English Literacy Teachers as Interpretive Communities

Author(s):

WAYNE KENNETH SAWYERDavid Baxter Paul Kenneth Brock

Conference:

ECER 2008

Network:

3. Curriculum Innovation by Schools and Teachers

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 07A, PLC

Paper Session

Time:

2008-09-11

15:30-17:00

Room:

B2 216

Chair:

Majella V Dempsey

Contribution

This paper reports on a set of findings from a large project conducted in New South Wales, Australia, into effective teaching in the middle years of schooling. The key relevant research questions were: • What are the variables and processes that lead to outstanding educational outcomes in terms of academic success? (Other kinds of successes were also investigated, but this paper concentrates on academic success) • What organisational and institutional factors contribute to/constrain this success? Sites were chosen based on a number of factors, but these included ‘value-added’ criteria in high-stakes public testing. These sites were then studied using case study methods and later cross-case analysis. It is probably fair to say that the literature on effectiveness for learning outcomes has divided itself most obviously into literatures on school effectiveness and teacher effectiveness. Coleman et al’s classic 1966 study found only small impacts of schooling on student academic outcomes. A common criticism of this report (see Rutter et al., 1979; Mortimore, 1998) was failure to account for student differences on entering school. Since then, school effectiveness studies have argued for the difference that schools can make (see Sammons et al., 1995; Mortimore, 1998; Cuttance,1998, Levine & Lezotte, 1990). A different tradition has focused on the difference that individual teachers can make to student outcomes (Tymms, 1993; Scheerens, 1993; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Muijs, & Reynolds, 2001; Hill & Rowe, 1996, 1998; Hattie, 2003; Rowe, 2003 Ayres, Dinham & Sawyer, 2000; Ayres, Sawyer & Dinham, 2004). Historically, the role played by structures intermediate between individual teachers and schools has had less purchase in ‘effectiveness’ literature. In secondary education, for example, it is only in relatively recent years that research has specifically addressed the role of subject departments in any depth and detail. This work partly builds on from British work on school-subjects and curriculum inquiry (eg Ball & Lacey, 1982; Ball & Rowe, 1992) but is also motivated by an increased awareness of the importance of ‘context’ in effective teaching and schooling, as in the Stanford research of the 1990s (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1990; Talbert et al, 1993). In the project which is reported here, we were concerned to focus the research questions on the effectiveness of teacher groups within Years 7-10 (junior high school in New South Wales, Australia: usually ages 12-15) in terms of student outcomes. Such groups could be either based in cross-school programs (such as welfare or literacy programs) or could be subject Faculties. In this paper, we report on the work of one English (mother tongue) subject Faculty and one cross-curricular literacy program group which, as groups, achieved outstanding educational outcomes for their students (see, for example, Sawyer, Brock & Baxter, 2007). Our discussion borrows Stanley Fish’s (1989) notion of interpretive communities – a framework for analysis developed in the context of literary and legal studies, but appropriated here to explain the effective functioning of educational groups. Apart from addressing the effectiveness of these groups from Fish’s perspective, we also address the relationship between this analytical perspective and the specific conference theme of the role of subjects and subject didactics - in this case the didactics of English and literacy. In addition, we will discuss the implications for initial and in-service teacher education of the important role of effective teacher groups in academic success.

Method

A number of instruments were used for selection of groups - including nomination and value-added data in high stakes public testing. Different methods were the subject of cross-checking. Case study methodology was used to investigate chosen sites: classroom observations, interviews and focus groups with teachers, students Principals and parents and document analysis. Coding of data occurred within and across cases.

Expected Outcomes

The two sites on which we present were clear examples of interpretive communities in Fish's terms and we believe their success came about as a result of that orientation. The relevant characteristics are: 1. A close relationship between the particular community and the wider community within which it is located (Fish, 1989, p.130). 2. A shared definition of the work to be undertaken by the community (Fish, 1989, p.136; p.149); 3. Characteristic engagement in the act of interpretation, involving production, dissemination and debate (Fish, 1989, p.150-151); 4. A set of shared constraints determined by practice rather than by a set of absolute rules or universally recognised truths operating outside of context (Fish, 1989, p.126-130; p.132-133). 5. A set of shared assumptions, "rules of thumb", and interpretive strategies which exist prior to any individual act of interpretation (Fish, 1989, p.386-388). 6. A continual contest between interpretations waged by individuals and groups resulting in constant change within the community (Fish, 1989, p.129-130). 7. The practice of rhetoric to persuade others of the validity of interpretations (Fish, 1989, p.471-502). 8. A political, hierarchical structure, where some individuals are afforded greater status by the community according to their contribution to it (Fish, 1989, p.163-179). 9. Rites and practices of initiation for new members (Fish, 1989, p.127-128).

References

Ayres, P., Dinham, S. & Sawyer W. (2000). Successful senior secondary teaching Deakin, ACT : Australian College of Education. Ayres, P., Sawyer, W. & Dinham, S. (2004). "Effective teaching in the context of a Grade 12 high stakes external examination in New South Wales, Australia", British educational research journal. 30: 1, February, pp. 142-165. Ball, S. & Lacey, C. (1982). “Subject disciplines as the opportunity for group action: A measured critique of subject sub-cultures”. In P. Woods (ed), Teacher strategies. London: Croom Helm. Ball, S. & Rowe, R. (1992). “Subject departments and the implementation of the National Curriculum”, Journal of curriculum studies. 24: 2, pp. 97-116. Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., (1966) Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: US Office of Health, Education, and Welfare. Cuttance, P. (1998) “Quality assurance reviews as a catalyst for school improvement in Australia”. In A. Hargreaves, et al. (eds) International handbook of educational change, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, pp. 1135-1162. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1) Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1. Fish, S. (1989). Doing what comes naturally. Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Joint New Zealand Association for Research in Education and Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Auckland, December. Available at: http://www.acer.edu.au/workshops/documents/Teachers_Make_a_Difference_Hattie.pdf Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1996). Multilevel modelling in school effectiveness research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7 (1), pp. 1-34. Hill, P.W., & Rowe, K.J. (1998). “Modelling student progress in studies of educational effectiveness”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (3), pp. 310-333. Levine, D. & Lezotte, L. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. McLaughlin, M. and Talbert, J. E. (1990) ‘The contexts in question: The secondary school workplace’. In M. McLaughlin, J.E. Talbert & N. Bascia (eds). The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities. New York & London: Teachers College Press. Mortimore, P. (1998) The road to improvement: reflections on school effectiveness. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Rowe, K.J. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students' experiences and outcomes of schooling. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Research in Education conference, Melbourne, October. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. & Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. London: Open Books. Sammons, P., Hillman, J. & Mortimore, P. (1995) Key characteristics of effective schools: a review of school effectiveness research (London, International School Effectiveness & Improvement Centre, Institute of Education, University of London). Sawyer, W. Brock, P & Baxter, D. (2007). Exceptional outcomes in English education: Findings from AESOP. Teneriffe: Post Pressed. Scheerens, J. (1993). Basic school effectiveness research: Items for a research agenda. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 4 (1), pp. 17-36. Talbert, J. E., McLaughlin, M. & Rowan, B, (1993). "Understanding context effects on secondary school teaching", Teachers College Record. 95: 1, pp 45-68. Tymms, P. (1993). Accountability – can it be fair? Oxford Review of Education, 19, pp. 291-299.

Author Information

WAYNE KENNETH SAWYER

University of Western Sydney

Centre for Educational Research

South Penrith DC

David Baxter

Australian College of Physical Education

Paul Kenneth Brock

New South Wales Department of Education and Training

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.