classroom restructuring: what do teachers really need?

Classroom Restructuring: What Do Teachers Really Need?

[ ] Barry J. Fishman Thomas M. Duffy

This article describes the results of a needs analysis carried out to determine the require- ments of teachers who wish to restructure their classrooms. The article also describes Strategic Teaching Frameworks (STF), a hypermedia computer system that is intended to have a profound impact on professional development for teachers in the United States. STF was designed according to the results of the needs analysis. The needs analysis consisted of interviews with 30 teachers who have changed or are in the process of changing their classrooms. The interviews focused on the nature of the teachers" changes and the tools and resources they used to support those changes. Two of the most important resources are the ability to look at other classrooms and the ability to collaborate with colleagues. The interviews also sought to discover what resources the teachers found lacking; among these are time and financial support.

[] It seems safe to say that the educational establishment in America is obsessed with restructuring. On a national level, the Ameri- can Federation of Teachers (AFT), the National Education Association (NEA), the National Governors' Association, the Educational Com- mission of the States, and even the President are all promoting school reform under different guises (Timar, 1989). On a slightly smaller scale, there are private organizations like the Coalition of Essential Schools working with groups of schools (Wasley, 1990). On a local level, individual school districts are searching for ways to boost the scores of their students in the face of growing parental concern over the ineffectiveness of schools (O'Neil, 1989).

Ironically, the tremendous amount of attention given to restructuring has caused the term to lose much of its meaning. Restructuring has become an imprecise catchword in American education, referring sometimes to bureaucratic decentralization, sometimes to philosophical reorientation, and sometimes to physical re- organization. Whenever a word becomes di- luted in use, the perceived effectiveness of the actual programs is at risk. The "open classrooms" of the 1970s suffered from this effect. The open classroom was originally a complex and well-researched attempt at significantly changing the classroom environment to en- hance learning (Kohl, 1969). As the idea of the open classroom spread, it became subject to reinterpretation. In one Philadelphia suburb,

ETR&D, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 95-1tl ISSN 1042-1629 95

96 ETR~, Vol. 40, No. 3

the so-called "open classroom," when finally implemented, had come to be understood as standard teacher-led classrooms separated by grade level and conducted in a school where there were no physical walls. The intellectual walls, unfortunately, still existed. As a result, open classrooms in general were discredited. The fact that the implementation of the concept had very little resemblance to the original idea of the open classroom went unnoticed.

In order to prevent a similar fate for restructuring, it is necessary for a rigorous definition to be adopted and for use of the term "restructuring" to be limited to those cases that meet the definition. One such definition can be found in Indiana University's School Im- prorxmL, mt Resources Inquiry--USA (SIRIUS-A). This project is a nationwide survey of schools which was taken to arrive at an understanding of the many forms restructuring may take.

The SIRIUS-A project defines restructuring as "change in school systems that goes beyond r e f o r m . . . To restructure a school means to rethink the purpose of the school and to im- plement changes that make the school fun- damentally different from its original form" (Reigeluth, Norris, & Ryan, 1990). The deft- nition also requires "that the desired effect of the changes is to meet individual student learning needs and thereby increase individual student learning." This is a sufficient working definition. It is specific enough to effectively disabuse the political notions of school restructuring, yet it leaves plenty of latitude for in- terpretation at the application level. What is most important in this definition is that the size and scope of the change are not as important as the intended effects of the change. The needs of individual learners and the overall goals of schooling need to remain at the core of "restructuring."

This definition may cause surprise in some sectors of the public. After all, is not learning the central focus of all restructuring efforts and, indeed, of teaching itself? The answer to this question is "yes and no." While all schools point to individual learning as their central mission, administrative activities tend to over- whelm attempts to focus on teaching. Restruc- turing efforts to date have been aimed at changing the administrative demands on

teachers and administrators (Jones & Hixson, in press).

Although most discussions of restructuring continue to focus on school- and district-wide types of reform, we feel that what happens in individual classrooms is equally important. This reflects the emphasis the SIRIUS-A definition places on changes that affect the individual student. By this we do not intend to suggest that system-wide restructuring will oc- cur from the bottom up. Our goal is to provide classroom teachers with access to many of the techniques that we feel will be important in any restructured school environment. In order to change and update the teachingfleaming process, it is important to focus on the classroom as the center of change.

Classroom change is sometimes directed at classroom management, sometimes at instructional technique, and usually at both. In any of these three instances, the changes are intended to amend or update the traditional teaching methods used in the classroom. Note that this is different than a bureaucratic decentralization effort, which might affect the way decisions are made in the school but not everyday learning experiences. Changes in classrooms necessarily impact directly on students, but can have even more profound effects on the teachers who must conduct those classrooms. How are teachers to be helped through the difficult change process?

STRATEGIC TEACHING FRAMEWORKS: AIDING CLASSROOM RESTRUCTURING

Strategic Teaching Frameworks (STF) is a multimedia resource being developed to aid teachers and administrators in adopting new approaches to teaching. It can be thought of as a "library" of classrooms that portray expert teachers implementing cognitive approaches. Underlying each classroom is a database of information that helps teachers form a mental model of the instructional approach being demonstrated and develop the capability for implementing the strategy in their classrooms. STF currently focuses on classroom activities; later components are planned for the administrative level.

CLASSROOM RESTRUCTURING 97

STF does not make any commitment to a particular approach within the overall framework of cognitive theory. That choice is left up to the individual. The metaphor underlying STF is one of apprenticing the teacher in another teacher's classroom. The apprentice finds a teacher whose approach, content domain, and grade level is compatible, then "sits in" on that teacher's class and watches as the instruction unfolds. The apprentice teacher can find answers to commonly asked questions in the system or solicit alternative points of view from STF at any time during or after watching the class.

The theoretical basis for STF's design is informed by the growing research in cognitive psychology and constructivist pedagogy. The approach of STF is based on the assumption that teaching is an integrated activity. While the parts can be understood separately, the teacher must have an integrated model of what he or she is trying to do in the classroom in order to achieve a unified whole. This is a re- flection of current theories on domain-de- pendent learning (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1991; Brown, Collins, & Du- guid, 1989; Duffy & Jonassen, 1991). These same principles should be applied to teacher training. To this end, teachers using STF en- counter new teaching strategies in the context of a real classroom setting.

Cognitive apprenticeship (Brown et al., 1989) provides a second basis for the design of STF. The teacher in the STF video models the effective teaching behavior. Further, reflections by that teacher and other experts help to focus attention on relevant aspects of the teaching approach. As the apprentice teacher tries the strategies demonstrated, he or she can return to the STF video to compare performances.

Physically, STF is a computer system and software that controls a videodisc player and a CD-ROM player. STF relies heavily on video to provide realistic representations of classrooms in progress. In time there will be a library of classrooms in all major subject areas and grade levels. The prototype focuses upon elementary mathematics instruction.

When teachers enter STF, they begin by identifying the content and grade level of the classes that interest them (Figure 1). The pro-

gram then provides a brief description of alternative classrooms that meet their criteria. The teacher or administrator may then choose to view a short vignette of one or more classroom alternatives from the video library (Fig- ure 2). Then, when a classroom framework is selected, a full class session is viewed, with the primary emphasis on getting a general sense of the class. Viewing the classroom session marks the beginning of training or as- sistance. The teacher may then select from a variety of resources to gain an understanding of the particular interplay of strategies in the classroom, the techniques and problems involved, the planning required, and the alternatives available.

A facility is also provided for users to re- cord their progress for continuation in future sessions. Hypertext links can be made between different locations in the database, and a comment facility allows teachers to add their own thoughts to the database and make them available to other users of the system. The addition of a modem enables teachers to use electronic mail networks to share views and experiences with teachers in remote locations. All of this may be done anonymously if the user wishes.

STRATEGIC TEACHING FRAMEWORKS: A NEEDS ANALYSIS

After formulating the basic structure and con- ceptual foundation for STF, we turned to teachers across the United States who have been involved in restructuring. In conducting our needs analysis, we were interested in teachers' answers to three questions. First, and most basically, we wanted to know if they felt our concept was viable. That is, is STF on the right track in terms of meeting the needs of teachers attempting to restructure their teaching? Second, we wanted to identify the kinds of data that should be contained in STF. Is the use of classroom videos the "right" approach? What other information could be included that would help the teacher in adopting the new approach? The answer to this question is essential to building the STF database. Finally,

FIGURE 1 [ ] The m a t r i x a l l o w s users t o s e l e c t t h e i r s p e c i f i c a r e a s o f Interest.

File Edit Go Tools Objects Font Style Help Editin

llll IDle III I unml

Select Areas of Interest

~:= Click on "See Available Classrooms" to see classrooms that match your areas of interest

Click in cells to select areas of interest

LAHraUAGE SOCIAL MATH SCIENCE ARTS STUDIES

EARLY PRIMARY

LATE PRIMARY

MIDDLE

HIGH

FIGURE 2 [ ] A f t e r t h e use r i n d i c a t e s a n a r e a t o e x p l o r e , a list o f c l a s s r o o m s m a t c h i n g t h e i r s e l e c -

t i on c r i t e r i a is d i s p l a y e d .

File Edit Go Tools Objects Font Style Help EditingTools ~ I

=. See Available Classrooms

Click here to | e l a video preview of the classroom you have selected.

Click here to visit the classroom you have selected.

Click here to get information about the classroom you have selected.

Click on a Classroom for Further Investigation

I, lat h/Earl q Primary

• Jean XIckett Facilitates active learning by active participation, where the students answer questions rather than the teacher.

• Barbara 5imak Takes a discovery approach by building new math skills from prior knob/ledge.

• L I r r y Covin Use mani pulatives and home reelia to lead students into thinking about holy math surrounds them.

Science/Eerlq Pr,i m~rq

• Carol 5etcliff Ex pose st ude nta to t h roe t y pea of met hods to beg( n exomi n( ng


we wanted to get some idea of how STF would be used. We obviously expected considerable diversity in answers to this question. We also recognized the difficulty of trying to discuss the use of something that has never been seen. Hence, we did not focus on details, but simply attempted to gain a general sense of teachers' preferences for working individually or in a team, where they would work, and what kind of a schedule they might keep in working with STF.

Participants

The needs analysis for STF consisted of interviews with 30 teachers who had either undergone change or were in the midst of change. The teachers were identified by their district and building administrators, who had been identified to us by contacts at the North Cen- tral Regional Educational Lab in Chicago and the Coalition of Essential Schools in Provi- dence. We pre-interviewed all potential participants to determine whether they considered themselves to be "teachers who have restructured their classroom." Because STE is intended to address a broad audience, our criteria for the teachers' change were not strin- gent. We wanted teachers with a wide variety of experiences.

Some of the teachers interviewed initiated change on their own and some were part of school- or system-wide reform. The teachers came from 17 different schools in seven cit- ies. Of the teachers participating, 15 were elementary school teachers, 3 were middle school teachers, and 12 were high school teachers. Only three of the teachers were from private schools. Significantly, all of the teachers we contacted were happy to share their experiences with us. This was in spite of the fact that many of these teachers, because they are involved in change, are often asked to be part of studies and research projects.

The teachers we spoke with experienced change in many forms. According to their experiences, they were part of one or more of the following three contexts for change. The largest group (N = 15) consisted of teachers who participated in school-wide efforts, usu-

ally initiated by their building and/or district administrators. These teachers frequently worked with outside consultants who led workshops on new teaching techniques. These consultants sometimes represented private concerns, such as the 4Mat System (McCar- thy, 1980); others were part of university education departments, such as a p rogram in Chicago sponsored by Loyola University. Teachers in the second group (N = 6) participated in change by being among a small group of teachers sent to a conference, usually at an administrator's recommendation. Upon their return, these teachers would act as change agents for other teachers in their building. The changes in these cases usually affect only a small group of teachers or a single grade level, and are thus not considered school-wide changes. The third group (N = 9) was made up of individuals who restructured their classroom independently of events in the rest of their school.

One reason that the largest group of teachers was from school- or district-wide restructuring efforts is that those programs are the easiest to identify. This does not mean that our results are any less informative for people trying to institute change on their own. Many of the issues and concerns of teachers in the midst of change are shared by all teachers. Similarly, teachers who are part of nation- ally recognized change efforts have many of the same day-to-day concerns as teachers attempting change on their own.

It is important to note that, as a group, the teachers we spoke with had excellent professional relations with their administrators, and their schools' environments were very recep, tive to change. This also is a side effect of our method for identifying our subjects. Because all of our initial contacts were with administrators, we were unlikely to speakwith teachers that did not get along with administrators. We anticipated this effect but argue strongly that the teachers we spoke with were those in the best position to inform our project. Our interviews support this premise. A system such as STF is best suited for a school in which the administration and teachers have an open, en- couraging relationship and are actively seeking change.

100 ErR&D, Vol. 40, No. 3

Procedure

Interviews were conducted in person whenever possible, and by phone whenever access was limited. Fourteen interviews were conducted in person and 16 by phone. Each interview was loosely structured around four general areas of questioning, represented for the interviewer on a grid. Each of the five interviewers in the group practiced the interview protocol on students at Indiana University who had previously taught either pr imary or sec- ondary school.

The interviews were arranged by first con- tacting adminis t ra tors in schools that were identified as restructured in some way and asking them to identify any teachers who had, to their knowledge, undergone change. After the administrators contacted their faculty, pre- l iminary phone calls were made to teachers' homes to arrange for the full interview.

Interviewers began each interview by read- ing a p repared s ta tement about STF to the teacher. This s ta tement informed teachers of the general intent of the interview: to unders tand their change, how it was made, and what he lped and hindered the change process. Teachers were also given a very general description of STF: "a library of kinds of classrooms that teachers can watch in order to learn new strategies for their own classrooms." Spe- cifics of the system were not revealed. Inter- views on average las ted abou t 1 hour 30 minutes. All of the interviews were recorded and listened to by a third par ty to confirm that the interviewer's notes accurately reflected the content of the interview. Addit ional questions or clarifications were made by making follo~-up phone calls. The data were then assembled by reviewing each interview individually and looking for information per t inent to the questions at hand.

It should be noted that the results do not re t ied a numerical analysis of the data. Rather, our findings represent the collected impres- sions from the 30 interviews. We did not require that a particular i tem be ment ioned by a statistical majority of our teachers to be con- s idered for inclusion in STF. Instead, we recognized that a l though there are many ideas abou t c lass room change that are common

among teachers, there are many more that may be useful to some but not others. We let the principle of "and" instead of "or" guide us in making decisions about inclusion in the system so as not to exclude any feature in fa- vor of another. Assuming that our interface design could be clean and intuitive, we preferred to build in as many features and as many of the different kinds of information suggested by the teachers as was possible.

Structure of the Interview

Each interview began with a brief general discussion of the teacher's view of "good" instruction. Our goal here was twofold: We wanted the teachers to begin thinking about instructional strategies, and we needed to find out what sorts of instruction were generally viewed as positive or negative. This information would help the STF design group determine which strategies needed to be emphasized in the full video treatment, i.e., the selection of the dassrooms for the video library.

Our greatest concern was to find out about the resources that were involved in the change. We were interested in all resources, from parental involvement to administrative support , even though we recognized that all such resources could not realistically be built into our system. Al though we had some idea of the resources that are available to teachers, we were careful to let teachers name their own resources. We would expand a more general discussion only after gaining an unders tand- ing of the teacher 's experience.

The most important resources for us to probe were planning aids. The research on teacher use of lesson planning is often at odds with actual practice. As one of our teachers pointed out, some teachers use plans religiously, others not at all. We recognized that the easier it is for a teacher to change, the more likely that change will take place. With this in mind, we wanted to f ind out wha t functional lesson plans looked like and how we might include them in our database.

The last phase of our interviews addressed questions of implementat ion for our system. After discussing our initial design ideas (com-


puters, hypermedia, video, etc.), we asked the teachers how they might use the videos. How long would they watch? How many different classrooms would they want to see? Would they need to see the whole class or individual strategies? Would an electronic mail or bulletin board feature be utilized if provided? How useful would it be for teachers to be able to communicate with the teachers in the videos?

Finally, we asked our interviewees where they thought such a system should be located. Would they view it as training or just an information source? Would they want to use the system individually or in teams? How many sessions would it take to make the system useful?

PRIMARY FINDINGS OF THE NEEDS ANALYSIS

The Restructured Classroom

In order to gain a better understanding of our audience, we began each interview by asking our teachers to describe their "restructured" classrooms. A common picture emerged. What follows, using the teachers' own language, is a picture of a restructured classroom. This composite classroom could be any grade level, any subject.

The first thing you would notice upon enter- ing the room is that the desks are not arranged in rows and the teacher is not at the front of the room. Instead, students are "highly en- gaged" in work, either by themselves or "in small pies" (groups). The class is "student centered," and to achieve this there must be "active participation" from all students. The teacher is very active, moving from group to group, facilitating what one teacher called a "conferencing center with lots of discussions."

Although the classroom activities may seem chaotic to the casual observer, there is actually a great deal of organization involved. "Good classroom management comes before good instruction. The teacher must be a leader." Frequently, the teacher is a democratic leader, "letting students take more responsi- bility for their own learning," and in some cases letting the "kids dictate the style and

direction for the class, keeping things active" and sometimes "impromptu." The restructured classroom involves "shared decision making," so that the "kids know what they're doing and they know why they're doing it." To encourage this, the actual look of the room changes over the course of the year, as "students construct things and put them up" for others to share. In this way, tasks are "gener- ative, not directive."

As for the activities themselves, many of them "actively engage the students in writing activities" and "joint problem solving." The teacher tries to design the tasks such that there is "an emphasis on different learning styles in children."

Student assessment is the one area of these classrooms where there are great differences. Some teachers updated their assessment with the rest of their activities (N = 19), others did not (N = 11). Generally, the more process- based the learning, the greater the change in assessment practices. The change from prod- uct to process made it impossible to use traditional assessment strategies (i.e., testing or final papers). One teacher who had switched to an entirely process-based writing model for teaching English said, "I don't just judge kids against each other, I judge them against themselves." Other teachers who had changed their assessment strategies cited a problem-solving approach with "no pencil-and-paper tests." Another teacher evaluated her students based on their performance in oral presentations.

Of the teachers who still used traditional forms of evaluation, many felt that the tests provided by textbook manufacturers no longer met their needs. The textbook questions are designed to find out how much the students have learned, not how well they have learned or how they are learning. The teachers responded by devising their own tests. These teachers, while not changing their assessment technique, refined it so that the students knew in advance exactly what they would be tested on: "I teach what I test and test what I teach." There were a few teachers (N = 3) who had changed their assessment strategies early on in the restructuring process, but then changed back, citing the new methods they had tried as simply requiring too much work.

102 ERRS, vow. 40, No. 3

Discipline does play an important role in these classrooms, especially in the inner city. One teacher from Milwaukee commented that "teachers who don't show the kids who's boss don' t last." That does not mean that students are unable to work either individually or in small groups. In one Detroit elementary school, a teacher begins the year with all of the children in a circle around her. This serves to establish her role as the "adult in charge." Then, as the semester progresses and the students become more comfortable with each other, she removes her desk to the back of the room and arranges the students' desks into small working groups.

The impetus for Change

Even as participants in large-scale restructuring efforts, teachers have different motivations for altering their classroom techniques. About a quarter of our teachers stated that their change was a direct result of dissatisfaction with the status quo. This feeling applies to both those who initiated change individually and those who were part of restructuring school systems. In one case, it was a bad neighbor- hood situation: teachers felt that these students needed an extra-special classroom situation to balance their lives in single-parent homes and poverty.

In several instances we encountered schools that were changing under the leadership of an inspired headmaster or principal. Admin- istrators played an important role in the restructuring of many of the classrooms we discussed with our teachers. In one case the principal oversaw a school-wide effort to acquire federal funding for restructuring. In another, a new head at a private school with financial difficulties turned the school around in part by petitioning to join the Coalition of Essential Schools and then using that as a device to retrain the teachers. In many schools, the principal used trips to seminars as rewards for excellent teachers, who were then expected to share what they had learned with the rest of the school.

Tools for Change: Resources in SrF

In conceptualizing STF, we hypothesized about the resources that teachers might find useful in such a system. The needs analysis was designed to test our assumptions as well as to provide greater detail about how and why the resources might be used. This section details the resources that teachers indicated were or would be valuable and gives a brief description of how each will be implemented in STE

Observing Teaching

Of the 30 teachers interviewed, 23 reported that watching other teachers in the classroom would be very useful in helping them change their own teaching strategy. Eight of the teachers said that during their change process they actually went into other teachers' classes to watch them teach. Nine teachers said that they wanted to watch other teachers, but time and scheduling constraints wouldn't allow it. Six teachers used videos of other teachers in their schools. These teachers considered this to be as effective as watching the actual classrooms, and, in some cases it was thought to be more effective, since it could be done at any time and in virtually any place. In essence, watching the teacher permitted them to model as well as critique the approach.

Since the concept of teachers watching teachers is the core idea of STF, we are delighted that the majority of the teachers actually used this strategy during their change process. As described earlier, teachers watching STF videos can learn about instructional strategies in realistic contexts and model their behavior after the class or classes that seem to best match their particular situation.

We probed the use of classroom observa- tions further by asking about how they used or might use videos of teachers in the classroom who are using the "restructured" approach. The teachers were quite specific as to what they would look for in the videos, that is, why they would use the videos. The teachers indicated that when they watched videos

G ~ M RESTRUC'ILIRING 103

(or another teacher) they focused on classroom management, learning objectives, instructional strategies, and activities. By classroom management, the teachers were referring to how classes began and ended, how order was maintained, and how the teacher handled uncooperative students. Learning objectives, instructional strategies, and activities were most useful to an observer if they were in a relevant content area. Mathematics teachers did not feel they could derive much benefit from watching an English class.

We responded to these interests in three ways. First, we clearly recognized that strategies and techniques, even if they can be generally described, must be presented in the context of a grade level and content that is relevant to the teacher using STE The rich detail and meaning is embedded in the interaction between teacher and students with the subject matter. Hence, STF consists of a library of classrooms which is accessed through a matrix that reflects the grade level and content area of the classes.

Second, we attempted to help teachers focus on their interest areas in watching the videos. We segmented the video of the classroom into events. Events are specific activities in the classroom. In the prototype classroom, the 50- minute period is segmented into 15 events and a descriptive label is assigned to each event. Thus, a teacher can select any specific type of event---e.g., transitions, small group interaction, etc.-- to review and analyze. The events are coded so that a user can tell at a glance if it demonstrates instructional strategies, classroom management, or another relevant topic.

Finally, we included commentary by expert teachers and researchers that focuses on the management and teaching strategies reflected in a particular classroom. We also attended to the interests of the teachers by including commentary on each event that addresses the topics identified by the teacher. The availabil- ity of comments of each of these types is indicated on the time line for each event (Figure 3). We discuss these expert perspectives further in the discussion on collaboration in the next section.

We followed up on the teachers' interest in watching classrooms to get an idea as to the most effective video we could provide. We asked the teachers their views on naturally flowing classrooms in contrast to those that were composed to demonst ra te particular teaching strategies. We noted that the natural classroom may or may not contain the ideal illustrations, that it would certainly be less efficient in terms of time at illustrating a point, and that it may appear more chaotic; however, it would reflect the normal flow of events in the class. The staged class would be an ideal- ized presentation, but it would be efficient and would clearly illustrate the techniques. The response from teachers was unanimous: They preferred to see the natural classrooms. Com- ments that we received on this issue included, "I never trust the fake c lass rooms," and "'if it is authentic, then the cameras wouldn' t bother me."

Colleagues

The teachers were unanimous (N = 30) in naming their fellow teachers as the single most important resource available to them. With- out the help of those working near them, many of our teachers did not feel they could have changed successfully. "Colleagues," when viewed as a resource, take many forms. It was very important to the teachers we interviewed that their colleagues understand the changes they are making and don' t feel threatened by them. Of even greater importance was the role that "expert" colleagues can play. In several schools there was a single teacher who moti- vated much of the instructional change ~rough his or her own excitement. Other ways that colleagues were helpful were as "a second pair of eyes" in helping assess how the change was going, and as a sympathetic ear in listening to teachers' concerns about the process. An example of the latter is a group of teachers from several schools in one district who gather on a somewhat regular basis at a local restau- rant to compare notes and share "war stories."

Teachers also make contact with their colleagues via computer bulletin boards. Of the 30 teachers we spoke with, 12 were frequent

1 0 4 ~ , vol, 40, No. 3

FIGURE 3 [ ] Once"inside" the classroom, instructional activities are broken down into events, each represented by one block. The block highlighted in this example is an event that highlights Problem Solving and Teaching Slrategies. There is also a Personal Note attached to this block.

l~ File Edit Go Tools Objects Font Style Help EditingTools ~ I

Orientation Video Mentorincj

Play Orientation Pla~J Clt•$room Video Select Hentor/Topic

~ Event Selected: Money

Notes N N N i Events [ ~ ] r - - ] ~ l ~ ] II [I II II II U II II----II---II~-I

Comments M M TS TS PS PS

N : Notes M : Management

PS : Problem Solving TS : Teaching Strategy

Time Left In Event: 1:13 -- Time Left In Class: 7:14

5) = t.:=,:.. II..%,., .... m = I=

users of electronic bulletin boards and con- s idered them a vital resource for exchanging information and ideas.

We are designing STF to suppor t as many of these features of collaboration as possible. At the school level, we will encourage STF to be used by the depar tment as a collaborative effort at restructuring. The system permits teachers to attach electronic notes to any part of the video or any item in the database. Thus, teachers can enter their own views into the database for later review and discussion with colleagues. Our hope is that this note capability will lead to personalization of the STF database.

We also provide "expert" perspectives on the class videos as a means of giving a teacher

that "other set of eyes" in interpreting the strategies and activities being displayed. These perspectives were collected by showing the video to experts and asking them to view and comment on it as if they were using it to help a teacher adopt that type of teaching strategy. For the prototype, we have collected these perspectives from the teacher in the video as well as from a math education researcher (Figure 4). We are exploring the idea of adding the perspect ive of a lead instructor at the site where STF is installed. If it is not too labor intensive to input individual teachers' views, we see this (along with the notes feature) as an excellent mechanism for personal iz ing the sys tem to the school and enhanc ing collaboration.


FIGURE 4 [ ] This window appears when users select the "Mentor/Topic" icon. Users choose the specific types of mentoring they want using a scheme similar to that shown in Figure 1.

=[-I S e l e c t M e n t o r / T o p i c ~ F r l = _ - --

TEACXIHG PROBLEM STRATEGY MAHAraEMEHI" $OLVIHra

RESEARCHER

TEACHER

VICKEY RILL

C oK ]

Finally, we designed STF to provide support for the teachers who want to interact with their peers at other locations. This is accomplished primarily through the use of telecommunica- tions software and connections to electronic bulletin boards. Using the bulletin boards, users of the system will be able to contact any of the teachers or experts on the videodiscs or in the database. Furthermore,for users who are uncomfortable with the concept of electronic mail, regular phone numbers and addresses will be provided in an on-line card file (Figure 5). The result of these tools is that a teacher's personal network of contacts is automatically expanded through using the system. If the users' questions about a particular classroom are not answered in the database, they are able to contact the teacher who led the class.

Written Material on Research and Practice

We expected to find that teachers read the magazines directed at them by the NEA and AFT, and also the special-interest magazines tailored to specific curriculum areas (such as Activi- ties in Math and Science.) What surprised us

was the number of teachers who used research from journals such as Educational Leadership, The Phi Delta Kappan, and Theory Into Practice. The teachers from schools associated with the Coalition of Essential Schools had all read Hor- ace's Compromise by Ted Sizer, the founder of the Coalition. These same teachers had also studied Johnson and Johnson's (1982) cooperative learning model. In a few cases, the teachers actually sought out these books and periodicals on their own. The usual case, however, was that one person in a school that kept up with a particular journal would copy and distribute interesting or relevant articles to the other teachers. One elementary school teacher reported that her principal "was always clip- ping interesting articles and putting them in our mailboxes." The teachers we spoke with used the research in part to validate their changes, especially in the early phases before any results were evident in their own students. One teacher said that she used research to answer the questions, "Why am I doing this? Why is it important?"

STF supports this interest in relevant research through a hypertext database contain- ing both summaries of articles and, where copyright permits, the entire source. This

106 ETR~D, Vol. 40, No. 3

FIGURE 5 [ ] The communications component of STF provides the user with addresses and phone numbers of teachers and experts and enables them to connect to local databases or E-mail services.

File Edit Go Tools Objects Font Style Help EditingTools

C0rnlink

Select Criteria for Resource Addresses

I I

I * . * I

I

Vickey Bill Ist, 2nd, 3rd Math Teacher

Stineford Elementary School Pittsburg, PA, 87699

412) 555-1212

List

Reset

( Print Card

( Pr, nt. . ( E-ma. I Dial Phone )

I of 40

database can be accessed directly upon entry into STF or it can be accessed through a particular classroom. The latter access path will bring the user to the materials that are most relevant to the particular classroom (Figure 6).

In designing the database, we are attempting to ensure that it does not get cluttered with materials that the majority of the teachers will find irrelevant. To accomplish this, we are rely- ing on the teachers' reports in this needs analysis as to the kinds of materials they find useful and, perhaps most importantly, we are working with the teacher in each video to determine what he or she found most relevant and useful. This will allow us to assemble the core of articles relevant to that particular teacher's experience and hence to those dassroom practices. We will be very judicious in adding materials from the research and theory literature that we consider to be most relevant.

Lesson Plans

Although planning in general plays a vital role in classroom change, lesson plans were cited as valuable by only about half of the teachers we interviewed. Many of the teachers who used lesson plans noted that while they started with detailed plans, they became less structured over time. In particular, we asked our teachers whether or not they thought that lesson plans for the classrooms depicted in the STF video database would be useful to them. Again the response was split. A number of teachers responded that yes, lesson plans would be useful, but only under certain cir- cumstances. These included having access not just to a single day's lesson plans, but a unit- level and year-long plan as well.

In determining how to go about a change, several teachers said that it was very impor-


FIGURE 6 [ ] Information in the database is sorted by individual classrooms, key issues, important resources, or (user def ined) personal preferences.

File Edit Go Tools Objects Font Style Help EditingTools ~ I i

l Go OvelMe w

I lassrooms 1

I ,ssues 1

I Personal

&

Click on any

button to see a topic .you are interested in.

. . ! • •

• Research Articles • Researcher Points of View • Teacher Points of View • Video Teachers' Lesson

Plans • Video Teachers' Research

Articles

m

tant to understand how one begins and ends a year that is to be taught in a new mode. They noted that the start-up period for their new classes is critical to setting a productive tone for the year. One teacher felt that all that she would need was the lesson plans for the classes immediately preceding and following the video, thus allowing her to understand the context of the lesson. One teacher who rejected lesson plans altogether cited as a reason, "although planning is good, you can't ever stick to it [in practice]." Another teacher said that "classroom change is more a way of thinking, and can't be summed up in specific activities."

We are responding to the range of opinion on the usefulness of lesson plans by making it possible for users of STF to extract plans at many levels of detail and from several perspec- fives. We will include interviews that empha-

size the teacher's strategy for the full year and approach for starting the year. We will also include interviews that discuss directly the management and instructional strategies as that teacher perceives them. We hope that this interview information will help to provide an overall perspective on the design of the course and the teacher's approach.

We will also include written lesson plans for topics and classes. This will include the video teacher's lesson plan for the particular class in the video as well as his or her plan for one or more additional classes. We also intend to solicit lesson plans from other expert teachers. In the prototype, we show these expert teachers the video of Vickey Bill. Then we ask them to write a lesson plan for that class. Our goal is to try and capture not just the activities, but also the strategies and approaches as perceived by the expert. For this

108 ETR~D, Vol. 4(3, No. 3

reason, we asked that lesson plans for the system be written as one would write lesson plans for a substi tute teacher. We want to get lesson plans of this sort from at least two expert teachers (in add i t ion to the teacher in the video) and on at least two topics.

G o m p l e m e n t a ~ / R e s o u r c e s

Another category of resources deemed valuable by the teachers we interviewed contains i tems that are not so easily broken down and implemented in STF. Items in this category are more broadly based resources that exist both inside and alongside the system.

University Courses

Several of the teachers we interviewed named graduate courses in education as an important resource for change. These were teachers who were taking courses for advancement credit at local colleges and universities. In two cases, the colleges were coordinat ing the re- s tructuring effort in the school, with a local teacher acting as a contact point for the other teachers.

We see STF as playing an integral role in teacher education. It has the potential of pro- viding a very powerful apprentice environment with the combination of expert teacher performance and expert commentary. Further, the note capability can be expanded to provide a very rich collaborative learning environment. While we see the adaptat ions to teacher education as minor, our focus in this needs analysis is on suppor t ing teachers in the schools.

Financial Support

Many teachers listed money among the valuable resources for change, not just money as salary for the extra time they spend in restructuring, but also money for supplies. Many of the teachers we spoke with were changing from a lecture-based classroom to one that fa- vored hands-on activities. Sometimes the best intent ions can be foiled by a lack of resources for manipulat ives and other supplies.

Release Time

Closely related to the idea of extra salary for the time spent in p lanning classroom change is release time. There was an interesting di- vision on the value of release time as a resource for change. Several of the teachers found this to be extremely valuable to their ability to plan effectively; one called it "a key to change." However, a significant number of teachers did not like release time, citing that it took them away from their classes. It is easy to see the difficulty in this if one considers the release time necessary for a teacher to at tend a special workshop, usually three days to a week. Before a teacher can attend one of these workshops, he or she must leave detailed lesson plans for the substi tute so that valuable class time will not be wasted. Seen in this light, release time is clearly a mixed blessing.

Workshops

Although some teachers do not want to take t ime away from their c lassrooms to a t tend workshops, the numerous workshops offered around the country on various aspects of teaching and learn ing are another subs tant ia l change resource.

Resource Centers

Only seven of the teachers we interviewed said that they found their district resource centers to be helpful. Those who did use the center said that it was a useful repository of materials and information. They also stated that the people who staffed these centers tended to have a broader range of knowledge about innovations than any individual teacher. Five of the seven teachers who told us that these district resource centers were helpful came from the same school district. It seems fairly obvi- ous that the usefulness of the resource center depends on its quality. These findings do not, however, have a significant impact on STF, since its portability allows it to be placed any- where. Installation can and should be tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of a particular school system.


Problematic Issues of the Change Process

In addition to learning about the resources teachers use, we asked about their biggest problems during change. The major complaint from our study group was that there is just not enough time in the day to do what needs to be done. When the added task of manag- ing change is factored into the normal teacher duties, the strain is enormous. As a result, several of the teachers in our group complained of burnout. While they are glad they changed, they indicated that they might not have if they knew what it entailed.

Students and parents also presented some barriers to change. The problem arose when the familiar modes of classroom operation were removed. In many cases, students were not used to the amount of work involved in classrooms that operate from a cognitive perspective. When the evaluation and reward system was changed, students found themselves on unfamiliar territory. Perkins (1991) presents an interesting discussion of the issues of com- plexity that the new "constructivist" or problem-based instruct ion imposes u p o n the learner. There is no easy solution to this problem. Clear and early communication and support structures are essential.

A related problem was that the other teachers in the school sometimes did not understand the change. They were resentful that one person "had to be different." Restructured dassrooms can be noisy at times, and students have a great deal more personal freedom than in traditional classrooms. This can add to the negative feelings of other teachers. The solution is the same as that for students and parents. It is crucial that everybody understand what is happening in the restructured classroom, and more importantly, why.

While lack of administrative support is generally indicated to be a major impediment to change, this was not mentioned in our interviews. We suspect that this was largely due to the fact that most of our participants were part of a school- or district-wide change; hence, the administrators were a part of the change process. However, even under these circum- stances we did find some indication of the ad-

ministrative problems. A teacher who was part of a large-scale (district-wide) restructuring effort commented that she was very discour- aged by her administrator's attitude. In her words, the "administrators encourage teachers to use the [new] system and give it lip ser- vice, but there was no one saying, 'I see what you're doing, I really like this, I support what you're doing.' " T h e implications of this comment are widespread. Periods of change can be very unsettling to a teacher's self-confi- dence. Administrators need to go beyond sup- porting the change; they need to support their teachers.

It seems fairly clear that the problems represented by these issues can be avoided with substantial support from the school administration. The demands on a teacher 's time require that he or she concentrate on the dassroom. The school principal or other "change coordinator" needs to work with parents, students, and other teachers to create an atmo- sphere conducive to change.

Teachers and Terminology

Terminology is a significant interface design problem for STF. Teachers in different parts of the country may use similar techniques but call them by different names. Sometimes a school district or state department of education will combine several methodologies into one program and give it an entirely new name. Even more troubling are the terms that are widely used but ill defined. Collaborative and cooperative learning are examples of this problem. There are myriad interpretations of these two terms and they are frequently used inter- changeably, even though many theorists use them to express two quite distinct ideas.

We sense that terminology will be a significant factor in the acceptance and the effective use of STF. While terms may be vague or have multiple meanings in general usage, the terms have very specific meanings to individual teachers. If STF is not consistent with a teacher's meaning, then that teacher may simply reject the system as not being "right." For example, a classroom labeled as demonstrat-

110 ETR~, Vol. 40, No. 3

ing collaborative learning may well reflect what a given teacher perceives as cooperative learning. This "error" could well strip STE of its credibility with that teacher.

Terminology has other potential impacts. It has been suggested that terminology can be a factor in teachers' self-esteem during the change process (Wasley, 1990). Labels that are too specific and reductionist can make teachers feel as if they are at fault for not knowing about these specific techniques. Casting techniques in shades of black and white prevents teachers from seeing their careers as a con- tinual process of change and professional development. Labels too broadly applied, however, lose their meaning. Many people will not seek out information about something they already perceive themselves as doing (Wasley, 1990).

There is, of course, no easy way to solve this problem, but some features of STF do attempt to address the issue. For example, rather than having the designers define the activities and strategies in the classroom, we have captured expert perspectives; hence, there are always several perspectives available. We also provide a video preview of classrooms, attempting to move beyond mere descriptions to a "see for. yourself" approach to browsing the STF classrooms. When we do use terminology, we attempt to use physical descriptions rather than theoretically based descriptions. For instance, a classroom where collaborative learning and situated learning are emphasized would be described as "student-centered with children working in groups to solve real-life problems."

The above strategies are ones that we hope will reduce the consequences of terminology "feuds." However, we recognize the need for very careful attention to this problem in the formative evaluations and perhaps the need for some up-front commentary to the user.

Implementation Issues for Sh'ategic

Teaching Frameworks

The teachers had very clear ideas of how they would use a system like ours. From the stand- point of motivation for using the system, our

findings can be summed up by the comment of one teacher, who stated she would use the system as a way to start the change process: as a "springboard for discussion, moving to- wards self-analysis." This idea was expressed many times by the study group. Variations included using the system to spark new ideas for the classroom and to validate and support new ideas.

In terms of the physical location of STF, the teachers would prefer that it be located in their own school building, either in a private lounge or a library resource room. This would allow teachers to use the system either during their planning periods or immediately before or after school. A small group expressed a will- ingness to go to a district resource center to use the system, but stated that it would get more use if it were placed in individual schools.

We began our design with the belief that the system would be used by one teacher at a time. The interviews quickly changed our thoughts on that. Almost all of the teachers said that they would want to use it in small groups. The groups they described consisted of teachers with similar interests, either all of the same grade level or the same subject. Such group sessions would allow them to share ideas with each other and reflect on the videos.

A clear message from every teacher interviewed was how STF should not be used: as punishment or rehabilitation for teachers. If a principal tells a teacher in effect to "shape up" and then recommends (or mandates) use of a system such as STF, the intervention is doomed from the start. Teachers need to be excited and positive about restructuring if they are to make the extra effort needed to change.

CONCLUSIONS

Before conducting the interviews, we had a number of theories about teachers' needs during restructuring but very little data to support our thoughts. We deemed it crucial to find out what teachers really needed from STF before the design process could proceed. The results of needs analysis gave our preliminary designs necessary direction and provided us


with a constant flow of new ideas and inspi- ration as development continued. The chief result of the needs analysis is that we are now confident that high-technology interventions can make an important difference in the change process. Specifically, we feel that STF will have a large impact on teachers seeking to restructure their classrooms.

It is impor tant to unders tand that a project such as STF is never actually complete. Ad- dit ional videodiscs will be added to the STF library as innovations in teaching practice and research continue to unfold. A network of pro- fessionals helping each other through STF- m e d i a t e d d i scuss ions will need cons tan t attention and management. In short, the needs assessment and design process that brought Strategic Teaching Frameworks to its present form are only the beginning of an endless process of revisions and enhancements that we hope will keep pace wi th the accelerat ing changes in education. [ ]

Barry J. Fishman and Thomas M. Duffy are at Indiana State University, Bloomington, IN.

This research was supported in part by a con- tract with the North Central Regional Education Laboratory. The authors would especially like to thank Beau Jones and Randy Knuth for their contributions to the needs assessment and the design of STF. The interviews that make up the needs analysis were conducted by Buck E Brown, Tammy Chancy, William Prigge, Thomas M. Welsh, and Barry J. Fishman.

REFERENCES

Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, future. Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989, January-February). Situated cognition and the cul- ture of learning. Educational Researcher, 32-42.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991, May). Con- structivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31, 7-11.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1982, Spring). The study of cooperative, competitive, and indi- vidualistic situations. Contemporary Education: A Journal of Reviews, 225-237.

Jones, B. E, & Hixson, J. (in press). Changing the boundaries of schooling to promote learning: Possibil- ities and principles.'" Chicago, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Kohl, H. R. (1969). The open classroom. New York: Vintage Books.

McCarthy, B. (1980). The 4Mat system. Oak Brook, IL: Excel.

O'Neil, J. (1989, November). Piecing together the restructuring puzzle. Educational leadership, 4-10.

Perkins, D. N. (1991, May). Technology meets con- structivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 31, 18-23.

Reigeluth, C. M., Norris, C. A., & Ryan, D. E (1990). SIRIUS-A project progress report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

Roth, R. A. (1989, March-April). Preparing the re- flective practitioner: Transforming the apprentice through the dialectic. Journal of Teacher Education, 31-35.

Timar, T. (1989, December). The politics of school restructuring. Phi Delta Kappan, 265-275.

Wasley, P. A. (1990). Stirring the chalkdust: Three teachers in the midst of change. Providence, RI: Coali- tion of Essential Schools, Brown University.

classroom restructuring: what do teachers really need?

Documents