"Ilda was at pains to remind Ken, as he himself has so often reminded
all of
us, that what matters is not the rules or principles that are said to
define an approach to teaching (be it Whole Language, the various
flavors
of Phonics, or Hands-on Constructivist Science Teaching --- one that I
contend with), but rather the total practice of teachers and students
together. Most research which compares teacher beliefs and teacher
practice
finds not unexpected gaps. "
Jay,
This was the crux of my just completed dissertation with the additional
piece of looking at the intersection of teacher perceptions of practices
and student perceptions of those same practices and subsequent effects
on student motivation and achievement in 6th and 7th grade classrooms.
I used the Learner-centered model put forth by Barbara McCombs which she
developed while at McREL. This was a positivist piece that would have
been enhanced by qualitative techniques. And Barbara cautions that in
the real world, this instrument is used for improving teacher
reflection- there is actually no one model of best practice and that
teachers in different domains hold different profiles that may represent
best practice in that field. But given its limitations....
Anyway, out of 34 classrooms, 27 classrooms claimed that the teacher was
using LC practices but only 11 classrooms claimed to have teachers who
held LC beliefs. Out of the 11, 10 held both LC beliefs and LC
practices. I originally ran the hypotheses using teachers with both
beliefs and practices as those who were "truly" learner-centered versus
the others who had no such alignment. But when I ran the hypotheses
using only beliefs, I got the same results. Which leads to the
question, are beliefs more important in defining HOW the practice is
implemented? I think so. For example, one common LC practice is to
alter assignments for a student when necessary. When a teacher gives a
student an alternative assignment, does the teacher do so because she
believes the student is not smart enough or incapable, or does the
teacher present alternatives as a general feature of her practice for
any student to access or with the belief that all assignments are a
process in arriving at final goals? What think yea out there?
The more critical question that evolves in using this instrument as a
professional development model (if I have understood Barbara correctly)
is the match or mismatch with students and subsequent effects- not
actual level of Learner-centeredness. I even question if the extreme in
high LC would be beneficial since it may be distant from student needs
and thus not be accessed by the student productively (not in ZPD). What
practices are viewed similarly by students and teachers and which are
not viewed similarly and does that make a difference and need tinkering?
In my study (which compared views on factors between sped and non sped
students participating in the same classrooms) students did not rate the
teachers as high LC in their practices. But students in LC classrooms
(where teachers had both LC beliefs and practices) viewed their teachers
as creating more positive personal relationships than those teachers in
NLC classrooms. Within LC classrooms, Sped students viewed their
teachers similarly to non sped students in that they believed that
teachers cared about them and helped them feel like they belonged in the
community of the classroom, but teachers did not appropriately challenge
them or encourage student voice.
This is interesting to ponder in view of Nate's earlier comment that in
communities of learners, is revolt silenced?
Finally, Sped and Non sped students agreed that teachers seldom to never
adapted to individual developmental differences- this is interesting, to
say the least, for INCLUSION classrooms where teachers are supposed to
be attuned to individual differences and also accountable by law to
individualized educational plans. Where is the revolt from parents or
empowered learners? Previous research says that kids don't necessarily
want you to "single them out" at that age and teachers don't want the
extra work. So, are both complicit in ignoring individualization? And
at what cost?
What think yea?
Ilda