Abstract
The fundamental issue we address in this chapter is the relationship between the curriculum and the teacher. Despite decades of efforts to reform education through curriculum development, it is common to find that teachers do not enact curricula according to design (Hume & Coll, 2010; Olsen, 1981). Shavelson and his colleagues (Shavelson et al., 2008), for example, carefully and collaboratively designed a curriculum to include embedded formative assessments and provided six middle school teachers from across the United States intensive professional development in the use of a guide for enacting the curriculum. Yet they found that the teachers enacted only parts of the intended practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 30–63.
Ben-Peretz M. The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1990.
Berliner D. Why is individualized instruction like water in Arizona? In: Wang MC, Walberg H, editors. Adapting instruction to individual differences. Berkeley: McCutchan; 1985. p. 298–312.
Bernstein B. The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Volume IV of class, codes and control. London/New York: Routledge; 1990.
Brown MW. The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In: Remillard JT, Herbel-Eisenmann BA, Lloyd GM, editors. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 17–36.
Cobb, P., Smith, T., Jackson, K., & Wenzel, S., (2010). Supporting mathematics teachers’ development of ambitious and equitable instructional practices on a large scale. Presentation at the DR K12 PI Meeting, Washington, DC, December 1–3.
Coffey, J. & Hammer, D., (2010). A model for interactive, web-based curricula to support responsive teaching and student inquiry in elementary science classrooms. Presentation at the DR K-12 PI Meeting, Washington, DC, December 1–3.
Davis EA, Krajcik JS. Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher. 2005;34(3):3–14.
Davis, R. B. & McKnight, C. (1976). Conceptual, heuristic, and S-algorithmic approaches in mathematics teaching. Journal of Children’s Mathematical Behavior, l (Supp1. I), 271–286.
Doyle W. Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist. 1988;23:167–180.
Doyle W. Curriculum and pedagogy. In: Jackson PW, editor. Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan; 1992. p. 486–516.
Doyle W. Ecological approaches to classroom management. In: Evertson C, Weinstein C, editors. Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. New York: Erlbaum; 2006. p. 97–125.
Doyle W, Carter K. Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry. 1984;14:129–149.
Doyle W, Carter K. Narrative and learning to teach: Implications for teacher-education curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2003;35:129–137.
Edelson DC, Gordon DN, Pea RD. Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 1999;8:391–450.
Furtak EM, Ruiz-Primo MA, Shemwell JT, Ayala CC, Brandon PR, Shavelson RJ, Yin Y. On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education. 2008;21:360–389.
Gump PV. Intra-setting analysis: The third grade classroom as a special but instructive case. In: Williams E, Rausch H, editors. Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1969. p. 200–220.
Harris CJ, Rooks DL. Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2010;21:227–240.
Herbst PG. Teaching geometry with problems: Negotiating instructional situations and mathematical tasks. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education. 2006;37:313–347.
Hord SM, Huling-Austin L. Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising new insights. Elementary School Journal. 1986;87:96–115.
Hume A, Coll R. Authentic student inquiry: The mismatch between the intended curriculum and the student-experienced curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education. 2010;28:43–62.
Janssen FJJM, Van Driel JH, Verloop N. Naar praktische ontwerpondersteuning voor docenten [Towards practical design support for teachers]. Pedagogische Studiën. 2010;87:412–431.
Kounin JS. Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1970.
Nystrand M, Wu LL, Gamoran A, Zeiser S, Long DA. Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes. 2003;35:135–198.
Olson J. Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation. Instructional Science. 1981;10:259–275.
Remillard JT. Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal. 2000;100:331–350.
Remillard JT. Considering what we know about the relationship between teachers and curriculum materials. In: Remillard JT, Herbel-Eisenmann BA, Lloyd GM, editors. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge; 2008. p. 85–92.
Remillard JT, Herbel-Eisenmann BA, Lloyd GM, editors. Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. New York: Routledge; 2008.
Schoenfeld AH. When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist. 1988;23:145–166.
Schoenfeld AH. A highly interactive discourse structure. Social Constructivist Teaching. 2002;9:131–169.
Shavelson RJ, Young DB, Ayala CC, Brandon PR, Furtak EM, Ruiz-Primo MA, Tomita MK, Yin Y. On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education. 2008;21:295–314.
Shkedi A. From curriculum guide to classroom practice: Teachers’ narratives of curriculum application. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2009;41:833–854.
Snyder J, Bolin F, Zumwalt K. Curriculum implementation. In: Jackson PW, editor. Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan; 1992.
Sontag S. Against interpretation and other essays. New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux; 1966.
Westbury I, Hopmann S, Riquarts K. Teaching as reflective practice: The German didactik tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000.
Wubbels T, Brekelmans M, Den Brok P, Van Tartwijk J. An interpersonal perspective on classroom management in secondary classrooms in the Netherlands. In: Evertson C, Weinstein C, editors. Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. p. 1161–1191.
Zais RS. Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York: Crowell; 1976.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doyle, W., Rosemartin, D. (2012). The Ecology of Curriculum Enactment. In: Interpersonal Relationships in Education. Advances in Learning Environments Research, vol 3. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-939-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-939-8_9
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-939-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)