaching practices, not an obstacle to the application of procedures in lesson plans.

Keywords

Ethnomethodology Talk-in-interaction Plans Instructional practices Mathematics education Contingency 

References

  1. Amerine, R., & Bilmes, J. (1988). Following instruction. Human Studies, 11, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berliner, D. (2005). The near impossibility of testing for teacher quality. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  5. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.Google Scholar
  6. Carlsen, W. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
  7. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.Google Scholar
  8. Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2005). Reaping the systemic benefits of lesson study: Insights from the U.S. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 674–680.Google Scholar
  9. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Studies of excellence in teacher education. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  12. Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eisenhart, M. (2001). Educational ethnography past, present, and future: Ideas to think with. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Higher Education, 53(5), 393–405.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goodwin, C. (2000). Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 157–182). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Green, J., & Dixon, C. (2002). Exploring differences in perspectives on microanalysis of classroom discourse: Contributions and concerns. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heap, J. (1982). Understanding classroom events: A critique of Durkin, with an alternative. Journal of Reading Behavior, 45(4), 391–411.Google Scholar
  21. Heap, J. (1990). Applied ethnomethodology: Looking for the local rationality of reading activities. Human Studies, 13(1), 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heaton, R. (2000). Teaching mathematics to the new standards: Relearning the dance. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Komoski, P. K. (1977). Instructional materials will not improve until we change the system. Educational Leadership, 42, 31–37.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, Y.-A. (2006). Towards respecification of communicative competence: Condition of L2 instruction or its objective? Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee, Y.-A. (2010). Learning in the contingency of talk-in-interaction. Text & Talk, 30(4), 403–422.Google Scholar
  27. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Lynch, M. (2006). Cognitive activities without cognition? Ethnomethodological investigations of selected “cognitive” topics. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Macbeth, D. (2000). Classroom as installations: Direct instruction in the early grades. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local educational order: Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action (pp. 21–72). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  31. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s “learning lessons” reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maxwell, J. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lesson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Moerman, M., & Sacks, H. (1971/1988). On understanding in the analysis of natural conversation. In M. Moerman (Ed.), Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis (pp. 180–186). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mullis, I., Martin, M. O., Gonzales, E. J., Gregory, K. D., Garden, R. A., O’Connor, K. M., M., Chrostowski, S., & Smith, T. (2000). TIMSS International mathematics report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.Google Scholar
  36. Page, R. (2000). The turn inward in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
  37. Perry, R., & Lewis, C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change, 10, 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Remillard, J. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 693–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schegloff, E. (1996). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: Contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy & D. R. Scott (Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues—an interdisciplinary account (pp. 3–35). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1982). Talking and teaching: Reflective comments on in-classroom activities. In G. Payne & E. C. Cuff (Eds.), Doing teaching: The practical management of classrooms (pp. 170–183). London: Batsford Academic and Educational.Google Scholar
  45. Stephens, W. M. (1982). Mathematical knowledge and school work: A case study of the teaching of developing mathematical processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  46. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  49. Wang-Iverson, P., & Yoshida, M. (Eds.). (2005). Building our understanding of lesson study. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.Google Scholar
  50. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68, 130–178.Google Scholar
  51. Yinger, R. (1987). By the seat of your pants: Inquiry into improvisation and teaching. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Yon, D. (2003). Highlights and overview of the history of educational ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zeichner, K. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645–735). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Zimmerman, D., & Pollner, M. (1970). The everyday world as a phenomenon. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 80–103). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of British and American Language and LiteratureSogang UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.School of EducationDePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations