Abstract
In this paper, we present a microanalysis of a specialized STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) high school teacher’s experience of self-initiated science inquiry curriculum reform. We examine the meanings of these two constructs: inquiry curriculum and curriculum change through the process lens of interactions, actions, and interpretations. Symbolic interactionism is the theoretical framework we used to frame our analysis of how this teacher, Darren Daley (a pseudonym) and various stakeholders purposefully and strategically engaged in “face-work” and act out lines of actions to advocate or oppose curriculum change. Symbols are used in this world of face-to-face encounters to communicate, imply, and assert, meanings through socially flexible and adjustable processes. We scrutinize how Daley (un)consciously engaged all of these to defend his decisions, actions, and outcomes and “look” to others as doing inquiry reform. The meanings of such work are not intrinsically driven or reactions to psychological and extraneous factors and forces, but emergent through interactions. The data collection methods include interviews with Daley, school administrators, students, and parents, lesson observations in Daley’s class, and gathering of school website pages, brochures, and curriculum materials. We represent data in narratives describing storied history, voices, interactions, anecdotal accounts from individuals’ experiences, and interpretations. The analysis and findings illuminate the nature of teacher agency—how it is reclaimed, sustained, reinforced, contested, exercised, and modified in more nuanced ways, hence offering an alternative lens to theorizing and empirically analyzing this construct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
51.5% male, 48.5% female—40.5% White or Non-Hispanics, 40.8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 8.3% African American, 5.3% Hispanic/Latino, 2.5% Multiracial; and 2.5% other ethnicities (Innova Academy Quick Facts brochure, October 2009). In addition to mathematics and science, the courses offered include English literature, film studies, gender studies, history, art, microeconomics, and foreign languages.
In 2009, the average scores of various college entrance examinations of Innova Academy tenth graders were: 31.5 for ACT (American College Testing, state average was 20.8), 666 for SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) Critical reading (national average was college-bound seniors was 501), 721 for SAT Math (national average was 515), and 663 for SAT Writing (national average was 493). The 2008–2009 AP Chemistry score taken by 128 students was 3.01 (maximum score of 5).
Priti was the Program Director in charge of executing the school’s strategic plan and arranging for research collaborations between Innova Academy and universities. She played a key role in pushing for Daley’s curriculum reform plans to become a symbolic curriculum leadership initiative made known to external STEM educators and for educational research. As the key liaison personnel who have insights to the school’s policy making and interact closely with teachers, she acted as the “bridge” between the top school administrators and teachers to communicate school policies and publicize teachers’ work.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1998). Peer power: Preadolescent culture and identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 647–654.
Beers, J. (2005). Becoming an urban science teacher: The first three years. In K. Tobin, R. Elemsky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, & researchers (pp. 131–146). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interactionism. In A. Rose (Ed.), Human behavior and social processes (pp. 179–192). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
College Board. (2011). AP courses and exams. Retrieved on March 7, 2011, from http://www.apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/index.html.
Conant, J. B. (1958). The identification and education of the academically talented student in the American secondary school. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Connelly, M. F., & Clandinin, J. D. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cookson, P. W., Jr., & Persell, C. H. (1985). Preparing for power: American’s elite boarding school. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Cookson, P. W., Jr., & Persell, C. H. (2010). Preparing for power: Twenty-five years later. In A. Howard & R. A. Gaztambide-Fernández (Eds.), Educating elites: Class privilege and educational advantage (pp. 13–30). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Cooley, C. H. (1970). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and cultural studies. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Duffy, A. L., & Nesdale, D. (2009). Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18, 121–139.
Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2011). Status struggles: Network centrality and gender aggregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review, 76, 48–73.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. In C. Gordon (Ed.), C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, & K. Soper (Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1982). Subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8, 777–795.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2009). The best of the best: Becoming elite at an American boarding school. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A., & Howard, A. (2010). Introduction: Why study up? In A. Howard & R. A. Gaztambide-Fernández (Eds.), Educating elites: Class privilege and educational advantage (pp. 1–12). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gecas, V., & Burke, P. J. (1995). Self and identity. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 41–67). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: First Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1975). Frame analysis. London, UK: Penguin Books.
Harding, S. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hofman, R. H., Hofman, W. H. A., & Guldemond, H. (2001). Social context effects on pupils’ perception of school. Learning and Instruction, 11, 171–194.
Howard, A. (2007). Learning privilege: Lessons of power and identity in affluent schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hymes, D. H., & Fought, J. G. (1981). American structuralism. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
Inden, R. (1990). Imagining India. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Karp, I. (1986). Agency and social theory: A review of Anthony Giddens. American Ethnologist, 13, 131–137.
Khan, S. R. (2010). Getting in: How elite schools play the college game. In A. Howard & R. A. Gaztambide-Fernández (Eds.), Educating elites: Class, privilege and educational advantage (pp. 97–112). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Lyons, N., & LaBoskey, V. K. (2002). Narrative inquiry in practice: Advancing the knowledge of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Martin, S. (2005). An autobiographical approach to becoming a science teaching. In K. Tobin, R. Elemsky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, & researchers (pp. 225–244). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
McCaleb, S. P. (1994). Building communities of learners: A collaboration among teachers, students, families, and community. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. L. (2002). The ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 100–120.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elites. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pignatelli, F. (1993). What can I do? Foucault on freedom and the question of teacher agency. Educational Theory, 43, 411–432.
Powell, A. G. (1996). Lessons from privilege: The American prep school tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ray, J. M. (2008). Building the bridge as you walk on it: Didactic behaviors of elementary teachers in a dual language program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1658–1671.
Ritchie, S. M., Tobin, K., & Hook, K. S. (1997). Teaching referents and the warrants used to test the viability of student’ mental models: Is there a link? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 223–238.
Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., Caramdo, C., & Dalland, C. (2004). Coteaching: Creating resources for learning and learning to teach chemistry in urban high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 882–904.
Rothschild, E. (1999). Four decades of the advanced placement program. The History Teacher, 32, 175–206.
Schneider, J. (2009). Privilege, equity, and the Advanced Placement program: Tug of war. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48, 813–831.
Sewell, W. H., Jr. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1–29.
Snyder, E. E., & Spreitzer, E. (1984). Identity and commitment to the teacher role. Teaching Sociology, 11, 151–166.
Thomas, J., & Williams, C. (2010). The history of specialized STEM schools and the formation and role of NCSSSMST. Roeper Review, 32, 17–24.
Tobin, K. (1998). Sociocultural perspectives on the teaching and learning of science. In M. Larochelle, N. Bednarz, & J. W. Garrison (Eds.), Constructivism and education (pp. 195–212). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tobin, K. (2005). Urban science as socially and culturally adaptive practice. In K. Tobin, R. Elemsky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, & researchers (pp. 21–42). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., & Seiler, G. (2005). Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students, & researchers. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
US Department of Education. (2010, October 12). No child left behind legislation and policies. Retrieved on March 7, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html.
van den Berg, R. (2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice. Review of Educational Research, 72, 577–625.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20–32.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teo, T.W., Osborne, M. Using symbolic interactionism to analyze a specialized STEM high school teacher’s experience in curriculum reform. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 7, 541–567 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9364-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9364-0