Productive adaptations at the classroom level are evidence-based curriculum adaptations that are responsive to the demands of a particular classroom context and still consistent with the core design principles and intentions of a curriculum intervention. The model of design-based implementation research (DBIR) offers insights into complexities and challenges of enacting productive curriculum adaptations. We draw from empirical research in mathematics and science classrooms to illustrate criteria for productive adaptations. From these examples, we identify resources needed to encourage and sustain practices to promote productive adaptations in classrooms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarabS. L., & LuehmannA. L. (2003). Building sustainable science curriculum: Acknowledging and accommodating local adaptation. Science Education87(4), 454–467.
2.
Ben-PeretzM. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
BrennerM. E. (1998). Adding cognition to the formula for culturally relevant instruction in mathematics. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 214–244.
4.
CazdenC. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5.
ChoppinJ. (2008). CAREER: Adapting Curriculum for Learning in Mathematics Education (ACCLIME): Processes and factors in teachers’ evolving adaptations of curriculum materials. University of Rochester: National Science Foundation.
6.
CoffeyJ., HammerD., LevinD. M., & GrantT. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109–1136.
7.
CohenD. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
CordrayD. S., & PionG. M. (2006). Treatment strength and integrity: Models and methods. In BootzinR. R. & McKnightP. E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10.
DeBargerA., PenuelW. R., HarrisC. J., & SchankP. (2010). Teaching routines to enhance collaboration using classroom network technology. In PozziF. & PersicoD. (Eds.), Techniques for fostering collaboration in online learning communities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 222–244). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
11.
diSessaA. A., & MinstrellJ. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In GreenoJ. G. & GoldmanS. V. (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 155–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KennedyM. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17.
LampertM., BeasleyH., GhousseiniH., KazemiE., & FrankeM. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In SteinM. K. & KucanL. (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer.
18.
LappanG., FeyJ. T., FitzgeraldW. M., FrielS. N., & PhillipsE. D. (2006). Connected mathematics 2. Boston: Prentice Hall.
19.
LeeO., & BuxtonC. A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Research, policy, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
MehanH. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
MichaelsS., O'ConnorC., & ResnickL. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
23.
MollL. C., AmantiC., NeffD., & GonzalesN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
24.
MoschkovichJ. (2007). Using two languages when learning mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(2), 121–144.
25.
National Research Council. (2007). Ready, set, SCIENCE: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science standards: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
27.
O'ConnorC., HillL. D., & RobinsonS. R. (2009). Who's at risk in school and what's race got to do with it?Review of Educational Research, 33(1), 1–34.
28.
PenuelW. R., FishmanB. J., ChengB., & SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.
29.
PenuelW. R., MoorthyS., DeBargerA. H., BeauvineauY., & AllisonK. (2012, July). Tools for orchestrating productive talk in science classrooms. Workshop presented at the International Conference for Learning Sciences, Sydney, Australia.
30.
PenuelW. R., RoschelleJ., & ShechtmanN. (2007). The WHIRL co-design process: Participant experiences. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.
31.
PrietoL. P., Villagrá-SobrinoS., DimitriadisY., SchankP., PenuelW. R., & DeBargerA. H. (2011, September). Mind the gaps: Using patterns to change everyday classroom practice towards contingent CSCL teaching. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Learning, Hong Kong, PRC.
32.
PrietoL. P., Villagra-SobrinoS., Jorrin-AbellanI. M., Martinez-MonesA., & DimitriadisY. (in press). Recurrent routines: Analyzing and supporting orchestration in technology-enhanced primary classrooms. Computers and Education.
33.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
34.
RemillardJ. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
35.
ResnickL. B., MichaelsS., & O'ConnorC. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In SternbergR. & PreissD. (Eds.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications. New York: Springer.
36.
RoseberyA. S., OgonowskiM., DiSchinoM., & WarrenB. (2010). “The coat traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322–357.
37.
SetatiM. (2012). Mathematics in multilingual classrooms in South Africa: From understanding the problem to exploring possible solutions. In Herbel-EisenmannB., ChoppinJ., WagnerD., & PimmD. (Eds.), Equity in discourse for mathematics education: Theories, practices and policies (pp. 125–145). East Lansing, MI: Springer.
38.
SetatiM., & AdlerJ. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(3), 243–269.
39.
SherinM. G., & DrakeC. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.
40.
SmithM. J., SouthardJ. B., & MablyC. (2002). Investigating Earth systems: Our dynamic planet. New York: It's About Time.
41.
SnyderJ., BolinF., & ZumwaltK. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In JacksonP. W. (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). New York: Macmillan.
42.
SteinM. K., GroverB. W., & HenningsenM. A. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
43.
Sumner T., & CCS Team. (2010, June). Customizing science instruction with educational digital libraries. Paper presented at the 10th annual joint conference on Digital Libraries, Queensland, Australia.
44.
WarrenB., & RoseberyA. S. (1995). Equity in the future sense: Redefining relationships among teachers, students, and science in linguistic minority classrooms. In SecadaW. G., FennemaE., & AdajianL. B. (Eds.), New Directions for Equity in Mathematics Education (pp. 298–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
WiliamD., & LeahyS. (2007). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. In McMillanJ. H. (Ed.), Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice (pp. 29–42). New York: Teachers College Press.
