This study investigates the effects of widely advocated organizational reform for secondary schools, namely the small school model, on the collective efficacy of teachers and students who did not share the school’s common vision. Themes that emerged during the study linked the students’ academic engagement to faculty dispositions, the physical facilities of the school, and the socioeconomic context of the student body. Cogenerative dialogue (cogen) was used as a pathway to ameliorate such exclusionary policy. The results of the study indicate that the conversations during cogen meetings became resources to draw on in changing oppressive structural features.
AppiahK. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
2.
AyersW. (2000). Simple justice: Thinking about teaching and learning, equity, and the fight for small schools. In AyersW.KlonskyM.LyonG. H. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
3.
BarberB. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
BatesJ. T. (1993). Portrait of a successful rural alternative school. Rural Educator, 14(3), 20-24.
5.
BayneG. U. (2007). Identity, culture and shared experiences: The power of cogenerative dialogues in urban science education (Doctoral dissertation) The Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York City.
6.
BellahR. N.MadsenR.SullivanW. M.SwidlerA.TiptonS. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
BhabhaH. (2000). The location of culture. London, England: Routledge.
8.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. London, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BourdieuP. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
10.
BushnellM. (2001). This bed of roses has thorns: Cultural assumptions and community in an elementary school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 32, 139-166.
CountsD.CountsD. (1992). “They’re my family now”: The creation of community among RVers. Anthropologica, 34, 153-182.
13.
EichensteinR. (1994). Project Achieve: Part I. Qualitative findings 1993-94. Brooklyn, NY: Office of Educational Research, New York City Board of Education.
14.
ElmeskyR.TobinK. (2005). Expanding our understanding of urban science education by expanding the roles of students as researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 807-828.
15.
EmdinC. (2007a). Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms. Part 1: Investigating corporate and communal practices. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 319-341.
16.
EmdinC. (2007b). Exploring the contexts of urban science classrooms: cogenerative dialogues, coteaching, and cosmopolitanism. Unpublished doctoral thesis, City University of New York, New York.
17.
EmersonR. M.FretzR. I.ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
FineM. (2000). A small price to pay for justice. In AyersW.KlonskyM.LyonG. H. (Eds.), A simple justice: The challenge of small schools (pp. 168-179). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
FowlerW. J.WalbergH. J. (1991). School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189-202.
20.
FreireP. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
21.
GirouxH. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition (Rev. and Expanded ed.). London, England: Greenwood.
22.
GubaE.LincolnY. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
GuthrieJ. (1979). Organizational scale and school success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 17-27.
HowleyC. (1996). Compounding disadvantage: The effects of school and district size on student achievement in West Virginia. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12, 25-32.
KershawC. A.BlankM. A. (1993). Student and educator perceptions of the impact of an alternative school structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Atlanta, GA, April 12-16, 1993).
LehnerE. (2007). Describing students of the African Diaspora: Understanding micro and meso-level science learning as gateways to standards based discourse. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 441-473.
30.
LipmanP. (1998). Race, class, and power in school restructuring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
MagoldaP. (2000). The campus tour: Ritual and community in higher education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 31, 24-46.
MatusovE. (1999). How does a community of learners maintain itself? Ecology of an innovative school. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 30, 161-186.
34.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
35.
MelnickS. A.ShiblesM.GableR. (1987). School district size, student achievement and high school course offerings in Connecticut. Research in Rural Education, 4, 119-123.
36.
NaseemM. A.Hyslop-MargisonE. J. (2006). Nussbaum’s concept of cosmopolitanism: Practical possibility or academic delusion?Paideusis, 15, 51-60.
OrfieldG. (2004). Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
41.
PittsW. (2007). Being, becoming, and belonging: Improving science fluency during laboratory activities in urban education (Doctoral dissertation). The Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, New York City.
42.
Plato. (1995). Republic (JowettB., Trans.). In LoomisL. R. (Ed.), The great dialogues (pp. 217-477). Roslyn, NY: Walter J. Black. (Original work published 1942)
43.
PowerC.HigginsA.KohlbergL. (1989). The habit of the common life: Building character through democratic community schools. In Parry NucciL. (Ed.), Moral development and character education (pp. 125-143). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
44.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY: Basic Books.
RothW.-M.LeeY. J. (2004). Interpreting unfamiliar graphs: A generative, activity-theoretic model. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 57, 265-290.
47.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1-29.
48.
SewellW. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In BonellV. E.HuntL. (Eds.), Beyond the cultural turn (pp. 35-61). Berkeley: University of California Press.
ShadyA. (2014a). The Role of Cultural Alignment in Producing Success in Urban Science education. In TobinK.ShadyA. A. (Eds.), Producing successful science and math education: Teachers and students working collaboratively (pp. 225–244). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishing.
51.
ShadyA. (2014b). Negotiating cultural differences in urban science education: an overview of teacher’s first-hand experience reflection of cogen journey. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9 (1), 31-51.
52.
ShadyA. (2008). Immigration and culture as factors mediating the teaching and learning of urban science (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations And Theses. (Publication Number: AAI3325395).
53.
TobinK. (2104). Twenty questions about cogenerative dialogues. In TobinK.ShadyA. A. (Eds.), Producing successful science and math education: Teachers and students working collaboratively (pp. 181-190). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishing.
54.
TobinK.LlenaR. (2104). Emotions as mediators of science education in an urban high school. In TobinK.ShadyA. A. (Eds.), Producing successful science and math education: Teachers and students working collaboratively (pp. 205-223). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishing.
55.
TobinK. C.RothW.-M.ZimmermannA. (2001). Learning to teach in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 941-964.
