ED 036 4E7

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

SONS AGENCYPUE LATENOTE

EELS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

AESIEACT

ECCUMENT RESUME

SP ,003 574

RUBIN, LOUIS j.A STUDY ON THE CONTINUING EDUCATION OF TEACHERS.CALIECRNIA UNIV., SANTA BARBARA., CENTER FORCOORDINATED EDUCATION.FORD FOUNDATION, NEW YORK, N.Y.69

31P.

EDRS PRICE MP- $C.25 HC-$1.65BEHAVICR CHANGE, CHANGE AGENTS, *COOPERATIVEPROGRAMS, *INSERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION,*INSTRUCTICNAL IMPROVEMENT, PRODUCTIVE THINKING,*TEACHER BEHAVIOR, TEACHER EDUCATORS, TEACHINGMETHODS, *TEACHING STYLES

THIS REPCRT DESCRIBES A PROJECT CONDUCTED BY THECENTER ZOE COORDINATED EDUCATION WHICH ATTEMPTED TO TRAIN MORE THAN500 INSERVICE TEACHERS TO TEACH SELECTED COGNITIVE SKILLS TO SOME15,000 STUDENTS RANGING FRCM GRADES 1 THROUGH 10., THE THREE ELEMENTSINCCEFORATED IN THE TRAINING PROGRAM WERE (1) A SPECIFIC TEACHINGTASK (THE LEVEIOPMENT CF SIX PRODUCTIVE THINKING SKILLS) ; (2) ASERIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (SIX UNITS ON CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISSUES); AND (3) A SET CF TEACHING METHCDS OR STRATEGIES WHICH HADWORKED SUCCESSFULLY FCR OUTSTANDING TEACHERS. OTHER ESSENTIALCHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROGRAM WEEE ITS EMP9ASIS ON A SCHOCLBASED,TOTAL-STAFF APPRCACH AND ITS UTILIZATION OF A TEACHER-FACILITATOR INEACH SCHOOL (A PRACTICING TEACHER SELECTED BY HIS COLLEAGUES TO SERVEAS COORDINATOR). AMONG VARICUS FINDINGS OF THE STUDY (RELATED TOTEACHER LEARNING, TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES INTEACHERS ANL TEACHING STYLES, AS WELL AS TO THE RELATIVEEFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PARTICULAR APERCACH TO PROFESSIONAL CONTINUINGEDUCATION) WERE: THAT A PRACTICING TEACHER MAKES AN EXCELLENT TRAINEROF TEACHERS, THAI CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF A GROUP IS OFTEN EASIERTHAN CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF AN INDIVIDUAL, AND, MCRE GENERALLY,THAT THE IMPOTENCE OF MUCH INSERVICE EFFORT IS ATTRIBUTABLE NOT SCMUCH TO TEACHER RESISTANCE AS TO THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF EDUCATIONALSYSTEMS USED. (JES)

4.1

The Center for Coordinated Education

is supported by a grant fromThe Ford Foundation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

La STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

A Study On The Continuing Education Of Teachers

Louis J. Rubin

CENTER FOR COORDINATED EDUCATIONUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

SANTA BARBARA

m "ff 7..mfamtm ,

Preliminary Note

For some time now, the Center for CoordinatedEducation has made an intensive study of the problem ofteacher inservice education. Most recently, the Center testedan experimental program in professional growth in selectedschools across the nation. The conclusions set forth hereresult in large measure from the insights acquired in thestudy.

It would have been impossible to derive these ideaswithout the support and commitment of the many teachersand principals in the twenty-seven school districts whichparticipated in the study. But the real warriors in the causewere the teacher-facilitators, the individuals in each schoolwho not only supplied the program with energy andleadership, but who also helped to analyze the connectionsbetween cause and effect. Their efforts to improve ourunderstanding of an important educational problem aregratefully acknowledged.

LJR

A Study On The Continuing Education Of Teachers

I

This report describes a project carried on by the Centerfor Coordinated Education. The project dealt with thecontinuing education of teachers now in service. It wasspawned -in the main--by three convictions: first, therevitalization of the nation's teaching force will be crucial inthe period ahead because of the inevitability of social change;second, it is likely that we are on the verge of gaining a betterunderstanding of the interaction between teaching andlearning and thus will be in a position to make substantialimprovements in the quality of teaching that goes on; andthird, our knowledge of the mechanics for increasing theprofessional competence of educators is alarminglyinadequate.

As my bias may repeatedly show, I am convinced thatthe improvement of schooling can be achieved only throughthe people who operate the schools. The potential of a goodtextbook, a fine teaching method, and an instructional

1

"our societyhas never

acknowledged thetrue worthof a good

teacher."

l'al.r.e4,6-4e-

computer are easily lost when they are used eitherinappropriately or lethargically. As a result we are faced withseveral formidable tasks. Apart from the obvious need toacquire effective teaching techniques and to become skillfulin assisting teachers to master them, we must nurture alasting desire for self-betterment among educators as well as amore optimistic vision of what a great educational system canaccomplish.

Teaching, admittedly, is a job rather than a missionarycalling. Nonetheless, one can come at the job in differentways. Perhaps because of a burgeoning technology, perhapsbecause bureaucratic rigidities often dissipate humanincentive, or perhaps because our society has neveracknowledged the true worth of a good teacher, there is anabiding danger that the classroom may become a place oforganized routine rather than a place of excitement. There isa place for exactness in moving systematically toward theteaching goal. But there also is a place for the spontaneitythat occurs when a perceptive human responds intuitively tothe needs of a child. To achieve one of these at the expenseof the other would be senseless. Yet political walls, dividingthe two camps, are already taking shape. In John Gardner'smemorable phrase, our schools have indeed suffered fromunloving critics and uncritical 'hovers.

We must find a viable way for teachers to keep abreastof the changing times and to extract benefit from the newknowledge that research manufactures. There is no logicalreason why a teacher or a principal cannot, day by day,become a bit more adept. That he does not always do so is

2

F

CI

testimony to our failure to sustain his interest and to providehim with a reasonable opportunity to grow. The strong willto be a better teacher which often overshadows whatever else

is lacking cannot, in the long run, overcome a system whichdoes not take professional growth seriously enough toprovide for it.

Finally, as our study demonstrated, educators, in thelast analysis, must be responsible for their own strengths andweaknesses. Programs can be organized, training procedurescan be prescribed, standards can be set, and performance canbe assessed. Ultimately, however, we must have teachers who

are self-directive, who participate in the organization of their

own improvement. The education of spirit as well as mindstems from the kind of encounter which takes place betweenteacher and child, and if teachers are trained only to be

obedient to prescriptions, the encounters they engage in withtheir students will be stale and importunistic. As has oftenbeen noted, the difference between training and education is

that training decreases the person's options whereaseducation increases them. Thus while instructional

technology--the specification of means and ends in

teaching--has a very great deal to offer, it is at the mercy ofthe human element. We can never overcome the need for ahuman teacher with sound judgment, imagination, and thedesire to help children learn.

As the report suggests, all of this is not to say that therecan be no precision in education ; rather it is to suggest thatwe must invent, test, and circulate the best methods we can,recognizing, however, that in teachers as well as students,only authentic learning will alter behavior.

3

"we can never

overcome theneed for a

human teacher"

"inserviceeducation isunlearningas well as

learning"

In the making of a teacher, it is highly probable thatinservice training is infinitely more important than preservicetraining. In most instances, the preservice preparation of ateacher cannot anticipate what life in a particular classroomwill be like. Nor does it equip a teacher to keep pace withrapid social and technological changes affecting education.Moreover, because of our limited understanding of the natureof teaching, and because of the great diversity of goalsteachers try to accomplish with their learners, preservicetraining rarely enables a teacher to accomplish a specifiedmission with guaranteed outcomes. We might say that inpreservice training the teacher learns about teaching and it isonly later, in the reality of the classroom, that he actuallylearns to teach.

Our study of inservice education programs gave rise tothis conclusion: the first two years of a teacher's experienceare the most crucial. During this early period attitudes andbeliefs are shaped, good and bad habits are acquired, and thebasic characteristics of a teaching style are established.Beyond this point in the teacher's carte:.., inservice educationbecomes a matter of unlearning as well as of learning. Theevidence seems to suggest that teachers cannot learn to teachuntil they begin to work with children who are learning; it isin these first interactions that a fundamental sense of purposeand method is born. As a general rule, the beginning teacherstrives mightily to perform well and to accomplish hispedagogical ambitions. Unhappily, false perceptions servethese strivings as well as good ones. Teachers do not become

4

'40,2,...ttattAr1,061,,..11.1g4A ry

what by theory they are meant to be; they become whattheir experiences make them. Thus, a teacher convinced by adefective early experience that a class of children can learn inone way only--or not at all----presents a more formidabletraining problem than a teacher whose mind has not yet beenset.

The formula for teaching competence involves threeprimary ingredients: knowledge of the ideas which are to betaught, a mastery of teaching tactics which are most oftensuccessful, and a valid system of beliefs about what the childis like and what he can do. Because these ingredients aredistinct and derive from different elements, they must betreated separately in the training program. We found in ourresearch that the more precise our training objective thegreater the likelihood that we and the teachers wouldsucceed. Despite their distinct natures, however, the threecomponents blend together as the teaching goes on. Toimprove teaching, therefore, it is necessary to analyzeperformance in order to deal with a particular component,but it is most important to then fuse the components into aneffective teaching style. The teacher who lacks a knowledgeof the subject, or a good teaching technique, or anunderstanding of the learner's nature is disabled, but so is theteacher who lacks the capacity to meld these together in aunified teaching thrust.

The implications for the professional growth of teachersseem clear; programs designed to enhance the teacher'seffectiveness must attack a specific objective and produce ademonstrable ability to perform this facet of the teaching

5

"to improveteaching it

is necessary

to analyze

performance"

"we needa complete

teacher"

task. We cannot develop a skillful teacher if we do not attendto such practical matters as managing a classroom, teaching alesson, testing for achievement, and relating to children. Butbeyond this, the programs must also ensure that all of theseobjectives are amalgamated into a meaningful force that isaimed at the largest ends toward which education must strive.Even if the teacher is technically adequate, unless he has a

sense of the social reconstruction the society needs, andunless he is committed to making an authentic improvementin the lives of his students, he does not offer much more thanthe teaching machines that are on the way. We need, in sum,a complete teacher.

In our experiments we learned that there is no suchthing as a universal method of teaching education. A trainingmethod, whatever its excellence, may not fit every situation.There are invariably many different ways in which a traininggoal can be achieved. More often than not, one of these waysis more appropriate for a particular situation than another.We discovered, for instance, that teaching conditionsthroughout the nation vary far more than most of us think.These variations in the teaching environment usually meanthat one procedure will succeed and another will fail.

It was within this context that we sought to answersome questions about the inseivice education of teachers. Wewanted to learn, for instance, whether teaching strategies thatwork well for one teacher can be used effectively by otherteachers. We wanted to determine also whether teachers canpractice new instructional skills while they are on the job.And we wanted to know whether the elements of good

6

Vor

'teaching referred to earlier could indeed be developed

simultaneously in a cohesive training program.

To get at these questions we needed three things: (a) aset of teaching strategies which could serve as trainingobjectives (b) a teaching task which could provide anopportunity to practice these strategies (c) an inservicegrowth program which would provide the time, incentive,and technical assistance necessary for a rapid mastery of thestrategies. We began by selecting the teaching task--teachingchildren to use six productive thinking skills: (1) retrievinginformation from a source (2) analyzing and classifying theinformation (3) formulating generalizations from theinformation (4) using generalizations to predict unknowns(5) using generalizations to explain events (6) verifyingpredictions and explanations.

We then asked a number of highly-regarded teachers towork on the task and to invent the best teaching strategiesthey could. These strategies were later rated by comparingthe accomplishments of each teacher's students. We inferred,in effect, that a good teaching method would produce highstudent achievement. Ultimately, the best of the testedmethods were organized into a kind of model system forteaching the skills of productive thinking.

7

My

"one can thinkproductivelyabout anythingfrom allegoriesto zebras"

It was obvious that if we wished to teach children tothink we would have to give them something to think about:one can think productively about anything from allegories tozebras. It was necessary therefore to select somesubject-matter which was suitable for our purpose, We choseto teach about six contemporary issues: poverty, law andorder, racism, hate and violence, segregation, and culturaldiversity. The choice was somewhat arbitrary, but was basedchiefly on the social significance of the topics and theirrelatively limited emphasis in most social studies curricula.We prepared a short %teaching unit on each of these socialproblems for first, fourth, eighth, and tenth grade students.The use of multiple units at different levels of difficultypermitted us to teach the same topics and cognitive skills tostudents in all grades; second-grade children used thefirst-grade units, ninth-graders used the eighth-grade units,and so on. Finally, we incorporated one of the six productivethinking skills in each of the units on social issues. Thus weacquired the three elements which were essential to theexperiment: we had a specific teaching task (the developmentof children's cognitive skills), a series of instructionalmaterials (the six units on contemporary social issues) and aset of teaching methods which worked successfully foroutstanding teachers.

Two critical questions remained: could we train a greatmany teachers to use these methods, and could we design aprogram of teacher professional growth which would beeffective and yet stay within the conditions that wereimposed by realities of the school's operations? Onecondition, for example, was that the program be

8

= il.h.14.-itiatalsomir,s = sou

economically feasible. With the strained budgets of most.

school districts there was little point in developing a systemthat was financially prohibitive. We also wished to avoidadding to the burdens of the school principal. Still anothercondition was that we wished to involve as many teachers onthe school staff as we could. And, of greatest importance, wewished to design a program with sufficient flexibility topermit us to shape it to the environment of the particularschool, and to accommodate the individuality of eachteacher.

It was our belief that a school-centered approach toprofessional growth would necessitate an on-site agent,someone able to manage the program of self-developments.Moreover, we felt, on the basis of previous work, that theschool principal could not serve this function. The need toachieve stability amidst change normally presents thebuilding administrator with a difficult role conflict.Moreover, experience has led us to suspect that one personcannot proficiently serve as the permanent changemaster in aschool. Consequently, in our study, a teacher selected by hisfaculty colleagues and given special leadership training, wasused as the training agent. The results were extremelyimpressive--so much so, in fact, that we now conjecturethat a practicing teacher is the best possible trainer ofteachers.

For want of a better, name we chose to call theseteacher-leaders, facilitators. They provided us with some ofour most striking successes. Their value was heavily endorsedboth by the teachers and the principals. All participants in

9

"a practicingteacher is thebest possible

trainer ofteachers"

the experiment seemed to agree that a teacher-facilitator,freed from teaching responsibilities for a part of the day, is apotent asset to a staff's professional growth.

Prior to the operation of the experimental program thefacilitators gathered in Santa Barbara for a preparatoryseminar. They learned, first of all, to use the teachingstrategies themselves. They also were familiarized in a crudesort of way with some of the elementary principles of groupdynamics, with devices for the diagnosis of teaching errors,and with other information which might enhance theirleadership capability. Once they returned to their schools,the facilitators, working under the jurisdiction of theirprincipals, assumed total responsibility for the operation ofthe professional growth program.

IV.

These steps launched a three-month effort in which weattempted to train more than 500 teachers to teach cognitiveskills to some 15,000 students. The model teaching strategieswere communicated to these teachers through film clips,through live demonstrations by the facilitators, and through aseries of printed materials prepared by our Center. Theteachers in the experiment had one of three options: themodel teaching strategy could be used as recommended; itcould be altered in any way the teacher wished; or it could berejected and an entirely different method of the teacher's

10

choice used instead. We were prompted to offer these optionsfor two reasons: first, we wanted to learn something aboutthe importance of teaching autonomy and individuality ofstyle; and second, we wanted, if we could, to see if there wasany relationship between a teacher's personality, teachingbackground, work environment, and his willingness to use aspecified teaching method.

Using specially constructed tests, we rated eachteacher's ability to teach the productive thinking skills at thestart of the experiment. We also tested the teacher's studentsin order to assess teaching effectiveness. Three monthslater,the teachers--and their students--were again tested andthe results of the two assessments compared. We alsovideo-taped the teachers during both testing situations inorder to make additional analyses. Through the use ofjudgmental ratings, we were able subsequently to estimatethe extent to which the teacher had (a) accepted (b)modified, or (c) rejected the recommended strategy.

.We found that much is gained when the elements ofgood teaching--knowledge of subject, knowledge ofteaching method, and knowledge of child--are integratedinto an appropriate training mix. Thus a program which seeksto develop a particular teaching skill ought, at the same time,to incorporate the related theoretical ideas., in this way thepractical benefits of the program are extended and thechances of permanent behavioral change are increased.

We found, too, that where professional growth is

concerned, changing the bebaziior of a group often is easier1

"changing thebehavior of a

group is ofteneasier than

changing the

behavior ofan individual"

"any schoolcan arrange for

the professional

growth of itsteachers"

than changing the behavior ofan individual. For the purposesof the study, as a prerequisite to participation, we stipulatedthat the total faculty of an elementary school or the entiredepartment of a secondary school take part in the program.As a result, we learned that while a good program of teacherimprovement can be carried on almost anywhere where thereare children to be taught, training programs which involve thetotal school staff, and which are tailored to the requirementsof the school's circumstances, offer several advantages.

For one thing, teachers who are engaged in a commonpursuit tend to reinforce one another. For another, theparticipation of the entire faculty serves as a tremendousstimulation to staff interaction in general. In our study, forexample, the teachers spent a good deal of time (many forthe first time in their professional careers) talking about thecomparative advantages of different teaching methods. Inaddition, the involvement of all the faculty makes it mucheasier to provide time for professional growth while theschool is in operation.

Through teacher teaming, large-group instruction,teacher aides, and other devices, we tried to achieveapproximately ten hours a month during which the teachercould engage in professional growth activities. This growthtime took place during the school day and was not rewardedwith extra pay, with increments on the salary schedule, orwith any other extrinsic benefits. The scheduling problemswere difficult but not insurmountable. Any school can, if itwishes, arrange for the professional growth of its teachers as aregular part of the work. load. Although this facet of the

12

experiment was not problem-free, the instances in which wedid acquire on-the-job growth time without undue difficulty,particularly in situations where team teaching already was inexistence, suggest that with further efforts a viable method ofcombining service with growth might be devised.

V.

Iii the study we tried to find a relationship among someof the more important variables which might affect teachergrowth. We discovered that a good teaching method seems towork well for most but not all teachers. Occasionally themethod fails because of the characteristics of the teacher:more often, however, it fails because of the characteristics ofthe learner. Two-thirds of our experimental schools werewhite, middle-class and suburban. The remaining third wasminority, lower-class and urban. Interestingly enough, wefound that where the teacher had a strong desire to performwell, the disadvantaged children were able to learn virtuallyeverything that the advantaged ones did. Frequently,however, the disadvantaged children needed different kindsof teaching methods as well as more time. The findingssuggest that although teachers are a good deal more effectivewhen they have 'alternative strategies with which to teach agiven lesson, each of these strategies must be acquiredsystematically and each must be perfected throughcumulative practice.

13

"a good methodworks well for

most but notall teachers"

ifi

"the matterof incentiveis crucial"

Not only have we been able to transfer the teachingmethods of an outstanding teacher to other teachers withsurprising facility, but we have found most teachers to beextremely receptive to any instructional procedure whichdemonstrates tangible advantages. This receptivity becomeseven stronger when the teacher's intrinsic desire to do well isbolstered through some form of extrinsic motivation. Thevariation in the achievements of the schools in theexperiment made this point abundantly clear: Inserviceeducation is virtually useless if the objectives of the trainingprogram are not valued, and rewarded--if with nothingmore than esteem--by the power structure of the school.Teachers, in the main, do not use capabilities which lack apay-off. This is especially true when the training objectivesare difficult, time consuming, or plain hard work. The extentto which teachers perceptions of their role are influenced byorganizational expectations constitutes another benefit to aschool-based approach to teacher growth. Administrativesupport and encouragement is most easily and mostforcefully conveyed within the sub-culture of the particularschool.

Our analysis of the teaching performances indicated thatthere is a vast range of difference between the poor teacherand the good one. It is not uncommon in a school to find afew teachers to be far less effective than the others. Hereagain, the collaborative involvement of the total staff appearsto offer secondary benefits since the teaching tactics of veryable teachers are shared more widely.

The matter of incentive, as in all human endeavor, iscrucial. We cannot assume that teachers will perform at their

14

highest level anymore than will professors, bricklayers, orsurgeons. The fact that the teachers who were mostenthusiastic about the growth program achieved the masteryof the teaching strategies led to two other conjectures:teachers are not likely to teach their best if, for one reason oranother, their confidence in what they are doing is

diminished; and, when their confidence is high, teachers arecapable of impressive ingenuity and potency. Where we wereable to kindle a spark of excitement in teachers they gave ofthemselves to a far greater extent that was their habit. Thisspark of excitement, moreover, often ignited a latentcreativity. There were instances, for example, where ourmaterials were late in reaching the teachers. Confronted witha need, and "turned on" by their excitement, many teachersinvented activities which were superior to the ones we haddesigned for them. One teacher, for example, "segregated"left-handed children and placed them in a "ghetto" in theback of the room. Another, working with third-graders,brought two plants to class. One plant was given sunshine,nutrients, ample water, and tender care. The other was placedin a dark corner and ignored. When it died an eight-year-oldobserved, "The Negro is dead." It is sad that we have so oftenled teachers to doubt their own capacities and to rely soheavily on the prescriptions of "experts". The corrosiveconsequences of dependency are widely apparent in the fearof self-direction that characterizes many teachers.

Teachers, of course, are individuals, and their styles dovary. It is also true that the nuances of the classroom requirethe teacher to readjust the instruction as often as thesituation requires. Nonetheless, artistry and individuality

15

"teachers are

individuals andtheir styles

vary"

"teachers learnat differentrates, in

different ways,and throughdifferentexperiences"

k.

need not be retarded by the availability of a good method;ideally, a good point of departure should spur them on togreater gains. Put another way, a useful teaching strategydoes not inhibit autonomy: properly used, it directs andstimulates effective as well as imaginative teaching.

Not only is there considerable contrast in theachievement of the teachers on a faculty, but there are highsand lows in the performance profile of even the very goodones. Good teachers are not uniformly good at everythingthey do. This is hardly a revelation; but the spread of abilitydifference among teachers--and within the skill repertoriesof individual teachers--was a jolt. We found that teachers,as other observers have also noted, tend to play-up that atwhich they are adept and to play down that at which theyare not. Moreover, the routine of the classroom normallypermits teachers to decide for themselves what they wish toemphasize in their teaching. This combination ofcircumstances makes it unlikely that teachers, any more thanlawyers, physicians, and professors, will, as a matter ofcourse, overcome their more pernicious deficiencies. Sincethey have some control over what they do, it is usuallysimpler to ignore areas in which one is weak than to sufferthrough the weakness. There does not seem to be any way toescape the need to individUalize teacher inservice education.Like their students, teachers learn at different rates, indifferent ways, and through different experiences.

We attempted to discover whether it was personality, hisprofessional background, his attitudes regarding education, orthe setting in which he worked that had the greatest effect on

16

%V.'s

his response to the retraining opportunity. We were unable toestablish any significant correlations; we found almost noconnection between thf se factors and either receptivity to, orsuccess in, the growth activities. It may well be, of course,that we worked with the wrong criteria with respect to thevariables. It may also be that the correlations we sought werethere, but were not illuminated by the statistical procedureswe used. Despite this initial failure, subsequent attempts toestablish similar correlations should, in my judgment, bemade. For in view of the importance of individualizingteacher retraining, it would be a tremendous advantage to beable to design growth programs which accommodate theteacher's technical needs, hiri idiosyncratic way of learning,and his personal aspirations,

4

The facilitators, each of whom kept anecdotal recordsof the experimental program, leaned heavily toward thehunch that the environment in which the teacher mustoperate is of greater influence on his desire to improveprofessionaly than any of the other variables we tested. Thishunch seems to be supported by the fact that some of theschools in the experiment responded to the program farbetter than others. This result was puzzling and we tried todetermine what accounted for it.

My surmise, at the present time, is that schools havewhat might be termed a "collective staff personality."Although faculties are composed of individuals, as a groupthey tend to develop a kind of collective outlook onprofessional behavior. This outlook, encompassing themorale, the sense of purpose, and the goals and ambitions of

17

"schools have a

collective staffpersonality"

"the learningof a new

technique oftenis uncomfortable"

t,

the staff, is of considerable significance. It affects what theteachers will value, how they will work and how hard, andtheir faith in the children they teach. When new teachers jointhe staff they gradually "take-on" this personality. Its impactis sufficiently great to make each school faculty a uniquesocial group. These groups differ from one another so much,moreover, that their impact on the teacher may have more todo with shaping the teacher's behavior than the whole of hispre-service training. The power of this same peer-groupinfluence, it might be added, further supports the notion setforth earlier: teacher behavior may be easier to change ingroups than individually.

The school principal is by far the greatest influence onthe staff's personality. Through the causes he espouses, thekind of teaching he encourages, and the staff behavior herewards and sanctions, the environment which characterizesthe school is set. We do riot now know, unhappily, very muchabout how this phenomenon works; despite our limitedunderstanding, however, it would seem that the easiest wayto alter a staff's attitudes, at least with regard to its interestin professional growth, is to use the principal as themotivating agent.

Professional growth, particularly when it involves theexchange of old teaching habits for new, breeds considerableinsecurity. Old habits are comfortable, predictable, andanxiety-free. The learning of a new technique, in contrast,often is uncomfortable. In the early stages there may be amarked lack of success. As a consequence, we found itimperative to sustain the teacher with repeated

18

4,1, 4

encouragement and to provide evidence of progress as oftenas we could. When a teacher is trying to master a newtechnique, sustaining persistence is crucial; to do this werelied heavily on the facilitator. Next to self-criticism,criticism by a trusted peer seems to be most easily toleratedby teachers. The importance of a "feed-back" Mechanism,demonstrated in a number of other studies, was confirmed byour findings. We also found, however, that in the case ofmany pedagogical skills the need for a human coach--whoboth observes and interprets--is unavoidable.

The capacity of the teacher-facilitator to stimulate andsupport behavioral change far exceeded our expectations. Inprevious experiments we had used school administrators in afacilitator role. Administrators obviously can mandate somekinds of professional behavior through threat and coercion.By comparison, however, the teacher-facilitators wereinfinitely more successful. Apparently, the presence of a peerwho has both empathy and trust is a powerful force inencouraging behavioral modification. It is not so much thatthe facilitator serves as a change master, for much growth canbe self-directed: it is, rather, that he serves as an ever-presentsymbol of the improvements which are expected.

The particular maneuvers which account for afacilitator's success are as yet not completely understood.Different individuals used different tactics with equally goodresults, suggesting that there are many ways to ply the art offacilitatorship. In general, however, our most successfulfacilitators were characterized by a quality of openness, byan obvious interest in the progress of each person with whom

19

"the needfor a human

coach is

unavoidable"

"teachers respond

in proportion tothe value

they perceive"

r'

they worked, by the ability to respond spontaneously to"facilitatirig" opportunities when they arose, and by a beliefin their own role. Since they were selected by their facultiesthey had an advantage in that they felt they couldlegitimately expect reasonable cooperation. Nonetheless,their personal commitment to the program and their faith inits value seemed highly contagious.

Our previous work had shown that teachers respond toan improvement program in proportion to the value theyperceive. While such perceptions of worth may or may not beaccurate, in either case they condition people's attitudes. It isusually possible to demonstrate the benefits of a soundimprovement program but the matter should not be left tochance. In the present study we deliberately chose a structurewhich would have high appeal. Had our training objectivesseemed of less merit to the teachers, the facilitators, I believe,might have encountered greater difficulty.

We had anticipated that length of experience wouldcorrelate negatively with receptivity to change, reasoning thata longer professional experience would result in greaterrigidity. Our results did not bear this out. We found noconnection between age, length of experience, biographicalhistory, and enthusiasm for the training program. As a matterof fact, we were astonished to find that several teachers whowere in the last year of their professional service were amongthe most enthusiastic and most successful in mastering thenew teaching strategies. We also found that teachers, as awhole, are remarkably open to new methodology--and evenhungry for it. It may well be, therefore, that we have greatly

20

overestimated teachers' psychological resistance to change.Given a legitimate objective, adequate opportunity, and goodreason to achieve it, teachers seem to respond withunsuspected eagerness.

VI.

In many of our schools the operation of the growthprogram achieved a number of incidental benefits merely byits presence. These benefits were related primarily to teacherattitude. Seemingly, the existence of a training programcaused teachers to think seriously and deliberately abouttheir teaching. As we worked with teachers the analogy ofthe Sunday golfer came to mind. Some players accept theirscore as immutable and make no attempt to improve theirskills. They may play for fun, for exercise, or forcompanionship, but better performance is not an active goal.If, for some reason, improvement does become a concern, theresulting focus of attention alid effort in itself causethem to improve.

Something akin to this happened with many of theteachers. The possibility of using different methods ofinstruction coupled with faculty-wide interest drew attentionto alternatives and led teachers to examine and appraise theirown teaching habits.

21

"technique alonedoes not produce

great teaching"

We found, too, that a mastery of technique alone doesnot produce great teaching. The complexities of theclassroom being what they are, programs of professionalgrowth will need to reckon with teachers attitudes andfeelings as well as with methods and information. There areteachers, for example, who, although technically proficient,are impaired by their mental set regarding the children withwhom they work. Similarly, there are teachers who relateeasily to their students but who lack the skills for introducinga lesson or who simply do not know enough about theirsubject. To return to the analogy of the golfer, a player willnot do well unless he has mastered the use of each of hisclubs. Such mastery can be acquired through training andpractice. Once these have been mastered, however, otherproblems remain. The player must, for example, learn toadjust to the conditions of the course. And, ultimately, all ofthe separate skills must be conjoined into a potent action bythe psychological attitude the player brings to his endeavor.

So it is with teaching. Substantive knowledge,instructional finesse, and interpersonal skills must be weldedtogether. If we fail to attend to the teacher's emotions as wellas to his mind, we will again blunder. This interplay of theingredients of good teaching is critical. In our study the bestteaching performances were recorded not by the teacherswho knew the most, who were the most cleverinstructionally, or who felt most warmly toward theirstudents; they were recorded by teachers who had anoptimum blend of these characteristics.

It may be that such an optimum blend is not in everycase possible. If this is so, we will need to decide which

22

teaching skills should have the highest priority, and we willneed to find ways to exploit the individual teacher's uniquestrengths. Not only will such a task stretch our minds, butwhen it comes to implementation, the encumbrances ofprocedure will be formidable. But, the difficultiesnotwithstanding, there may be no other way to acquiremaximum productivity from our teaching force.

In sum, the study did not achieve anything spectacular.Nevertheless, some breakthroughs were apparent here andthere. It seems clear that teachers can continue to improvethemselves as long as they serve in classrooms. Whenconditions are right, moreover, such improvement can takeplace while the teacher is at work with his students. It alsoseems clear that it is quite possible to diagnose teachingweaknesses and co' organize corrective programs. The greatneed in this connection is that we become a good deal moreproficient at both of these pursuits. We must find efficientyet easily managed devices, with which to diagnose anindividual teacher's professional requirements: and we needto become adept at the design of improvement experienceswhich are specifically addressed to these requirements.

Where significant professional growth took place, thegains were often dramatic. It is interesting to note in thisregard that in many cases the mastery of a technique leads toa change in role perception. As a teacher becomes adept at,say, teaching children to reason inductively, he begins also toregard such teaching as valuable. In short, the ability to teachsomething extremely well is in itself a high intrinsicmotivation. With an appropriate system, then, we believe it is

23

4

"we will needto find ways

to exploit theindividual

teacher's uniquestrengths"

"if we canfind the rightformulas wemay make a

profounddifference"

tag5ArA.26,

possible to achieve substantial improvement in the teachingthat goes on. The teacher in service learns with a good dealmore facility than we sometimes believe. Occasionally, thespeed of his growth is phenomenal. Perhaps because so littleis really known about the best way to teach something,teachers generally are quite willing to experiment with newteaching techniques. Understandably, this interest is highestwhen the new techniques do not increase the work loadunduly. However, even when a new technique demands agreat effort, teachers are likely to respond favorably if thebenefits are readily apparent. Conversely, they are likely toresist any new method in which the advantages are unclear.

One must conclude that the impotence of so much ofour inservice effort is attributable, not to teacher resistance,but to the ineffectiveness of the systems we use. Thepotential of inservice education, as a consequence, wouldseem to be great: if we can find the right formulas we maywell make a profound difference in the quality of schooling.

24

CENTER FOR COORDINATED EDUCATION

The Center For Coordinated Education is interested inschool improvement. Supported by a grant from the FordFoundation, it seeks--through practical experiments inschools--to learn more about the improvements that areneeded and the processes through which they can be

achieved.

To improve something is to make it better. Schools are

complex institutions, however, and their improvement restson four elements: knowing the way things are, knowing whatwould be better, knowing how to make them better, and

wanting to make them better. The Center is interested chieflyin the improvement process as it bears upon the instructional

program (what is taught and how it is taught), the

professional growth of personnel (procedures and eventswhich make teachers and principals more effective), and theorganization of the school (conditions within the school thathelp the teacher to teach and the child to learn).

The present series of projects reflects four predominantambitions: to develop sample curriculum materials whichacquaint learners with the more important aspects of oursocietal malais; to test teaching methods which enhance theachievement of students in general and the achievement ofthose from minority sub-cultures in particular; to explorenew approaches to school staffing which offer time andincentive for professional growth; and to experiment with asystem of teacher growth which is feasible, practical, andpotent.

25

Ze

CENTER STAFF 1968-1969

DirectorLouis J. Rubin

Project DirectorsFrances M. ConnHenry GallinaPaul JillsonHarold Lipman

Project AdvisorsStanford N. KerrCharles Metcalf

ConsultantsThomas BouchardDavid FishAnn GrahamRobert HanveyJ. Cecil ParkerRalph TylerIrwin Wapner

Center AssociatesRobert FinleyCharles H. Herbert, Jr.Robin D. MontzPatricia MoropoulosJames G. Weber

Research AffiliatesMyrtle BlumBeulah EnglesbergLinda IsaacRobert Wegmann

Assistant to the DirectorPhyllis Peters

26

PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS AND RESOURCE ASSOCIATES

Laurel AlexanderRighetti High SchoolSanta Maria, California

Robert BalzanIsabel Cook SchoolSan Anse lmo, California

Ruth Jane BenzSleepy Hollow SchoolSan Anse lmo, California

George BlackmonA.E. Wright Elementary &Middle SchoolsCalabasas, California

Betty BoosSequoia Jr. High SchoolFresno, California

Elizabeth BullingtonCentennial SchoolFresno, California

Ward CosgroveRainier Beach Jr.-Senior H.S.Seattle, Washington

Donley DamonColman Elementary SchoolSeattle, Washington

Ann LongUniversity Forest SchoolUniversity City, Missouri

27

Mary M. MabryLee Street SchoolAtlanta, Georgia

Leon Matting leyRamona SchoolOxnard, California

Bob McClungTurner SchoolFresno, California

Barry Mc WatersReed SchoolTiburon, California

Clinton MoranEl Camino Jr. HiSanta Maria, California

Vivian GellmanBlackberry Lane SchoolUniversity City, Missouri

Bruce HillSanta Maria High SchoolSanta Maria, California

Robert A. Ho lloIsaac Fes ler SchoolSanta Maria, California

Susan HoytBrittany Jr. High SchoolUniversity City, Missouri

Harold T. JonesCrystal SchoolSuisun City, California

Anna Louise LarsonFlynn Park SchoolUniversity City, Missouri

Margaret LeeCinnabar SchoolSan Jose, California

Susan LeVeringRainier View Elementary SchoolSeattle, Washington

Barbara J. SouzaRoss Elementary SchoolSan Jose, California

Helen SpekkerColumbia ElementaryFresno, California

Jim SwartzLos Padres ElementaryVandenberg Air Force Base,California

Gwen TappersonHanley Jr. HiUniversity City, Missouri

Carl ZscheileWinchell SchoolFresno, California

28