Confronting Mathematical Pseudo-Community: A Domain-specific Analysis of a Middle School Mathematics Department

Paul Weinberg

doi:10.29333/ejmste/106055

Abstract

Teacher professional community refers to the extent to which teachers collaborate to further their own and their students’ learning. Peck (1995) drew distinctions between pseudo-community and professional community, where pseudo-communities rely on suppression of conflict and the tacit understandings that it is “against the rules” to challenge others’ beliefs and ideas. The teacher education literature is predominantly composed of domain-general characterizations of teacher community. This study investigates the pseudo-communities of five middle school mathematics teachers’ through a domain-specific characterization of criteria of professional community. These characterizations are made using teacher responses to surveys and interaction analysis during a meeting between middle school mathematics teachers and researchers. These analyses allow for the investigation of why domain-general characterizations of pseudo-community may be limited.

Highlights

In defining communities of practice Lave and Wenger (1991; Wenger, 1998) provided criteria by which to distinguish true communities from mere groups of individuals involved in similar work: joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire
This study investigates the pseudo-communities of five middle school mathematics teachers’ through a domain-specific characterization of criteria of professional community
Little (1982; 2012) presented four “critical practices of adaptability” that focus on teacher communities of practice and add to the work of Wenger. Little suggested that these teaching communities should “engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice; be frequently observed and provided with useful critiques of their teaching; plan, design, research, evaluate, and prepare teaching materials together; and teach each other the practice of teaching.” (p. 331) Analysis by Borko (2004), Shulman and Wilson (2004), Franke, Carpenter, Levi, and Fennema (2001), and the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching (CRC) (McLaughlin, 1993; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006) further suggests that a focus on students’ understanding is necessary for a professional community of teachers

Summary

Introduction

In defining communities of practice Lave and Wenger (1991; Wenger, 1998) provided criteria by which to distinguish true communities from mere groups of individuals involved in similar work: joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire. Little (1982; 2012) presented four “critical practices of adaptability” that focus on teacher communities of practice and add to the work of Wenger. Little suggested that these teaching communities should “engage in frequent, continuous, and increasingly concrete and precise talk about teaching practice; be frequently observed and provided with useful critiques of their teaching; plan, design, research, evaluate, and prepare teaching materials together; and teach each other the practice of teaching.” Adding to this conceptualization of professional teaching communities, researchers (e.g., Horn & Kane, 2015; Stoll & Louis, 2007; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) have highlighted trust as requisite. Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) cited trust as one of three foundational aspects (time and mutual commitment being the other two) for creating professional communities of teachers. Newmann and Associates (1996) and Gamoran, et al (2003) presented five key aspects of a teachers’ professional community that support the findings from the above research: (a) a shared sense of purpose; (b) a collective focus on student

Results

Discussion

Conclusion