Investigating Social Reproduction in Curriculum Implementation: Comparing Science Teachers’ Curricular Views and Classroom Talk

• In Event: Constructing a Common Curriculum: System, Discipline, School, and Classroom

Abstract

The Australia curriculum aims to promote equity in learning opportunities among schools through a common standards-based approach. This paper examines the implementation of the science curriculum from a social reproduction perspective (Collins, 2009) in two Melbourne schools. School A is a high SES school situated in Melbourne’s eastern region while School B is a lower SES school located in Melbourne’s northern region. The study focuses on classroom talk patterns in the enacted curriculum and the espoused curricular views from curriculum coordinators and science teachers. This study aims to test the hypothesis that differences in learning opportunities might be usefully understood as differences in the quality of classroom talk (cf. Luke, 2010).

Early works of social reproduction in schools (eg Anyon, 1981) suggested that the school system rations kinds of knowledge to class-stratified student populations. More recently, Luke (2010) proposed that the enacted curriculum in different social settings is not simply a differential formation of curriculum knowledge and views, but also entailed a distinctive pattern of classroom talk and teacher-student interaction. Our study is informed by Luke’s perspective.

A comparative case study approach was undertaken including lesson observations (video), interviews and questionnaires. The study employs inductive thematic analysis to generate themes from interview data and examines classroom talk across a series of lessons within the topic.

Curricular considerations in both schools prioritized student needs (cf. Harris & Williams, 2012; Tobin, Seiler & Walls, 1999), but distinctive patterns in classroom talk, evident in the two classrooms, suggested strongly differentiated enacted curricula. School A emphasised improvements in students’ literacy, while School B focused on improvements in student engagement level. Both emphases reflected characteristics of the respective school communities and the enacted curriculum of both schools could be seen to serve social reproductive functions. This study provides a case for the argument that schools in poorer and more affluent areas in Australia continue to create and maintain gaps in learning opportunities as evidenced by the quality of teacher-student talk offered in the science classrooms. If social reproduction continues to be realized through differences in schools’ prioritisation of perceived student needs, then the enactment of these differences may best be understood and addressed in terms of inclusion and exclusion from particular discourse communities.

References
Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11 (1), 3 – 42.

Collins, J. (2009). Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, 33 – 48.

Harris, D. & Williams, J. (2012). The association of classroom interactions, year group and social class. British Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 373 – 397.

Luke, A. (2010). Documenting Reproduction and Inequality: Revisiting Jean Anyon’s “Social Class and School Knowledge”. Curriculum Inquiry, 40 (1), 165 – 182.

Tobin, K., Seiler, G. & Walls, E. (1999). Reproduction of Social Class in the Teaching and Learning of Science in Urban High Schools. Research in Science Education, 29(2), 171–187

Authors

• Aloysius Kian Keong Ong, University of Melbourne

• David J. Clarke, University of Melbourne