Accounts of how culture constitutes the learning activities we accomplish with others are flourishing. These accounts illustrate how participants draw upon, adapt, and contest historically situated social practices, tools, and relations to accomplish their learning goals [Vygotsky: Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1978]. Yet, they often lack attention to the ways that these social features reify and are reified by broader power structures and hierarchies. One way that power plays out in everyday social interaction is through the stories, narratives and ideologies that serve as resources for interpreting and organizing ongoing activity. Individuals become attuned to, coordinate and mobilize around these broader narratives through the frames they engage in moments of interaction. We offer frame analysis as a means of investigating both access to learning environments and opportunities to learn within them. To situate learning opportunities within and across different components of multilevel systems, a distinction is proposed between framing within a classroom or learning environment and framing access to educational processes and institutions. This paper recommends that researchers analyze, and design for, framing that disrupts predominant power structures and expands the possibilities for learning within more equitable social practices.

1.
Artiles, A. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: the case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431–445.
2.
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself (pp. 177–193). New York: Ballantine.
4.
Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
5.
Bloome, D., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265–291.
6.
Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34, 167–194.
7.
Boaler, J., & Greeno, J.G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning. Westport: Ablex Publishers.
8.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiment by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
9.
Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10.
Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form: studies in symbolic action. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
11.
Coburn, C. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77, 211–244.
12.
Coburn, C.E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343–379.
13.
Coburn, C.E., Bae, S., & Turner, E.O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.
14.
Coburn, C.E., & Woulfin, S.L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 5–30.
15.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
16.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (2008). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 43–63.
17.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
18.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.
19.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.L. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Engle, R.A. (2006). Framing interactions to foster generative learning: A situative explanation of transfer in a community of learners classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 451–498.
21.
Engle, R.A., & Conant, F.R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.
22.
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 50–58.
23.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: the politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 335–356.
24.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: The Harvester Press.
25.
Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse (1st ed.). New York: The Falmer Press.
26.
Giroux, H.A., & McLaren, P.L. (Eds.) (1989). Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
29.
González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
30.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: an introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1996). Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Greeno, J.G. (2009). A theory bite on contextualizing, framing, and positioning: A companion to Son and Goldstone. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 269–275.
33.
Greeno, J.G., & Berger, D. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain functional knowledge in problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.
34.
Gresalfi, M., Martin, T., Hand, V., & Greeno, J.G. (2008). Constructing competence: An analysis of student participation in the activity systems of mathematics classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70, 49–70.
35.
Grossman, F.D. (2009). Dissent from within: How educational insiders use protest to create policy change. Educational Policy, 24, 655–686.
36.
Gutiérrez, K. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
37.
Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., Alvarez, H.H., & Chiu, M.M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38, 87–93.
38.
Gutiérrez, K., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejada, C. (2000). Rethinking diversity: hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286–303.
39.
Gutiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus ‘Brown v. Board of Education’. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 445–471.
40.
Gutiérrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 100–117.
41.
Hall, E.T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
42.
Hammer, D. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 151–183.
43.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R.E., & Redish, E.F. (2005). Resources, framing and transfer. In J.P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
44.
Hand, V. (2003). Reframing participation: Meaningful mathematical activity in diverse classrooms (doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford.
45.
Hand, V. (2010). The co-construction of opposition within a low-track mathematics classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 97–132.
46.
Hand, V. (2012). Seeing power and culture in mathematics learning: Teacher noticing for equitable mathematics instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80, 233–247.
47.
Horn, I.S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Modeling the mismatch problem in math teachers’ conversations. Journal of Learning Sciences, 16, 37–79.
48.
Hoyle, S. (1993). Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 114–144). New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríquez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
50.
Jurow, S. (2005). Shifting engagements in figured worlds: Middle school mathematics students’ participation in an architectural design project. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 35–67.
51.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 314–350.
52.
Keren, G. (2011). Perspectives on framing. New York: Psychology Press.
53.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.
56.
Leander, K.M. (2001). ‘This is our freedom bus going home right now’: Producing and hybridizing space-time contexts in pedagogical discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 637–679.
57.
Lee, C.D. (2001). Is October Brown Chinese? A cultural modeling activity system for underachieving students. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 97–141.
58.
Lee, C.D. (2002). Interrogating race and ethnicity as constructs in the examination of cultural processes in developmental research. Human Development, 45, 282–290.
59.
MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income neighborhood. Boulder: Westview.
60.
McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity (pp. 269–305). New York: Cambridge University Press.
61.
McDermott, R., Raley, J., & Seyer-Ochi, I. (2009). Race and class in a culture of risk. Review of Research in Education, 33, 101–116.
62.
Mills, C. (2011). Framing literacy policy: Power and policy drivers in primary schools. Literacy, 45, 103–110.
63.
Nasir, N.S. (2008). Everyday pedagogy: Lessons from basketball, track, and dominoes. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 529–532.
64.
Nasir, N.S. (2011). Racialized identities: race and achievement among African American youth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
65.
Nasir, N.S., & Hand, V. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture, and learning. Review of Research in Education, 76, 449–475.
66.
Nasir, N.S., & Hand, V. (2008). From the court to the classroom: Opportunities for engagement, learning and identity in basketball and classroom mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 143–180.
67.
Nespor, J. (2002). Networks and contexts of reform. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 365–382.
68.
Noguera, P. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 34, 18–41.
69.
O’Connor, K., & Allen, A. (2010). Learning as the organizing of social futures. In W. Penuel & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108, 160–175.
70.
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
71.
Oakes, J., Rogers, J., Blasi, G., & Lipton, M. (2006, April). Grassroots organizing, social movements, and the right to high-quality education. Paper presented at the Rethinking Rodriguez Symposium, Warren Institute, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley.
72.
Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute: Race talk dilemmas in American schools. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
73.
Polman, J.L., & Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: Trajectories of identification among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 879–918.
74.
Pope, D. (2001). ‘Doing school’: how we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students. New Haven: Yale University Press.
75.
Redish, E.F. (2004). A theoretical framework for physics education research: Modeling student thinking. In E.F. Redish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 1–63). Bologna: Italian Physical Society.
76.
Redish, E.F., & Hammer, D. (2009). Reinventing college physics for biologists: explicating an epistemological curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 77, 629.
77.
Renée, M., Welner, K., & Oakes, J. (2009). Social movement organizing and equity-focused educational change: Shifting the zone of mediation. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 158–163). London: Kluwer.
78.
Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 211–236). New York: Academic Press.
79.
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.
80.
Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
81.
Schwab, J.J. (1982). Science, curriculum, and liberal education: selected essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
82.
Snow, D.A., & Benford, R.D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
83.
Snow, D.A., Rochford, E.B., Jr., Worden, S.K., & Benford, R.D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
84.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
85.
Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
86.
Taylor, E. (2006). A critical race analysis of the achievement gap in the United States: politics, reality, and hope. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5, 71–87.
87.
Thompson J.B. (1995). Studies in the theory of ideology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
88.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
89.
Valero, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (Eds.). (2004). Researching the sociopolitical dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power in theory and methodology. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.
90.
Varenne, H., & McDermott, R.P. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. New York: Westview Press.
91.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
92.
Welner, K. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: when community control collides with educational equity. New York: Suny Press.
93.
Williams, R.H., & Kubal, T.J. (1999). Movement frames and the cultural environment: Resonance, failure, and the boundaries of the legitimate. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 21, 225–248.
94.
Wortham, S. (2003). Curriculum as a resource for the development of social identity. Sociology of Education, 76, 228–246.
95.
Wortham, S. (2004). The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 715–750.
96.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.