Crossing the Boundaries: Solidarity, Identity, and Mutual Learning in a K‐20 Partnership

Abstract

This study investigates possibilities for faculty members and teachers to overcome status and professional culture barriers as they engage in partnership work aimed at promoting inquiry‐based instruction. It compares the processes and outcomes of several types of professional learning opportunities within a Math and Science Partnership based on how well they facilitated productive communication, student‐centered instructional practices, and knowledge negotiation. It discusses conflicts as components of faculty member/teacher interactions, regardless of the setting. However, when laboratory materials provide a relevant context for collaborative learning, and when there are opportunities for the development of microlevel interactional solidarity, conflicts can lead to knowledge negotiation rather than disengagement. Furthermore, these settings can reduce faculty members’ use of lecture‐based approaches, mitigate status differences, and facilitate the development of reform‐minded identities. This study suggests that while a focus on mutual learning is preferable to transmission in K‐20 partnerships, it is important to consider that mutual learning may be a negotiated product emerging from conflict and dialogue rather than an unproblematic exchange of information. In addition, it suggests that K‐20 partnerships should intentionally create opportunities that foster the establishment of goal‐oriented temporary communities, as these can support persistence through conflicts, reform‐minded teaching identities, and inquiry‐based instruction.

Interaction rituals and inquiry‐based science instruction: Analysis of student participation in small‐group investigations in a multilingual classroom

“…This study thus shows that ongoing opportunities for the generation of positive EE can lead to sustained participation in a diverse community of learners. This supports recent findings by Olitsky () that demonstrated the development of synchrony on microlevels among professional teaching communities mediated their ability to work across cultural differences. In a similar way, we extend the findings of past interaction ritual studies to show herein how Teo, was able to work through his language differences toward participation in the class.…”

“…A multilayered analytic approach afforded views of student interactions across both microlevels (tenths of seconds) and mesolevels (minutes) of interaction (Elmesky, ; Olitsky, , ). The first layer of analysis at the mesolevel involved viewing all classroom videos in real time and logging the learning activity structures (e.g., whole class, small group), participants, and communicative resources employed for each activity.…”

“…IRT and interaction ritual analysis has proved to be a useful tool for analyzing interactions in science education contexts in general (e.g., Bellocchi, ; Olitsky, ), and in classrooms in particular (e.g., Elmesky, ; Milne & Otieno, ; Olitsky, ). In one study, Elmesky () utilized video microanalysis to examine interaction rituals present in teacher–student and student–student interactions in a high‐school chemistry class.…”

On the need for expanded guidance in navigating ethical learning research at science museums

“…These projects demonstrate the need to build relationships prior to and throughout data generation so as to address ethical challenges and conflicts as they arise and to make informed consent an ongoing process. We do so in multiple ways so as to honor differing perspectives, expectations, and positionalities (see also Olitsky, , on the importance of negotiating productive conflict, cultural differences, and fostering respect and mutual learning in a school‐university research partnership). Ethics here are relational, cultural, and contextual (Brickhouse, ; Tobin, ; Tolbert et al, ).…”

We Don’t Want to Be Officially Certified! Reasons and Implications of the Participatory Guarantee Systems

“…In most cases, society is reluctant to accept a system based on autonomy and jointly established standards over a system based on technical expertise, as the latter is considered to be more objective. At work are also cultural barriers among stakeholders, which are largely influenced by status or profession [31]. As stated in the second PGS meeting, these barriers lead to differences in the perceived trustworthiness of people's abilities.…”