Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 15 No. 41 (2024)
Desarrollo, cognición y educación en la era digital: Retos y oportunidades para la formación de estudiantes y sociedades del siglo XXI más justas y equitativas

Temática central

Curriculum Materials for Deliberative Teaching: A Systematic Qualitative Review of Key Features of Teachers’ Learning

https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.22160159.v15.n41.2024.16665

Published 2024-08-05

  • Valenntina Sonia Guzmán Fernández

Valenntina Sonia Guzmán Fernández
Universidad Alberto Hurtado

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that deliberative argumentation promotes conceptual learning, argumentation skills, and political competencies. However, it is scarcely seen in classrooms. Different scholars have argued to decide what type of curriculum materials can promote teachers’ pedagogical innovations, but there is no agreement on the main educative features these materials should have. This paper aims to describe these characteristics and discuss the theoretical stance from which to understand their role in teachers’ learning. A systematic qualitative review following PRISMA was conducted. The results show that most studies consider disciplinary content, implementationm guides, and justification for pedagogical recommendations to be key educative features. A significant number of studies agree on suggesting explicit language moves, although some papers discuss the risk of prescription involved in this feature. Regarding theoretical assumptions about teachers’ learning, most studies hold a socio-cognitive view of teachers’ learning. The theoretical gaps and their practical implications for design are also discussed

Keywords

curriculum materials, teacher learning, sociocultural theory, scaffold materials, language practices

PDF HTML EPUB

References

  1. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (3), 422–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21250 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21250
  2. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.626
  3. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for Learning: Well-Trodden Paths and Unexplored Territories. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155458
  4. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In: C. Emerson and M. Holquist (eds), The dialogical imagination (pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press, Trans.
  5. Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In: V.W. McGee (ed), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Trans. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  6. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational researcher, 25(9), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025009006
  7. Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 46 (9), 977–998. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20293
  8. Bopardikar, A., Bernstein, D., Drayton, B., & McKenney, S. (2021). Designing educative curriculum materials in interdisciplinary teams: designer processes and contributions. Instructional Science, (49),1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09538-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09538-5
  9. Brown, M. W. (2011). The teacher–tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In: Mathematics teachers at work (pp. 37–56). Routledge.09575140500507785 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884645-11
  10. Bruner, J.S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In: A. Sinclair, R.J. Jarvella, & W.J.M. Levelt (eds), The Child’s Conception of Language (pp. 241–256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  11. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The elementary school journal, 103 (3), 287–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/499727
  12. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educationalresearcher, 34 (3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
  13. Davis, E., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.g48488u230616264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.g48488u230616264
  14. Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in science education, 52 (2), 127–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
  15. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46 (6), 293 304. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502
  16. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. The middle works of John Dewey, 1899–1924. Southern Illinois University Press.
  17. Englund, T. (2016). On moral education through deliberative communication. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48 (1), 58–76. doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1051119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1051119
  18. Falabella, A. (2014). The Performing School: The Effects of Market & Accountability Policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 70. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n70.2014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n70.2014
  19. Felton, M., Garcia‐Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078
  20. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). Curriculum Materials: Scaffolds for New Teacher Learning? A Research Report. Document R-04-1. Center for the study of teaching and policy.
  21. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and teacher education, 24 (8), 2014–2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002
  22. Hess, D. E., & McAvoy, P. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. Routledge. SBN 9780415880992
  23. Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2019). Legislating instruction in urban schools: Unintended consequences of accountability policy on teacher-reported classroom goal structures. Urban Education, 58 (1), 3-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919838004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919838004
  24. Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: a systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 (3), 325–356. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024
  25. Katsh-Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., & Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs about argumentation in high, mid, and low socioeconomic status schools. Sci. Educ. 100, 410–436. doi: 10.1002/ sce.21214 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21214
  26. Larrain, A., Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., López, P., & Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials support teachers in the promotion of argumentation in science teaching: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 522-537.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018
  27. Larrain, A., Singer, V., Strasser, K., Howe, C., López, P., Pinochet, J., ... & Villavicencio, C. (2020). Argumentation skills mediate the effect of peer argumentation on content knowledge in middle-school students. Journal of Educational
  28. Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000619
  29. Larrain A, Fortes G and Rojas MT (2021). Deliberative Teaching as an Emergent Field: The Challenge of Articulating Diverse Research Agendas to Promote Educational Experiences for Citizenship. Front. Psychol. 12:660825. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660825
  30. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62 (10). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
  31. Lloyd, G. M. (2009). School mathematics curriculum materials for teachers’ learning: Future elementary teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials in a mathematics course in the United States. ZDM Mathematics Education, 41 (6), 763–775.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0206-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0206-4
  32. Loper, S., McNeill, K. L., & González-Howard, M. (2017). Multimedia educative curriculum materials (MECMs): Teachers’ choices in using MECMs designed to support scientific argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28 (1), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277600 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277600
  33. Marco‐Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform‐oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54 (2), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21340
  34. McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38 (12), 2026–2046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547
  35. Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue, 347–362 DOI:10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_27
  36. Quebec Fuentes, S., & Ma, J. (2018). Promoting teacher learning: a framework for evaluating the educative features of mathematics curriculum materials. J. Math Teacher Educ 21, 351–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9366-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9366-2
  37. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100 (4), 331–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/499645 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/499645
  38. Resnick, L. B., & Science National Research Council. National Academy Press (1987). Education and learning to think. Committee on Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. 1st (Ed.). ISBN: 0-309-03785-9. ditorial: National Academy Press.
  39. Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., & Clarke, S. N. (2018). Accountable talk: Instructional dialogue that builds the mind. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Academy of Education (IAE) and the International Bureau of Education (IBE) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). URL: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000262675
  40. Reznitskaya, A., Kuo, L., Clark, A., Miller, B., Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2009). Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (1), 29–48. https:/doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802701952
  41. Schneider, R. M. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materials: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24 (2), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9309-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9309-9
  42. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (3), 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016569117024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016569117024
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). In: R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (eds), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York, NY: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)
  44. Wong, J. L. (2006). Control and professional development: Are teachers being deskilled or reskilled within the context of decentralization? Educational Studies, 32 (1), 17–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690500415910 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690500415910

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.