“Ambitious teaching” is teaching that aims to teach all kinds of students to not only to know academic subjects, but also to be able to use what they know in working on authentic problems in academic domains. Studies of individual teachers have identified the challenges of this work. Resources are often provided at the school level with the purpose of making this kind of teaching more common. But as Cohen, Raudenbusch, and Ball (2003) point out, it is not making resources available to a school that matters in improving instruction, but getting those resources to be used in instructional interactions where teachers and students work together to get academic content learned.
Purpose/Objective
The purpose of this case study was to understand how the common use of resources across a school functions to enable those resources to make their way into the instructional stream.1 First, the use of shared social, intellectual, and material resources was investigated in consistently ambitious teaching across diverse classes and teachers in the school. Using a conceptual frame from social practice theory, we then examined how resources in use shaped teachers’ common interpretations of teaching problems and common assumptions about appropriate solutions.
Research Design
Qualitative case study based on extensive observation and interviews.
Conclusions/Recommendations
As a field, we need to provide images and narratives for ambitious teaching that is scaffolded in such a way that one can be a mere mortal and yet capably meet its routine demands. In this paper we have tried to provide one such image.
We can offer several strong hypotheses based on this casework; the first is that ambitious teaching is more manageable when it is undertaken collectively, when it is supported by common materials, and when it has an intellectual underpinning that is useful and routinely used. Ambitious teaching is made more sustainable when a multiplicity of resources are drawn upon in concert, not installed one at a time and delivered to individual practitioners. We have tried to illustrate the strong role that an organization can play in the development of widespread ambitious teaching. In this image the organization supports ambitious teaching in such a way that most teachers can see, enact, and routinely articulate, this approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainR. (2006). Rounding up unusual suspects: Facing the authority hidden in the history classroom. Teachers College Record, 108(10), 2080–2114.
2.
BallD. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373–397.
3.
BoerstT. (2003). ? > 24’ X 30’: Professing teacher knowledge beyond the classroom walls. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(9), 499–501.
4.
CatizoneP., HumphrisC., & MicarelliL. (1997). Volare: Corso di Italiano 1.Rome: Dilit/Alpha-Beta.
5.
ChapinS.H., O'ConnorC., & AndersonN. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. (Grades 1–6). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
6.
CohenD.K. (1988). Teaching Practice: Plus Que Ça Change. (Issue paper 88-3). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education.
7.
CohenD. K., RaudenbuschS., & BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
8.
CookS. (1982). Part of what a judgment is. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from Dissertations and Theses database.
9.
CookS., & BrownJ. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organizational Science, 10(4), 381–400.
10.
CornoL. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43, 161–173.
11.
Darling-HammondL., AncessJ., & FalkB. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work.NY: Teachers College Press.
EngeströmY., & MiddletonD. (1998). Introduction: Studying work as mindful practice. In EngeströmY., & MiddletonD. (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work. (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
EricksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
15.
FrankeM.L., KazemiE., & BatteyD. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. (pp. 225–256). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
16.
GassonS. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge, and expertise in collaborative, boundary spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4), article 14. Retrieved October 16, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/gasson.html
17.
GlazerJ. L. (2005). Educational professionalism: The development of a practice-centered frame and its application to the America's Choice school design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of MichiganAnn Arbor. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from Dissertations and Theses database.
18.
GreenoJ. G. (2007). Toward the development of intellective character. In E. W. Gordon & B. L. Bridglall (Eds.). Affirmative development: Cultivating academic ability. (pp. 17–47). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.
19.
HillH. C., BlunkM., CharalambosC., LewisJ., PhelpsG. C., SleepL., & BallD.L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction (26).4, 430–511.
20.
HornI. S. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction.23(5), 165–205.
KazemiE. (1998). Discourse that promotes conceptual understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 410–414.
23.
KennedyM. M. (2007). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
KilpatrickJ., SwaffordJ., FindellB., National Research Council (2001). Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25.
KnappM., ShieldsP., & TurnbullB. (1992). Academic Challenge for the Children of Poverty: Summary report.Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning, U. S. Department of Education.
26.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems in teaching.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.
27.
LampertM., & GrazianiF. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning in and for practice. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491–509.
28.
LampertM., BoerstT., & GrazianiF. (in preparation) Using common curriculum materials in ambitious instruction to scaffold novices and harness expertise.
29.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring.Boston: Heinle.
30.
LeeC. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students.”American Educational Research Journal.38(1) 97–141.
31.
LeeC. (2007). The role of culture in academic literacies: Conducting our blooming in the midst of the whirlwind.New York: Teachers College Press, 2007
32.
LeeV., SmithJ., & NewmannF. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago elementary schools.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
33.
LeinhardtG. (1997). Instructional explanations in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27(3), 221–232.
34.
LeinhardtG., & SteeleM.D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 87–163.
35.
LittleJ. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340.
36.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record. vol. 105 no. 6, 913–945.
37.
LittleJ.W., & BartletL. (2002). Career and commitment in the context of comprehensive school reform. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 345–354.
38.
LittleJ.W., & HornI. S. (2007). Resources for professional learning in talk about teaching. In StollL., & LouisK. S. (Eds.) Professional learning communities: Divergence, detail and difficulties. (pp. 79–92). London: Open University Press.
39.
LubienskiS. T. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 454–482.
40.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
McLaughlinM., & TalbertJ. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Research Council, DonovanS., & BransfordJ. (2005). How students learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the classroom.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
44.
NewmannF., SmithB., AllensworthE., & BrykA. (2001). School instructional program coherence: Benefits and challenges.Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago Annenberg Research Project.
45.
NicoliniD., GherardiS., & YanowD. (2003). Knowing in Organizations: A Practice Based Approach.London: M. E. Sharpe.
46.
NicoliniD., MeznarM. B., StewartG. L., ManzC. C., KleinR. L., BigleyG. A., RobertsK. H., MollemanE., & Van KnippenbergA. (1995). The social construction of organizational learning: Conceptual and practical issues in the field. Human Relations, 48(7), 727–747.
47.
OrlikowskiW. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizations. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.
PorterA. C. (1989). External standards and good teaching: The pros and cons of telling teachers what to do. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 343–356.
50.
RandiJ., & CornoL. (2005). Teaching and learner variation. Pedagogy.–Learning from teaching, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph Series II. (3), 47–69.
51.
ReckwitzA. (2002) Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.
52.
RexL., MurnenT., HobbsJ., & McEachenD. (2002). Teachers’ pedagogical stories and the shaping of classroom participation: “The Dancer” and “Graveyard Shift at the 7–11.”American Educational Research Journal, 39(3), 765–796.
53.
RexL., SteadmanS., & GracianoM. (2006). Researching the complexity of classroom interaction. In GreenJ., CamilliG., & ElmoreP. (Eds.), Handbook of Complementary Methods for Research in Education. (pp. 727–772). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
54.
RosenholtzS. J. (1991). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
55.
SchleppenbachM., FlevaresL.M., SimsL.M., & PerryM. (2007) Teachers’ responses to student mistakes in Chinese and U.S. mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 131–147.
56.
SnowC. E.; GriffinP., & BurnsM. S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
57.
StarS. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In GasserL., & HuhnsM. (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence. (Vol. II, pp. 37–54). London: Pitman.
58.
SteinM. K., EngleR., HughesE.K., & SmithM.S.Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.
59.
StevensR., & HallR. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience, Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning. pp. 107–149. LampertM., & BlunkM. L., (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
60.
StraussA., & CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
WeickK., & McDanielR. (1989). How professional organizations work: Implications for school organization and management. In SergiovanniT.J., & MooreJ.H. (Eds.), Schooling for tomorrow: Directing reforms to issues that count. (pp. 330–355). Rockleigh, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
62.
WiddowsonH.G. (1972). The teaching of language as communication. English Language Teaching, 27(1), 15–19.
63.
WilsonS. M. (1990). Mastodons, maps, and Michigan: Exploring uncharted territory while teaching elementary school social studies. Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 24. East Lansing, MI: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.
