As we see it, the common thread of this weeks readings is affecting change. Cuban provides a window into a world where change is constantly demanded and attempted from above, but rarely achieved on the ground in any significant way. The Human Centered Design toolkit offers another approach to change by starting with the situation on the ground and working from there. The design way fixates on how to become an be the sort of individual that orchestrate or conjure this change: The Designer.
All of these can be discussed in terms of identity. In particular, by focusing on what it takes to become a designer, and what it means to be one, Nelson and Stolterman make identity central to the endeavor of design. Being a designer is not, as popular conceptions might hold, simply a matter of artistic or aesthetic talent, but also “… maturing as a whole person within larger webs of life…” and “…listening to the inner guidance of the seed of character pushing for full expression of a well lived life. (p.215)” This presumably includes a balanced diet and moderate exercise. Their point seems to be that the practice of design is inextricably bound with who the designer is in every facet of their life (as is illustrated with unimpeachable clarity in figure 15.1). However, the designer’s identity is not the only one we need to take into consideration.
As Nelson and Stolterman note, “Designing is the means by which desired ends become real. (p. 239)” This is another way of saying design is the way to realize intentional change. In figure 15.2 (p. 241), designers are presented as change agents who serve (or contract with) stakeholders. The introduction of stakeholders to the conversation is key, because it is here we can look at the importance of identity on the other side of the equation. Cuban offers us a window into the dynamics of change in public education, where stakeholders at different levels (who in many cases could also be seen as designers) lead to compromised outcomes.
In Cuban’s introduction “Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice,” he points out a very peculiar contradiction that has existed in education for quite some time now. We have seen very interesting shifts in the identity of teachers, from “dress-clad women and tie-wearing men” who controlled the classroom with an iron fist in an extremely formal environment to the “jeans-wearing teachers drinking coffee” we are familiar with today (Pg. 6). No longer do we hear stories of the ruler wielding instructors who dominate the classroom. Similarly, education itself has shifted in identity. Before, it was a privilege for “largely white male children in the early nineteenth century” to instead “enrolling females, racial and ethnic minorities, and children with disabilities.” (Pg. 4) It has also gone from a largely religious driven organization to a secular one with the acceptance of more religious and ethnic minorities. It’s hard to argue that the identity of both teachers and the education system has not changed.
However, when examining the way teachers teach, we see something rather interesting. “While the organizational, governance, curricula, and formal school culture has changed dramatically in the past century, reformers have failed to alter substantially how teachers teach.” (Pg. 6) We have long seen that education has been attempting to change teacher-centered classrooms into student-centered learning environments that focus on a deeper level of understanding, inquiry-based learning, collaborative work, and an emphasis on connecting classroom learning to real-world experiences, yet the classic teaching model has largely been left intact. Even with the advent of a wide variety of technology that has been touted as being the seed for an education revolution, we watch as education remains largely unchanged and these new technologies are instead simply weaved into the already existing classroom structure. As Cuban puts it, “Overall, these first-order or incremental changes have largely left intact teaching routines that students’ grandparents visiting these schools would find familiar.” (Pg. 7) This leads to a rather interesting question. With such dramatic shifts in the identity of teachers and the educational system itself, why has the classroom largely remained the same?
As of late, there seems to be a very dramatic emphasis on further changing the identity of the teacher. “Change the teacher, the logic goes, and you improve student learning.” (Pg. 8-9) As we are all aware, a direct correlation has been assumed between the quality of teachers and the results on standardized tests.
“Such pseudo-causal linkages suggest that a federal law caused some high-achieving students to do poorly, again missing the complexity of teaching and learning, suggesting anew that teachers are solely responsible for tests scores without any mention of policy makers putting in place an infrastructure or neglecting to do so that supports teachers in their classroom lessons.” (Pg. 13)
A significant reason for such causal linkage being formed is due to the identity of the policy makers. While meaning for the best, these “policy elites” formed mostly of business and civic leaders are not educators. In reality, teachers have very little say in the policies being decided for them. Policy makers fail to see the natural variance in students that an educator comes across. Policy makers and educators are two very distinct communities, and it could be argued that the relationship in this case between designer (policy makers) and educators is most similar to the “Designer Artist” we examined in the last chapter. While the designers know the goal that is desired, they take very little input from the clients. We have to wonder, how do we go about changing the relationship between designers and clients in the case of education reformation?
School reform from a top-down perspective has consistently produced the same issue in education: classroom practice has rarely seen significant change. As Cuban argued the main reason is because the policy makers do not hear or try to understand the context, nor listen to the problems teachers have from their perspective. However, their needs, constraints, and dilemma in the school context have been underestimated by policymakers. What are the stories that we do not know about them? We need to hear them out first in order to make a change (IDEO, 2009).
There certainly is a gap between what the society think teachers’ responsibilities are and what the teachers’ think about what their responsibilities include. Today the governmental or societal request upon the classroom practice is about student-centered pedagogy and with technology-integration. They are pushing teachers to take on very specific roles or responsibilities, but at the same time they are dealing with other stakeholders’ needs which is very similar to the relationship that the designers have with their clients (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012). Does the idea of what makes a good teacher that the parents or students have match to the pedagogical goal? What if the goal of parents and students is to get high scores from their tests, SAT and get into one of the top Universities while those pedagogies do not necessarily guarantee these exact goals. When teachers are evaluated by the how many student got entrance to the highest Universities, not by the quality of their education/class, how do we resolve the dilemma between the ideal required by the government and the reality they face?
Also, is the design of education created by policymakers student-centered from the teachers’ perspective as well? The student-centered pedagogies fundamentally put emphasis on the students’ engagement in class throughout different learning activities, and tools, which requires lots of efforts and time for teachers. Putting the issue aside, their role in class also shifts from lecturers whose roles can be perceived explicitly, to facilitators whose roles are more toward helping out students to have ownership of their learning rather than teachers deliver knowledge. Isn’t this shifting role threatening their adoption of new pedagogy when the school is downsizing? We do not know what their stories are yet since we have not heard enough. We need to hear more to understand their context, and come up with solutions.
Katie Bateman says
I think a critical question we are not yet asking in school reform is who are the designers of a school and who is the client. I think a teacher would tell you they are the designers with students as the client. Policy makers seem to not know (nor care?) who the client really is, potentially looking at it from a business, rather than design model. We won’t succeed until all stakeholders are part of a community that is making decisions, with input from experienced experts.
Dean says
The classroom is the Black Box, in that so many folks (policymakers, parents, teachers) outside of the classroom are making inadequate decisions as to what should be happening in the classroom without truly understanding the complex mechanics and relationships that occur in the learning experience (i.e. inputs, outputs, no clue how learning and transformation occurs). Many have focused on the teacher as being the main source of a student’s learning. This thinking promotes the “sage on the stage” metaphor, as you noted in the pic that you posted. “Changing teachers has been the dominant policy strategy to improve classroom instruction (8)”
Also, over the years, there have been changes to classrooms to make them more comfortable learning environments for students and teachers, alike. “Change without reform (3)”
But these two focuses – teachers and changing the characteristics of the classroom – are incomplete when trying to appease to different learning styles and when trying create collaborative learning environments. “These new structures and strategies, while important and worthwhile in upgrading the quality of instruction, have yet to alter substantially how teachers teach. (9)”
There is still so much individualized teaching and learning happening in schools. I think the focus should not be on the teachers or the classroom characteristics, but instead on creating communities of practice around specific topics in class. This should require students to do nothing by themselves in or outside of the classroom, except for being assigned solo reflection time to reflect on the individual’s community and what has been learned-in and contributed-to the respective community and class.
Priscilla Taylor says
You mention the shifting identity of education and I think you’re right. Education used to be a public, a luxury that held such a high position in society. These days, education is now the scourge of society, a public enemy. A large part of that is the fact that education has forgotten its purpose. Without a clearly articulated purpose and considering education to be a tame problem instead of a wicked problem, results policy makers and stakeholders in developing “solutions” and interventions that are typically ill-conceived as we have in educational reform to date. I think an important, but often overlooked, first step to transform education is to get down to the meaning and purpose of education and its core values.
Isaac Jason Bretz says
I think the best we can hope for in a capitalist context is incremental changes. Policy Makers may very well hear and understand the problems at schools, but frame these issues within their value system. So long as university education is seen as panacea for our economic woes and market principles are considered the surest path for moving learners in that direction, there will never be a fundamental/structural transformation of education. Make small changes in your classrooms when you can and focus your outrage at disrupting the structures of oppression outside of the classroom.
Scott P McDonald says
I think this is a great question: “how do we go about changing the relationship between designers and clients in the case of education reformation?” Following up on Katie’s point: Who are the designers of education and what is the right grainsize for hearing the client/stakeholder, and is it different for different communities (e.g. policy makers and teachers)? Also, what about student voice (as a number of people brought up)? Is the vilification of education actually serving the purposes of those who wish to keep education as a privilege for the few? How might that be?
Lastly, to bring it back to Wenger and connected to the reform of schools – What are the authentic practices of school? What should they be?
Audrey Romano says
I appreciate the humor in your first two paragraphs. I know that here in higher ed, I witness instructional designers tackling the pedagogy as a way to improve the classroom. But in K-12, I don’t know what resources or affordances they have. From a user-centered approach, I’d also want to hear from the student’s perspective as well as the teacher’s. And the community is all of us [in this country]. From that perspective, it could be said that we do contribute our voice through the government officials we vote in. But there’s never just one issue on the table and it’s so convoluted with society’s need to be righteous about something. Anyway, I guess I’m agreeing with Isaac, that there are forces outside of this that govern and influence the entire ecosystem that need to be disrupted before anything on that fundamental level can change. Wicked problems are wicked.
Leah Bug says
Yes, wicked problems are wicked and thus make change extremely difficulty without a complete disruption…a revolution actually. One could make all sorts of suggestions about “how we go about changing x, or y”, but the pessimist in me says it won’t matter. Sure, we can make a difference in a classroom, or a school (depending upon the principal), and MAYBE a district (depending upon the superintendent), but to see systemic change across the country is doubtful. Do we keep trying? Of course, because that’s what we do to try and make learning accessible to all students (clients), not just the wealthy elite.
By the way, this was an excellent post. It was extremely well written and I really enjoyed reading it. The weaving of identity throughout the post was impressive and fun to read.
pul121 says
It seems like education has changed dramatically but teaching routine is still familiar to most people. You mentioned an interesting question on the identity of teachers. Did teachers’ identity change when they use different ways to teach or are the identities of current teachers different than previous generations of teachers? What does teachers’ identity mean or how does the identity influence the teaching? I agree that the bottom-up approach affects effectively in activities involving in people. To build and change the relationship between the tops and the bottom makes things possible. If we all know this, why education system never takes this approach? Do we need to change the policy makers’ identity or teachers’ identity to fundamentally change the landscape of education?
Zach Lonsinger says
With that being said, what if we (were able to) blow up (figuratively) schools (or the idea of them. I’m not convinced that enacting any policy or some type of reform is going to fix the wicked problem of education. Our schools were built on the idea of training children to work in the age of industrialism. That’s the whole idea around a traditional school building. And if teachers and students continue to attend school in a building designed like this, will anyone’s mindset ever change? That’s what school is. That’s what society and movies tell us. We go to school to learn from whatever it is the teacher has planned for that day. “We watch as education remains largely unchanged and these new technologies are instead simply weaved into the already existing classroom structure.” Exactly, great point. Why is this? Is it because the context of schools has remained almost 100% unchanged? New schools have been built or redesigned, with even integrating amazing technologies right into the classroom – but it is essentially still the same design. Same design, same thinking. What if we could blow up the idea of what school is? What if everyday, students traveled to a different location for school? What if there wasn’t a designated building for school? Maybe we need to redefine what school is? But who will do that? Or can do that? These are just questions I’m struggling with. I’m not saying this is the right way to go, but it’s a start to thinking about this wicked problem.
P.s. – This comment instantly reminded me the “What I Really Do” memes, haha.
What a teacher really does…
Zach Lonsinger says
I can’t update/edit my comment so here are the correct links. It looks like I added a quotation mark on the last two links, and they appear to be “broken” links. Gotta love HTML, haha.
Wicked Problem or http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wicked-problem.jpg
What a teacher really does… or http://www.fractuslearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/teacher1.jpg
Adam says
Sometimes I feel like a teacher’s responsibilities are much like Wenger’s form of identity. What teachers think they are responsible for is irrelevant in the face of what the public thing teachers are responsible for.