Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
The majority of the teachers were from districts that “tested well” on standard-
ized tests. The tests provided validation for their work. Consequently, accountability
based on standardized testing militated against reforms by encouraging conserva-
tive tendencies among teachers. The situation was more complex for urban teachers
where student performance on standardized tests was below the national average.
These teachers were more critical of the uses of tests for accountability. A case in
point was Jill (2006), who wrote:
People in suburban or rural districts seem to go upon this fallacy that teachers or adults who
work in urban districts are awful at their jobs, therefore 'the district is bad,' because the
kids test poorly. We who work in the city get tired of being blamed. We feel we are working
twice as hard as those in rural and suburban districts. I've worked in all types of districts so
I feel I can give a valid point of view. We feel looked down upon by the other districts as if
we are not good enough for them. Yet we in the city are proud of stepping up to the plate
and fighting for these kids that no one else outside of the city will fight for.
In summary, the course helped teachers to understand the meaning of classroom
inquiry. Yet, as they came to appreciate its rationale and potential for improving the
quality of learning, they also expressed some anxieties about the change.
The Problem of Validity
The course readings helped teachers to understand the meaning of inquiry. At the
same time, they tended to be skeptical about the claims made in the official course
readings. They characterized some of the vignettes and examples as impractical and
not applicable to “normal” classrooms. They taught in diverse classrooms where
some students had reading disabilities, others had cognitive impairments, and behav-
ioral issues. They were often short of equipment. There were a range of factors that
made themwary of the positive accounts that were presented in the readings. Laura's
response to one vignette illustrates a case in point. She wrote:
The classroom inquiry example in this week's reading was just delightful. How lovely to
have students actually vocalize such an interesting question and then have the wherewithal
to follow through and investigate it. Do things like this really happen in classrooms?! I'm
being a little sarcastic, but I fear I may teach for thirty years and never have an experience
like that in my own classroom.
The teachers were also concerned that students had been socialized to learn tra-
ditionally, and would be resistant to changes in instructional approach. “There are
so many students that just want an answer handed to them-heaven forbid, they may
actually need to think,” Alex wrote. Lindsay concurred, observing that, “Students
are more interested in the outcome more than in the process.”
The participants were keen to hear what their peers thought. While they acknowl-
edged the value of the readings, they were eager to have their peers validate
their interpretations. One idea that resonated with them was that of constructing
“replacement lessons,” which means identifying lessons that are normally taught
traditionally, and could be adapted to inquiry, one lesson at a time. By definition, the
replacement lesson is small in scope. It allows the teacher to experiment cautiously.
