Department of Education
College of Liberal Arts
The Annual Roland and Charlotte Kimball
Faculty Fellowship 1996 Award Lecture
FROM THE EFFICIENT FACTORY TO THE DIVERSE COMMUNITY:
THE PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE NATURE OF
TEACHING IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
Professor Michael D. Andrew
September 20, 1996
The Annual Roland and Charlotte Kimball
Faculty Fellowship Award and Lecture
The Annual Roland and Charlotte Kimball Faculty Fellowship honors a faculty member in the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire for outstanding leadership in the field of education. Fellowship awards support activities related to the work of award recipients. The Kimball Fellowship Award was made possible through the generous gift of Professor Emeritus and Alumnus Roland Kimball and Alumna Charlotte Kimball (University of New Hampshire Class of 1942). Professor Kimball joined the faculty in the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire in 1963 and served as Department from 1964-1973 and 1980-1988. The Annual Kimball Fellowship Lecture reproduced here commemorates Professor Kimball's contributions to professional education at the University of New Hampshire
Kimball Fellowship Award Recipients
1996 Professor Michael D. Andrew
From the Efficient Factory to the Diverse Community:
The Paradigm Shift in the Nature of Teaching in the Public School
Professor Michael D. Andrew
September 20, 1996
Introduction
There is a shift occurring in what it means to teach in our public schools. This change affects some of our fundamental assumptions about what it means to teach. The model for teaching is changing from the 'efficient' factory to the 'diverse community.'
The traditional and still most prevalent paradigm for public school teaching is that of the teacher who plans a lesson or unit for the class--stands in front of the class talking for much of the lesson--with some activities or seat work or group which occupy all the students with similar--generally identical--tasks. This model is often textbook driven and assessment is based on similar homework, papers or labs with the same assignment; and short answer and essay exams--where a common list of skills and knowledge is assessed. We have ample evidence that this model persists--most of us use it. Goodlad's Study of Schooling (1984) showed 70% of classroom time in public schools was still teacher talk. College-based teacher educators have long harangued against this model--arguing for a counter model where students spend most of the time engaged individually and in groups with the teacher as facilitator, coach and manager of the learning environment. Hands-on activities, real world problem solving and student dialogue are advocated. We have a 200 year history of champions of variations of this model with benchmarks along the way like Pestalozzi and Dewey and Montessori and all your more recent favorites. Yet, we continue to lament that schools and our own graduates won't heed the wisdom of our lectures on this subject.
My message today is that the shift is on, especially in the elementary and middle schools. Significant change is happening and it looks as if it will continue for the foreseeable future. I will discuss why the shift is on, what it looks like and some of the implications of the shift.
Why is the shift on?
Not because people in schools have finally heeded the advice of educators.
First, and I think foremost, is the influence of federal special education legislation and its recent interpretation. Mainstreaming, forced on the schools in the mid 70s, didn't really change the traditional paradigm that much, although it brought a whole new realm of responsibilities and a new group of special needs children into the public schools.
"Least restrictive environment" was interpreted by many as lots of pull out services for special needs children. Mainstreaming was mostly accomplished in the corridors. It has been an expensive ride since '75 with 20-30% of the public education dollar going to serve about 10% of the population. When you think about that--we have done an amazing job of holding the line and even improving educational achievement for the remaining 90% of the public school population, while graduating an ever increasing proportion of students from high school. We have been putting more in colleges, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have steadily improved, and college students have been showing a steady increase in GRE scores; this test improvement coming while the range and number of students taking the tests have increased. It's really been an incredible success story--but we let the media and politicians tell the story their way. Few public protests come from educators.
Inclusion
In the early 90s mainstreaming was redefined as Inclusion--and the model became one of including all children in the regular classroom--bringing in the special services if need be.
What it means in New Hampshire schools is three or four coded (special needs) children in the average classroom with eight or ten not uncommon. In about every third room there is an aide or trained special educator with the teacher. In some rooms, there may be three or four adults. The teacher can no longer plan a lesson where all children tackle the same content at the same level. They may all do math at the same time, but not the same math. They may all study the ocean but they do not all have the same objectives or respond to the same methods.
Diversity
The second cause of a shift in the teaching paradigm is increasing cultural diversity. You and I are a history of immigrants--but primarily white, northern Europeans. Our future is the Rainbow Coalition--albeit with a primarily white European teaching force for the foreseeable future. You know the facts--by 2000, one of three students in United States public schools will be from a minority group. In many schools, so-called minorities are the majority. One in seven United States residents speak a language other than English at home, a third more than a decade ago. Those who speak Spanish at home have increased over 50% in the last decade. Those who speak Chinese have increased over 100% since 1980. Those who speak Korean and Vietnamese have increased about 150% since 1980. According to Dianna Eck, Professor of Comparative Religion at Harvard, there are now more Muslims than Episcopalians or Presbyterians and soon more Muslims than Jews in the United States.
Here we have a debate in the schools--on the one side we declare English the national language and tell our teachers--one lesson--one America. More unum and less pluribus. On the other hand we have the multicultural advocates. Celebrate diversity, make tolerance and pluralism goals, teach to eliminate racism and other forms of bigotry and prejudice. Support ESL and bilingual education. For the teachers facing several students who speak little or no English, or who face racial prejudices exploding in the classroom, there is little choice: adjust and individualize the curriculum and methods and assignments. Deal with bigotry and racist attitudes or face disintegration of the learning environment. The social agenda supercedes the academic agenda.
Knowledge Base
The third cause for the shift in the teaching paradigm is a timely set of educational ideas, a "knowledge base" if you will, which teachers can relate to and which compliments, justifies, and helps with the paradigm change. Here educators can take some credit for helping with the shift. I will mention several components of this emerging knowledge base.
The first is the ascendancy of the argument for heterogeneous grouping. I say ascendancy because this issue is a see-saw for perennial debate--the heavyweights are now on the heterogeneous end. It is largely a moral position against the pernicious effects of labeling, of limiting children's options and expectations, and in support of the value of learning to live together. It is some of the same arguments used for inclusion. The see-saw is not tipped by scientific evidence about who learns the most--that evidence is mixed and arguable. The heavyweight is a moral weight and the agenda is a social agenda, although advocates against tracking and ability grouping see a clear link to academic progress.
The second educational contribution is the ascendancy of supportive learning theory for the heterogeneous, diverse, included classroom. Constructivism rules. For most teachers, social constructivism rules.
In constructivism learners do not passively absorb knowledge or respond by association. They construct knowledge from their experiences. Learning is self-regulated. Hands-on experiences and social experience (or dialogue) are especially fruitful for knowledge construction. The learner must be personally engaged. Knowledge is temporary, contextual, socially influenced, culturally influenced, and non-objective. The student is a thinker with emerging theories about the world.
There is considerable criticism in the field of psychology aimed at constructivism. I particularly like the criticism which goes like this: According to constructivism, knowledge is constructed and is contextual and non-objective. Therefore the theory of constructivism must be similarly constructed and thus may be dismissed as having no objective basis. And ironically, social psychology seems to have moved well away from constructivism to a focus on the biological bases for human behavior.
Nonetheless, the interpretation of constructivism given to teachers resonates with them--a rare phenomenon indeed for any philosophy or any learning theory. In addition to constructivism we have the relatively new concepts of styles of learning and multiple intelligences.
Howard Gardiner's 1983 book Frames of Mind introduced the concept of multiple intelligences which caught on in a remarkable way with public school teachers struggling to reconcile old ideas of logical, linguistic/mathematical IQ with the increasing diversity in their classrooms and the need to see each child as worthy of equal time. In Gardiner's words, "From my perspective, the essence of the theory is to respect the many differences among people, the multiple variations in the ways that they learn, the several modes by which they can be assessed, and the almost infinite number of ways in which they can leave a mark on the world" (Armstrong, 1994).
I hear very little about multiple intelligences around Morrill Hall, but what a wonderful construct for the struggling public school teacher--never mind the fact that a number of academics have not warmly embraced Gardener's theory or his research.
Gardiner's theory has the result and perhaps intent of changing the way in which we see our students--and the way we must assess important student learning. It is a theory which meshes well with the diverse, inclusive, heterogeneous classroom.
There is a strong link between the theory of multiple intelligences and the theory of learning styles which is also very popular among classroom teachers. A learning style becomes the child's predominant intelligence operating in a learning context. The teacher's task is to provide multiple activities and methods and to tailor them to individual styles.
Learning style theory--as translated for teachers--is also based on a very thin and shaky research base; but no matter, it fits the needs of today's teaching paradigm. As diversity and variation increase in the classroom, teachers are driven toward a philosophy which embraces the whole child and supports the uniqueness, worth and contribution of each child. Without such theory, how can the teacher work equally toward the fullest development of each child. Parents want no less. The bell shaped curve may exist for any learning goal or human quality but it cannot guide the actions of the responsible teacher in the diverse, included, heterogeneous classroom.
Third, in the contribution of educators, is the availability of supportive teaching methods for the heterogeneous, diverse, included classroom. For methods, we have cooperative learning--relatively well defined and tested procedures which seem to get good results. They work, and the philosophy fits education's social agenda.
We have a new, growing repertoire of multimedia, interactive computer learning packages and learning opportunities on the internet which are amenable to individual and group learning. While technology used to fit a narrow functional, behavioral paradigm, it now can be a tool of much more progressive, humanistic approaches.
We have increasing numbers of good examples of activity based, experiential, hands on learning activities in every subject--the teaching journals and professional books and methods courses are full of them--teachers see that individual-doing seems to generate more student meaning-making than do lecture and work sheets.
The process approach to reading and writing, which I am proud to say has strong ties to UNH, has translated well to practitioners. It has truly started a worldwide revolution in literacy education, with its personalized writing and reading, writing conferences and personal and group products. It fits well in the heterogeneous, diverse, included classroom.
Integrated, multidisciplinary, and theme centered curriculum seems to fit nicely into this supportive knowledge base, as well. These approaches broaden the possibility of developing all intelligences or at least offering diverse entry points into the curriculum. On the surface integrating curriculum seems to solve for the teacher the problem of the selection of content for the diverse, inclusive, heterogeneous classroom. Theme centered curriculum is usually so broad in its construction that there is something, at some level, in all subjects for all learners. The problem, of course, is that a steady diet of theme centered curriculum may slight the learning of important basic concepts, and the structure and processes of the disciplines.
We also have produced some models for new school structures which fit the diverse, heterogeneous, included classroom paradigm. The intractability of school structure and schedule has long been a barrier to any major shift in the teaching/learning paradigm--especially at the junior high and high school level. The seven period day, tracks, tracted schedules, and separate, discipline-dominated departments have prevented change. We don't have to look far to find that these structures at the high school level are blocking the paradigm shift and are still putting debilitating constraints on individual potential.
The middle school model--around for the last 20 years and continuing to slowly roll across the country, was the first to really crack the old mold. The middle school offers interdisciplinary teams of teachers who meet together in school time, and who can schedule their own mini-school. It features heterogeneous grouping, interdisciplinary curriculum and focuses on children's total development.
More recently we have the Coalition for Essential Schools whose nine principles argue for less emphasis on broad content coverage and more on in-depth learning, teacher as coach--student as engaged worker, and individual student projects or exhibitions as more authentic vehicles for assessing important outcomes. The Coalition, plus block scheduling seem to be two major chinks in the armor of high school structure.
And we have a resurgence of multiage grouping and team teaching at the elementary level. Multiage grouping increases even further the diversity and variation in the classroom. It forces the adoption of the new paradigm.
We also have an entirely new model for assessment which is breaking into the traditional, corporate dominated, norm-referenced, testing model of the past. This new paradigm, with the righteous sounding label of Authentic Assessment, features assessments imbedded in meaningful individual products in such forms as portfolios, journals and exhibitions.
Taken together these contributions and a few others I haven't had time to mention provide a knowledge base which has both spurred and supported a major change in what it means to teach.
We are moving from a model of teaching where the teacher planned a lesson for everyone and where much of it was taught to the whole group; to a model where multiple lesson plans exist; where larger groups are less useful for academic purposes, where children teach, and learn from each other and where several adults may facilitate the learning environment. We are moving from the "efficient factory" to the "diverse community."
The teacher still addresses the whole class--but less often and more of this talk is on the social dynamic of the group. Academic lecture is less on presenting and explaining content and more on framing the big picture (introduction to a theme), and gaining students' emotional involvement. Group discussions focus more on reports of individual and group learning, not on recitation or the development of concepts in common.
What do we stand to gain from this shift? Among the plusses:
What do we stand to lose? Among the losses is the loss of:
But into the breech of loss of standards comes what seems like a contradictory national trend in curriculum--which may lessen the losses: that is national and state, standards-based curriculum in the separate disciplines. This sounds contradictory but state and national standards may be very helpful in providing some kind of anchor or compass to guide teachers in what could become a totally fragmented state of curriculum anarchy or the watered down social studies curriculum which was blamed for the demise of progressive education and the core curriculum of 50 years ago.
This could all make for a hopeful future--except for one thing. What about the teacher faced with the changing paradigm?
Personally, I think we may be selling teachers down the river with the new paradigm. We are setting them up for a nearly impossible task where only amazingly organized, tireless workers, willing to spend 12 hour days planning and managing 26 individualized lesson plans at the elementary level or 120 at the secondary level, will even approach success, and they must be experts in handling the social dynamics of the diverse classroom. They must also be willing and able to cooperate and share territory with other adults in their room.
Two weeks ago I spent a morning in two multiage K to second grade adjoining classrooms. There were two profoundly talented, super organized master teachers-- about 24 kids in each room, mostly five to seven year olds. In one room, there was a Down's Syndrome child functioning about like a two year old, and one young Asian girl who was as able and mature as any sixth grader. In that room there were seven coded children and two more kindergartners who probably will be coded--so many in one room because the traditional teachers in that school won't make the necessary accommodations for special needs children. There was one severely physically handicapped child. There was one brain damaged child who had little fine motor control and often forgot what he was doing or where he was going. There were two full-time aides with the two most needy children. Another child was medicated to prevent violent outbursts of anger.
The class functioned amazingly well. There was seldom a moment when the teacher or teacher's weren't entirely aware of each and every child. The techniques were beautiful to behold. The coordination between the two rooms seemed better rehearsed than a play. There were hands-on activities, poems and songs and readings; many opportunities for individual choice and group work and carefully planned individual activities for children. Not a moment was wasted.
I asked each teacher separately, "How do you coordinate so well?" Each answered the same--we have no time at school (one has to pick up her own children after school)--so they talk for 20 to 30 minutes--a toll call--every night. And they stay at school together one afternoon and evening a week, and they spend most of one day on the weekend at school. Each plans for two hours a night: minimum. It can be done. Is this a fair price to ask? How many of us would do it?
The new paradigm sounds great but it will take smaller classes and/or more teachers per class to succeed. We have no evidence that the American public is willing to pay that price.
We, as college teacher educators, never succeeded in making enough highly effective teachers when all the students in public school classrooms were as similar as possible. Now we are on the road to maximizing classroom diversity. We must become advocates for the teacher--not only by developing a workable knowledge base for the new paradigm but by fighting for more resources to help the teacher meet this challenge. We must also be ready to point out the excesses and shortcomings of the new paradigm. For example, it is quite evident that the new model may push teachers to an extreme emphasis on social goals, which could cut too short the goals of academic skills and the basics of subject area knowledge The conditions are right for teachers to focus on social goals such as students' willingness to participate, good listening skills, exhibited compromise, cooperation and respect, and other community goals--at the expense of academic goals. Large group discussions are already shifting from academics to discussions of expected behavior and common group values. The traditional role of the teacher, as one who can effectively explain, make interesting and translate subject matter, is shifting to one who can manage the social dynamics of the diverse, heterogeneous and included classroom and who can manage multiple lesson plans and multiple assessments. We may see a new wave of teacher burnout. We may well see more parents opting for home schooling and private schools or charter schools with a more traditional focus because they feel that their children's academic growth is being slighted in the diverse, heterogeneous, included classroom. And perhaps some will leave because they do not believe in our social agenda.
And finally, as teacher educators we must prepare our students with strategies for dealing with the heterogeneous, diverse, included classroom and we must take care to place our interns in schools which are honestly grappling with the demands of the paradigm shift--not those who refuse to acknowledge it--or worse--those who advocate the shift while closing their eyes to the unreasonable burdens placed on teachers.