. vs. ARV-"3“ CHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIII IIIIII 3 1293 00917 5500 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IN SOCIAL STUDIES: AN EXAMINATION OF RELATED PEDAGOGY FOR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS presented by Shirley Nuss has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Teacher Education MW Major professor Date September I8, 1990 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University L #— I PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE‘DUE 2 DATE DUE DATE DUE I I 2' HM II U I | J Li: “A (V “K 3.1 I) ‘1 n L." \\ __‘:r {3 :‘ I. v‘. 1.1‘ L_________ L_______ ”prior—j MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inditutlon «:sz pins—In HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IN SOCIAL STUDIES: AN EXAMINATION 0F RELATED PEDAGOGY FOR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS By Shirley Nuss A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fquiIIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1990 ()4 /-~ 5/ /Q" ABSTRACT HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IN SOCIAL STUDIES: AN EXAMINATION 0F RELATED PEDAGOGY FOR HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS By Shirley Nuss My purpose in this study was to answer the main research question: How is higher-order thinking fostered in the high school social studies classroom, and what teacher thought processes influence the pedagogy? I attempted to find an answer to the main research question by asking the following supporting research questions: What type of pedagogy and strategies foster higher-order thinking? How does the teacher perceive teaching social studies? How does the teacher deal with learning dispositions (mastery, performance)? How do sociopolitical contexts influence this teacher’s pedagogy? Field research and participant observation were used to gain insight into pedagogy and student reactions. The study setting was a private midwestern prep school of 684 students. The teacher observed was a 25-year veteran of the school, chairman of the History Department, and a teacher identified as committed to higher- order thinking. The course was a semester course entitled ”America in the Sixties and Seventies." Shirley Nuss Study findings indicated the importance of teacher beliefs and theories in teaching higher-order thinking. Essential is a comitment to student-centered instruction to foster higher-order thinking consistent with teacher beliefs about knowledge/learning. In addition, a teacher should value content to provide a framework on which to build these thinking skills. The student must see the need of learning for oneself, rather than going for the ”grade”; however, these dispositions can often come into conflict within the "role” of the student. Evaluation to promote higher-order thinking has to address content but not inhibit student-centered learning. Depth of content coverage has to take priority over breadth of coverage, with the freedom to explore topics of student interest. Sociopolitical contexts can influence teaching practices, and it is important for a school/teacher to identify these contexts and seek their input. Finally, this study recognizes the importance of studying and observing teacher "practice" to gain insights into the process of education. Through the eyes of the participants in the classroom, the researcher can see the reality of the classroom to find answers to many unanswered questions. Copyright by SHIRLEY NUSS 1990 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have supported me in the completion of this study. First, I acknowledge the tireless efforts of my committee chairperson, Dr. Janet Alleman, and the guidance and expertise of my research advisor, Dr. Wanda May. Their help was essential to my work. My other committee members, Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. William Joyce, and Dr. Lois Bader, also provided support and encouragement during this lengthy process. A very special thank-you to Mr. Johnson and the students of Lakeview School. Although they cannot be identified and acknowledged individually, I thank them for willingly allowing me into their world to experience their learning with them. They were truly an inspiration, and I hope others will gain from our shared experiences. To Sue Cooley, my able editor and typist, go my warmest regards as we breathe a collective sigh of relief at the monumental task we completed together. Finally, and most important, a heartfelt thank-you to my husband, Ned, and my daughter, Melissa, whose patience, love, and encouragement kept, me going through the ”highs” and ”lows” in pursuit of my academic goals. And, of course, I thank my parents, Woodland and Aileen Cover, who instilled in me a love for and a commitment to learning. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ....................... xii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................... 1 Purpose ...................... l The Rationale for the Study ............ 4 Many Answers to a Single Question ......... 6 Importance of the Study .............. lO Limitations of the Study ............. l2 Overview ..................... l3 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. l5 Introduction ................... l5 Definition of Terms ................ 15 Theoretical Orientations to Higher-Order Thinking and to Higher-Order Thinking in Social Studies . 18 Higher-Order Thinking in Social Studies ..... l9 High School Reform Movements--A Historical Framework .................... 22 Teaching and Learning in a Socially Constructed Environment ................... 3l Teacher Thought Processes ............. 35 Field Research in High Schools .......... 40 Summary and Critique of Literature Related to the Study .................... 43 Chapter Summary .................. 44 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........... 45 Introduction ................... 45 Theoretical Orientation .............. 45 Design of the Study ............... 47 The Pilot Study .................. 48 Research Questions ................ 49 Time Line for the Research ............ 49 vii Phase I ..................... 51 Phase II .................... 54 Phase III .................... 54 Phase IV .................... 55 Data Collection .................. 55 Fieldnotes ................... 55 Audiotaping ................... 57 Documents .................... 57 Questionnaire .................. 61 Data Analysis ................... 61 IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE, SOCIOPOLITICAL CONTEXTS, AND KEY INFORMANTS ................ 65 The Site ..................... 65 Lakeview College Preparatory School ........ 65 The Associations of Independent Schools ...... 67 Lakeview Administration Context .......... 70 The Parent, Student, and Teacher Inventories . . . 71 The Parent Inventory .............. 72 The Student Inventory .............. 73 Teacher Opinion Inventory ............ 74 Cross-Inventory Analysis ............ 76 The History Department at Lakeview ........ 79 Mr. Johnson, the Teacher ............. 80 The Students ................... 82 Chapter Summary .................. 90 V. TEACHING FOR HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IN A SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT .............. 91 The First Day of Class .............. 95 The First Week of School (January 24-January 27) . 104 The Third Day’s Class Discussion ........ 110 Use of Videotape ................ 115 Students’ Initial Perceptions of the Class Expectations .................. I16 The Second Week (January 30-February 3): Role Playing as a Pedagogical Device ......... 117 The Third Week (February 6-10): Experience--The Best Teacher .................. 122 Introduction of the Book Seminars ........ 123 The Fourth Week (February 13-16): A Guest Speaker ..................... 124 The First Guest Speaker (The Peace Corps) . . . . 125 The Fifth Week (February 21-24): Preparing for the Two-Day Test ................ 128 The First Book Seminar and the Two-Day Test (February 27-March 3) .............. 130 viii The First Book Seminar ............. 130 The Two-Day Test ................ 135 The Eleventh Week (April 4-7): Your Experience Forms Your Own Reality ............. 136 [be friendly Game: Analysis of a Film ..... 139 The Twelfth Week (April 10-14): Student Learning Dispositions .................. 140 Two Questions Examined ............. 140 The Role of the Student ............. 142 The Thirteenth Week (April 17-21): The Second Book Seminar--History Repeats Itself ...... 146 The Fourteenth Week (April 24-27): The Research Paper ...................... 148 The Fifteenth Week (May 2-5): A Cult Movie and a Guest Speaker ................. 151 The Sixteenth Week (May 9-12): Liberal Versus Conservative .................. 152 The Seventeenth Week (May 16-19): The Last Book Seminar ..................... 155 The Last Two Weeks of School (May 23-June 2): The Final Project and Final Course Grades . . . . 160 He Dodged Another One . . . Didn’t He? ...... 164 Chapter Summary .................. 170 VI. TEACHER THOUGHT PROCESSES .............. 172 Teacher Theories and Beliefs ........... 173 A Teacher’s Interactive Thoughts ......... 182 Teacher Planning ................. 186 Socio-Political Contexts Influencing Pedagogy . . . 189 The Onosko Inventory ............... 191 Teaching Priorities/Goals ............ l9l Goals That Focus Lesson Planning ........ 194 Teacher Interest/Teacher Satisfaction ...... 195 Teacher Assessment of Barriers ......... 195 Chapter Summary .................. 197 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............ 198 The Importance of Teacher Beliefs and Theories in Teaching Higher-Order Thinking ........ 198 Pedagogy to Promote Higher-Order Thinking in Social Studies ................. 203 Evaluation to Promote Higher-Order Thinking . . . . 207 Depth of Coverage Versus Breadth of Coverage . . . 209 Sociopolitical Contexts That Affect Pedagogy . . . 211 The Effect of College Acceptance and Rejection . . 214 Mr. Johnson Revisited ............... 216 Bridge Builder as Metaphor ............ 218 ix REFERENCES ......................... APPENDICES A. B. GUIDELINES, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND INVENTORIES ..... CONSENT FORMS AND HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL FOR PILOT STUDY AND ADDITIONAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH TEACHER-GENERATED DOCUMENTS AND STUDENT WORK Page 222 232 241 251 Table LIST OF TABLES Research Questions Guiding the Inquiry ........ Cross-Comparisons of Mean Scores on Student/Teacher/ Parent Inventory .................. A Profile of the Students in Mr. Johnson’s Class Students’ Scores on the Two-Day Test ......... Students’ Scores on the Research Paper ........ xi Page 50 77 90 136 150 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Continuum of Observation Types ............. 21 2. A Model of Teacher Thought and Action ......... 36 3. Sociopolitical Contexts in Which the Course ”America in the Sixties and Seventies” Is Embedded ...... 68 4. Observational Scales for Assessing Higher-Order Thinking in High School Social Studies Classes . . . . 93 5. Floor Plan of Mr. Johnson’s Classroom ......... 95 6. Interaction Analysis-~First Classroom Discussion, 1/25/89 ....................... 102 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE BRIDGE BUILDER An old man traveling a lone highway, Came at the evening cold and gray, To a chasm vast and deep and wide, Through which was flowing a sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim, The sullen stream had no fears for him; But he turned when safe on the other side, And built a bridge to span the tide. "Old man," cried a fellow pilgrim near, "Your journey will end with the closing day; You never again will pass this way. You have crossed the chasm deep and wide, Why build this bridge at even-tide?" The bridge builder lifted his old gray head: ”Good friend, in the path I have come," he said, "There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way. The stream which has been as naught to me, To that fair-haired youth may pitfall be; He, too, must cross in the twilight dim . . . Good friend, I am building this bridge for him.“ by Will Allen Dromgoole (1948, p. 132) mm My purpose in this study was to seek an answer to the main research question: How is higher-order thinking fostered in the high school social studies classroom, and what teacher thought processes influence the pedagogy? In addition, I wanted to examine the perceptions of the students in this learning environment. To find the answer to this question, I observed a high school history teacher in a midwestern prep school, identified by his administra- tors and colleagues as a teacher committed to teaching higher-order thinking skills. The commitment of this teacher to higher-order thinking was expressed in his goals and objectives for the course, "America in the Sixties and Seventies," and was documented in his description of this one-semester course. I observed this teacher as he structured his pedagogy to promote higher-order student dis- course, both oral and written, to meet his goals and objectives. I looked at how the teacher dealt with motivational learning dispositions in high school students. Dweck (1986) identified these to be the mastery disposition, in which the goal is to increase competence, and the performance disposition, in which the intention is to do well and thus gain a positive judgment of one’s competence. The contrast between these two learning inclinations was intensified in a private college-preparatory high school, where getting into a ”good" college is one of the prime motivational factors for working toward the ”grade" associated with the performance disposition. Newmann (1988b) added a third learning inclination that addresses higher-order thinking. He suggested that the higher-order disposition goes beyond knowledge and skill acquisition to learned characteristics that include the following: (a) a persistent desire that claims be supported by reasons, (b) a tendency to be reflective, and (c) the flexibility to entertain alternative and original solutions to problems. I probed the teacher’s thoughts on assessment of higher-order discourse and his expectations of student performance/ participation, as well as how he made sense of the role of higher- order thinking in teaching social studies. Last, I examined the sociopolitical contexts that influenced teaching and learning in his classroom. The teacher and I identified these contexts as the national professional association, the regional accrediting association, the state professional organization, the school, the administration, the History Department, the parents and alumni/ae, and the students. Links exist between the micro (classroom) and macro (school and community) levels of context, according to Evertson and Green (1986), and are signaled through performance, available materials, practices, and evaluation. The sociopolitical contexts can influence the definition and redefinition of curriculum practices that influence pedagogy. This ethnographic study began with classroom observations, as well as formal and informal interviews, during the semester of instruction. Then, after studying the data generated in the field, I conducted follow-up interviews and observations with the teacher to discuss the patterns that had emerged. This allowed both the teacher and me ample time for reflection, an important component of qualitative research. My intention, then, was to capture the insider’s perspective of both the teacher and the student informants in the learning environment as it related to higher-order discourse in social studies. lhe Rationale fer the Study Why spend the time and energy in lengthy observation of a teacher committed to teaching higher-order thinking as part of his planned social studies curriculum? The rationale for this study evolved from two sources. First, Newmann (1988a) stated: The well-publicized surveys on citizen ignorance (or forgetting what. was taught) is often attributed to lack of ‘rigor in teaching or insufficient "time on task," but its persistence leads one to suspect a more fundamental cause. If educators and the public continue to conceive of knowledge itself primarily as retrieval of isolated knowledge bits rather than as the conduct of intelligent discourse, most students will continue to forget what they have studied, even though they may have earned respectable scores on unit tests or final exams. (p. 8) I believed that observing a high school social studies classroom in which higher-order discourse was woven into the curriculum would allow me to see the teacher’s pedagogy and the students’ reaction to this pedagogy in the socially constructed environment of the classroom. Or, as Lortie (1975) concluded, "It is widely conceded that the core transactions of formal education take place where teachers and students meet. Almost every school practitioner is or was a classroom teacher; teaching is the root of educational practice" (p. ii). In this study, I intended to observe the educational practice of teaching higher-order thinking in the social studies classroom. Furthermore, the teacher’s thought processes about teaching and learning and his commitment to higher-order thinking, which would ultimately influence his teaching practice, needed to be examined. The second rationale for this study was the fact that higher- order thinking has been mandated for inclusion in many secondary school curricula in all subject areas. However, not many studies have included the viewpoints of the participants and how this can be facilitated. Lortie (1975) again made an insightful comment: “Schooling is long on prescription and short on description“ (p. vii) What would be the perceptions of the participants in a social studies class .with higher-order discourse as a main goal and objective guiding the pedagogy? How does a classroom teacher demonstrate a commitment to teaching these skills? In summary, I sought to answer the main research question: How (is higher-order thinking fostered in the high school social studies classroom, and what thought processes influenced the teacher’s pedagogy? The following supporting research questions were posed: 1. What type of pedagogy and strategies foster higher-order discourse in a high school social studies classroom? 2. How does the teacher make sense of the task of teaching social studies, and what types of thinking and beliefs does he have about knowledge/learning and higher-order thinking? In turn, how does the student make sense of learning in this environment, which may or may not be the norm for his/her educational experiences, and what are his/her thoughts about knowledge and learning? 3. How does a teacher who is committed to and values higher- order dispositions deal with possible conflicting student dispositions about learning? How does the student at this point in his/her educational experience see the conflict in learning dispositions? 4. How does the sociopolitical context influence this teacher’s pedagogy, and does this context relate more closely to a single learning disposition? If so, what kind of disposition(s)? I was guided by these questions in my daily observations of the classroom in its naturalistic setting. I addressed new questions that emerged as the study proceeded, enhancing and redefining the study as patterns and questions began to emerge. n swers to in esti n What is being done in high school classrooms to prepare the youths of America for the intellectual demands of the future? That is, what is actually being done to foster intellectual growth and higher-order thinking? If one were to pose this question to an educational researcher who has been studying the American high school during the past decade, the response might be similar to the following excerpt from Boyer’s (1983) 111mm: Vignettes of the American [high school] classroom raise disturbing questions about how instruction relates to the professional goals of education. How, for example, can the relatively passive and docile roles of students prepare them to participate as informed, active, and questioning citizens? Not least, how can we produce critical and creative thinking throughout a student’s life when we so systematically discourage individuality in the classroom? (p. 141) If one were to ask a high school classroom teacher this question, as Sizer (1984) did in his study, the seasoned educator might respond: Most jobs in the real world have a gap between what would be nice and what is possible. One adjusts. Even after adroit accornmodations and devastating compromises--only five minutes per week of attention on the written work of each student and an average of ten minutes of planning for each forty-minute class--the task is already crushing, in reality a sixty-hour work week. . . . Come now, he mutters to himself. Don’t get cynical. . . . Don’t keep insisting that these "experts” should try my job for a week. . . . They assure me that they understand me, only they say, ”We hear you, Horace." I wonder who their English teachers were. (p. 71) If a high school student on a low rung of the academic ladder were asked the same question, he/she might respond as did the students when researcher, Philip Cusick (1973), told them he was from the university and wanted to find out what they did in school for one month. They said, "You want to follow us? To see what we Ado? We don’t do anything [with laughter]" (p. 234). Conversely, if a high school student on a high rung of the academic ladder were asked this question, he/she might respond as Adam did in Marshall’s (1985) "Honors: An Educational Criticism": “At Englewood you have the cream of the crop on one hand and the bottom of the barrel on the other" (p. 296). Yet, even for Adam, sacrifices must be made in the high school learning experience. He stated: When you’re not writing for a teacher you’ve sort of had the shackles lifted from you. You’re freer and you work within your own limits. You can really put your personality down on the paper instead of putting down what they want on the paper. Your creativity is broken off when you’re forced to do something somebody else’s way. You figure, all right, I’ve got to do it this way or I’m going to get an "F” or I’m going to get it wrong because they’re grading it according to how they want it. Maybe it’s physiological or something, but to me anyway, creativity is a physical thing rather than just in your mind. You can think of creativity like blood or something-- something that flows. The supply is cut when you have to say, ”Oh my God, I have to do this now.” It’s just cut right there, and then you feel like a robot. (p. 307) In Ihe Gees! High Seheel, Lightfoot (1983) related the frustration of a mother who was not informed until after the fact that her daughter had been dropped from an advanced placement mathematics class. The student simply was allowed to drop the class, and her mother was sent a form for comment. The mother stated: I felt powerless to change things. The counselor never asked me about it before the plans were set in motion. My daughter followed their plan. Parents should have more power in these decisions. I know my child is an operator. She needed to be pressed into working harder, not given the easy retreat to another level. Maybe if I were a lawyer instead of a secretary they would value my opinion more highly. . . . Maybe they don’t know I’m a college graduate. (p. 165) A high school administrator, also quoted in Lightfoot’s (1983) study, spoke about the leveling (tracking) system that high schools often use. She stated: The initial assignment is critical and it occurs in the elementary school. . . . It completely determines what the student will come away with. . . . Some students come into school, get lost in a non-academic . . . do nothing, learn nothing . . . just hang around for four years. If you go into A.P. classes, you’re not going to find Black students . . . and no female students in A.P. science classes. . . . Maybe some of that has changed recently. (p. 166) The bleak picture of the American high school painted by these varied perspectives has not gone unnoticed in the public eye. National attention was drawn to the "marked deterioration of academic study in our secondary schools" in A Netjen et Risk (1983). This report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education rocked the educational foundation of the country with its criticism of current educational practices and policies. Never before has education been so publicly criticized in print and media. The Comnission suggested that a high school curriculum should equip graduates with skills that go beyond rote learning and simple knowledge acquisition. Among other things, the Commission recommended that: l. The teaching of English should equip graduates to (a) com- prehend, interpret, evaluate, and use what they read; (b) write well-organized, effective papers; (c) listen effectively and discuss ideas intelligently; and (d) know our literary heritage and how it enhances imagination and ethical understanding, and how it relates to the customs, ideas, and values of today’s life and culture. 2. The teaching of social studies in high school be designed to (a) enable students to fix their possibilities within the larger social and cultural structure; (b) understand the broad sweep of both ancient and contemporary ideas that have shaped our world; (c) understand the fUndamentals of how our economic system works and how our political system functions; and (d) grasp the difference between free and repressive societies. An understanding of each of these areas is requisite to the informed and committed exercise of citizenship in our free society. (pp. 25-26) The panel seemed to be citing the need for intellectual discourse (both oral and written) on the part of students, but instead of speaking about a change in pedagogy, they seemed to conclude that this can be brought about by lengthening the school day and establishing more demanding graduation requirements. In the past decade, various other panels and commissions have undertaken the task of studying the American high school, some of whose findings will be discussed in the literature review. 10 The voices that have been missing from many of these studies, with the exception of Lightfoot’s (1983) and Newmann’s (1988) research, are those of the high school teachers and the students who are successful in their high school educational experience. In examining the nation’s high schools, one should also focus on those schools recognized as achieving success in their explicit and implicit educational goals. Their successes as well as their failures can be instructive. One can look at learning within the multiple levels of context that these successful environments provide and at the same time hear what the voices of the participants at all of these levels are saying about learning. One must look below the surface of testing, curriculum, grades, graduation requirements, and what these schools look like ("1 paper -and enter the classrooms. Here one can observe teachers and students as they daily experience the learning process. m ortan he u This study is important because it adds to the body of research in three areas. First, the, findings contribute to classroom- oriented research in which the teaching-learning process has been observed as it unfolds naturally in school settings. As Mehan (1979) stated, "AI detailed examination of interaction from one classroom contrasts sharply with the prevailing approach to the study of schooling, namely, large-scale comparisons of many different schools." An ”insider’s perspective" based largely on observation and informal interviews over' an extended period can ll capture how the participants make sense of their socially constructed environment. Also, within this period, assertions about interaction and behavior can be formulated and tested against the day-to-day routines that may become all but invisible to the participants. After careful reflection on the data, I can look at the patterns that emerge for further analysis. I can ask additional questions of the teacher, based on field observation, and examine the teacher’s thinking as it relates to higher-order thinking and learning dispositions reflected in his own teaching pedagogy. Second, interpretive field research conducted in the classroom over an extended period (one semester or longer) has been done primarily at the elementary school or kindergarten (preschool) level. Notable exceptions are the work done by Cusick (1973, 1983) and Roberts (1988). Most research conducted at the high school level has been large-scale comparisons referred to earlier in this chapter or quantitative studies examining cause/effect or process/product variables. Goodlad (1984) conducted one of the most extensive studies, to date, of grade 1 through 12 schooling. His team of more than 20 trained observers for each community chose to compile "thick" descriptions of 38 schools located in seven states representing a cross-section of the United States. His study included 12 senior high schools with 525 observations of two to three periods. Surveyed were 7,677 students, 664 teachers, and 4,212 parents. The 12 research methodology, however, was different from an ethnography because the team developed observation forms and questionnaires/ surveys to gather the large quantity of data and to guide their observations of 1,000 classrooms. Third, research looking at higher-order thinking in a social studies class as it is expressed in student discourse, both oral and written, is rare. Newmann’s (1988a, 1988b) study of higher-order thinking in high school social studies classrooms was the first of its kind to go into the classroom to develop observational scales of thoughtful discourse. These observational scales gave me things to look for in classroom observations within the natural context of the semester. In Newmann’s study, classes were observed only nine times over three visits to record observations. These were recorded by observers on a five-point scale devised to examine classrooms Iempirically for "thoughtful" (or higher-level) discourse. Finally, I can determine how both teacher and students interpret learning dispositions. Limitations ef the Stgdy No study is without limitations, and this one is no exception. The study is not meant to be evaluative of teaching practices or classroom management, nor do I examine curriculum or curriculum design. Rather, this is an observational case study of a classroom. Researchers intend to gather data that will provide both answers to the research questions and raise new questions for study. The data in this study provide rich evidence of what happened in one semester 13 of instruction, but, as with all ethnographic studies, random sampling was not employed, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The reader is left to make his/her own comparisons to other educational settings. One wonders, as an outsider, whether the participants were completely willing to share their negative thoughts about what was going on in the site although after a lengthy time in observation these thoughts somehow do surface. To counter such limitations, Bogdan and Biklen (1982) pointed out that ethnographic research can help practitioners (teachers) improve their effectiveness by showing them change from the qualitative perspective. Some teachers say, "It won’t work. It doesn’t fit the real world." They do not realize that reality is constructed by people as they go about living their daily lives. Teachers can be active in shaping and changing the real world if they have tangible information on what it is like now from the qualitative perspective. Overview Chapter 11 contains a review of literature related to the current study. The literature review includes the definition of terms relevant to the study, theoretical orientations to higher- order thinking, particularly higher-order thinking in social studies, a historical framework of the high school reform movement, teaching/learning in a socially constructed environment, teacher 14 thought processes, field research in the high school, and a summary and critique of the literature. The design of the study and research methodology are detailed in Chapter III. The theoretical orientation of the research is discussed, followed by a description of the study’s design. The research questions that guided the inquiry are restated, and the time line for the research is presented. Chapter IV contains a description of the site and participants in the study, as well as the sociopolitical contexts of the setting. Chapter V is a chronological description of the pedagogy of teaching higher-order thinking in a socially constructed environment. Teacher thought processes involved in establishing a commitment to teaching higher-order thinking skills are examined in Chapter VI. In Chapter VII, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for further study are presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE n ti A phenomenological perspective provides the theoretical framework for this qualitative study because the researcher was attempting to understand the meaning of events of ordinary people in a particular situation (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). In this study, the commitment to ‘teaching higher-order ‘thinking in 'the high school social studies classroom was the phenomenon for study. ‘The literature review was guided by this framework. The review of »literature is presented in the following organizational structure: Definition of Terms, Theoretical Orientations to Higher-Order Thinking and to Higher-Order Thinking in Social Studies, High School Reform Movements--A Historical Framework, Teaching and Learning in a Socially Constructed Environment, Teacher Thought Processes, Field Research in High Schools, and Summary and Critique of Literature Related to the Study. Definition ofeleyme The following definitions are provided for clarification to the reader. Critjee1_thidkidg. Lippman (1988) described critical thinking as skilled, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment 15 16 because it (a) relies on criteria, (b) is self-correcting, and (c) is sensitive to context. His thoughts on critical thinking are expanded in the literature review. Qjeeogree. Newmann (1988) defined discourse as language produced by the student with the intention of providing a narrative, argument, explanation, or analysis. To qualify as discourse, these statements must go beyond the literal reproduction of statements previously produced by teachers, authors of texts and dictionaries of technical terms, or even notable excerpts from distinguished literary, historical, and scientific works. Students should produce language in their own unique ways. Djsedeitiens (toward learning). Learning dispositions constitute their own set of motivational beliefs that elicit certain behaviors. Dweck (1986) identified two primary motivational llearning dispositions as (a) mastery, in which the goal is to increase competence; and (b) performance, in which the intention is to do well and thus gain a positive judgment of one’s competence. To these dispositions Newmann (1988) added a third, which is a higher-order-thinking disposition. He stated that higher-order thinking suggests learned characteristics, that include a persistent desire that claims be supported by reasons; a tendency to be reflective--to take time to think problems through for oneself rather than acting impulsively or accepting the views of others; a curiosity to explore new questions; and the flexibility to entertain alternative and original solutions to problems. 17 Exnljeit ennrienlnn. The explicit curriculum is the curriculum as it is written. The written curriculum is influenced by the various contexts within which it exists, in this case the private school domain, from the National Association of Independent schools to the Independent Schools Association of Central States, which is responsible for evaluating the school and its curriculum every six years. The philosophy and goals of the school as defined by the administration and staff also influence the written curriculum. The academic subject departments have the largest direct input into "curriculum as .written,” and their recommendations result in the generation of various documents that define and describe the curriculum. These include scope and sequence for courses and materials and methods used to facilitate teaching/ learning. In addition, the subject-area teacher adds his/her assignments, Ireadings, and projects to the curriculum, documented in lesson plans, assignment sheets, and teacher-generated hand-outs. Hidden egnnieglum. The hidden curriculum comprises norms and values that are implicitly, but effectively, taught in schools and that are not usually talked about in teachers’ statements of ends or goals (Jackson, 1968). Jackson cited examples of "hidden curricu- lum” as the way students learn to cope with crowds, praise, and power in classrooms and how they learn to falsify certain aspects of their behavior to conform to the reward system extant in most class- rooms. MW. Newmann (1988) defined higher-order thinking as thinking that challenges the student to interpret, 18 analyze, or manipulate information because a question to be answered cannot be resolved through the routine application of previously learned knowledge. It requires knowledge and skills but also a significant mental challenge as to how to apply the knowledge; for example, "Explain what the possible implications might be if a specific Supreme Court decision is overturned.” This is in contrast to lower-order thinking, defined below. Leger-order thinking. Newmann (1988) defined lower-order thinking as routine, mechanistic application of previously acquired knowledge, for example, repetitive exercises such as listing information previously' memorized or inserting numbers into previously learned formulae. An example of this is the ever-popular multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank test. fiedegmy. Pedagogy refers to the method or means a teacher Iuses to facilitate the teaching/learning process of the explicit curriculum. Teachers’ attitudes about classroom management, teaching/learning, and process/content, as well as their expecta- tions of students, are major influences on pedagogy. Ineeretical Orientatiens to Higher-Order Thinking end ' r-Or r Thin i ' o i tu i Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy was first used to define higher-order thinking, but within the past decade much has been written and theorized about teaching thinking skills, with most of it directed toward higher-order thinking. Summaries of the literature have been made by Chipman, Segal, and Glaser (1985); Kohlberg (1981); Mayer (1983); Sternberg and Wagner (1986); and Voss (in press). These 19 studies related to identifying the nature of problems and describing the processes or approaches used to think about problems, and they offered general models of intelligence or the workings of the mind. Descriptions of resulting instructional programs and research on their effects can be found in many research journals. ' - .i i The stated curriculum for this study was social studies, so the literature review focused on theoretical orientations that addressed higher-order thinking in social studies. Higher-order thinking is not new to social studies literature, neither by approach nor conceptualization, but it is known by a variety of names. Among the wealth of terms are critical thinking (Beyer, 1985; Ennis, 1962; -Feeley, 1976; Giroux, 1978; Lippman, 1988), reflective thinking (Hunt & Metcalf, 1968), social scientific inquiry (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1977; Morrissett, 1967), and jurisprudential reasoning (Oliver & Shaver, 1966), to name but a few. It was this seemingly endless list of definitions, each with its own orientation, that led Newmann (1988a) and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin Center on Effective Secondary Schools to propose a framework to try to incorporate these approaches and to formulate a theory and practice that would serve both the researcher and the practitioner. His framework was intended to (a) define higher-order thinking (see earlier definitions) grounded 'hi tasks that present nonroutine challenges; (b) cultivate in the student 20 knowledge, skills, and dispositions to succeed in the challenges; and (c) recognize four specific challenges in social studies (stated as empathy, abstraction, inference, and evaluation and advocacy). Newmann (1988b) conducted research to Idevelop a five-point observational scale to test empirically higher-order thoughtfulness in social studies classrooms. Two members from a team of four researchers gathered data from classrooms and departments identified as using higher-level thoughtfulness in their high school social studies classrooms. Three teachers, each with three classes, and six teachers with one class each were observed. The classes were selected to include students of diverse levels of school achievement. During each visit, the researchers jointly observed one class of each of the three main teachers. Ratings were made independently on each of the scales, and following the lesson, Adiscrepancies between ratings were discussed. Interrater reliability was high, with agreement on all 17 scales 90% of the time. Newmann’sI observational scales for' assessing higher-order thinking in social studies classes (see Chapter IV) were developed as a result of this research. Newmann’s observational scale would fall at the highly formal end of the continuum of qualitative observation methodologies (see Figure 1) contained in Evertson and Green’s (1986) ”Observation as Inquiry and Method” because all observations are recorded on an established scale or checklist. At the opposite end of the continuum is less formal observation, in which the researcher has no pre-established scale on which to record specific observational 21 data, but rather notes all activities observed in the classroom. This allows the researcher to collect a wide variety of information. The less formal approach was employed in this study. Everyday Everyday Deliberate Deliberate Tacit Systematic Systematic Less L__ Highly Formal ‘F' T 'T> Formal Observations Situation- Question- Specific Specific Observations Observations Figure l: Continuum of observation types. (From Evertson & Green, 1986, p. 164.) Curriculum guidelines produced by the National Council for Social Studies (NCSS) contain references to higher-order thinking. The 1981 statement released by the NCSS on the essentials of social studies referred to the overarching goal of education as trying to develop informed, thinking citizens capable of participating in both domestic and *world affairs. This implies that social studies content and skills include attention to applications, higher-order thinking, and problem solving. The NCSS further defined these skills to include data-gathering, decision-making, and interpersonal abilities. The NCSS guidelines have led to a number of strategies and conflicts about how touse higher-order thinking in the curriculum. Does one develop social studies curricula around 22 powerful concepts and generalizations drawn from the disciplines, around specific topics, or around issues and questions? Recent ASCD literature has focused on thinking skills and their inclusion in the curriculum. One such resource, Costa’s (1985) Deyeleding Minds: A Reednree fer leeehing Ininking, focuses on articles by nationally recognized scholars that pertain to incorpo- rating thinking skills into the curriculum by identifying teaching strategies and suggestions for creating a climate for higher-order thinking. This relates to my research by identifying strategies that can be used at the high school level in social studies. The other resource, Stretegie Teaching and Learning: Cognitive inetrne- tidn in the Content Areas (Jones, Palencsar, Ogle, 8 Carr, 1987), offers a framework for teaching thinking skills in the content areas of science, mathematics, social studies, and literature. The frame- Awork provided for social studies could easily be adapted to the high school curriculum. Some of the strategies identified in this frame- work might be used by the teacher under study. The need for reform and reevaluation of the way thinking is taught in social studies and, indeed, in all high school subjects is apparent. High school reform movements are the subject of the next section. S 0 arm ov m n -- i r c l ra w rk That American high schools historically have been subjected to examination, criticism, and reform leading to the redefinition of their place in society has been well documented. These historical 23 accounts can be found in many studies about schools, including Curti’s (1963) investigation examining discipline in schools by looking at early school reports and Broudy’s (1972) research focusing on historically documented accounts of long-standing disapproval of schools. The common school of the 18305 mirrored industrial society and perpetuated the common class (Apple, 1979). Those challenging the common school believed that schools should not only transmit exist- ing culture but improve democratic society and develop a more humane world (Joyce & Marine, 1976). John Dewey (1916), a leader of the social reform movement in schools, believed that education is built around a series of steps by which children think through problems. Joyce (1983) summarized these five steps as follows: 1. The pupil should have a genuine situation of experience and ~continuous activity in which he/she is interested for its own sake. 2. A genuine problem must develop within this situation that will serve as a stimulator of thought. 3. The pupil needs to possess the information, the appropriate data, and to make the necessary observations required in dealing with the problem. 4. Suggested solutions to the problem will occur to the pupil, which the pupil is then responsible for developing in an orderly fashion. 5. The pupil needs to have the opportunity to test solutions by applying them, in order to make their meaning clear and to discover their validity. 24 According to Dewey, these steps, which appeared in his Denneyeey_in_£dneetien (1916), were to provide the scaffolding or core mental process that would be reinforced throughout students’ education. The steps are noted in this literature review because of their emphasis on process, experiential learning, problem solving, and student-centered orientation toward learning. Dewey’s progressive education movement declined in the 19305. His critics attacked the lack of content that students were learning and the very fact that such education was student rather than teacher oriented. The "Eight-Year Study" (Aikin, 1942) conducted in the 19305 has been the most heavily funded effort to reform secondary schools to date. It began in 1927 with the Progressive Educators Association (PEA) reporting that secondary schools were being hampered in their curricular decisions by the necessity to prepare students to meet existing college entrance requirements. Their response was to form the Commission on the Relation of School and College, which began the studyu More than 300 colleges and universities agreed to participate by allowing secondary schools to experiment with their curriculum. Thirty schools were selected by the Commission: 14 private progressive schools, 10 public schools, and 6 university lab schools. Cuban (1984) gave an account of the "Eight-Year Study” from the perspective of five high schools participating in Denver. This was part of his research on constancy and change in American classrooms from 1890 through 1980. Each school began with one class of 40 25 students and teachers selected by the principals to teach the ”progressive education" classes. According to Cuban (1985), they were given the directive by the PEA to: . . enliven the high school curriculum and stir independence and imagination despite the strictures that college requirements placed upon the existing curriculum. Participating schools were told to forget college requirements and reconstruct their curriculum to tap into the imagination and ingenuity of their students and staff. (p. 76) Ralph Tyler and his research team led the evaluation activities for the study, asking that teachers write objectives and indicators of desired behaviors for the new curriculum. This approach provided a framework for evaluation but did not suggest specific content as the schools were diverse in their curricula and goals. This ultimately became the model used by many professional schools for curriculum evaluation based on learners’ progress toward educational ‘objectives. The second part of the study proposed a follow-through evaluation comparing 2,000 students from the 30 schools who had participated in the study and who had enrolled in college with 2,000 students who had not participated in the study who also had enrolled in college. The comparison groups were selected and matched on an extensive list of characteristics. The result of the follow-up study showed that the graduates of the experimental group did only slightly better than their counterparts in the traditional curriculum. However, it was noted that the 30 schools varied widely in their curriculum reform. The least experimental schools were outperformed academically by the most experimental schools. It was also reported in the findings 26 that for high-ability students, success in college did not depend on the content of secondary school curriculum, a finding largely overlooked by many because of its political implications. The study prompted beneficial public debate over the purpose of education and the relationship among the variables of the nature of human beings, society, and schooling. Some, like Unks (1979), even believe this open discussion of the purpose of education and the research and literature it generated to be the legacy of the ”Eight- Year Study.“ Today we find many of the same issues being debated. The "Eight-Year Study" relates to this research because it concerned what can happen when schools and teachers have the freedom to design their own curriculum for students which breaks away from the tradi- tional college-oriented curriculum. The study examined the links between high school curriculum and how it prepares the academically able student for college. It allowed for more progressive pedagogy in addition to curriculum that was more conducive to higher-order thinking and student-centered instruction. A course like the one examined in this study is more progressive in orientation than a more content-focused history course for college preparation. Without the ”Eight-Year Study,” validation of a curriculum that included such progressive courses might have been more difficult in a college-oriented program. It was reform that included partici- pants at all levels of the educational spectrum and therefore sociopolitical contexts: students, teachers, administrators, high schools, and colleges. 27 In Ihe Teecner in Aneriee, Barzun (1945) spoke of expectations for public school education that are still held by educators and the general public today. He stated: Sociologists and the general public continue to expect the public schools to generate a classless society, do away with racial prejudice, improve table manners, make happy marriages, reverse the national habit of smoking, prepare trained workers for the professions, and produce patriotic and religious citizens who are at the same time critical and independent thinkers. (p. 5) Thus, even in 1945, public education was being criticized for what it could or could not do in regard to critical and independent thinking. Public challenges to education waged in the media intensified with the publication of Flesch’s (1955) Why dohnny Can’t Read and Y C n 0 About t. The trend for noneducators to attack public and private education in books and the mass media became popular, just as it is today. This frenzy was fueled by the Soviet launching of Sputnik in 1957. Reformers quickly called for math/science education; this call resulted in programmed learning and 'teacher-proof* curriculum. During this educational upheaval, Conant’s (1959) study of American high schools emerged. In his study of 55 high schools in 18 states, Conant described school characteristics that led to achievement and made 21 recommendations for high schools to improve instructional programs. Conant’s recommendation concerning twelfth- grade social studies is as follows: In the twelfth grade a course on American problems or American government should be required. This course should include as much material on economics as the students can effectively 28 handle at this point in their development. Each class in this course should be a cross section of the school; the class should be heterogeneously grouped. Teachers should encourage all students to participate in discussions. This course should develop not only an understanding of the American form of government and of the economic basis of our free society, but also mutual respect and understanding between different types of students. Current topics should be included; free discus- sion of controversial issues should be encouraged. This approach is one significant way in which our schools distin- guish themselves from those in totalitarian nations. This course, as well as well-organized homerooms and certain student activities, can contribute a great deal to the development of future citizens of our democracy who will be intelligent voters, stand firm under trying national conditions, and not be beguiled by the oratory of those who appeal to special inter- ests. (p. 75) Conant’s study is germane to this research because the course that Conant described in the preceding quotation is very similar to the course observed in this study, 31 years later. The course in my study is described in Chapter IV. With America’s success in the space race, the pressure was Itaken off public education to produce scientists and mathematicians; interest was turned to keeping students in school and decreasing the drop-out rate. The curriculum therefore must be ”relevant" to the student. During this time Bruner (1961) wrote The Pnecess ef Eddeeflen, in which he sought to organize instruction around the central concepts of academic education. Bruner’s views resulted in a prescribed course of study and subsequent curriculum. ”Man: A Course of Study" focused on scholarly study of the disciplines. This “new“ curriculum required large-scale programs to train teachers to implement the course. The program declined before gaining momentum, however, because of a lack of teacher and administrator interest, commitment, and involvement in the 29 development of the course. The failure of the program showed many curriculum reformers that curriculum change can be very political and must involve all participants committed to implementing it. This has implications for current curriculum mandates that include higher-order/critical thinking, focusing on some of the difficulties that can be anticipated if not all participants are involved in curriculum change from the very beginning. The 1983 report from the National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Natidn at Risk: Th m tiv d ti na Ref m, has been perhaps the most widely read report regarding educational reform. It has caught the attention of and elicited both positive and negative responses from educators, politicians, business people, and the general public. As a result, it has had a tremendous influence on the current movement for educational reform. I During the late 19805, controversy reemerged over content versus process issues that were raised by the progressives/tradi- tionalists in the 19305 and 19405. This later controversy was sparked by Hirsch’s (1987) Cultural Literacy: What Every Ameriean Need; td Kn w. Researchers have positioned themselves on one side or the other of this controversy. Ravich and Finn (1987) spoke to the value of greater content emphasis in teacher preparation, classroom learning, and testing. Perkins and Salomon (1988) emphasized the importance of knowledge "transfer” (a process) over the learning of knowledge (content). Lippman (1988) addressed the importance of critical thinking skills in the classroom but also acknowledged that "the conception of education as inquiry combines 30 two aims--the transmission of knowledge and the cultivation of wisdom” (p. 38). He acknowledged both process and content in his theories and definitions. Cuban (1984) conducted historical research on how teachers taught through these reform movements and offered explanations for the constancy and change in American classrooms from 1890 through 1980. To determine how teachers taught during this historical span of time, he used a variety of sources: photographs of teachers and students in class, textbooks and tests teachers used, students’ recollections of their experiences in classrooms, teachers’ reports of how they taught, and reports from people who visited classrooms, e.g., journalists, parents, and administrators. From his study, Cuban arrived at several explanations for classroom stability in the face of reforms and changes. With regard to classroom practices Ithat have endured and remained the same, Cuban explained that: 1. Schools are a form of social control and sorting. 2. The organizational structure of the school and classroom drove teachers into adopting instructional practices that changed little over time. 3. The culture of teaching itself tilts toward stability and a reluctance to change. The following explanations may account for more change than stability in teaching practices: 1. Ideas about how children develop, the role of the school, classroom authority, and the place of subject matter in instruction determine teaching practices. 31 2. What determines instructional practice is whether or not reforms were effectively implemented in classrooms. To summarize the literature on high school reform movements in this section of the literature review, I shall use Cuban’s (1984) description resulting from his historical research into reform movements and their effect on teaching. He stated: I use the metaphor of a hurricane to distinguish between curriculum, courses of study, materials, and classroom instruc- tion. Hurricane winds sweep across the sea tossing up twenty foot waves; a fathom below the surface turbulent waters swirl while on the ocean floor there is unruffled calm. (p. 2) Further' explanation given was that curriculum theories did influence professional ideologies and vocabularies, courses of study, and some textbook content, but Cuban did not find much evidence of significant change in teaching practices and pedagogy of teachers in the classroom as a result of the reform movements. h'n nd arni 'n ' n n 'r m nt Coleman (1960) examined effects of the school peer group on the individual, using a sample of ten high schools in the Midwest. He concluded that in schools where high achievement was valued, more bright students were high performers. Thus, if academic achievement is valued, bright students are more likely to put their energies into academic pursuits. Conversely, if athletics is valued, bright students are more likely to participate in athletic activities or areas other than academics. From these findings, Coleman concluded that the adolescent subcultures in most schools are a deterrent to academic achievement, but this same energy derived from the peer 32 group can be diverted to academic achievement, at least for bright students. He did not indicate how less academically able students fit into his study. Goodlad’s (1984) results were similar to Coleman’s. "Smart students" is not the award-winning category in the popularity sweepstakes. ”Good-looking students" and "athletes" accounted fbr 79%. of the popularity choices of senior high school students averaged across all of the schools included in the study. When asked to indicate the best thing about school, the students ranked "my friends" first and "sports” second. The only characteristics related to academics, ”classes I’m taking" and "teachers," ranked last in terms of popularity among high school students in the sample. Johnson and Johnson (1985) examined three types of learning situations in a high school setting. Their research was built on three types of goal interdependence established by Deutsch (1962), categorized as cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Johnson and Johnson concluded that, since the 19405, competitive, individualistic, learning has dominated schools, and cooperative learning has been used only 7% to 20% of the time. Levine (1983), another investigator concerned with the effects of competition, concluded that a competitive structure produces negative interdependence among students. Johnson and Johnson defined negative interdependence as students’ working against each other in a learning situation to determine who can perform the best. 33 One student gains and the others lose on the basis of academic performance. This research is tied closely with my supporting question about learning dispositions. Will certain learning dispositions produce negative interdependence, resulting in competitiveness, or a cooperative relationship based on group learning and problem solving? deCharms (1984) wrote of teacher-learner relationships in the following manner: - The learner is developing habits; the teacher demonstrates the correct responses, the learner imitates those responses, and the teacher strengthens (reinforces) them into good habits. - The learner is a passive receptacle and the teacher fills the receptacle with knowledge, as one fills a cup from a pitcher. - The learner is an active agent engaged in interaction, as one sets a stage for a drama but cannot completely control the action. (p. 275) The first relationship 'would indicate that the teacher is modeling a behavior that he/she might expect students to acquire. An unstated reality is that a teacher might also unintentionally model behaviors that are not good habits for students. The second relationship is the teacher-directed and teacher-oriented one. The third is the student-oriented relationship, with the teacher acting as a facilitator in many cases. This relationship will set the pattern for interaction between teacher and students in the social environment of the classroom. deCharms (1984) pointed out that teacher education courses extol active learning, and yet when it comes right down to what to 34 do in the classroom, the teacher is taught to use teacher-centered methods, which are least oriented toward student interaction. This results in teachers teaching as they were themselves taught, which has overwhelmingly been in the teacher-oriented method. Finally, looking at teaching and learning in a socially constructed environment, we consider the differences between a teacher-centered and a student-centered learning environment. From his research on the way teachers teach (and taught historically), Cuban (1984) said the concept of describing instruction as a continuum stretching from teacher centered to student centered contains a limited but useful set of indicators describing important dimensions of what teachers do (and did) in their classrooms. He further defined the observable measures of both in the following description: In teacher-centered instruction: 1. Teacher talk exceeds student talk during instruction. 2. Instruction occurs frequently with the whole class; small- group or individual instruction occurs less frequently. 3. Use of class time is determined by the teacher. 4. The classroom is usually arranged into rows of desks or chairs facing a blackboard with a teacher’s desk nearby. In student-centered instruction: 1. Student talk on learning tasks is at least equal to, if not greater than, teacher talk. 35 2. Most instruction occurs individually, in small (2 to 6 students) or moderately sized (7 to 12 students) groups rather than with the whole class. 3. Students help choose and organize the content to be learned. 4. The teacher permits students to determine, partially or wholly, rules of behavior and penalties in the classroom and how they are enforced. 5. Varied instructional materials are available in the classroom so that students can use them independently or in small groups, e.g., interest centers, teaching stations, and activity centers. In this study, I looked at the teaching practices of the teacher under study to determine whether they were more teacher centered or student centered, to meet the stated goal of teaching higher-order thinking in social studies. In summary of this section of the literature review regarding learning in a socially constructed environment, the influence of peer group perceptions in learning and the importance of positive interdependence within the classroom has been shown. I looked at teacher/learner relationships and how these are ultimately played out in the classroom as teacher-centered or student-centered instruction. W In their study of teacher thought processes, included in the W, Clark and Peterson (1986) stated: 36 The thinking, planning, and decision making constitute a large part of the psychological context of teaching. It is within this context that curriculum is interpreted and acted upon where teachers teach and students learn. (p. 255) Considering teacher thought processes is important to any discussion of teaching pedagogy, especially pedagogy that promotes higher-order thinking, which varies from the norm of what has been traditional pedagogy. Clark and Peterson (1986) developed a model (reproduced and described in Figure 2) that shows the interrelation- ship between teachers’ thought processes and actions and their observable effects on educators’ teaching. The model shows the relationship between teachers’ thought processes and their actions as reciprocal. In other words, teachers’ thought processes influ- ence their actions, and resulting student behaviors influence the teachers’ thought processes. CONSTRAINTS 8: OPPORTUNITIES S‘Wt.’ C“ C «2., fiMM SF 8’ " Teachers’ Thought Processes and their Observanle Effects \pnlcun ‘ 3’ Teachers' Actions I i" \e Ind“fla St Figure 2: A model of teacher thought and action. (From Clark & Peterson, 1986, p. 257.) 37 Newmann (1988a) stressed this reciprocal relationship when referring to student discourse. He stated: As commonly understood, discourse involves a reciprocal relationship: a writer (or speaker) trying to communicate with a reader (or listener) so as to produce a particular reaction from the reader and presumably the writer’s (speaker’s) anticipation of the reader’s (listener’s) reaction determines, in large measure, how the writer (speaker) produces language. (9. 3) In further analysis of this model, it is noted that the teacher thought process section contains three categories representing temporal distinctions. These distinctions are possible only when the researcher has the ability to talk with the subject before, during, and after an observed classroom interaction and possibly after a longer reflection on the moment. Teacher planning also has temporal considerations. For example, a teacher might plan for his/her (preactive) lesson, find the lesson does not generate the discourse anticipated, and therefore adjust his/her (postactive) planning for the next day accordingly. Constraints and opportunities that continuously act on the teaching process in Clark and Peterson’s description closely parallel the sociopolitical contexts referred to in this study. These can be the National Association of Independent Schools, Lakeview Prep, the Independent Schools Association of Central States, the administrators, the History Department, parents, alumni, students, and the implicit and explicit curriculum. Onosko (1988) explored aspects of teacher thinking that related to promoting student thinking in social studies after finding this aspect absent from the literature. His exploratory study covered 38 five areas of teachers’ thoughts identified as goals, depth versus breadth of material coverage, perceptions of students, and conceptions of thinking. The teachers who were asked to respond were those identified as scoring high and low in their promotion of higher-order thinking in the social studies classroom. Similarities were found in both groups with regard to contextual barriers such as class size and total student load. Also, they had similar feelings about the students they perceived did well in higher-order thinking. The teachers who were high in promoting higher-level thinking in their classrooms, however, thought that students with lower ability could be successful in higher-order thinking. Important differences occurred in the depth versus breadth coverage. Teachers who did not readily promote higher-order thinking in their classrooms preferred to "expose" students to ideas and issues, whereas teachers who promoted these skills chose to ”explore" ideas and issues. .As a result of his study, Onosko made four recommendations for teacher thinking: (a) Increase teachers’ commitment to and rationale for promoting students’ thinking as a primary instructional goal, (b) Enhance teachers’ conceptual understanding of thinking, (c) Influence teachers’ sense of influence with low-achieving students by changing teachers’ perceptions of these students, and (d) Increase teachers’ understanding of the positive relationship between depth of coverage and the promotion of thinking. In their study on teacher thinking, Feiman-Nemser and Floden (1986) found that although teachers still use little research-based technical knowledge and their rewards still come from the students 39 rather than the institution or administration, there have been changes in the ways teachers and researchers think about teaching and their profession. The most significant change, according to their research, is that the image of the passive teacher being molded by' bureaucracy' and buffeted by external forces is being replaced with the image of the teacher as an active agent, constructing perspectives and choosing actions. The literature on teacher thought processes provided me with a model (Clark & Peterson, 1986) with which to examine the thought processes of the teacher in this study. Onosko (1988) looked at teacher thoughts as they relate to higher-order thinking in high school social studies. Feiman-Nemser and Floden (1986) showed the changes in teacher thinking within the past decade, evidencing a more proactive role in teacher thinking and decision making. Conelly and Clandinin (1988) examined teachers’ thoughts in terms of the "personal practical knowledge" a teacher brings to his/her classroom. The researchers defined such knowledge as a way of reconstructing the past and the intentions of the future to deal with the exigencies of a present situation. In conducting their research, they asked participating teachers to relate their personal practical knowledge through narrative, storytelling, and participant observation. It was this research that suggested using the form of narrative I used with the teacher in my study and validated that his teaching style was a part of his past experiences and his beliefs in knowledge and learning. 40 W Because qualitative methodology was chosen for this study, the focus in this section is primarily on qualitative field research done at the high school level. Goodlad (1984) found that high school teachers used a narrow range of teaching methods. He noted a lack of stimulating teaching and cited the frequent use of lecture, monitored seatwork, and activities requiring only rote learning. Goodlad further acknowledged that the planned improvement of pedagogy did not appear to be an agenda item for the schools in his sample. However, the goals set by schools seemed to indicate varied pedagogical techniques needed to be used. Goodlad concluded that the reasons for this situation might have been that there was no pressure to change, the teachers themselves had been taught in this way, their teacher education programs had not been varied enough to meet changes in the nature of teaching, and one tenet of academic freedom is that teachers should be left alone in their classrooms to teach as they think best. Studies conducted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching resulted in Boyer’s (1983) High Schdol; A Regent en Secgndary Edueation in Ameniea and Perrone’s (1985) supplemental volume, Eortraits of High Sehedle. Referring to teaching and learning observed in classrooms, Perrone stated: There is a sameness about how teachers approach their teaching. The format is fairly conventional, textbook oriented, information filled: twenty minutes or so of lecture and twenty to thirty minutes for students to read the assignments, respond to worksheets, answer questions at the ends of chapters, work on math problems, and write themes, while the teacher circulates around the room. We saw very little inquiry 41 teaching, and problem-solving skills. In most schools students tended not to be deeply engaged in their courses, not finding them particularly stimulating in any intellectual sense. Except for the selective academic schools, there was very little peer tailoring or student involvement in instruction. (p. 650) The joint efforts of the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the Conimission on Educational Issues of the National Association of Independent Schools resulted in two well- documented studies, Sizer’s (1984) Heraee’e Cemnndmiee and Powell, Farrar, and Cohen’s (1985) The Shedding Hall High Schoei. Sizer and Powell et a1. concluded that classes were primarily teacher-centered discussion and lecture, frequently boring to students and teachers, often unproductive, lacking drama or excitement, and repeating material readily available elsewhere. Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, and Cusick (1986) reviewed the literature on high schools published during recent reform movements. They concluded that efforts to alter grades, graduation requirements, and other factors (extracurricular activities and discipline) influencing the high school would not meaningfully increase levels of' academic achievement unless a new agreement between students and educators was created. Sedlak et a1. noted that the traditional ideological and academic incentives for academic engagement have eroded as students have realized the devaluation of their diploma as a credential for upward mobility. The only research that was found in which an examination of teaching and learning in the high school led to positive conclusions was Lightfoot’s (1983) study, h G i o l. 42 Lightfoot observed six high schools in urban, suburban, and private school settings. These schools were unique because they represented schools with positive learning environments for teachers and students. Although she observed strengths and weaknesses at all schools, Lightfoot observed a pride in teaching and learning on the part of all the participants. What stood out, in light of this research, was the respect given to teachers and the encouragement they were given to interact with one another, to expand and enrich their teaching pedagogy, and to grow professionally. This respect was mirrored in the deference teachers gave their students while communicating equally high expectations to them. The security that participants in Lightfoot’s (1983) study felt in their relationships with and commitment to one another can be contrasted with the insecurity and distrust experienced by the participants 1ft Cusick’s (1983) study. Cusick argued that the schools might have relinquished the right or the power to encourage students to attain levels unattained by their parents, in effect doing nothing to give lower-class students the opportunity to move ahead. Students, faced with a myriad of electives in a largely unguided system, were left to themselves to decide on the components of an education and may have ended up with nothing. The teachers, isolated from each other, were left to their own devices as long as they got along with the pupils and maintained order. 43 Summnimngumimfltum W A majority of the studies discussed in the literature review, with the exception of Cusick (1973) and Roberts (1988), did not spend a great deal of time in one classroom or with one teacher to observe over the course of the semester what takes place. Ethnographic field research often has been deemed too costly, time consuming, or intrusive for the students, the teacher, and the school. In most of the literature reviewed in this chapter, Lortie’s (1975) observation holds true. He stated, "The typical researcher has concentrated on learning rather than teaching and has generally employed models and techniques at some distance removed from the classroom" (p. 70). II would argue, however, that by using ethno- graphic research, one can discover a great deal about how high school students are experiencing learning. As Kierkegaard (1962) stated, ”Instruction begins 'when ,you, the teacher [or the researcher], learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and the way he understands it” (p. 115). With the exception of Lightfoot’s (1987) study and Newmann’s (1988a, 1988b) research, the literature on teaching in high schools has tended to focus on schools with problems. Schools that have successful teaching practices and curricula have not been studied in terms of pedagogy, higher-order thinking, and learning dispositions. The questions left unanswered after reviewing the literature gave 44 me further direction in conducting this study. They called for a commitment to observing the reality of a high school social studies classroom over a period of time to seek answers and perhaps new questions. ghanten ngmany In this chapter I presented a review of the professional literature related to the topic under investigation in this study, identified some of the findings and conclusions that have implications for this research, and suggested ways in which this study' might contribute to research on higher-order thinking in social studies at the high school level. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY intreductidn This chapter is divided into seven sections. The first section contains a discussion of the theoretical framework that suggests an appropriate research design, helps formulate the research questions, and guides the analysis and interpretation of the data. In the second part of the chapter, the primary research question and the subsidiary questions are restated and linked with the primary data sources and data-analysis methods used in pursuing each question. Third, the time frame for the study and data collection is set forth, giving a brief historical perspective on the beginnings of the study and the groundwork in preparation for the study. Data collection, data analysis, and research validity are addressed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections, respectively. Finally, the limitations of the study and generalizability are discussed. Theenetical Orientation The purpose of this study was to investigate a cultural phenomenon--the pedagogy of a teacher to promote higher-order thinking and discourse in a social studies classroom. This cultural phenomenon is a reciprocal relationship that depends on the actions and perceptions of all of the participants in the socially 45 46 constructed environment of the classroom. The teacher depends on the student to participate and react to his pedagogy designed to promote higher-level discourse in both oral and written work. The student, at the same time, is looking to the teacher fbr cues to his/her learning expectations, reacting to instructional techniques both familiar and unfamiliar, and trying to determine other teacher behaviors designed to guide the student’s individual participation. This, 'hi turn, results 'hi the student’s choosing particular motivational learning dispositions to the subject. The researcher attempts to gain entry into the conceptual world of his/her subjects to understand what meaning they construct in their daily lives and how they do so (Geertz, 1973). Phenomenologists believe that human beings construct multiple ways of interpreting experiences by interacting with others, so it is the meaning of these experiences that constitutes reality (Greene, 1978). The phrase "Reality is socially constructed" (Berger a Luckman, 1966) has come to be used by researchers to describe the phenomenological approach. The research orientation is further defined as interpretive educational ethnography, which explores the culture of an educational setting. The focus of this research is a single classroom and teacher during a semester of teaching/learning experiences. Such research constitutes a "microethnography," which Erickson and Mohatt (1982) defined as the examination of one educational setting. 47 W511 The research design is a qualitative/naturalistic educational ethnography. It initially was guided by the framework suggested by I'Steps to Be Considered in Conducting an Observational Research Study” (Evertson & Green, 1987, p. 206; see Appendix A, p. 233). This research design is based on assertions that the researcher formulates to study the phenomenon before entering the field, while in the field, after leaving the site, and upon reflection on the data collected. The researcher approaches the site and conducts his/her fieldwork specifically as an interpretive participant observer' to gain the "insider perspective" of what constitutes reality. Because this research is a detailed examination of a single setting, it constitutes an "observational case study," defined as a detailed examination of one setting rather than a multi-site, multi- subject qualitative study (Bogdan 8 Biklen, 1982, p. 58). This design consists of methods such as taking extensive fieldnotes, audiotaping classroom discourse (as well as formal and informal interviews), collecting and analyzing documents from various sources in the field (generated by the teacher, students, school, and researcher), and then, upon careful reflection on the data, asking the participating teacher to reflect further on what has taken place to get at the participating teacher’s thought processes and perceptions of his pedagogy. Triangulation of the data, that is, ”comparing a number of accounts of the same events" (Burgess, 1984, p. 144), was used to support the assertions made. Even with all the 48 data-collection methods employed, not every element in the setting can be captured, nor can the setting be free from the researcher’s influence, no matter how unobtrusive he/she tries to be. In this design, the researcher is the main data-gathering instrument; thus, researcher bias cannot be reduced completely (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982). M51201 In the pilot study, I played the role of "passive participant observer" in the field. During the initial fieldwork semester, my primary function was to observe and record the participants’ actions and interactions. I established a rapport with the students over a period of time, when they came to understand that I would not be evaluating them in any way, they would not be identified in my research, and their confidentiality would be maintained in casual conversation and informal interviews. My daily presence in the classroom, even with my small tape recorder, soon became routine. Gradually, informal and semi-structured interviews were conducted before and after class. This type of interview was selected rather than a more structured interview procedure to acquire candid responses to questions and to avoid the tendency for students to say what they thought I wanted to hear. I scheduled two formal interviews with the classroom teacher during the semester, with numerous informal discussions before and after class. 49 After systematic analysis of the data generated during field observations, there were several more in-depth interviews, using the tape-recorded lessons as a springboard to facilitate reflection and identify teacher thought processes that led to his teaching strategies. This was in keeping with the reflective nature of this type of research. The pilot study provided me with the data needed to answer many of the initial guiding research questions, specifically, questions relating to pedagogy and the participants’ perceptions of the teaching/learning environment. Further questions relating to teachers’ thought processes and sociopolitical influences emerged from the pilot study for further data collection and analysis. W The primary research question and questions guiding the inquiry are listed in Table 1, along with the specific sources of data collected and analytical strategies used. The tabular format is a revision of McCutcheon’s (1982) format, adapted by May (1985). im in t r h This study covered a two-year period of field observations and interviews. It is divided into three phases, each of which is described in the following paragraphs. 50 Table 1.--Research questions guiding the inquiry. Main research question: course fostered in a social studies classroom? How is higher-order thinking and higher-order dis- Guiding Questions Data Sources Analytical Strategies 1. What types of peda- gogies and strate- gies foster higher- order discourse? 2. What are the par- ticipants’ percep- tions of the teach- ing/learning process that influence their reaction to higher- order thinking? What are the teach- er’s beliefs about teaching/learning and pedagogy and the students’ thoughts on learning? 3. What learning dispo- sitions are acted out? How does the teacher/student deal with conflict- ing learning dis- positions? 4. What sociopolitical contexts influence teaching/learning for this teacher, and to what extent do they promote/constrict pedagogy that values higher-order think- ing? What are his perceptions of these sociopolitical con- texts? Participant observation, teacher and student interviews, Newmann’s thoughtfulness scales Daily observations of the classroom using audio-taped transcripts, fieldnotes, teacher interviews, and stu- dents’ responses to a question about teach- ing/learning; Onosko’s questionnaire on Teacher Thinking About Promoting Students’ Thinking Daily observations of the classroom with audio-taped transcripts, fieldnotes, and inter- views Student, teacher, and parent survey (conducted in 1986 by the school, including the faculty, students, and parents); interviews, documents generated by the school and department; observa- tions; and data collec- tion stated above Analytic description, contrast and comparison of observation/interview and scale data Content analysis, tri- angulation of sources (interview, observation, questionnaire), compari- son and contrast of the data, analytic descrip- tion Document analysis, inter- view contrast and compar- ison, triangulation across behaviors/actions observed versus stated beliefs Descriptive analysis of surveys, document analy- sis, comparison of data collected across sources/ groups 51 EhasLl This study began as a ten-week. project for an educational ethnography course. As a teacher of elementary and middle school for 19 years, I wanted to look at a level of education unfamiliar to me: a high school classroom and the roles of the participants in this socially constructed learning environment. Also, I wanted to look at a high school that was experiencing success in teaching/learning, having just read Goodlad’s (1984) study with all of its less-than-positive implications for the future of secondary education. In addition, I wanted to focus on pedagogy that led to higher-order thinking, an area of focus in my own teaching for several years working with gifted and talented students. Implicit in these early questions were certain assumptions I had about secondary education: 1. That teaching pedagogy at this level had not changed a great deal from when I attended secondary school in the early 19605. This form of pedagogy was viewed as traditional or teacher centered, with the teacher in the role of lecturer and the student in the role of passive learner, with observable stages of engagement or nonengagement (taking notes, listening, or daydreaming). 2. That some of the recent national reports documenting a decline in secondary education made valid observations, but that these were overstated and not truly representative of the total picture because of their emphasis on standardized test scores as the measure of success. 52 3. That inherent in education is the perception on the part of the general public that schools are not meeting the needs of society, and this results in cyclical reform movements. 4. That reform movements do not drastically alter the pedagogy of a teacher unless a change is mandated by administrators or willingly initiated by the teacher. I was also aware, however, that the U.S. Department of Education was recognizing "exemplary” high schools throughout the country. Schools that wanted to be considered for this award could submit an application to be considered by the selection committee. I wanted to see what a recipient of such an award looked like in terms of a commitment to higher-order thinking. In this phase of the study, groundwork was laid, and site selection was crucial. The school and teacher had to have a learning atmosphere conducive to excellence in education, higher- order thinking, the existence of both mastery and performance learning dispositions, and academic freedom for both students and the teacher which would enable higher-order discourse to be part of the teaching/learning environment. At the same time, the school, the teacher, and the students had to be receptive to field research conducted in their environment. I began by contacting the administrators at Lakeview (a pseudonym), a private secondary school, because it had received the "Excellence in Schools" award by the U.S. Department of Education (1986) and thus had the potential of meeting the previously stated criteria. 53 Initial contact for entry into the field setting was made by letter to the Director of Schools and the Headmaster of the high school. In this letter, I described the purpose of the pilot project, the possibility that it. might be used as part of“ my dissertation research at a later date, and preliminary precautions taken to insure ethical practices and the confidentiality of all participants. I then had a formal meeting with both administrators in which I further clarified the study and answered questions raised by the administrators. I was granted permission by both administrators to enter the site and asked the Headmaster of Lakeview School to recommend potential teachers who might meet the criteria of pedagogy that promoted higher-order thinking. .A few names were suggested, and the potential teacher was selected based on the subject he taught, his enthusiasm about having a field researcher as an observer in his classroom, and his reputation for being both an excellent teacher and one who was committed to use teaching strategies that promote higher-order thinking. The consent forms (see Appendix 8, pp. 243-247), which were carefully drawn up to meet Human Subjects Committee approval for the teacher, the parents, and the students, gave all of the participants some reassurance about anonymity. I stated clearly for all concerned that. I would not be identifying the school, the teacher, or the students, but would instead use pseudonyms for each of these. Also, I would not be evaluating or judging either the teacher or the students because that was not the goal or intention of the study. 54 13135541 After observing the course for ten weeks, from January 24 through March 7, I determined that I was gathering data that answered the initial questions. In addition, the data were proving to be a rich source of emergent questions related to pedagogy that fostered higher-order thinking. I sought permission from the administrators and the teacher to stay for the entire semester; that permission was granted. The Human Subjects Committee request had included the possibility that the project might be extended to cover the entire semester. Observing the class for its duration, the entire semester, gave me a chance to see this teacher and his pedagogy through all phases of the teaching/learning process. It also gave me the summer following the observations to reflect on and reexamine the data collected, to determine emerging patterns and themes, and to pose new questions to ask the teacher about his beliefs/perceptions. This period also provided a time to analyze documents generated by the school, the teacher, and the students for follow-up questions to ask the teacher. EhasLIII Phase III of the project involved in-depth interviews with the teacher to identify some teacher thought processes that lead to higher-order pedagogy, his thoughts about and commitment to teaching higher-order thinking skills in conjunction with the course content, how he saw performance and mastery learning dispositions in relation to higher-order thinking dispositions, and how various contexts to 55 which he is accountable influenced his teaching pedagogy and allowed him to include higher-order discourse as a desired goal. These questions focused on Clark and Peterson’s (1986) model for teacher thought processes (refer to Figure 2, p. 36), which addresses teacher planning (preactive and postactive thoughts), teacher theories and beliefs, and a teacher’s interactive thoughts and decisions. As a result of his research on teacher beliefs about higher-order 'thinking, Onosko (1988) constructed a questionnaire that was given to teachers to identify or highlight their goals, interests, and perceptions about higher-order thinking. This questionnaire (see Appendix A, pp. 235-236) was given to the teacher to compare his perceptions with those of the teachers reported in Onosko’s study. Ehase 1V This phase included systematic analysis of the data collected in light of the additional formal teacher interviews to arrive at a synthesis leading to findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the information generated by the data. t 0 le ion fieldnotes Every day in the field site, I took lengthy handwritten fieldnotes. The fieldnotes represented my best effort to record objectively the details of what occurred in the field without being evaluative or judgmental. After leaving the site for the day, I reviewed the fieldnotes and added theoretical, methodological, and 56 observational notations in brackets for later reference. Each of these types of notations is described in the following paragraphs. 0 Th n n . These notations referred to how the material related to the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study and how the data supported research questions or assertions. An example of such a notation follows. (Mr. Johnson): "Well, Randy . . . Do you agree with Stuart or do you have a different viewpoint?" [Th. Mr. Johnson is trying to draw a reluctant participant into the discussion by asking him to respond to another student.) Methodological (Meth.) notations. These notations related to my methodology in the past, present, and future, incorporated into the study. An example is the following. (Mr. Johnson): "You are the students into whom the information must pour." [Meth. During the formal interview with Mr. Johnson, use this quotation to see how this relates to his feelings on content.) Qbservatienal (0b.) notatidne. These notations were subjective and interpretive comments identifying my thoughts about what I was observing at the time or ideas I added later on reflection. An example of an observational notation follows. [06. The students seemed lethargic and reluctant to participate today. I wonder if it is the effect of midterm exams or the hockey game last night?] The fieldnotes were reviewed after a short time, and these notations were recorded in a computer data base under theoretical, 57 methodological, and observational headings, as well as informant quotations and data relating to themes or patterns that were emerging in the field. An example of an emerging pattern was students’ attitudes toward grades. Each time a comment was noted pertaining to grades, it was recorded under this heading. After comments were sorted together, they could be recategorized if they fit under another heading. Agdidtaning Audiotaping was used because pedagogy, discourse, and interactional patterns had to be recorded as accurately as possible for later analysis. These lessons were played back later for both the teacher and me to discuss. I sat outside the circular desk arrangement of the students. My exact location in the room varied so as not to be disruptive. Taping was not intrusive and was facilitated by using a small tape recorder that was usually located on a chair close to the students. Each classroom lesson was audiotaped daily, and the tape was reviewed to add further comments to fieldnotes and data base information. Some informal interviews were not audiotaped because of their spontaneous nature, but the conversation was recorded in fieldnotes as soon as possible. Documents The documents described in the following paragraphs provided additional data for the study. These documents were collected and analyzed because they provided further pertinent information on the school, the teacher, and the students. 58 h t t de he v ri . In fall 1989, a parent, student, and teacher inventory was administered by the school to determine, for school evaluation purposes, opinions of the parents, the students, and the teachers about the school, its programs, its faculty, its administrators, and its facilities. The inventory was developed by the National Study of School Evaluation, and a revised 1988 version was administered to each of the three groups. Copies of the inventories given to students and teachers are found in Appendix A, pp. 237-240. The inventories consist of varying numbers. of Likert-type questions addressed to each group. These questions were to be answered with five-point-scale responses listed below: SA if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement A if you AGREE with the statement 3 if you are UNDECIDED 0 if you OISAGREE if you STRONGLY OISAGREE S The frequency of responses was then tallied, and the item mean score was then computed by multiplying the frequency times the cate- gory value and dividing by the total number of responses. The mean score then determined the degree of acceptance on the following scale: Very favorable Favorable Neutral Unfavorable Very unfavorable de-km IIIII Some of the data collected from this inventory provided empirical support for the sociopolitical contexts of learning iden- tified in Figure 3 (see Chapter IV). The data are interpreted on 59 subscales or homogeneous groups of items that relate to this research. The reliability and validity of each inventory are as follows: e r v n r . The full-scale reliability of the parent inventory was .94, and the median reliability of the subscales used for analysis in this study was .74. The parent inventory is valid, according to inventory developers, to the extent that it represents parents’ opinions and beliefs concerning their children’s school. Ihe stgdent inventdry. The full-scale reliability of the student inventory was .94, and the median reliability of the subscales used for analysis in this study was .83; none was below .72. The validity of the inventory, according to the developers, was gained through field testing, committee review, and educational input. Ihe teacher inventory. The reliability of the full-scale teacher inventory was .95, and the median reliability of the subscales used for analysis in this study was .84. The validity of the inventory, according to the developers, was gained through field testing, committee review, and educational input. men ene b h ho 1 an hi or d r These documents included printed material about the school, its curriculum, the goals and objectives of both the school and the history department, and other written material pertaining to the research questions. These documents were used to (a) describe the site, (b) define the context that affected learning in the 60 classroom, and (c) define the explicit curriculum as stated by the school and the history department. Documents generated by the teaehen. Teacher-generated docu- ments included tests, evaluative comments, activity descriptions, and study guides. These documents illustrated the types of assign- ments given and the kind of feedback the teacher gave his students, providing insight into the teacher’s pedagogy. oc m t ner t d he r s r . On the first day of the course, I asked the students to respond to the following questions (in 50 words or less): 1. What is "excellence in education" as it relates to my experience at Lakeview (or at other schools attended)? How have my experiences provided me with skills, knowledge, and attitudes about learning? 2. In one or two sentences, describe your future educational plans and how .you hape they' will prepare you for your future occupation or profession. I also asked students for the following information with which to construct a class profile: Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, semester grade point average, what college they planned to attend, and whether that college was their first choice. I asked for this information to elicit the students’ attitudes about learning and future educational goals, and to ascertain their performance in academic subjects and on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, which I later verified through school records. 61 n ai The teacher questionnaire for this study, Teacher Thinking As It Relates to Promoting Higher-Order Thinking, was a revised version of the questionnaire used in Onosko’s (1988) study on teachers’ perceptions about higher-order thinking (see Appendix A, pp. 235-236). This was administered to the teacher on May 19, 1990, to determine some of his thoughts on higher-order thinking and to use as a springboard for later discussion. Data Analyeie In ethnographic field research, data analysis is a continuous process that occurs while in the field and later, after the data have been collected and reflected upon. The emphasis on "process" rather than on outcomes or products is a key factor in data collection and analysis. According to Bogdan and Biklen (1982), qualitative researchers tend to analyze data inductively because they do not search out data to prove or disprove hypotheses before entering the field; rather, abstractions are built as the particulars that have been gathered are grouped together. Hypotheses are continually being suggested in the form of assertions, which are tested against observed behavior to confirm or disconfirm the assertions. Erickson (1986) listed nine elements that should be used as criteria for evaluating ethnographic reports as: Empirical assertions Analytic narrative vignettes Quotes from fieldnotes Quotes from interviews #UN-I' 62 Synoptic data reports (maps, frequency tables, figures) Interpretive commentary framing particular description Interpretive commentary framing general description Theoretical discussion Report of the natural history of inquiry in the study. (9. 45) OQNGUI The continuous examination/reexamination of these nine elements helped me with data analysis in the field. The following steps guided me in a systematic approach to data analysis: 1. Reviewing the data corpus, including all of the transcribed fieldnotes, audio tapes, and data base, for recurring themes, patterns, and behaviors. The data were sorted and identified by key words, such as "informant,” ”grades,” and so on. 2. Identifying and examining the contexts of learning, using the chart form suggested by Evertson and Green (1986) (see Chapter IV, p. 68). The local context under study was the history classroom, but the larger sociopolitical contexts of' which the classroom was a part also were examined. These contexts were examined by the teacher to see how they might influence his teaching. 3. Identifying key linkages and themes running through the data ‘that refer' to ‘the initial research questions or questions arising in the field. 4. Formulating assertions and testing these against the data; in particular, using triangulation, defined by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) as comparing and contrasting data obtained from different sources and processes to test the assertions further. 63 5. Once the key linkages and assertions have been supported or disconfirmed by the data, a search began for discrepant cases to present to the reader (Erickson, 1986). This eliminated some of the possibility of researcher bias and selectivity, but such bias cannot be totally excluded from a study. Use of discrepant cases does, however, counter the criticism that the researcher has chosen to include only those cases and examples that support his/her assertions. 6. Revising the assertions that were not supported by the data or that were contradicted by the data. For example, if the teacher expressed a particular belief in an interview, yet his observed actions seemed contradictory to that belief, the assertion had to be revised to reflect these discrepancies, or at least noted to provide a discrepant case. Erickson (1986) defined this process as "analytic induction.” The preceding list addresses and builds on the analytical strategies used as the data source in the Research Questions Chart on page 48. After recording daily handwritten fieldnotes and transcribing interviews, I used my computer to help categorize and sort the information from my fieldnotes and the other data collected in the field. I established a leing system to record theoretical notes from the fieldnotes (how the material relates to the theoretical or conceptual framework of the study), methodological notes (how the data might relate to my methodology, both present and future, incorporated into the study), and observational notes (comments 64 identifying my subjective thoughts on what was being observed either at the time or upon reflection, which was duly noted). This led to analytic description or ”within-source" description (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). Retrieving these files of sorted information after a few weeks in the field led to other emerging patterns that were later' recoded and refiled as assertions were supported or reformulated. Some of these were student attitudes about grades, performance dispositions, mastery dispositions, and discrepant cases. This process provided a source of cross-referencing when conducting later interviews on teacher thought processes. The analysis of the data was inductively examined following Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) grounded-theory model, in which theoretical assertions emerge from the particulars of the setting. An ethnography that has been carefully designed with systematic data collection and analysis should have a high degree of internal validity because of the time the researcher spends in the site and the variety of procedures used to gather the perspectives of the informants (LeCompte 8 Goetz, 1982). CHAPTER 1V DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE, SOCIOPOLITICAL CONTEXTS, AND KEY INFORMANTS [he Site As a visitor seeing this suburban setting for the first time, one is immediately captured by the rolling hills, the large homes, and the tree-lined beauty that dots the landscape. Meandering streets with only gates and gatehouses visible to the public give an air of privacy and affluence which abound in this neighborhood. These are the homes of the influential, the powerful, and the well- known who wish to have their privacy respected. It is within this peaceful affluence that Lakeview Preparatory School is located. The neighborhood provides the school a setting of quiet dignity, which then is reflected in the appearance and demeanor of the school and its students. k v' 1 P r r S h The sign displayed proudly and prominently and the entrance to Lakeview School says: ”Lakeview High. Private gellege Enenanat any" Seh eel, Exemplary 1” ‘W3' '3 her] 9 1‘ NEW. This is what the visitor to Lakeview Preparatory School sees upon entering the grounds of this unique private learning 65 66 institution. The following description of the school is paraphrased from the school’s literature: The school is only one part of an entire multi-school setting situated on several hundred acres in a suburban community. It is located on two major sites or campuses. One, a single, continuous unit includes a library, a dining hall, a gymnasium, and separate art studios (ceramics, jewelry, painting and drawing, sculpture, and weaving). The other campus has very old buildings built in the 19205. There is a library on this campus, a dining hall, and a student center. A performing arts building, a science center, and a gymnasium are located on the grounds. Bus transportation runs continuously all day, transporting students between campuses. There are also single- sex boarding facilities on each campus. The girls’ dormitory houses ninth through twelfth graders. The boys’ boarding facility houses boys who are divided into dormitories according to their grade. Faculty members live in the dorm with their families, and resident advisers (senior students) live on each £1005' to act as confidants and helpmates to their fellow oar ers. A non-profit school, Lakeview is directed by a member board of trustees. The school has substantial endowment. ‘The school also realizes a great deal of revenue from annual gifts by alumni, corporations, and benefactors. Classes, with an average of 15 students, meet five days a week with 8 academic periods scheduled daily. Approximately 70 year-long and 90 semester courses are offered with advanced placement study in French, Latin, Spanish, U.S. history, mathematics, science, English, and computer sciences. The student body for 1988-1989 is composed of 139 boarding boys, 249 day boys, 97 boarding girls, and 199 day girls. There are 143 students in 9th grade, 170 in 10th grade, 192 in 11th grade, and 179 in 12th grade. Twenty-nine states and 15 foreign countries are represented in the student population. In 1988 the mean SAT scores were 505 Verbal and 571 Quantitative. Of 234 graduates, 232 entered college--l4 as National Merit Finalists. The 1988-1989 fee is approximately $12,000 for boarding students and $8,250 for day students. Parents can plan on spending up to $300 more for books and supplies. Admission is based on recommendations, past performance, a writing sample, and results of the Secondary Schools Admissions Test or other ztandgrgized examination. Recommended grades for entrance are 5 an s. 67 It is this description that provides one of the sociopolitical contexts for teaching and learning at Lakeview. The school seeks excellence in education both on the part of the teachers and students and the best of its participants. Figure 3 identifies the various sociopolitical contexts, or groups that might affect Mr. Johnson, the teacher in the study, as he teaches his class, "America in the Sixties and Seventies." Evertson and Green (1986) stated that consideration to issues related to context can (a) help researchers understand how individuals and groups acquire knowledge from everyday activities and events in both formal and informal educational settings and (6) help researchers determine factors constraining and supporting performance in a given context. Each sociopolitical context identified in the chart is defined by the researcher (and teacher) and further examined using any written data or documentation that exists regarding the context. ' t‘ o d end 1 The Independent Schools Associations provide the first socio- political context listed on the chart. There is also a National Association of Independent Schools, of which the Independent Schools Association of Central States is a regional division. These national, regional, and state lassociations serve ‘the independent schools politically by forming special interest groups, formulating policy on each level that directly influences the independent school, providing administrative guidance to individual schools and 68 THE IATIOIAL AMIATIU 0F IIIDEPEIDENT scnooLs. The national governing body for irdependent schools settim policy and governing at the national level. IHDEPEIDEHT scms ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL ASSthATIOI 0F IHDEPEHDEHT STATE SCHOOLS. The STATES. Influences the school directly by state association for independent schools in evetution every six years. Evaluating ten mich awership is desirable. Provides are nde in of teachers rid adainistrators cmferences for professional growth every frn nutter schools and result in school two years. accreditation. LAKEVIEW COLLEGE PREP m is capoeed of a lower, a nidle, did an taper school. The adainistrator of these three schools is called the director of schools. He is the head of the administrators of the schools at four location. The adninietrator of the wiper school has the greatest contact and influence was the head of the department as he is both observed and evaluated by this adninistrator as department chair ard as classroom teacher. The policies, goals, and mission of the school are part of this level of context, and it is the any of the adninistration to see that these are being carried out by the professionals under his/her swervision. THE FACULTY, STLDEHT DEANS, AHD SIPPORT STAFF are a part of this level of context. The teacher identifies as a professional and a colleawe with this level of con- text. The standards and expectation for professionalism are set within this con- text In relationhip with one's peers. THE MOTHER'S comm, THE DAD'S CLUB, AND THE HISTORY DEPARTMENT is respomible for THE ALLIIHAE AMIATIGJ. Individual input defining curriculuu and course remirements. as parents as well as collective input, and Teacher evaluation is the responsibility of the fmd raising. department chairman. This is the level that determines nterials, content, and evaluation of the explicit curriculun. It suggests but does not dictate pedagogical style. CLASSRwi TEACHERS are responsible for the way curriculua is iaplunented and stu- dent evaluation. This incluies teaching pengogy, activities that net course requirements, support materials, and the even-tion an! feedsack to individual smdents. Also meeting the bookkeeping requirements of the school, such as attend- ance and grade reporting. Each teacher is asked to advise ten students, comseling than in school life, course selection, rid peer relationships. STtDEHTS' responsibilities are to net the teachers' expectations, the course remirennts of the department, and the school's code of corduct. They are also netirg the school's expectation for graduation and the entrance requirements of the colleges they hope to attend. Sole hne to aeet advanced placement or honors requirements. ' Figure 3: Sociopolitical contexts in which the course ”America in the Sixties and Seventies“ is embedded. (These contexts were defined by the researcher and classroom teacher in the study.) 69 their governing boards, and providing various professional and personal growth opportunities through conferences, workshops, and networking with other independent schools. The National Association of Independent Schools recently examined professional teaching standards and as a result came up with the first policy issued by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (Independent Schools) in July 1989. Published in the NAIS Academic Forum (Fall 1989), the following was noted in summary: The board will set high and rigorous standards . . . as a target for experienced teachers. It places great stock not just in teachers’ command of expert knowledge, but also in their ability to integrate knowledge of human development, subject matter, and pedagogy with an accurate diagnosis of their students’ needs and produce sound professional judgements of how best to proceed. Furthermore, they must be able to act effectively on this wisdom, or it is all for naught. (p. l) The reference to pedagogy, one of the key elements in the profession, is noted here. The board came up with the following core propositions which constitute a definition of accomplished teaching practices: - Teachers are committed to students and their learning. - Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students. - Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. - Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience. - Teachers are members of learning communities. (p. 3) The National Independent Schools Association is currently working on policy in response to the call for national certification of teachers. The end result is board certification, which promises 70 to be an extraordinary professional growth opportunity for teachers in independent schools. It has not come, however, without controversy. Since neither state certification nor an education degree is a prerequisite for board certification, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education refuses to support the National Board’s work. The Independent Schools Association of Central States provides a process for accreditation and an evaluation instrument for the schools in its jurisdiction. Member schools undergo a rigorous evaluation every six years by an evaluation team made up of selected professionals from member schools. The evaluation calls for extensive self-examination to see if the school is meeting its mission, goals, and objectives through its educational programs and practices. The resulting document from this evaluation gives the school commendations and recommendations for consideration. k v’ w mi tr The administration at Lakeview Prep School is charged with providing administrative guidance to see that the mission and goals of the school are carried out by its faculty and students. It must also insure that the school meets the standards of the national and state Independent Schools Associations. The mission of Lakeview Prep School is paraphrased below from its documented "Mission Statement": The school seeks to prepare young men and women from varying backgrounds to develop intellectually, morally, and physically; to move into higher education with competence and confidence; and to appreciate the arts. The school strives to instill a 71 strong sense of social responsibility and the ability to contribute in an increasingly complex world. The eight specific goals of the school include the following goals which relate to higher-order discourse: - To nurture, in each student, a sense of respect and personal responsibility for learning and the process of inquiry, and to promote a desire to confront intellectual problems with imagination, resourcefulness, common sense, critical reasoning, and academic and moral integrity. - To provide a program and a climate that encourages students to develop a personal framework for making moral decisions, while accepting such community values as respect for every individual, appreciation of personal and cultural differences, and the importance of equality of opportunity. — To provide all students with a challenging academic program through which they can develop those intellectual and communication skills that will best prepare them to meet the expectations of their chosen college programs. The administration is responsible for observing and evaluating its department heads, who, in turn, observe and evaluate the teachers in their department, using an evaluation instrument mutually agreed on by administration and staff. Par e nd T v t r' These inventories (Appendix A, pp. 237-240), described in Chapter III, were administered by the school in fall l989. This was not in any way connected to the present study. These data enabled me to examine some of the perceptions of the parents, students, and teachers at Lakeview Prep with regard to the educational process and environment. Each inventory is reported separately, with a cross- inventory comparison and analysis of eight questions common to all of the inventories appearing in Table 2 and discussed at the end of this chapter. 72 W This inventory was sent to a random sample of 50 parents of students in the upper school at Lakeview. Forty-three parents responded, for a response rate of 86%. The subscales, or homogeneous groups of items, used for this research are identified and interpreted below. W. The questions in instructional out— comes were directed to parents’ opinions of the way the school was preparing students to: - cope with society and understand world problems - function within the basics of learning (language arts, read- ing, math, science) acquire moral and ethical responsibility get along with people gain an educational preparation for advanced study see a relationship in what they study to their everyday lives see the priorities of the school on expenditure of funds learn all they can from their educational experience The subscale mean for instructional outcomes was 4.04 on a scale of l to S, with 1 being the least favorable degree of accept- ance and 5 being the greatest degree of acceptance. This mean indi- cated a favorable degree of acceptance on the part of the random sample of parents surveyed toward the school’s effort to deal with instructional outcomes. The most favorable response (4.58) was to the item, "The curriculum adequately prepares students planning to continue their education to more advanced levels.” The least favor- able response (3.46) was to the item, ”The school’s priorities for expenditure of funds are appropriate." The item referring to social studies, "Our school is doing a good job in teaching social studies (history, geography, etc.),' received a positive response of 4.1. 73 Erugrgm. The items in this subscale dealt with parent opinions on homework, quality of programs, competency of teachers, grades and grading, instructional topics, educational change, and school facilities. The mean for this subscale was 4.19, with the most favorable response (4.61) to the item, "The total educational program is of high quality.” The least favorable response (3.32) was to the item, ”The school’s programs adequately meet the needs of special students (learning disabled, gifted, etc.).' This low response could be anticipated because the school does not offer any of the special programs listed. T t dent v nt r The Student Inventory was administered independently by the school to the upper school student population of 684 and was not initiated by this research; 107 inventories were returned, for a response rate of 16%. There was no explanation for the low response rate other than the inventory was given to students to fill out in a class meeting rather than in a specific class. This method of administering the survey also prevented me from obtaining an individual class response for comparison. The subscales that were used are identified and interpreted below. Quurjgulum und instructign. This subscale includes items for student input on the following: relationship of what they study to everyday life methods used to teach the course the degree of learning the value of homework the variety of subjects offered competency of teachers 74 adequacy of facilities and media center preparation for economic and social problems of today student motivation the quality of the total educational program The mean for this subscale was 3.77, indicating a neutral to favorable degree of acceptance for the school’s efforts in curricu- lum and instruction. The item receiving the most favorable response (4.36) was, ”The total educational program offered to students is of high quality." The item receiving the least favorable response (3.15) was, ”In virtually all coursework, students see a relation- ship between what they are studying and their everyday lives." StudentZtegche: relatignshiu. The items in this subscale related to teacher commitment to student learning, teacher help and' encouragement, methods of teaching, teacher competence, and student motivation. The subscale mean was 3.86, measuring neutral to favorable acceptance. The most favorable response (4.43) was to the item, "Most teachers are willing to give students individual help outside of class time.” The least favorable response (3.52) was to the item, ”In most of my classes, I am satisfied with the methods used to teach the course." The students rated all of the subscale categories lower, in general. They tended to be more neutral about the school. This was also reflected in their low 16% response rate. r ' i t This inventory was given to 60 full-time faculty members at the upper school. Forty-eight inventories were returned, for a response rate of 80%. The reliability for the full scale is .95, and the 75 median reliability for the subscales is .84. The subscales examined in this inventory are identified and interpreted below. lustrugtiuu. These items dealt with teacher opinions on the following: facilities supplies and equipment student learning purpose of learning and everyday lives competency of teachers student effort teacher help and encouragement academic freedom in materials, method, and content student motivation class size student study skills individualization critical/creative thinking skills The mean score for this subscale was 3.90, indicating a neutral to favorable attitude toward the teachers’ role in instruction. The most favorable response (4.66) was to the item, "Teachers are allowed freedom in the selection of teaching materials." The least favorable response (2.87) was to the item, "In virtually all courses students see a purpose between what they are studying and their everyday lives." r i ' n n mini t ati . This subscale dealt with teacher opinions about accessibility of administration, faculty workload, teacher input for in-service and school policy, dealing with administration, teacher supervision, curriculum development, academic freedom, preparation time, and priorities for expenditure of funds. The mean of this subscale was 3.34, with the highest degree of acceptance (4.54) for ”Teachers are allowed freedom in the selection 76 of teaching methods.” This is evidenced in the freedom Mr. Johnson had to incorporate higher-order thinking process activities rather than strictly content-oriented lessons. Other teachers also had and were aware of this freedom. The lowest degree of acceptance (2.37) was for "Teachers are regularly involved in the selection of topics for in-service." 'sf c ' n. The last subscale in the Teacher Inventory dealt with job satisfaction, and the items included teacher workload, teacher input in school policy, fairness in dealing with administration,. teacher competence, class size, teacher status, school satisfaction, teacher satisfaction, and quality of the total educational program. The mean for this subscale was 3.83. The most positive response (4.56) was to the item, "In general, our teachers are competent"; the least positive (2.82) was for "The faculty workload is equitably divided." W The three inventories had a total of eight questions in common for cross-comparisons of data. The results of this data comparison are shown in Table 2. An analysis of the cross-comparison of mean scores on the Student/Teacher/Parent Inventory is as follows. On the first question, concerning teacher competency, the teachers had the most favorable response (4.56), followed by the parents (4.30) and the students (4.07). These ratings still showed an overall favorable response of over 4.0. The students’ means for 77 all subscales were lower than the parents’ and the teachers’, and they had the lowest response rate of all the groups. Table 2.--Cross-comparisons of mean scores on Student/Teacher/Parent Inventory. Student Teacher Parent Item Mean Mean Mean N - 107 N - 48 N - 43 . In general, our teachers are competent. . In virtually all coursework, students see a purpose in what they are studying and their everyday lives. . Building facilities (work space, furnishings, etc.) are adequate to support the instructional program. . The media center (library of books, audio-visual tapes, etc.) plays a central role in learning. . The total educational program offered to students is of high quality. . Our students are seldom moti- vated to do their best work. (Question stated negatively and scored accordingly.) . Students are learning about all they can from their school experiences. . For the most part, I am satisfied with our school. 4.07 3.15 4.28 3.25 4.36 3.64 3.45 4.08 4.56 2.87 3.64 3.43 4.45 3.95 3.53 3.79 4.30 3.62 4.34 4.00 4.61 4.44 4.20 4.39 78 The second question referred to students seeing a purpose in what they were studying and their everyday lives. Surprisingly enough, the teachers (2.87) gave this question the least favorable response, and they were in the most logical position to relate to the students the purpose for which they study. Both the students (3.15) and the parents (3.62) were somewhat neutral in their responses. The third question, dealing with facilities, also received the lowest rating from the teachers (3.64). This might be because it represented their work space and, over a period of years, it was seen as needing improvement. The students (4.28) rated the facilities favorably, and the parents, who spent the least time in the space, rated it most positively (4.34). The fourth question concerned the media center; it was rated least favorably by the students (3.25), who used it the most. The teachers (3.43) also had occasion to use it. The parents’ mean rating of this question was 4.00. The fifth question looked at the total educational program. The parents (4.61) rated it the highest, followed by teachers (4.45) and students (4.36), but all groups gave the total program a favorable rating of over 4.0. The sixth question, concerning student. motivation, was negatively stated: "Our students are seldom motivated to do their best work." I do not know that this question was valid because some respondents might have missed the word "seldom“ in reading the 79 question. It was scored in reverse, with a 5 representing a low degree of acceptance and a 1 being a high degree of acceptance. The seventh question dealt with students learning all they could from their school experience. This question received the most favorable response from parents (4.20), with a more neutral response from teachers (3.53) and students (3.45). This could represent a more realistic viewpoint from the teachers and students. The eighth and last question, about overall satisfaction with the school, received the most favorable response from the parents (4.30); the students’ mean response was 4.08. The least favorable or neutral response was from teachers (3.79), who may have been equating "school” with ”working conditions” and ”job satisfaction,” which received neutral scores on the subscale as well. The Histgry Qgpartment g; Lgkevigw Mr. Johnson, the subject of the study, is chairman of the History Department at Lakeview. In the curriculum overview, a document written by the teachers and distributed by the school, the History/Social Science Department is described as follows: Courses are designed for students to nurture habits of critical thought, to take pleasure in history’s narrative, to explore the sources of creativity, to understand the causes of conflict that arise from human intention, to learn facts systematically but with immediate application to questions that demand discerning judgment. Classes are arranged to engage students’ values and personalities. The success of the class, therefore, depends on student responses; a willingness to be confronted, to risk opinion and to listen to others. Activities, whether accomplished individually or in partnership, assure that learning comes with earnest involvement as seen in the social science research project (grade 10). 80 Skill emphasis is placed on reading and retention, analysis and discussion, explanation and synthesis. Students are expected to organize materials for tests and research papers through the study of interpretive as well as primary source materials. Selective map and statistics exercises, films and projects are integral to any of the courses. The ninth-grade elective provides students a basis for observing the pattern of human social development, which in turn is expanded upon in the tenth-grade world history course. The additional requirement, a course familiarizing students with America’s traditions and present society, may be completed in the junior or senior year. The elective program includes varied offerings in the social sciences and area studies, and may be sampled in the eleventh and twelfth grades. The Advanced Placement courses in American history and European history provide selected students with a thorough, rigorous preparation for the College Board Advanced Placement Examinations in May. Mr. Johnson’s elective course, ”America in the Sixties and Seventies,” is given the following description in the curriculum document: This course is an examination of the political, economic, social and cultural developments of the 19605 and 19705, including the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Viet Nam, the struggle for black equality, the New Left, the counter- cultures, the resurgence of feminism, the collapse of the liberal consensus, and the presidency of Richard Nixon through Watergate. This course will include films, novels, and music from this period. flu, Jghugon, thg Teacher Nhen asked in an interview to reflect on those experiences that made him the teacher he is today, Mr. Johnson began with his own educational experiences. He went to school in the East. He could remember very clearly in eighth grade shifting from public school to Horace Mann School, where he stated he was an ”average student.” He remembered his history teacher being a wonderful storyteller. During his college years, he was expected by the family to go into 81 business. His college training included a B.A. from Dartmouth, a summer at Oxford University to prepare him for his first career goal--business, and an M.A. from New York University. He majored in international relations, so he thought his future needed to begin abroad. Mr. Johnson went to Germany to work for the Chase Bank, an international banking firm. He ultimately realized the job was something to which he was not suited. But what it did was make him reflect on his eighth-grade history course, which was Twentieth- Century Civilizations. It was in Germany that he met his wife, who came from a family of teachers. He had his parents’ blessing to do what he wanted to do. He felt a need to communicate to an audience and felt inhibited by the bank. In 1954 he began his search for a teaching job. Mr. Johnson stated: I began teaching at Haverford, a private school in Philadelphia because I had been educated in a private school, and had an excellent experience. I started out teaching English, history, and then German. I did not take education courses in college. I think that it is a curious dichotomy that the education courses are not up to the intellectual level of what you have to do academically to teach. Mr. Johnson taught at Haverford, in Philadelphia, from 1954 to 1958. He left Haverford in 1958 to become principal of the American High School in Manila, Philippine Islands. He stayed there until 1962, when he returned to the United States to become chairman of the History Department at Charlotte Country Day School in Charlotte, North Carolina. He stayed in Charlotte until 1966, when he came to Lakeview. Mr. Johnson has taught at Lakeview for the past 25 years, giving him a total of 36 years of teaching experience. 82 Nhen I noted that Mr. Johnson seemed to use his own personal experiences to make content come alive for students, he stated, ”I was 30 years old before I got into teaching. That is the best experience. Then, academically, you can direct them with both knowledge and experience." He and his wife have four grown children; their youngest graduated from college last year. He finds time to lead Great Books discussions with both students and adults in the evening. (Great Books training emphasizes discussion and higher-order thinking.) His wife frequently tutors Lakeview students in German. Mr. Johnson’s thoughts on teaching and knowledge are discussed in Chapter VI, Teacher Thought Processes. Th t Fourteen students were enrolled in Mr. Johnson’s elective class, "America in the Sixties and Seventies." One student, Charles, was auditing the class; that is, he was attending but not required to do written assignments. At the end of the first class, I asked the students to answer two questions for me, assuring them that they would not be identified as to their responses. The first question had two parts: "what is ’excellence in education’ as it relates to my educational experiences at Lakeview [or at other schools attended]?" and ”How have my experiences provided me with skills, knowledge, and attitudes about learning?” The second question was, "In one or two sentences, describe what your future educational plans are and how you hope they will prepare you for your future occupation or profession." 83 The first question was designed to get the students’ perspective on what learning should be and to relate it to what the learning process has been for them. The second question concerned how they viewed learning for their individual professional growth and what their educational aspirations were. I asked them these questions at the very beginning of the class for two reasons. First was because the students did not know me yet, nor did they know what to expect from Mr. Johnson or his class. I asked them to respond in a sentence or two and to keep it brief. What follows is a brief individual profile of each student in the class, their responses to the above-stated questions, and other information I obtained. (Pseudonyms are used to protect the students’ identities.) The information was provided by the students and verified by examining school records. Three students, Josh, Randy, and Thurston, had had Mr. Johnson for a previous class. Juggle. Jackie was a boarding student. Her overall GPA was 3.73. Her SAT scores were Verbal - 650, Quantitative . 680. Jackie’s parents were divorced; her mother lived in the area, although some distance away. Her father was Iranian and her mother American. Jackie was very involved in the dance troupe at the school and was part of the touring group that went to the Soviet Union over Spring Break, the last two weeks in March. 1. "I find [excellence in education] a rather odd phrase. Lakeview Prep is a mixed bag of tricks. In some classes here I have not learned much; in others, I have carried part of the course away with me. Lakeview looks wonderful on paper; people here do extremely well on standardized tests and such, but I find that there are very few students who are interested in the Mm process itself. Students tend to be interested in 84 their grades and in one-upping their fellow students sometimes, rather than debating and exchanging ideas freely and for fun. Another school I attended and my mother’s ideas about learning provided me with a foundation, and every year I find at least one teacher' who continues to inspire me about education." 2. "I want to go to college, then continue to get my doctorate. After that I hope to teach history." Jackie would be attending Georgetown in the fall, but it was not her first choice. 4955. Josh was a day student. His overall GPA was 2.99. His SAT scores: Verbal - 590, Quantitative - 600. Josh was one of a set of identical twins. He was very involved in Jewish Youth Group activities both in and out of school. His parents were divorced,and his mother was working on her doctorate. 1. "Excellence in education is having the knowledge and ability to expand one’s own philosophies. I feel that I can have a better understanding of myself, my environment, and other people." 2. "I am going to attend the University of Rochester where I will hopefully find a career that will make me happy." Josh had been accepted by Rochester, and it was his first choice. (Linden. Holden was a boarding student from Illinois. His overall GPA was 3.05. His SAT scores: Verbal - 530, Quantitative - 570. Holden participated in the athletic program at Lakeview, specifically football and hockey. l. "Excellence in education, as it applies to me, is an exceptionally well-rounded education. I have personally made sure that at the past schools I have attended that I would have four strong years in every subject. Also another attribute to education is the ability to think. I believe Lakeview has given this to me academically and socially.“ 2. "My future plans are to attend a liberal arts college and pick the field that is most interesting to offer a profession. 85 Holden planned to go to Colorado College or Bucknell. These were not his first choices, however. Annette. Annette was from England. Her father was working for a major corporation and was transferred to the United States, so she lived with her family and was a day student. She had been in the United States two years. Her overall GPA was 2.94. Her SAT scores: Verbal - 600, Quantitative - 610. She attended Newstead Hood Girls School in Orpington, England, before coming to the United States with her family. 1. ”Being English, I attended an English school until two years ago when I came over here to the States. I couldn’t help but notice the difference in teaching methods. Both the English and the American systems have their advantages and disadvantages. It may well have been just my school back in England but it equipped me with learning skills such as listening and writing to learn rather than discussing. To a certain degree, then, I am lacking in this aspect of the learning experience." 2. "I hope to go back to college in England and study American Studies in the hope of a traveling/ business occupation. The time spent over here as well as the degree will give me a broader perspective, seeing views of people of different cultures." Annette would be going to school in England the following year but did not indicate where. Seueuu. Stuart was a day student. His overall GPA was 3.26. His SAT scores: Verbal - 660, Quantitative - 570. Stuart was a skilled debater at Lakeview and won recognition as being part of the debate team. 1. "My view of excellence in education stipulates that individual growth is permanent. Growth in one’s capacity to understand and synthesize information is most important. In addition, the ability to speak and coherently express independently derived opinions is important." 2. ”My future educational plans call for undergraduate enrollment at Columbia. Circumstances will dictate my future course of action." 86 Stuart would be attending Columbia in the fall, which was his first choice. Reedy. Randy was a day student. His overall GPA was 2.4. His SAT scores: Verbal - 410, Quantitative - 420. Randy was the class humorist. He did not participate often but was known for his humorous responses when called on. 1. ”Excellence in education at Lakeview is having teachers that can relate to my life as a teen. When I have a teacher that I like, or that likes me especially, I tend to give them my best. Those few excellent teachers have introduced me to ways of thinking and learning that I have never felt possible.” 2. "I plan to attend the University of Maryland for undergrad. I would then like to go to Georgetown to pursue my interest in law.” Randy would be attending Ohio State in the fall, which was not his first choice. Brenda. Brenda was a day student. Her overall GPA was 3.34. Her SAT scores: Verbal - 730, Quantitative - 680. Brenda was always very helpful and got along well with her classmates. Her parents were divorced, and her mother worked for the school. 1. ”Excellence in education to me is based in understanding, comprehending, and interpreting ideas and their relationship with facts, dates, etc. I’ve had some good teachers and an interest in learning for the sake of expanding my understanding of’ everything and everyone I encounter. These have been crucial in allowing myself to grow." 2. "I am going to college in Switzerland with the intent of studying language in particular. I am also interested in literature, creative writing, and psychology, so who knows?" Brenda would be going to Franklin College in Switzerland in the fall, which was her first choice. Claudia. Claudia was a day student. Her overall GPA was 3.25. Her SAT scores: Verbal - 540, Quantitative - 700. Claudia’s parents were originally from Nest Africa. She was involved in the 87 Drama Department as production manager for the school’s musical production. 1. ”I presently believe that education is what one chooses to learn. A student can have a ’wonderful,’ that is, knowledgeable and well-expressed teacher and yet if that student chooses to absorb nothing, remember nothing, and in effect say ’no’ to the system of learning, they have in fact only exercised his/her right. My ’essence’ has not yet been developed. I gain knowledge through every aspect of my life-- school is only a small aspect of the larger spectrum which is life. I possess opinions that are definite in my mind, but that is due to my heritage and the education I have been exposed to--and have chosen to receive. I am grateful to my parents for having offered me the opportunity of higher learning at Lakeview--a place where teachers care beyond the classroom ’duty.’" 2. "My future will hold education--one can never stop learning--it stops growth of a being. I hope to pursue a career in directing/production in either the theater or film productions. My formal education should consist of a B.A. or a B.F.A. in theater and then an M.F.A. in Directing.” Claudia would be attending the University of Southern California in the fall, which was her second choice. Alex. Alex was a boarding student. His overall GPA was 3.4. His SAT scores: Verbal - 640, Quantitative - 750. Alex had transferred from a school in France, but he was not French. His father had been transferred with an American corporation. This was his first and last year at Lakeview. 1. "My learning has given me the skills and knowledge necessary to get into college, but not survive in the real world. It has also provided me a great hatred of learning. The ’excellence in education’ title means to me that the school teaches everything that is on standardized tests.” 2. "I plan to get a master’s degree in computers or chemistry, then work long enough to afford my Ph.D. 1 think that the college will give me more than any pre-college school, since they don’t have to do well on standardized tests.” Alex would be attending the University of Michigan in the fall, which was his first choice. 88 Elle. Ella was a day student. Her overall GPA was 2.78. Her SAT scores: Verbal - 370, Quantitative - 490. Ella was very proud of her Polish heritage and ethnic background. She was the sensitive member of the group who was a somewhat reluctant participant because of shyness. l. "Excellence in education means to get something out of what is constantly being put in and to have the knowledge change and affect your life." 2. ”I plan to attend Elmira or Syracuse University to study political science and international studies. By attending college, it will prepare me for future jobs like foreign adviser, or work in an embassy, etc.” Mum. Wolfgang was a day student. His overall GPA was 2.87. His SAT Scores: Verbal - 730, Quantitative . 780. Wolfgang was Korean. He was a transfer student from the local public school his senior year. 1. "School has taught me only knowledge in mechanical subjects and only to a nominal degree. Most/all of my learning has arisen from outside reading of literature, Hesse and Nietzsche being my favorites.” 2. ”Go to college, write/study what I am interested in. Possibly go to graduate/professional school.” Wolfgang would be attending the University of Michigan in the fall. It was not his first choice. lbureflu. Thurston was a day student. His overall GPA was 2.4. His SAT scores were Verbal - 540, Quantitative - 650. Thurston was not in class the first day because of illness, so he did not answer the two questions. He would be attending Albion College in the fall, which was his first choice. Nancy. Nancy was a day student from England who was living with an ”exchange“ family for one year. Before coming to Lakeview, she had attended Peter Symonds College in Winchester, England. Her 89 overall GPA was 3.15. She did not take the SAT test. She would be attending Birmingham University in England in the fall, but this was not her first choice in colleges. She was not present when the two questions were given on the first day of class. Jeuet. Janet was a day student. She did not indicate her GPA or her SAT scores. However, school records indicated that her SAT scores were Verbal . 460, Quantitative - 440, and that her GPA was 2.50. She was not in class on the first day when the two questions were distributed. arl . Charles, a black student from Durham, North Carolina, was a boarding student who audited the course. His overall GPA was 2.61. His SAT scores: Verbal - 570, Quantitative - 600. Charles would be attending Northwestern University in the fall, which was his first choice. He was not in class on the first day to answer the two questions, but he submitted the other information to me. This is a brief description of the 15 students in Mr. Johnson’s class. The information is also shown in Table 3 for reference. The GPAs of this class ranged from 3.73 (Jackie) to 2.4 (Randy). The SAT scores ranged from Verbal 730 (Wolfgang and Brenda) to 410 (Randy) and Quantitative 780 (Wolfgang) to 420 (Randy). The mean SAT scores for all students at Lakeview Prep were Verbal 505 and Quantitative 571, according to school records. 90 Table 3.--A profile of the students in Mr. Johnson’s class. Overall SAT Scores Student’s Name GPA Verbal Quantitative Jackie 3.73 650 680 Josh 2.99 590 600 Holden 3.05 530 570 Annette (English) 2.94 600 610 Stuart 3.26 660 570 Randy 2.40 410 420 Brenda 3.34 730 680 Claudia 3.25 540 700 Alex 3.05 640 750 Ella 2.78 370 490 Wolfgang 2.87 730 780 Thurston 2.40 540 650 Nancy (English) 3.15 Did not take SAT Janet 2.62 460 440 Charles (auditing) 2.61 570 600 Note: The mean SAT scores for Lakeview Prep students were Verbal = 505 and Quantitative . 571. h te mmar In this chapter ‘the campus setting was described, and the sociopolitical contexts for learning that face a teacher at Lakeview Prep School were identified and described, using information contained in school documents and the two questions administered the first day of class. The participants in the study were described. Mr. Johnson, the teacher, was described with excerpts from fieldnotes and from a tape-recorded interview with him. The students in the classroom were described briefly, using some of their own statements and goals. CHAPTER V TEACHING FOR HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IN A SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT In a classic statement, Max Weber (1922/1978) defined social action: A social relationship may be said to exist when several people reciprocally adjust their behavior to each other with respect to the meaning which they give to it, and this reciprocal adjustment determines the form which it takes. (p. 30) The first day of Mr. Johnson’s elective class, ”America in the Sixties and Seventies," just like the first day of class in many other* classrooms both public and private throughout the United States, began the process of establishing a social relationship that would determine the social actions and interactions of its participants. The first day of class provided the students with their first meeting of their teacher who, according to Erickson (1986), began the ”enacted" curriculum. "Enacted" curriculum is defined as the nature of the social organization of classroom life whose construction is largely, but not exclusively, the responsibility of the teacher as instructional leader. It is critical to examine the first day of class to see how the teacher' and students begin defining their roles in this social organization, and then to examine how these roles grow and change or 91 92 are maintained throughout the 20 weeks of the semester through Mr. Johnson’s teaching strategies. It is within these strategies that the teacher must weave the pedagogy of higher-order thinking characterized by Newmann (1986) as thinking that challenges the student to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information rather than to apply previously learned knowledge routinely. Newmann’s Observational Scales for ”thoughtful" or higher-order thinking are included in Figure 4. These scales are divided into three sections or categories. The general category suggests that sustained, in-depth coverage of material and substantive coherence and continuity of the lesson are observable measures of higher-order thinking. It also suggests that adequate response time for students to prepare their answers is essential. The second section refers to teacher behaviors indicating that questions and tasks be challenging and that teachers consider explanations and reasons for conclusions, ask students to justify answers in a Socratic (questioning) manner, encourage original explanations or solutions, and show an awareness that authoritative sources are not absolute. Teacher behavior should also include an awareness of students’ personal experiences (where relevant) and should integrate them into the lesson whenever possible. Finally; the teacher should model the same behavior he/she expects of the students. Newmann’s third category refers to student behavior. It includes emphasis on students’ responses based on original ideas with a rationale behind their conclusions, and contributions germane to the topic and connected with previous discussion. It also looks 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 93 GENERAL There was sustained examination of a few topics rather than super- ficial coverage of many.* The lesson displayed substantive coherence and continuity.* Students were given an appropriate amount of time to think, that is, to prepare responses to questions.* TEACHER BEHAVIOR The teacher asked challenging questions and/or structured challenging tasks (given the ability level and preparation of the students). The teacher carefully considered explanations and reasons for conclu- sions. The teacher pressed individual students to justify or to clarify their assertions in a Socratic manner.* The teacher encouraged students to generate original and unconven- tional ideas, explanations, or solutions to problems. The teacher showed an awareness that not all assertions emanating from authoritative sources are absolute or certain. Students’ personal experience (where relevant) was integrated into the esson. The teacher was a model of thoughtfulness.* STUDENT BEHAVIOR Students offered explanations and reasons for their conclusions.* Students generated original and unconventional ideas, explanations, hypotheses, or solutions to problems. Student contributions were articulate, germane to the topic, and con- nected to prior discussion. What proportion of students participated verbally in the lesson? What pr0portion of time did students spend engaged in thoughtful dis- course with one another? What proportion of students showed genuine involvement in the topics discussed? *These variables, according to Newmann, are considered to be minimal requirements for a thoughtful lesson. Figure 4: Observational scales for assessing higher-order thinking in high school social studies classes. (Newmann, 1988.) 94 at the number of students participating in the discussion, the proportion of time engaged in discourse with one another, and the proportion of students genuinely involved in the topics discussed. Newmann’s scales are similar to Cuban’s (1984) observable measures of teacher-centered and student-centered instruction. He noted that teacher-centered instruction is characterized by the following: Teacher talk exceeding student talk during instruction. Instruction with whole class more frequently observed than small-group or individual instruction. Use of class time determined by the teacher. Arrangement of desks/chairs in rows facing the blackboard. (p. 3) Student-centered instruction, according to Cuban, has the following observable characteristics: Student talk is equal to (or greater than) teacher talk. Instruction occurs. in small groups rather ‘than the whole c ass. Students help choose and organize the content to be learned. Teacher permits students to determine partially or wholly rules of behavior and penalties and enforcement in the classroom. Varied instructional materials are available for independent or small-group use. Use of materials is scheduled by the teacher for at least half of the available academic time. The classroom is arranged in a manner that permits students to work in small groups, and the arrangement is flexible. (p. 3 These scales and measures suggested certain characteristics of higher-order thinking and teacher-/student-centered classrooms that would be helpful in my daily observations and data analysis. 95 W I arrived at Room 12 just before noon on January 24, which was the first day of Mr. Johnson’s class, ”America in the Sixties and Seventies.” The class was scheduled to run from 12:10 to 12:55 daily. Because I was early, I took the time to sketch the floor plan of the classroom (see Figure 5). 1 [iv / fia/ v»; 7‘; IWVUM'E’WL' ‘ Windows J>oorued1chnnH“la. Figure 5: Floor plan of Mr. Johnson’s classroom. I took a seat beside the teacher’s desk, in front of his file cabinet. I placed the small tape recorder on the corner of Mr. Johnson’s desk. The walls were wood paneled; several collages were posted around the room, depicting scenes from the Sixties and Seventies. The bulletin boards had various newspaper clippings thumbtacked to them, relating current events that had occurred during the previous semester. On the bulletin board behind the teacher’s desk there was a Lakeview schedule of classes and the 96 daily bulletin. This bulletin became something I tried to read daily before each class because it informed me of any changes in the schedule or special events (assemblies) happening that day or the next. Students began to arrive at about 12:05; some asked, ”Is this the Sixties class?" Two girls arrived and sat together in the circle. A few boys came in, but they deposited their books and left the room. Many of the students carried the book, ngjng Apert--An lujermel History of Auerlee in the 19605, by William O’Neill. Two boys (later identified as Wolfgang and Stuart) came in, sat in the circle, and began conversing. (Wolfgang): I was talking to the guy from Columbia about you, and he said they made a mistake and you got in. (Stuart): Ha, ha . . . very funny. I really did get in. How about you? (Wolfgang): I don’t think so; . . . my grades were not that great. (Stuart): What about your test scores? (Wolfgang): They were OK but probably not good enough for Columbia. The class composition so far was five girls and seven boys. The first day of class is always one of anticipation. You see it on the faces of the students sitting in desk-like chairs that have been prearranged in a circle. This is an intentional seating strategy on the part of Mr. Johnson, which enables the students to have eye contact with one another and with the teacher, who is also sitting in the circle taking attendance from a computer sheet. Absent is the traditional arrangement with students seated in rows, 97 which often leads to a student-participation hierarchy and which, according to Cuban (1984), indicates a teacher-centered classroom. For example, students in the front row of a traditional seating arrangement often are the more verbal students actively participat- ing and taking notes, while the students in the back row are less engaged or quietly ignored. The students met here in Room 12, Lakeview Prep School, from 12:10-12:55 p.m., every day for one semester. These are the seniors, described in Chapter IV, coming together in the socially constructed environment of this classroom and charged with learning in this academic environment with their instructional leader, Mr. Johnson. "Are the buses still coming?" Mr. Johnson asked no one in par- ticular. The response was that they all had arrived. One student volunteered that the flu was going around and many students were out with it. The class had five girls and seven boys on the first day. Mr. Johnson then said, ”Let’s begin . . . . If the buses have arrived, then we all are here unless we’re sick.” (Mr. Johnson and I had discussed beforehand that I would be introduced at the end of the period so that it would not break his normal routine fOr the first class period of the semester.) He continued, "Some of you have the book for the course already, Ceming Apert, by O’Neill. You will be looking at the Sixties, trying to see it with the eyes of the Sixties. It’s a tough book but you will get to love it after all." On grades and expectations he stated, “Your first grade will be a two-day test. You can and should ask questions in class if you 98 don’t understand the material. Some of it is a little tricky. I do care that you are interested." Nothing was passed out to the students, and at this point many of them were listening intently as evidenced by their eye contact with the teacher or with each other, but none were writing. He continued with a description of the explicit course expectations: We will have three seminars. These are small-group book dis- cussions. You will be responsible for reading the book and then discussing it in your small groups [more explicit informa- tion was given the week before the seminar]. Participation in the seminars and your reactions to your book are essential. It is interesting to see what you do and forget to do. He talked about the approximate dates the seminars would be held. The other course requirement was a research project. To this he said, ”You have to write an acceptable paper. You need to start using several possible sources and become inventive doing original research.“ According to Jackie, one of my informants, the students have to do a major research paper in social sciences their sophomore and junior years, so they are familiar with the basics of doing such a paper. Mr. Johnson concluded his expectations for the class with, ”You are the students into whom the information must pour. You are responsible for your own learning. Come with questions and answers.” This statement was contradictory to higher-order think- ing, at least in part, with its reference to information pouring into the student. I wondered at this point whether I would be see- ing teacher-centered activities under the» guise of higher-order thinking. In this initial introduction to the students, Mr. Johnson noted his concern about student attendance and punctuality, preparation 99 for class, and student participation. These were things to which he would refer on numerous occasions throughout the semester. He assumed a traditional authoritarian role of teacher and instruc- tional leader, informing his students about the requirements and expectations of the class. A late student arrived and slipped into one of the seats. "Claudia, why are you late?" Claudia explained breathlessly, "The French teacher let us out five minutes late." To this Mr. Johnson replied, "Let’s get this straightened out. We don’t want to go on to a second day being late." He then launched into the discussion for the day, which established another role for himself and his students, that of facilitator of student discussions and builder of higher-order discourse. Mr. Johnson stood up, left the circle, and pointed to a collage hanging on the wall (pictured below). It had the words "yes” and "no" in black and white, surrounded by swirls of color. He asked the question, "Well, is it yes or no?" Stuart responded, I'It depends on what the question is." 100 Mr. Johnson stated further, "I mean . . . during the Sixties was the answer yes or no?" Another student, Josh, said, "Well, the Sixties represented protest so it must mean ”no,” meaning no we do not want to be told what to do.” Brenda replied to this response, "But the Sixties wanted to be permissive . . . they wanted to be able to do everything . . . so it could have been yes." To this Stuart replied, ”It was both yes and no, depending on whether you were a liberal or a conservative.” To which Holden replied, ”Or a dropout from society altogether." The students’ comments stopped for a moment, and they all looked at Mr. Johnson, who had again joined them in the circle. To this pause, Mr. Johnson replied, ”Come on . .. . there is a war going on up there." Joshua replied, ”Well, some people were for the war and some were against the war.” Mr. Johnson got very animated at that point and paced around inside the circle. One student, Randy, said in a hushed voice to the person sitting next to him, ”Hey, . . . this is getting too philosophical for me." Mr. Johnson, in his movement, did not seem to hear this comment. Still in a state of animation, he continued: Idealism got crushed by the ”no’s" in the Sixties. Look around you [pointing to other collages on the walls]. These are some of your own feelings now in the way you see the world whether positive or negative. The Sixties did a lot of looking into this . . . to everyone’s confusion. Of course, we look for history to repeat itself but the trouble is we go through it making the same damn mistakes. Students like you can recall many of the events you were interested in. As you look at the Sixties you are looking at yourself today. 101 Jackie volunteered, "A lot of our parents grew up in this time.“ Another student, Claudia, stated, "I think we are more questioning today because of the Sixties." Joshua asked Mr. Johnson, '15 it your goal, as a teacher, to make us more aware of ourselves through this time?” Mr. Johnson’s response to this was, ”It is a time for you to check out what you have gotten from your own education. Read the first chapter for tomorrow. We are going to spend about two days on this chapter" (Fieldnotes, 1/24/89). As Mr. Johnson’s pedagogy began to unfold, I noted several things in my fieldnotes as building blocks for assertions on his pedagogy: Mr. Johnson talks to the students and not at them, always using their names when addressing them. He has managed to learn their names very quickly either from previously having them in class at the sophomore or junior level or from writing their names in the circle as he takes attendance. Mr. Johnson expects turn-taking to occur naturally within the give-and—take courtesies of normal conversation rather than traditional hand-raising associated with classrooms. The circular arrangement of the chairs facilitates this. His interactional patterns, at least for half of the period, were very different from the traditional interactional patterns observed in classrooms. I chose to do an interactional analysis on the last segment of the first day of class (see Figure 6). This shows a pedagogical pattern of interaction. The types of questions that Mr. Johnson used for this discussion and that he was observed using most frequently for class discussions were what Mehan (1976) referred to as “process questions.” He defined and elaborated on them as follows: 102 Initiation Reply Evaluation T--Well, is it yes or no? S--It depends on what the question is. T--I mean...during the 60’s was the answer yes or no? J--We11, the 60’s rep- resented protest so it must mean no, meaning no we will not be told what to do. H--Or a dropout from society. B--But the 60’s wanted to be permissive, so it could have been yes. S--It was both yes and no, depending on if you were a lib- eral or con- servative. T--Is it yes or no? J--Some people were for the war and some were against the war. Ja--A lot of our par- ents grew up in this time. C--I think we are more questioning today because of the 60’s. T-—Come on, there is a war going on up there. J--Is it your goal, as a teacher, to make us more aware of ourselves through this time? T--It is time for you to check out what you have gotten from your own education. Figure 6: Interaction analysi5--First classroom discussion, 1/25/89. (T - Teacher, Mr. Johnson, S - Stuart, J . Joshua, B - Brenda, C - Claudia, Ja - Jackie) 103 Process questions ask for students’ opinions or interpretations. They are similar to Bloom’s "skills' and “abilities,” Guilford’s ”evaluation“ and I'explanation" and Brophy and Good’s ”process” and “opinion” questions. Bloom says that abilities require both the recall of factual knowledge and the application of this knowledge to new situations. Guilford’s ”explanation“ is the substantiation of a claim or conclusion by citing evidence. His "evaluation” deals with values rather than matters of fact. Brophy and Good’s "process” question requires the student give detailed explanation or explain the problem that underlies the answer. The "opinion” question requires students to make a prediction or evaluate some material. (p. 184) The teacher initiated the interaction using "process” questions, but the students responded not only to the teacher but to each other, replying to or evaluating their comments. Mr. Johnson not only allowed this type of participation; he encouraged it. This approach varied from the instructional or interactional norm Mehan (1976) spoke of. Usually it is a teacher question, a student response, and the evaluation by the teacher as to whether the response was correct. This appeared to be a pattern that Mr. Johnson was trying to establish to promote higher-order thinking--by asking "process" or critical questions. Sometimes, however, the inflection of his voice or a note of sarcasm connoted an evaluative judgment, indicating they had not come to a satisfactory response. An example of this was "Come on . . . there is a war going on up there." I made a theoretical notation in my fieldnotes to determine whether this was. a pattern of‘ his teaching that, would further develop in observations. In this lesson, students were asked to analyze and interpret their own opinions on the Sixties, both for themselves and the teacher. 104 Not all students participated verbally in this discourse, however. It is my observation that students who are used to traditional roles might find it difficult to accept this type of pedagogy. It involves a degree of risk taking by the students in a new, socially constructed environment with an interactional pattern that has them commenting on and evaluating each other’s responses and perhaps disagreeing with the teacher. W o - On the first day of class, Mr. Johnson told the students to read Chapter 1 in the O’Neill book for discussion the remainder of the first week of school. The first chapter was entitled "Prologue: Eisenhower’s Year." I read the first chapter to see how the content would tie in with Mr. Johnson’s pedagogy for teaching the subject matter. It is interesting to note the first paragraph of the book, which sets the tone and establishes the fact that the author; a professor' of history at Rutgers University, gives an opinionated look at history: Who can do justice now to the 19505? For liberals and intellectuals it was a dull, sad time, the age of television (ten thousand sets in 1947, forty million ten years later), tract houses, garish automobiles, long skirts, and bad movies. Such customs could not but invite contempt even then. When the sixties arrived with its theatrical fashions and events, the fifties seemed worse still. (p. 3) Recalling my own history textbooks, they seemed by comparison to be completely devoid of opinion and simply factual accounts. The chapter briefly covered the Eisenhower presidency and the political events leading to Kennedy’s election in the Sixties, with a profile of the Supreme Court at the end of the chapter. 105 The second day' of’ class began on time, with the students sitting randomly in the circle. Mr. Johnson took attendance, asking if Nancy, the other English exchange student, and Janet were still ill. The students were all talking among themselves, but one of them volunteered that Nancy still had the flu but they did not know about Janet. Wolfgang was absent that day. Mr. Johnson began: ”Questions? Observations?” (Claudia): OK . . . I have a question about the Hundred Flowers Policy. (Mr. Johnson): Yes? (Claudia): I don’t understand it. When it was first mentioned, it didn’t call it the Hundred Flowers Policy; he [O’Neill] just kept referring to the flowers blooming or whatever, and underneath them everyone was contradicting each other and nobody understood what the administration was doing. (Mr. Johnson): What is your [to the group] understanding of the Hundred Flowers Policy? Is there anyone here who would like to comment on it? (Brenda): It is just like you had 100 different people with different ideas going on all the time who would not be blamed for anything. (Mr. Johnson): There is an allusion to something, and that is the important thing. . . [waiting for a student to supply what the allusion was. When they didn’t, he answered for them]. The allusion is to China. (Stuart): Oh yeah, Mao had let lOO flowers grow and let things find their own level. (Mr. Johnson): Yes, Mao referred to letting 100 flowers grow to find the balance between revolution and anti-revolution in China. It gave him some time and allowed him to find plenty of others to blame. You will find the reference used by O’Neill comparing it to the policies of the Eisenhower administration. In Eisenhower’s case, is it healthy? (Claudia): I don’t know. . . . It gave him ways to get out if something failed. It was always blamed on other people because they had all of these different impressions of him. 106 (Stuart): He was trying to be everything the people wanted. (Mr. Johnson): Holden [bringing Holden into the discussion for the first time], how does he achieve this? (Holden): He gave the people what they wanted. (Mr. Johnson): Who was Eisenhower trying to please? Do the blue-collar workers like him? (Ella): He plays golf and was an athlete at West Point, and a general in the military. He was a war hero besides. (Mr. Johnson): If Eisenhower suits the common man, do the intellectuals, the university professors and the students, like Ike? (Josh): No, not really. He tries to be anti-intellectual to appeal to the common man because they [the intellectuals] are not going to get him elected. O’Neill even says he changes his speeches if he feels they sound too intellectual, even though he is quite a capable speech writer. (Mr. Johnson): But who picked him? Thurston, who picked Ike? (Thurston): The party? (Mr. Johnson): And who picks the party? (Holden, speaking hesitatingly): Business? (Mr. Johnson): And where do they sit and where do they come from? (Stuart, knowingly): They come from the "old money" in the East. (Mr. Johnson): And why do they pick Ike? (Josh): Because he appeals to the common man, and they will get a Republican elected on their ticket. (Mr. Johnson, to Annette, the English student): How does this work in England? Where does Maggie get her power and her money? (Annette, seemingly caught off guard): Well, she gets her money from her supporters, I guess, but I don’t know who they are specifically. 107 (Mr. Johnson): Let’s get back to Ike. So here we have a man who helped win a war and this was no fluke. Sitting as a general who had commanded forces, what sort of picture might we get of him if he directs the government the way he directed the invasion of Europe? We find that he is very smart and, according to O’Neill, not a big risk taker unless the risks will pay off in a big way. Were there things that Eisenhower did that you liked and things you didn’t like? How does he come out in your evaluation of him? Are you up or down on him? (Thurston): I was sort of down on him. (Mr. Johnson): Well . . . [An evaluative comment indicating that he perhaps did not agree with Thurston. He did not ask him to defend or give a reason for his response.] Annette, with your observations as an English visitor with a distant eye, what do you think about him? Do you like Ike? (Annette): I think he knew what to do, and what he did was intentional. (Stuart): I think he was very well-suited for the job. (Josh): Yes, he was well-suited for the 19505, but I wouldn’t say he was the best president we have had. (Mr. Johnson): Was he doing the things the country needed? (Stuart): Well, we did not need massive military build-up at this time. All we needed was effective military policy. (Mr. Johnson): Jackie, what about it? Do you go along with Eisenhower’s policy on the bomb and armaments? (Jackie): No, I think he was trying to pit the military against each other so they would be out of his way and trying to fight each other for a slice of the budget. (Mr. Johnson): And you don’t like this? (Jackie): No. I think the government should be working with the armed forces. (Mr. Johnson): 15 it easy to work with the armed forces? 00 you know what it might be like to work with them? (Janet): They are too powerful. They have too much money, so they all want their own thing. 108 (Mr. Johnson): But isn’t that the president’s job? Isn’t he responsible for the defense? Isn’t he the one who wants the money? (Annette, obviously not understanding the system): Is it actually the president who says how much money they get? (Mr. Johnson): Randy, how about you? How would you answer Annette? (Randy): The president proposes and the Congress disposes [the other students laugh at his little rhyme]. The president proposes the budget, and the Congress then has to budget the amount of money to be spent. (Mr. Johnson): So if the president wants to reduce the size of the budget spent on the military but increase the size of armaments, what does he do? What is the tone of the 19505? What is everyone afraid of? He is putting it all on massive retaliation rather than flexible response. So he wants to put more trust in technology and decrease the need for men. So who’s happy now? (Janet): The Air Force because they can build their bigger, newer planes with increased technology. (Mr. Johnson): And who doesn’t like it? (Ella): The Army . . . because he is cutting back on the troops. (Mr. Johnson): We are in a pattern. A successive series of cards that holds us to the way we will react and behave. You may like this or you may not like it, but it is always that awful question of what we are going to do. Well, let’s look at history. If I were to ask any of you what the purpose of history is, you’d all give me that pat answer: We learn from the lessons of the past. That’s so much B.S., my friends, ’cause we don’t learn anything from the past. Matter of fact, we always pick up the wrong lessons. Maybe not always, but frequently we do. Or maybe we haven’t understood the past. We have a series of holes so that if the United States were to get into a problem in Asia today, what’s going to happen? Do we go the way of the Korean War or Viet Nam, or is there another way? We do like the fact that Eisenhower is protecting us against the Communist treat. Alex, do you have some more detail on the Communist threat? (Alex): The Communists were kind of infiltrating quietly. 109 For the remainder of the period, the discussion continued on the infiltration of the Communists and the heyday of McCarthy in trying to identify and purge the country of his list of alleged Communists. At this point, Mr. Johnson had brought each student into the discussion. He ended the discussion for the day with the following comment: ”Are we comfortable with what has gone on today? You are doing the learning. Reread the chapter if you need to, and we will discuss it again tomorrow.“ An analysis of this lesson shows the continuation of the patterns begun the day before. Mr. Johnson gave the students a chance to initiate the discussion by asking for questions or observations, which suggests a student-centered approach. When they did not appear to have them, he used the content of the book to stimulate discussion. He did not appear to be working from a lesson plan, but he did have his copy of the book with many notations written in it. He continued to be outwardly nonjudgmental or evaluative in his responses to students, but his conscious or unconscious cues prompted students to continue or adapt their responses to gain his approval. He frequently asked for their opinions and encouraged them to generate original ideas and solutions. He referred to O’Neill both for comparison and for comment but as yet did not disagree with the author’s opinions. A large proportion of the students frequently were participating in the lesson. Stuart and Joshua seemed to be participating to a greater degree because they appeared to have a stronger background or interest in history. 110 i ’ i On the third day of class, Mr. Johnson noted that Nancy, the other English exchange student, was finally present, but Janet was still absent. Wolfgang was also absent. Stuart remarked (out of the hearing of the English students), "If we get any more Brits in this class we can qualify for the Beatles.“ Randy could be heard saying, "I just absorb. . . . One of these days I am going to explode, just absorbing.” This was in response to Holden’s asking him why he had been so quiet in class the day before. Charles, a black student, joined the group. He would be auditing the class ”to add the black perspective to the discussions," he told the class in a serious yet tongue-in-cheek manner. All students had the book (including Charles), and eight students (Jackie, Josh, Stuart, Holden, Brenda, Claudia, Alex, Thurston, and Annette) were prepared with writing materials to take notes. Claudia came in late, and Mr. Johnson told her that she needed to check with her French teacher because the door would be locked tomorrow. As if to emphasize this fact, he shut the door. The discussion began with Mr. Johnson asking the students to summarize the preceding day’s discussion. Joshua stated, ”We talked about the Communist scare, Eisenhower’s administration and his background, and whether* or not. we thought he was an effective president." Ella asked, ”I don’t understand what purpose we had for flying over Russia and why the U-2 incident became such a big deal.” Mr. Johnson praised Ella, a somewhat reluctant participant, for her 111 excellent question, and the discussion focused on containing the expansion of Communism. There was more teacher talk noted in this discussion of containment because the students seemed to be vague about the subject. I noted that this was not covered in any great depth in their reading. There was more discussion when attention turned to the U-2 incident, which was covered in greater detail in the book. While discussing this, there was a knock on the closed door, followed by Wolfgang walking sheepishly into the room. He commented, "Sorry, but I have been waiting outside."I Mr. Johnson made no reply and continued with the U-2 discussion. He asked, ”Do you think anybody has a better answer for why the U-2 was shot down than what you have right here?" (referring to the O’Neill book). There was no response, but I doubt if at this point the students had another point of view with which to compare it. At this point he asked, "What are the Russians afraid of?" To this Brenda answered, "If they start talking about peace at the Summit, then their military will be cut back." Mr. Johnson responded, ”That sounds like some other discussions we have been having. You guys are learning. You mean if it happens in Russia, it can happen in the United States or vice versa. Remember this, put it down somewhere. It nfight just answer some questions about Viet Nam. There are things that will come up again in the Sixties but with a different audience. Wolfgang comented for the first time, adding that the Summit was canceled because Kruschev wanted to increase defense spending. 112 Mr. Johnson then turned the discussion by saying, "What was happening in Alabama? What’s going on in Little Rock?” Stuart responded, "The beginning of the Civil Rights movement and Eisenhower sending in the troops.” Mr. Johnson further commented, "Read for tomorrow the blurb in the back of this chapter, ’A Profile on the Supreme Court,’ and be aware of W Me. This will be important to our discussion.” He continued, "Nancy and Annette [the two English students] do not know that much about our Supreme Court, so help them out with this." Josh, Stuart, Randy, and Holden volunteered to provide them with a definition and explanation. The girls did not question or ask for further clarification. Mr. Johnson continued: In 1954 the Supreme Court made one of its landmark decisions [referring to Brgwn v, lgpeke Beerd gf Edueetjgn]. A landmark case being one that changes the directions we take. When you [to the students] take your constitutional law course in college you will be studying these cases. By the way, this is a fascinating course, and each one of you should take it if you are at all interested. It gives you a tremendous background in history and constitutional thinking. There is some elegant, magnificent writing by the justices. What does the decision in the Supreme Court say in this landmark case? (Stuart): They say that the schools should be integrated at all deliberate speed. (Mr. Johnson): But what does this mean, Ella? By what authority does the Supreme Court tell the students they can go to school? (Ella): Because it is the law of the land. (Mr. Johnson): But can the Supreme Court specify what day or year all schools will be integrated? (Janet): They don’t have the force to make Alabama do this. (Mr. Johnson): Why can’t the Supreme Court enforce the law? This is the whole problem. If I went to my school next week 113 and said, "Hey, we’re not integrated and the Supreme Court says we have to proceed without delay," can I go to the courts to do it? (Brenda): Yes, but it will take years. (Mr. Johnson): And all the courts. will say is that the children should be able to go to my school. 00 you see what the black problem has been? Over the 100 years since the Civil War, a black man’s freedom has disappeared because he can only go the court to decide, and it takes years not to mention the money. Do you see the dilemma of the Supreme Court? They can tell us whether or not a law is constitutional, but they can’t enforce it. (Charles): You have to look at the black side. How many blacks, at that point, were willing to go to a white school? They wanted to go to a black school because they did not want the hassles. (Mr. Johnson): Tomorrow we will watch Eye; on the Prize to get this perspective. It is interesting to follow ‘these kids through Little Rock. It picks them up as adults and gets their perspective on all that was happening to them. At this point in the discussion, Mr. Johnson began reflecting on his own experiences at that time. He began: Here is my experience. I was down at Charlotte, North Carolina, in a private school from 1958 to 1962, I think. It was very exciting because you had a sense of change but there were several things that were odd about Charlotte. There was a high school there which was all black. About this time [January] there would be a guy checking in at a motel in Charlotte under an assumed name and he would go to the [all black] high school and talk to the physics or English teacher and say, "Who have you got for me?" And the physics teacher would say, "Well, we have Charles here [pointing to Charles], who is an excellent student." In confidence, these guys would be making the rounds and they were doing the same in Charleston and Richmond and all around the South. You see, they were from the big eastern Universities like MIT and your Ivy League schools, even from some of the boarding schools like Exeter and Choate. This is 1962 and out in the suburbs the other kids, all white, are cramming and trying to make their grades to get in. What delighted me was the black students were so sophisticated about the programs the schools offered. They knew more about what Princeton was going to offer them, in terms of an engineering program or whatever, than any white kid 114 in the suburbs. That is what was very exciting down there. The secrecy and the stealing away of good people. Mr. Johnson used enough drama and suspense in telling this story that all of the students were observed to be listening carefully. He concluded the period by asking, "Anything else from this chapter we need to know? The terms are going to sneak up on you, so be sure you understand them.” Josh asked, "Do you think it is important to know all of the names mentioned . . . you know, there are so many of them?" Seeing the look on Mr. Johnson’s face, he said, ”Never mind, don’t answer that." At the same time he got very red and embarrassed. An analysis of this lesson shows that it followed the same pattern as the day before. If one looks at the lesson using the observational scales for higher-order thinking, one sees the examination of a few topics, coherence, and continuity with the previous discussion and content consistent with what the student read. The teacher asked the students challenging questions that required more than a "yes“ or "no" response. The teacher asked if any student wanted to question O’Neill’s thinking on the U-2 incident. Students were asked to summarize the discussions from the previous day. They were asked to clarify for each other and for the English students who might not be as familiar with the terms or concepts. This shows the use of the pedagogical device known as "peer teaching,” which frequently was initiated. Having the two English girls, Nancy and Annette, allowed Mr. Johnson to use this technique freely. Their reluctance to participate in discussions 115 was lessened with this strategy. Most of the discussion followed content in the reading except for the discussion of Communist containment prompted by Ella’s question. Many of the teacher’s experiences were woven into the discussion. Mr. Johnson did not work from lesson plans but let the topics be suggested by students’ questions and the content of the book when discussion lulled. This made the class more student centered than teacher centered. He prepared the students for the next day’s work by leading them into the discussion of civil rights. He also noted the importance of understanding terms and people, a product/performance behavior. Student participation in the discussion was less equally distributed than that of the previous day; all students were observed to be taking notes and listening. I suspect that they thought, sitting in a circle the way they were, that if their attention lagged they might be called on. Mr. Johnson was both sitting in the circle and on his feet when referring to a map he pulled down on the wall. Use of deegteue A teaching strategy Mr. Johnson used to gain another perspective was showing the PBS documentary Eye 99 the Prize in class on Friday. The chairs were rearranged, and a few of the students were lying on the floor in front of the VCR. There was no introduction to the film because there was difficulty getting the lights off. Mr. Johnson tried to talk once during the tape, but it was distracting and hard to hear so he did not do it again. When the video was over, Mr. Johnson commented, ”So that was Mississippi 116 in 1962. It will be covered in O’Neill’s second chapter. Are there any questions while I rewind the tape? People around here get very particular if this is not done.“ There were no questions at that moment, and Mr. Johnson went about rewinding the tape. Students were talking quietly while he was doing this. They were not discussing the video but talking about a "skinhead" fight that had occurred at a local high school the previous evening. Time ran out before Mr. Johnson could begin a post-discussion in earnest, but he did tell the students that Chapter 2 of O’Neill’s book must be read for the following week. Mr. Johnson commented to me after that first week that students who initially showed reluctance to participate were beginning to do so. This showed a conscious pedagogical effort on his part to bring about that behavior. He commented, "I look for the student to be alert, energetic, inquiring, and a risk-taker when asking questions or stating opinions. I can always tell when they are not paying attention." To this I commented, "Then there are times when there is no correct answer that you are looking for?" To which he replied, ”Yes, history' is many interpretations of a particular happening." t dents’ niti er .ti n he W In informally talking to many of the student informants before class, they mentioned to me that they tried to keep up with the readings to be prepared for the class discussions. Alex, a more reluctant participant, thought the reading was difficult but 117 interesting. Thurston commented that this was one of the most interesting history books he had ever read. The two English students felt somewhat lost with the terms mentioned in the book but then made it a point to have them clarified by friends or classmates outside of class and during class. Alex, a new student to Lakeview that year who had previously attended school in France, where his father worked for a major corporation, was asked what he thought about the course requirements. He replied, "I think they are a little heavier than usual." Thurston, on the other hand, replied, ”Hey, this is a normal load for around here, only I’ve heard Mr. Johnson is a lot harder.” From this conversation and others, I surmised that most of the students had not chosen this elective because it was an easy course to take their last semester at Lakeview (Fieldnotes, 1/25/89). T S on W n r - br ° Role Pleving e: e Pedagogical Deviee The second week, ”Building Camelot" was the O’Neill chapter for discussion. It began the historical perspective of the Sixties with discussion about the Kennedy administration. The author went into a great deal of detail about the increase in military spending in what he called the ”Kennedy Arms Race.” A pedagogical technique used by Mr. Johnson to promote higher- order thinking on this subject was role-playing. In role-playing, one assumes the role of a character and behaves as he/she believes that character’ would, given a certain set of circumstances or situations. It also involves the participants in higher-order 118 thinking, generating discourse to respond to a problem to provide alternative solutions. The discussion on January 31 was about military spending during the Kennedy years. The students were not given any advance warning of the activity other than the frequent reminders Mr. Johnson gave to keep up with the reading and that they were individually responsible for it. Mr. Johnson began by setting the scene: Eisenhower warns at the end of World War II that we need to be wary of the military and industrial complexes. What is there to be wary of as far as the military and industrial complex? How did we really get ourselves into such a frenzy over military spending, and who was responsible for it? It is a role that you yourselves might be playing or might like to play because it often leads to power and it’s where the money is. Let’s see . . . we need a free-wheeling military general who’s got to win a war and a shrewd businessman, each representing their own interests. Holden volunteered to play the role of the military general negotiating with a businessman to get his defense weapons built. Stuart quickly grabbed the role of the businessman. It is to be noted here that Stuart was an articulate student who, perhaps because of his debating skills, could dominate a discussion. Mr. Johnson then took a seat and the students began. Mr. Smoothie the Businessman (Stuart): I can deliver a better airplane but it’s going to cost you. You know technology is expensive. General (Holden): Well . . . Uh, how much? Mr. Businessman: First we will have to subcontract. To set it up we have to build a special hull for the airplane and engines just to carry you. To make the body so it will fly higher and carry armaments we’ll have to investigate titanium. . . . General: And if it fails? Mr. Businessman: It won’t fail, I give you my word. 119 General: I guess we have no choice but to give you the contract. [Mr. Johnson asked them to jump to three months later.] General: It’s three months past your deadline, and we were wondering where the new plane is. Mr. Businessman: Listen . . . we just had a strike in our new factory and I can’t deal with unions like that. The contractors were supposed to deliver the tests. They are located outside Portland, Oregon. General: I don’t know or care anything about that. . . . There is a war on that I have to win. Mr. Johnson interjected, "What’s in this for the general?" Janet responded, "It is his reputation." Mr. Johnson countered with, “But this guy’s [pointing to Stuart, the Businessman] making six figures and you [pointing to Holden, the General] are making two." What guarantee does the General have, other than his word? Who was their competition? Was there. bidding for it? Did Boeing have any competition in the airplane business?" The students did not offer an argument, but you could see they were quickly trying to absorb the rapid—fire possibilities of all that Mr. Johnson suggested. "Who is in control of the situation now?” challenged Mr. Johnson. Several students responded, ”The businessman, of course." Mr. Johnson countered, "Maybe . . . but he’s worried about something. What is it?" The students looked a little puzzled. Mr. Johnson continued. "He’s in control as long as . . . as long as .' Joshua finished his sentence for him with, "As long as the money comes in.” ”And who,” slyly replied Mr. Johnson, "keeps the money coming in? We need another player in our little game. . . 120 Who might that player be?” The students, who were caught up in the excitement of the game, fairly shouted, ”A Congressman.” "We need a Senator, perhaps the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee," Janet, an inconsistent discussion participant so far that semester, volunteered and quickly sat herself in the middle of the circle so as not to lose the momentum of the role-playing. Congressman (Janet): I have a lot of power here, as Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee. I have to check up on both of them. I can get more money from the budget. It might cost me ten million more, but then there is a war on. Mr. Johnson again came in with a question. "But what happens if you can’t? What are you going to lose if suddenly the papers get ahold of the news that the Senate is not supporting the Defense Department?" Alex commented, "Hey, she’s supposed to be charged with defending the country. She could lose her next election if she goes on record as being against military spending during a war." "So General," commented Mr. Johnson to Holden, "You’re going to have lunch with the Senator here. Are you going with your hat in your hands, or are you a cocky S.O.B. who is going in to say, ’Hey Senator . . . we’ve got a problem." The General replied, "Well, I need the money so I’ll probably go begging." To which the Senator (Nancy) replied, ”No, he’s in such a position that I pretty much have to give him the money.” Wolfgang then jumped in with, "It seems to me they both know they are going to get the money." Mr. Johnson at that time chose to throw in another glitch. "Supposing that the General here is one-fourth of the Pentagon’s 121 Chiefs of Staff and another general comes knocking on the Senator’s door who wants a new and costly tank. 00 the other players get worried? What’s the only thing that can expand in our little game?" The students all chimed in with, "The budget.“ Mr. Johnson further concluded, And how do we expand the budget? Do we further increase taxes, which might be politically unpopular? Are the people going to accept more taxes? No . . . we increase the deficit, and what have we used it for . . . armaments. Can we stop the General . . . or the businessman . . . or the Congressman? Does the businessman get fired? Maybe . . . but another one will fill his shoes. Does the Congressman get defeated? Ninety percent of all Senators will win re-election. And what about our General? He returns at age 45 with a nice pension and what does he do? He gives the businessman a call. Seems they can always use a consultant with contacts. When the bubble did break in the Sixties all sorts of people got laid off. People who were specialists in their fields, especially those fields dealing with the aircraft and armament business, had a rough time of it. You see, there is a place for prudent spending, cost control, and competition. Have we [the country] learned our lessons from this little game carried on in the Sixties? I really don’t know. (Fieldnotes, 1/31/89) What about the other students in the class? It is my observation that they were actively engaged in what was going on, with many of their comments noted in the previous description. It was their peers, and they' were not listening to a traditional classroom lecture on military spending but watching the subtleties of the dilemma unfold before them. They were seeing it critically examined from different perspectives, able to interject their own ideas, and they all outwardly seemed to be enjoying the experience. The role-playing experience met Cuban’s (1984) criteria for being student centered and Newmann’s (1988) higher-order observational scales for higher-order thinking. The teacher was 122 asking for original ideas to a problem that had faced individuals during this period of history, and yet they had to come up with solutions consistent with the role they were playing. Th h W ek F r r -1 ° During the first few weeks of the course, Mr. Johnson frequently asked his students to look upon their own experiences to see how their own lives had influenced their ideas about events, both historical and current. He also asked them to explore what influence family or friends had had in shaping their opinions. To model this higher-order strategy, he included many experiences from his own life. In our first formal interview (February 1), he spoke of his own varied experiences before entering the teaching profession, which ultimately influenced his own teaching. He frequently related these experiences to the class during the first three weeks of school, especially his early experiences in war-torn Europe, describing Berlin in the 19505 as a ”city destroyed” but with a "wonderful good life" taking place underground beneath the destroyed city (Fieldnotes, 1/25/89). He spoke of teaching at a private school in North Carolina during the racial tensions of the Sixties in a way that captured, for the students, the feelings of someone who was there and experiencing it (Fieldnotes, 1/26/89). "Is this a way of making history come alive for a student?" That was a question I posed to Jackie, one of my informants. Her response was, "He makes you feel all the anger and at the same time, be ashamed of the fact that Americans could behave that horribly." 123 Another time that Mr. Johnson created an atmosphere for his students to experience the affective side of history was in discussing the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He eloquently recalled his feelings as well as the feelings of the nation at losing their ”fallen Prince.” They had just watched the film W Let’s go back to that moment. I was in Charlotte, North Carolina, teaching in a private school down there and we were wondering if we were going to be within range of the Cuban missiles. I think as you check around, and you should check around with your parents and the teachers here, that we all remember this day forever. Within 48 hours everything that I referred to as being the tragic and ugly took place. Following the assassination the media took us to the Dallas court and we see Oswald and we don’t like him. We have the fallen prince and this man. Then we see this man die, right in front of us on T.V., shot by a mystery man. It was too horrible and it looked like everything good in our country was coming apart. (Fieldnotes, 2/9/89) The students were observed listening intently and then quietly relating any moments their parents had shared with them about the day. This was a day that was captured in history for the students through Mr. Johnson’s pedagogy and storytelling. t uc io of th ook mi ar During this week (February 7), the students were first given the explanation about the book seminars. They were separated randomly, according to Mr. Johnson, into the following groups, with the dates of the first seminar in parentheses: WWW Claudia Holden Josh Annette Ella Janet Alex Nancy Brenda Jackie Stuart Wolfgang Randy Thurston 124 (Charles chose not to participate in the seminars because he was auditing the course.) The students were told that the groups would rotate after each seminar as far as who would go first, second, and third. Students were told that they did not have to come to class if their group was not scheduled, but Mr. Johnson indicated that this might be a time for groups to get together outside of class. They were given a sheet of suggested books, divided into five categories (see Appendix C, p. 252). The students were told to choose a book from the five categories as a group so that each category would be represented. They were told that each book would be briefly described and then each person could question, respond, and react to the books, taking part and making a contribution to the conversation. The books represented the Sixties perspective and were widely read during this time, so it was intended their conversations would be discussions of the Sixties through the perspective of the authors of the books. Each book seminar would close with a discussion of the seminar by the students and the teacher. He commented in conclusion: Contribution in the book seminar means coming in with something to offer; I think that your fellow participants would agree that we don’t like anyone taking a ”free ride." That is what it is all about, "intelligent conversation." I think you need to be aware of certain people dominating the group. When you are speaking, someone else is not. I’m wondering why that person is not speaking. (Fieldnotes and audiotape, 2/7/89) [he Euurth Week (Eebruery (3-161; A Guest Speaker This week began with only seven students in class on Monday because of bad weather and illness. It is probably a good thing 125 that Friday and Monday were "Winter Break” because we all seemed to need it. The topic was the Goldwater/Johnson election. Wolfgang was present, but he was the only student thus far who I observed was not paying attention; in fact, he was sleeping. Before class, the students were discussing the books they had chosen for the seminars. During the class discussion they referred to their books a lot, causing me to wonder whether they were caught up on their reading. Mr. Johnson told them they would have a guest speaker the next day, speaking on the Peace Corps. On Wednesday they would see the popular political satire of the Sixties, Qrt_§treugeleue, which is mentioned frequently in O’Neill. h t Gu st ke h The guest speaker on February 17 was the female dean of students and a teacher at Lakeview who had spent two years with the Peace Corps in Nigeria and Western Africa after finishing college. Mr. Johnson did not tell the students his expectations of their participation beforehand. The speaker was expecting the students to be responsive, but she was not aware of the kind of discussion and dialogue used by Mr. Johnson. It is to be noted here that social relations, which influence participation, are built over time, and ”guest speaking” suggests more of a lecture presentation than a discussion. The speaker chose to stand in front of the teacher’s desk rather than sit in the circle with the students. She initially involved the students by directing questions to individual students, 126 using their names and getting their input. For example, she asked Jackie if she would mind locating Nigeria on the map for her, and she asked Brenda to try on and model the sample of African dress she had brought with her. This brought about student engagement in the discussion because they knew they might be asked a question without raising their hands. She later, however, asked how many of the students would join the Peace Corps if they had the opportunity. Only two girls, Jackie and Ella, responded. II believe the speaker took this as an indication of disinterest, and from then on she did not involve the students. At this juncture, they visibly began to lose interest and were observed doodling or gazing out the window. Some of them started to get the glazed look in their eyes that means, at least to me, that you have lost them. She asked none of the students process questions after asking them whether they would join the Peace Corps today. Interaction and participation, which initially started out very promisingly, were recorded as zero after that point. Wolfgang was observed to be sleeping again. On Thursday of this week, Mr. Johnson expressed his displeasure to the class for their lack of enthusiasm after having had a further discussion with the speaker in which she expressed her concern about the students’ indifference. When two students, Janet and Wolfgang, arrived late, they were asked to leave. Mr. Johnson further stated: Your avoidance of the topic [Peace Corps] was obvious. I come here with expectations and so did the speaker, but between the ears you are not doing much as was evident yesterday. There were no interruptions for clarification, no responses. It can happen, and you are the only people who can make it happen. 127 An analysis of this experience shows the difficulties students and teachers can face when expectations of their participation are not clearly defined. The speaker was lecturing as a guest speaker might be expected to do, and the students were listening politely, in most cases. If further participation had been expected, perhaps it should have been discussed with both the speaker and the students. This lesson, however, after its beginning, was not student centered, nor did it afford the opportunity for higher-order thinking. It simply provided the students with information on the Peace Corps. The remainder of the class was focused on a discussion of the movie, Dr, Strengeleve, which they had seen the day before. O’Neill analyzed and discussed the movie in his chapter on the culture of the Sixties. Among the questions were, "Why was the movie a Sixties document?" Josh replied, ”You hear all of the Sixties language: mine shaft, doomsday gap, infiltration, fluoride, nfilitary indus- trial complex, incompetent, secretive, and ridiculous.” Jackie responded, "Yeah, . . . everyone should have a bomb shelter in their own backyard." Mr. Johnson questioned further: What people are drawn in by this movie in 1962? [Student response.] Why should this be such a funny movie, a political satire? [Student response.] What about the credibility gap? Has it happened or is it going to happen? [Student response.] It is sort of spooky because this is the future. We’re out of :ime. Read Chapter 6 for the next time I see you. Enjoy your reak. 128 hr r - ' i r the lwe-Qey leet Students returned from their winter break to discuss Chapter 6, "From Civil Rights to Black Power,” which covered the Civil Rights movement. Mr. Johnson reminded the students, all present, that the two-day test would be Thursday and Friday of the next week, with review scheduled on Thursday and Friday of the current week. He passed out a review sheet that would help them study for the test. It contained six pages of terms and names and three pages of possible essay topics. The test would cover Chapters 1 through 6. The book seminars would be Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the same week. Before class on February 21, Ella announced to her group that she had not read her book yet. They were quite concerned and told her that she had better get it read before the 28th. Mr. Johnson told the students that he would be going for two weeks on the Wilderness trip to Tennessee (scheduled every year) with the sophomore class during the second and third weeks of March, before Spring Break. The class would have substitute teachers for these two weeks and meet at the same time. I would not be observing because I did not have the school’s or the University’s permission to observe the class with a substitute teacher. Mr. Johnson did not specifically go over the review sheets for the test on Thursday. He asked for questions about the review sheets and essay study questions and students had none, so he began with a discussion of the various Civil Rights organizations mentioned in Chapter 6. He used the chalkboard for the first time, 129 listing the various functions of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Most students were observed taking notes; those who were not were Janet, Wolfgang, and Brenda. The students who were engaged in the discussion, at least by one or more responses or' comments, were Ella, Joshua, Stuart, Jackie, Holden, and Charles, who was an active participant. The same pattern was observed on Friday. Mr. Johnson reminded the students that on Thursday they would be asked to identify and tell the significance of the terms, and on Friday they would have the essay portion of the test. The note-takers were Janet, Thurston, and Annette, students who had not been observed taking notes on the previous day. Students participating verbally were Janet, Stuart, Claudia, Charles, Jackie, Alex, and Brenda. An analysis of this week shows that while instruction could be student centered, with students suggesting the topics for review or clarification, they were content to let Mr. Johnson determine the agenda. The class discussions did not involve all students participating, which is part of higher-order engagement, but the questions were challenging to those students who chose to participate. Mr. Johnson was not as committed during this period to involve all students. Charles, who had stated he would be giving the black perspective, was the most involved and active participant because of his special interest. IIE'rIBISm' IIIIDI! Wren}; It is interesting that two activities that are on opposite ends of the pedagogy spectrum occurred during the same week. The book seminars focused on student-centered, higher-order thinking skills, and the two-day test was a teacher-centered, content-oriented activity. [he Ejret Bgek Seuiuer The first book seminar, involving Claudia, Annette, Alex, and Jackie, was certainly one of "blindly groping through the period," as one student, Alex, articulated the experience. I could loosely compare it to five students giving book reports in a circle. One person, usually the most aggressive speaker in the group, began and told about his/her book, and they moved around the circle taking turns repeating the same behavior. A few students asked information questions like, "When was the book published?" Mr. Johnson sat outside the circle for each group and took notes but did not interact verbally nor with eye contact with any of the groups until the end. In one instance, during Group I’s discussions, Claudia wrote on a piece of paper, "Talk, damn it!" to Annette, who was not choosing to participate after initially describing her book. After they all had told about their books before the period was up, there was a strained silence. The session ended, not because of time, but with a lull in conversation, at which point Mr. Johnson walked over to the group and said, "Well, . . . how did the session 90?” 131 For the first group (2/27/89), Mr. Johnson made these comments: "Did you feel you were sympathetically listened to?" One student, Annette, replied, ”If we had more time.” To which Mr. Johnson replied, ”Did you deal with your time efficiently? Do you think the time was divided equally among you?" It was in my notes that the predominant participant, was Claudia. Jackie responded to this pattern by saying, "We took more time with Claudia’s book because we could relate to it." Mr. Johnson commented further: Which of these books do you think was the most important book of the Sixties? Do you think it was Claudia’s? [It was the book Sumerhjllj [To this he replied], I hope not. My feeling is that you got the least out of this book [pointing to Elect ije Me, Annette’s book] and it was the most widely read book in the Sixties out of all of the books discussed. So for these books there is no fit? But aren’t they about oppression? [Mr. Johnson handed them an interactional diagram of their seminar.] What you sensed about yourselves is true. You did take more time with Claudia’s book but for what reason? Will you do the same next time? In analyzing the first group’s seminar and Mr. Johnson’s concluding remarks, I wondered whether the students knew, from his description and discussion of the seminar, what his expectations were. They were basically telling about their books but fell short of asking challenging, higher-order questions about the books or the authors’ opinions. They were asking content and information questions, such as, "When was the book published?" and ”What did the author say about. . . .?" The only opinion questions asked were, "Did you like or dislike the book?” The expectations of entire- group interaction were not being met, despite Mr. Johnson’s warning that he would be looking for this. Mr. Johnson was sitting by 132 himself, doing an interactional pattern chart, which he shared with the group members. His chart showed Claudia was the dominant participant. He critiqued what they had done with a series of questions like ”Which of these books do you think was the most important book of the Sixties?" He was not asking for their opinion because he discussed their answer, Summerhlll, with the answer he was looking for: Bleer ije e. He was, in conclusion, telling the group that next time he wanted greater participation by all group members and an effort at making the books fit together in some type of theme representing the Sixties. Group II’s seminar (2/28/89) went much the same way. The interactional patterns were the same. The students who were more verbal tended to dominate the conversation. The students simply took turns telling about their books. There was a lot of restating information rather than asking probing questions or the kinds of ”process" or higher-order questions used by Mr. Johnson in class. Mr. Johnson’s comments to them were much the same: So this was sort of five characters in search of a play. Do you think this group took care of itself? [There was mumbled disagreement.] Was there any disagreement? You were all watching yourselves carefully. If you want a diagram of what happened, here it is. [Repeating the interactional pattern of the first group, it showed Stuart, the most vocal member of the group, dominating the conversation.] Were your questions searching or informational questions? It was not an easy conversation. If I were having an intellectual conversation on this level with my colleagues, I might find it mildly insulting to my own intelligence to be asked such trivial questions. Brenda commented, ”I have never done anything like this before.” To this Ella added, "This is the first time for me, too." Nancy commented further, "Maybe we should discuss the books 133 beforehand so we don’t spend so much time telling each other about them." Group III’s seminar surprisingly followed the same pattern, but as a group they stalled in the beginning and got started on their actual presentation about 15 minutes late. This was mostly due to Wolfgang’s casual conversation. (I heard from the students beforehand that he had not read his book until the night before.) The seminar began as follows: 12:10--All students had arrived, but they were sitting casually on top of the desklike chairs rather than in them. Mr. Johnson was sitting outside the circle, writing in his notes. The students ignored him and did not ask any questions. Wolfgang said to Brenda and Joshua: Something horrifying happened last night at about 4:00 a.m. Usually Channel 12 has static and noise on at that time, but instead a still of Glen Wray was on the screen. Am I hallucinating or what? Don’t be surprised if you see the guys in the white coats take me out. 12:18--No one in particular responded to his comments. The students were still sitting on the desks, talking quietly to each other about new movies (!he Search fer Red Dawn) but not about their books, waiting for someone to take the lead. They were wondering why the chairs had been changed from the usual setting. Wolfgang was still talking about the late movie. This prompted Brenda to say to Wolfgang, "How can you watch so much TV without it affecting you?" The other students picked up on this and started talking about their late-night study habits. 134 12:22--At this time, Josh said, “Should we get started?" and the students rearranged the chairs into a circle in the center of the room. Thurston said, "I’ll start. I read the book Qlepetehee.” Naturally, the group ran out of time before they had all talked about their books. Hr. Johnson’s "How did it go?” comment had dark overtones to it. Nancy commented, "It would have been better if we had more time." To this he replied, "Why didn’t you?” Wolfgang replied, "We screwed around too much. I have never had this experience before. We need to meet beforehand to know about the books and relate them more to the Sixties rather than just tell about them.” Mr. Johnson’s closing comments to the group were the following: Well . . . what will we do next time? Because you have read the book, do you come in as an advocate? Did you do the work that the group required you to do? [This directed at Wolfgang, who had confessed to Mr. Johnson in the post-discussion that he had read the book the night before.] Here is what you looked like on paper. [He showed the interactional pattern diagram. Once again the group was dominated by Josh, a more vocal student. Janet also a vocal student did not get to finish because of starting late and was very angry about it.] Question what [the books] are all about, and then try to ffit them in with the Sixties. What I had witnessed during these first seminars was the difficulty students had generating higher-order discourse in a socially constructed learning environment that was not teacher directed, but which they knew the teacher was evaluating. They fell back into the same roles and patterns of students in the traditional learning environment. They were unwilling to take risks, they were letting more confident and verbal students dominate the discussion, and they were afraid of being critical of each other while the 135 teacher was watching and evaluating. They were quite able to ask probing, higher-order questions, but when it came to the achievement-oriented performance learning disposition over the mastery disposition, at this level the performance disposition won out. They were going for the "grade" and not for mastery of the process. They were intimidated by the evaluation Mr. Johnson was doing. T Tw - a e t The students were given the essay and identification part of the test on Thursday and the essay part of the test on Friday. (See Appendix C, pp. 253-256, for the test.) The results of the two-day test are found in Table 4. Jackie and Stuart earned the highest scores, and these students were both observed to be engaged in note- taking and participating in discussions. Brenda scored the lowest, and she was observed to be inconsistent in note-taking and in participation. Jackie and Stuart were asked if they were keeping up with their reading, and both indicated that they had read all of the chapters and some of them 'twice. Brenda, on the other hand, indicated that she had skimmed some of the chapters. It would seem that, in preparing for the test, those students who had read the chapter, taken notes, and participated in class discussions had a better chance of doing well on the test. 136 Table 4.--Students’ scores on the two-day test. Student Name Identification Essay 1. Holden 6 (50%) 5 (41%) 2. Annette 5 (41%) 3 (25%) 3. Nancy 5 (41%) 5 (41%) 4. Thurston 5 (41%) 7 (58%) 5. Stuart 12 (100%) 8 (66%) 6. Alex 5 (41%) 7 (58%) 7. Janet 2 (16%) 6 (60%) 8. Jackie 10 (83%) 10 (83%) 9. Ella 4 (33%) 4 (33%) 10. Wolfgang 9 (75%) 6 (50%) ll. Brenda 0 2 (16%) 12. Claudia 6 (50%) 5 (41%) 13. Joshua excused absence 14. Randy 10 (83%) 4 (33%) 15. Charles auditing the course Mean score 6.07 (50%) 5.53 (50%) Possible total 12.00 12.00 The Eleventh Week (April 4-7); Your Experience Egrms Your Own Reality The date was April 4, and the subject was racism as it occurs today. It was timely because at three major universities within the state there was some type of racial unrest and demonstration. The students, returning from a two-week Spring Break, were asked to respond on paper to the question, "When was the first time in your life, that you remember, when you realized there was a difference in black and white?" The students’ answers were collected, and they were told that these would be typed (with names deleted) and passed back for discussion on Friday, April 7. This was a shortened period 137 because of the assembly schedule, so they were allowed to leave after turning in their responses, some of which follow: I don’t remember any age, but puzzlement. This feeling arose from the fact that I lived in a predominantly white community and had never seen a black before my first trip into a city with my family. In second grade, a fight on the playground, two white kids, but a spectator was chanting, "A fight, a fight; a nigger and a white!” I asked a teacher what a ”nigger” meant and she told me it was a bad name for blacks. I still don’t understand why the kid chanted the song. Age 8. I looked at this girl I was sort of friends with. I thought she had just put on make—up; she had a little too much blush on. I tried to tell her in a polite and gentle way. "I may have blush on my face but it looks like you have shit all over yours." I was hurt. It was the first time I really realized that I’m not white and I’m not black. [This student is of North African heritage.] When my family was visiting friends in the country. I was playing with a little black cat named Pepsi who the children of the family [slightly older] kept referring to as ”nigger." I asked my mother what it meant, and she said it was a mean way to refer to black people. When I switched to a Catholic school in 5th grade. Before I had gone to a school in which the class was very small and very racially mixed. . . . At the Catholic school, the black students kept very much to themselves as did the white students. I remember later thinking how odd it was that my best friend had managed to become very close with a black girl in the class and how I became curious and wanted to know why they were different. Primary school, about 6. There was one black person in the school. I remember being fascinated by heru I thought there must be something special about her because she stood out in a crowd, but at the same time I was slightly aware of, or even a little scared by her distinct individuality. 5th grade. I got beat up on the playground [by a black kid]. He was with a new group of kids bused in from a poorer section of Ann Arbor. Going to the baseball stadium. I lived in an all-white neighborhood. Or it could have been when a black family moved next door, but I was older then. (Document analysis, 4/7/89) 138 The discussion surrounding these comments was held on Friday. Mr. Johnson passed out the comments, neatly typed on paper but without names. He asked the students to reflect on how they internalized these feelings as he read each experience aloud. What sort of authority did they go to, to find out the answers, and what answers were given? Their response was that they went to parents, grandparents, teachers, and friends. "Does our society teach us not to say the negative words or to say them under our breath?” Charles, who is black, related his experience to answer this question. "Where I worked during the summer, these kids were laughing with me in the pool calling me a ’burnt chicken’ and then one said, ’I know what you really are.’ ’Like what is that?’ I said to them" (Fieldnotes, 4/7/89). I wondered, after hearing this class discussion, how many students examined racism in this manner in any of their classrooms and if, in doing so, some of the deep-seated emotions and fears about someone who looked "different” from them could have been resolved. Students had used their own experiences as a basis for discussion, a higher-order characteristic. They were examining their own feelings in the discussion and where those feelings might have originated. In doing this, students were examining their own prejudices and fears. 139 W On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, the film, lhe_£r1eudly fieme, was shown to the students. The film was ostensibly about a white man and a black man involved in a chess game, but as it progressed one began to see stereotypes about each start to unfold. When the film was over, Mr. Johnson asked, 'So what happened?” (Holden): He [referring to the white chess player] got hustled in chess. (Jackie): But the white man was so patronizing. He just assumed he would win because chess is supposedly a white man’s intellectual game. You know it would work the same way if the black man were a woman. (Charles): The black guy manipulated the white guy’s own prejudice. (Mr. Johnson): 15 the white guy guilty or innocent in assuming superiority in the game? Was the black guy guilty or innocent because he beat him at his own game but under false pretenses? The discussion continued, with students supporting both sides. At the end of the period, Mr. Johnson said, "I’m going to show you this film again tomorrow and give you the script. [See Appendix C, pp. 257-259.] You will know what is going on when you see it again, and you might pick out even more subtleties." An analysis of this lesson shows the students responding and reacting to some very challenging questions offered by both the film and Mr. Johnson. Seeing the film again the next day would give them a chance to dig even more deeply into analysis of attitudes and prejudices as they were played out by the actors in the chess game. 140 T Tw A r - e arnin i n This week the subject was still prejudice, but the beginning of the week found the students breaking into small groups and for two days examining advertisements that Mr. Johnson provided to give instances of racial or gender stereotyping or prejudice. The latter part of the week, students were asked to examine their own roles as students to see whether stereotypes or prejudices existed in the relationship between students and teachers. Before presenting this lesson, previous data regarding the students’ attitudes toward learning in general will be examined. WM How did the students in Mr. Johnson’s class perceive learning dispositions in their educational experience? Ihi a learning environment like Lakeview Prep, students might be expected to be motivated by a performance disposition as determined by product indicators (test scores, grades, and other measures of their performance) rather than the mastery or process disposition in which a student seeks to learn the process and is learning for him/herself to master the subject. Evidence of Newmann’s higher-order disposition, which has the learner seeking new answers and challenging the existing information, was not observed initially. Would competition be observed as a factor in the learning environment, especially in a socially constructed environment like the classroom? 141 On the first day of class, the students were asked to respond to two questions designed to probe motivational learning dispositions and their perceptions about mastery versus performance learning. The questions were intended to elicit their responses without overtly stating that the performance disposition stressed learning for the grade and the mastery disposition stressed learning for the process. The questions were: What is excellence in education? How have my experiences provided me with skills, knowledge, and attitudes about learning? I wanted to know their perceptions of the optimal (therefore the choice of the word "excellence") educational experience and what their perceptions of their own learning experiences had been. Some revealing responses were given. Grades and standardized testing associated with the performance disposition received the following negative comments from students: (Jackie): People here do extremely well on standardized tests but I find that there are very few students interested in the process of learning itself. (Alex--a new student at Lakeview this year): My learning has given me the skills and knowledge necessary to get into college but has also given me a great hatred of learning. Often the term ”excellence" means a school teaches everything that is on standardized tests. (Wolfgang): School has taught me only knowledge in mechanical subjects and only to a nominal degree. Several students reacted to knowledge and education as an active process of constructing knowledge: (Josh): Education is having the knowledge and the ability to expand one’s own philosophies with a better understanding of self, environment, and others. 142 (Holden): A well-rounded education and the ability to think. (Randy): Having teachers that introduced me to ways of thinking and learning that I have never felt possible. (Brenda): Based in understanding, comprehending, and interpreting ideas and their relationship with facts, dates, etc. (Claudia): What one chooses to learn. I gain knowledge through every aspect of my life of which school is only a small part of the larger spectrum which is life. I possess opinions that are definite in my mind but that is due to my heritage and the education I have been exposed to . .. . and have chosen to receive. (Ella): Getting something out of what is constantly being put in and to have the knowledge change and affect your life. (Stuart): Growth in one’s capacity to understand and synthesize information is most important. In addition, the ability to speak and coherently express independently derived opinions is important. In summary, these students seemed to value learning, knowledge, and education as the process of constructing knowledge. They were beginning to realize the power that comes from learning for themselves and not for others and seeing its effect on their lives. he nt The classroom discussion that prompted further discussion on student learning dispositions and candid student comments on learning took place on April 13, 1989. Mr. Johnson passed out the article, ”Student as Nigger," by Jerry Farber (1970), which originally appeared in the 1968 U.Q.L,A, Bruin. The students were asked to read it and to be prepared to respond to it the next day in class. 143 Although the general plight of the student in this article was discussed, the students’ comments on grades are noted. (Wolfgang): Why grades in the first place? You’d get more out of class if you didn’t have to worry about grades. (Thurston): But that would get rid of the competition. (Stuart): Not necessarily. I went to a school for awhile which did not give grades and that is when they had their best academic class. For some people you don’t need grades. (Brenda): Yeah, I may be failing a course but if I’m learning I don’t care what grade I get. (Wolfgang): How about a system where you apply to college but you don’t have to have grades, just recommendations. Like ten of them. (Stuart): But that would make the teachers even more powerful and that could be scary. (Brenda): What about "pass/fail?" (Holden): When you are out in the workplace, they are not impressed with pass/fail. Nobody questions grades. Everybody thinks that that’s the only way since it’s been the traditional way. (Stuart): In some classes like math classes, grades are fair because there is no other way around it” You either get it right or you get it wrong, but in English and Essay it’s all so subjective. (Brenda): But you can’t cram for a math test like you can for other subjects. (Stuart): Some teachers, even if you prove your point can give you a lousy grade because they say, "I disagree.” (Wolfgang): The question is how we should study for the grade instead of study to learn. I think most kids study for the grade. (Stuart): There is a difference in not proving your point and proving your point and having the teacher say, "I disagree." There are some teachers that if you don’t regurgitate what they say in class, you get a bad grade. 144 (Jackie--to Stuart): Why did the school you went to who didn’t give grades stop doing it? (Stuart): They got pressured by the colleges, who said, "We really need grades.” But the school still does not push. (Joshua): According to Farber, the student has no say in the first place to get rid of grades. How do you [to Mr. Johnson] suggest students go about trying to change or* get rid of grades? (Wolfgang interjects, laughing): A nationwide movement. The students don’t want it and the teachers don’t want it” How about a society where there is no competition. Everyone can go to all the colleges because they are the same. (Ella): That’s communism and that doesn’t work either. (Wolfgang): But grades are used to differentiate students so they can choose the best ones to go to different colleges. Each college has like a lO-hour interview. How about no tests. The S.A.T. is absolutely useless. It is geared toward the wealthy. If you read the so-called ethnic passages and it offers a positive or negative response then you know it is positive because they wouldn’t dare say anything negative. (Stuart): OK. We need a better S.A.T. I read recently that most colleges use the S.A.T. as 20% of their admission factor with grades number one. Therefore, we are not treated as equals. We are suppressed, our freedoms are restricted, curtailed, we are at the mercy of grades, recommendations, the beliefs of admissions panels and all of these mythical qualifications that they believe are right and necessary. Mr. Johnson prompted the students to go into the relationship between teachers and students, and their dialogue with each other follows: (Mr. Johnson): It seems like Farber is putting teachers and students together in an insufferable kind of relationship. So what about the teaching industry? (Brenda): It seems like we are a lot closer here at our school because we can call teachers by their first names. [I did get observe this.] (Janet): It seems like the teachers here react to students positively because the students are more receptive to learning. 145 (Stuart): I think a person would want to teach because he liked to be around young adults (kids or whatever), likes to impart knowledge, and likes to be friends. I don’t know why a stern individual who is into discipline would want to do it. (Brenda): Or one who doesn’t like kids. (Wolfgang): The answer is, teachers don’t like to teach students who don’t want to learn. I think human beings, by nature, are curious and want to learn. If you change the system, you will get a system that more kids will want to learn, not because they have to learn but because they are curious. (Joshua): Just like the California State School Board wondering how can they make history so boring and soap operas so interesting on T.V. (Jackie): There are teachers who know how to teach. (Thurston): And there are teachers who don’t know how to teach. (Brenda): I think that’s why we are lucky at Lakeview. We seem to have more teachers who know what they are doing and like what they are doing. (Stuart): Yeah, but we have to pay for it. The discussion continued until the end of the period about the good teachers the students had at Lakeview and in other schools and the not-so-good teachers. Mr. Johnson let them discuss this without interruption. In this discussion I noticed a series of contradictions between students’ cements and what they responded to the two questions about learning. Wolfgang, on one hand, seemed to despise grades and any type of competition or evaluation based strictly on performance. On the other hand, he said that he read Nietzsche, the German philosopher, who was the ultimate racist and who wrote of an elitist group who controlled others through their tremendous power. Stuart 146 seemed to see the reality of grades and their influence on the students’ future, as did Joshua and Holden. These comments might be seen in their participation in class with Mr. Johnson. Wolfgang seemed almost unwilling to play by the established rules (as will be discussed later), yet when it came to caring about his grade, he seemed to want to do well. In regard to the teacher-student relationship, the students seemed to be calling on their own experiences with teachers, both positive and negative. The Thirteenth Week (April 17-211: The_§eeeud_fleer Seminer--flj§tgry Reeeete Iteelf The first two days of this week, the students began watching the political movie, 1, which would be discussed at the end of the week. The main activity scheduled for this week was the second book seminar. The title of this section says it all. With all of the post-discussion comments made by Mr. Johnson, all of the dialogue about how things would be done next time, the second book seminars (4/19-2l/89) brought the same results. The students really had not internalized the process. They had not bridged the gap between thinking critically about the books and simply doing a book report on them. They did, however, improve on their interactional patterns and turn-taking. This time the groups were not dominated by the more verbal students, and each student spoke and shared in ‘the responsibility for the discussion. The diagrams noting interactional patterns were far more even in all of the seminars. The students sat in a circle and basically repeated the same kind of 147 book-report behavior as they did in the first seminar in all three groups. There were more questions, to be sure, and none of the stalling tactics that had been tried by Group III (in the first seminar), but they were still basically giving book reports in a. circle. Storm clouds dotted Mr. Johnson ’5 brow after Group III’s session as he said, ”So how was this?" Janet quickly spoke of having time to finish. Randy commented, "The questions were being asked and answered by all of us this time." (He had been a somewhat reluctant participant during the first seminar.) Mr. Johnson’s voice became soft and then built in intensity. You guys have all of these things to tell, but how does it fit together? 'The likelihood that many' who were part of the Sixties read these books is very great, so how does it explain what is going on and what does the future hold? These books are going to help you see the Sixties point of view. What are you going to do next time? To this, Wolfgang replied in a single voice, "Get away from the plots.” Mr. Johnson answered, "Yes, get away from your plots and see what the authors are telling you about the Sixties." Group I’s conclusion brought the following response: Is that it? You all have exchanged your marbles. [Jackie responded, ”It is kind of hard because the books are different."] Why aren’t you asking that question? Why aren’t they the same? You have done the same things that you did last time. What are you going to do about it? That is a lot of education down the drain. . To this the group silently filed out. Group 11 did not fare any better. Mr. Johnson ended it with, "Well, what have you done today? Where has the Sixties revealed 148 itself?" Alex volunteered, "There was a lot of spiritualness because the world is not perfect, not exactly ideal.” To this Mr. Johnson concluded: The discussion never got off the books. I don’t think anything happened here. After the-trial experience, I don’t think you improved on what you did. You all agreed with each other, you could have done that yesterday. But I guess nobody planned that for you. You just used your books so you could sit behind them and be safe. You did not use your time well. An analysis of all three groups and Mr. Johnson’s reaction to them shows student participation was improving, but they still were unable to synthesize what they had read and relate it to the Sixties. They were starting to ask more challenging, higher-order questions of each other, however. Thus, the third seminar should show marked improvement. The F0 r h Week A il 24- 7 : h h At the beginning of the week, students continued viewing the political thriller of the Sixties, Z, directed by Costa Gavras. The post-discussion centered on an article from the New Ygrrer magazine, which reviewed the movie. This gave the students a chance to read another critique and opinion of the film. The product activity that sought higher-order written discourse from the students in Mr. Johnson’s class was the research project. Although it is difficult to remove all subjective criteria from grading, the students were given the freedom to choose from a broad list of suggested topics or to select one based on their own interests. They were asked initially to fill out the ”Setting the Focus” sheet (see Appendix C, p. 260), at which point the student 149 and Mr. Johnson arranged for a conference to discuss the project. The student had to include a hypothesis, an argument, or an angle (point of view) that evolved from an originating question. In other words, the student was not simply to report factual information from different sources, but to do his/her own original research based on a question and then to state a hypothesis, argument, or angle that supported his/her opinions. The skills involved in writing a research paper were introduced to the students in tenth-grade social studies. The content and style categories were also addressed in this paper. Mr. Johnson evaluated the students on the following criteria and gave them further feedback on a comment sheet. [he ergumeut addressed the hypothesis, argument, or angle that the student used to substantiate views or opinions to answer the questions. This meets several of Newmann’s higher-order scales under "student behavior." This was discussed individually with the students during their focusing conferences. teuteut referred to the actual body of the research paper, the quality of writing, and how the student’s sources addressed and supported the question. Style, looked at the style of the student’s writing, with attention to the balance between sources and original writing. The mechanics of the paper, such as footnotes and bibliography, were commented on in this section. 150 An example of Mr. Johnson’s comment sheet is found in Appendix C, p. 261. each of the categories. Table 5.--Students’ scores on the research paper. Table 5 contains a list of student topics and scores on Student’s Topic Argument Content Style Total Name Out of a possible: (12) (12) (12) (36) 1. Randy Ginsberg 5 0 4 9 (25%) 2. Joshua Abbie Hoffman 11 11 ll 33 (91%) 3. Claudia Hair 5 7 6 18 (50%) 4. Brenda Diem 0 0 6 6 (16%) 5. Annette Detroit Riots 9 8 9 26 (72%) 6. Ella M. L. King’s Death 5 6 7 18 (50%) 7. Stuart Buckley-Vidal 6 10 8 24 (66%) (debates) 8. Alex Bombing Hanoi 5 O 9 14 (38%) 9. Thurston Gulf of Tonkin ll 11 ll 33 (91%) 10. Wolfgang Eldridge Cleaver 3 8 8 19 (52%) ll. Holden Lakeview/Racism lO 7 3 20 (55%) 12. Jackie Womanhouse 5 0 9 14 (38%) 13. Janet Paper was late and comments were not available. 14. Nancy Paper was net 0 O O 0 turned in Many' of the scores on the research paper’ were quite low. Although students at Lakeview are asked to do a number of research papers, this was a new approach to original research in which they addressed a hypothesis with supporting evidence, and many of them were not familiar or comfortable with this approach. Mr. Johnson allowed students to work on sections that received low scores unless the papers were late. students had made prior arrangements with Mr. Johnson. No leniency was given to late papers unless 151 e n Ma - ° amt—Sneaks: This week Mr. Johnson introduced the movie, £eey_fllder, to the students. O’Neill mentioned the movie several times as an example of the counter-culture movement of the Sixties in Chapter 8, “The Counter-Culture.” The students were watching the film intently, some on the floor and others in their chairs. I was amazed at the graphic violence in a movie that was two decades old, but it did not seem to have a visible impact on the students. Post-discussion of the movie would be on Friday with another guest speaker. The speaker (5/5/89), Mr. Simpson (a pseudonym), was from the English Department. From the beginning, I could see that this teacher’s style was closer to Mr. Johnson’s style from the way he took a place in the circle. He began by saying, "I know everyone here so let’s begin. Let’s talk about Billy" (one of the characters in Eeey Rider). He talked to them and not at them, to use their definition. He used their names when talking with them. He asked other students to be involved in the initiation, the response, and the evaluation process in the discussion. He discussed the dress, the music, and the characters of the movie in a way that involved the students. He asked "process" questions and asked them to do the same, as well as to evaluate each other’s responses. (Mr. Simpson): Alex, what do you think of the characters, Billy and Wyatt? (Alex): Wyatt is cool and collected, and Billy is just plain crazy. (Mr. Simpson): And do you agree, Jackie? 152 (Jackie): Yeah, but I don’t know how Wyatt tolerated Billy. (Stuart): Hey, they had a shared vision . . . to buck the system and do their own thing. (Josh): The movie would really be boring if the two characters were both alike. That gives it an edge to play on. The entire discussion was orchestrated much as Mr. Johnson might have done it. At the end of the lecture, when the students had gone, Mr. Simpson commented to Mr. Johnson about how bright the class was and what a joy they were to discuss things with. This was in obvious contrast to the speaker on the Peace Corps, who commented to Mr. Johnson that the students were distant and uninvolved. An analysis of this lesson shows the speaker functioning less as a guest speaker/lecturer and more as a discussion leader or facilitator. Mr. Simpson involved the students, asking them challenging, higher-order questions. He allowed them to state opinions and respond to each other, making it possible for this lesson to promote higher-order thinking. As with the previous speaker, Mr. Johnson did not express to the students or the speaker beforehand his expectations of student input or participation. i k M - ° W The O’Neill chapter for discussion this week was, ”The New Left Comes and Goes." Mr. Johnson was trying to show the students what it was like to be a liberal and a conservative in the Sixties. To do this, he brought in another' guest speaker from ‘the History Department on May 9 to speak on being a conservative in the liberal Sixties. 153 The speaker, Mr. Smith (a pseudonym), exhibited some interesting pedagogical patterns. He obviously was used to the lecture format even though the topic he was going to speak on was how it felt to be a conservative in the liberal Sixties, which would connote a more personal discussion approach. He stood at the front of the teacher’s desk rather than sitting in the circle with the students. The first question, asked by Jackie, was, ”What was it really like to be a conservative student on the campus of Brown University [which is a liberal college]?" The students at this point were quite intent on listening to what his response would be, especially' Jackie, who had hoped to attend Brown in the fall. Obviously, Jackie had asked a "process" question of him. His response, on the other hand, was to go into the philosophical differences between being a liberal and a conservative. He wanted to give the students factual (product) information to this process (opinion) question. They were really not interested in the factual information on the subject because they had discussed this in class at length during the course of the semester. This came out in class the following day. Joshua asked: "Do you consider yourself an American conservative or a European conservative?" This set the speaker off again explaining the factual differences between the two rather than his own leanings. The speaker had a tendency to ask questions and then to answer them himself. For example, he asked, ”Is man, by nature, a creature of limited power? [two-second pause] . . . Man is by nature a creature of limited power." Another example is: "Does 154 society see man as good or evil? [two-second pause] The conservative sees society as being good, but men being either good or evil in the way they use society." It was as though he were carrying on a dialogue with himself. He then lost the students. At last, Stuart broke in to ask him, "Did you support the war in Viet Nam?” (once again a process question, asking for his opinion). The speaker again went into the conservative viewpoint as one might read about it in a textbook rather than how one might respond to the question as an individual discussing it in conversation with another person. In a discussion the following day with Mr. Johnson, students made the comment that the speaker had been talking et them and not yith them. "At them" meant he was lecturing to them, and "with them” meant he was involving them in the discussion. That he would rephrase their questions but not answer them, and then pose questions and answer them later himself, they found very frustrating. The interactional pattern for this teacher and the students was very limited. I recorded only five students asking questions and the teacher not involving students in process questioning at all. Randy and Wolfgang were observed sleeping during this class. The speaker ignored this behavior. This lesson was a perfect example of conflicting agendas between teacher- and student-centered instruction. The speaker had one agenda, that of explaining conservatism from a textbook-oriented historical approach, whereas the students were looking for his 155 opinions and experiences during the Sixties. He was delivering a lecture, whereas they had questions about his experiences in college during this time of unrest on college campuses. This is probably because they were studying the Sixties from a more experiential viewpoint. Mr. Johnson did not state expectations of participation and involvement for either the speaker or the students beforehand. The next day the students wanted to discuss their reactions to what he had and had not told them before going on with their discussion of Chapter 9. The Seventeenth Week lMey 16-19): The Laet BOOK Semiuer The third (and last) book seminar for the three groups was to be held on May 18 (Group 11), May 19 (Group II), and May 22 (Group I). These seminars would be held without Jackie and Holden, who were doing Senior May Projects, special field projects that the students were involved in rather than attending class in May. I wondered, as did Mr. Johnson, if the groups would come together and the "intelligent conversation" would take place» Mr. Johnson had provided the role model for the kinds of process and critical- thinking questions he wanted them to be asking each other. The interactional patterns had definitely changed from being dominated by verbal students in the first seminar to total group participation and involvement. Would they still do book reports in a circle, or would they try to relate the literature of the Sixties to the culture and the thinking of the Sixties? 156 Group II was the first group. It contained Stuart, who could be a very vocal and dominating group member. I had seen the students defer to Stuart when they were unsure about what they were saying or doing. The students came into the room, but Mr. Johnson was not there yet. Stuart was saying, "Okay, everybody . . . don’t talk a lot about your books. We should interrupt each other if we start doing that. Tie the books into the Sixties." The other students agreed with him, and they all indicated they had read the books carefully this time so they could do this. Mr. Johnson came in, and they asked him if they could go outside to have the seminar. It was a lovely day, and he said that would be nice. They chose to sit on some metal bleachers next to the building (which played havoc with taping the seminar). Stuart began the discussion, so I immediately saw the potential for falling back into old patterns. He was quite brief and was interrupted several times by various students asking if this was a thread or a pattern of the Sixties or counter to the attitude of the Sixties. Students were critically examining what was being said and asking process questions rather than product questions (which look for a right or wrong answer or a factual response). The group worked well together, and the books were discussed rather than reported. An example of this follows: (Stuart): My book, lhe__Beeketuell__Dlery by Jim Caroll, reflects the alienation of the white lower class during the Sixties and also pre-dates the heavy drug scene of the Sixties as a way of dealing with alienation. (Nancy): My book, 1he_£emln1ue_flyet1gue by Betty Friedan, was about the same type of alienation except it dealt with the 157 housewives of the Fifties and Sixties. They felt like they were out of the picture and stereotyped to play the role of "housewife" so they gradually began the women’s movement that started in the Sixties. (Stuart): So it was like an intellectual alienation felt by both the lower class and the women. (Randy): My book, The Affluent Sueiety by John Kenneth Galbraith, is not really a novel; it is really like an economics textbook, but he [Galbraith] does talk about how the poor of the world are alienated from the rich. He thinks the middle class will kind of disappear, and he sees society as flawed. (Ella): My book fits in well with this theme of the Sixties too [The Eleetrie Koel-Aid Acid lest by Thomas Wolff]. A group of kids felt alienated from society, too, so they tried to break out and be free by taking a trip from New York to California. It showed the ugly side of freedom because they got heavy into drugs and had all sorts of problems associated with drugs. Pretty soon the leader of the group lost most of his followers, but he at least had the wisdom to say, "This isn’t it." They were reaching into abstraction rather than literal and concrete meanings of what the books and authors were saying about the Sixties. Mr. Johnson’s concluding comments were: All of the books are so similar if you just do it this way. Look at the other books you read for the seminars. How many books have that theme? It makes interesting progress, seeing threads that weave through literature telling you about the times. There was a very nice balance to this discussion, and you can all be very pleased with yourselves. Group III came into the room talking about Group II’s experience, so they had managed to talk with some of the members of the previous day’s group. Their seminar was different from the others, so I will go into a little more detail about it. Wolfgang began by stating, ”I read a book that was not on the list, but I brought an article from the newspaper about the Sixties that was so 158 poorly written that I had to bring it in. Do you want to read it and write a letter to her? We could do this for our seminar." Joshua started reading the article out loud to the group. The students commented on the author’s sexist, racist, and biased attitudes toward the Sixties. Everyone from the group was commenting and participating. They started relating their own books either to substantiate what the newspaper article said or to contradict it. The students’ questions were also process questions, pointing critically to the article and how the author had not substantiated her statements or backed them up by anything. In my notes, I observed that the article did much the same as they had done in their own previous seminars. They had made product statements about their books but had not grounded them nor shown how they related to the period in history in which they were written. Because this group took up almost the entire time, Mr. Johnson’s comments were brief but positive. ”So this is the end. Did this group come together, and can you be pleased with yourself?" The students agreed that it had gone well. Joshua stated that Wolfgang’s article had given them a focus to start discussing their books. I talked briefly with Mr. Johnson after the group left. He mentioned that Wolfgang’s selection of another book, W Elguere, a book that was very relevant to the discussion, was also a much easier and quicker book to read. It was actually a picture book looking very like a children’s book but with great symbolism and irony. He smiled, ever so slightly, and his comment was, "He 159 dodged another one . . . didn’t he?” This comment will be discussed in the discrepant-case analysis. The last group to participate in the seminar was to discuss their books on the following Monday. (I wondered if they were able to communicate with any of the other groups.) This group would be very small (three students) because Jackie was doing a May project. They came to class early (except for Claudia), and Alex and Annette were talking nervously about how it would go. Alex said he had heard the other groups did well because they did not just talk about their books but about how the books tied into the Sixties. Claudia arrived, and they began. Claudia, the more outspoken member of the group, started. Just like the other groups, their interactional patterns were even and their questions were more probing. Because there were just three of them, they found it more difficult to keep up the intensity of discussion that the other groups did, but it did not lull nor fade away. They also related Alex’s book to an earlier class discussion because one of the books was about the neighboring city in the Sixties. Mr. Johnson commented at the conclusion, ”How did it go?" Claudia’s comment was, "Better than last time,“ but there was a question mark at the end of her statement, and they all looked at Mr. Johnson for a cue to his reactions. "1 think it was very nice,” he replied, and there was a visible sigh of relief from all the participants. Annette said timidly in her clipped English accent, "Any criticisms?" To this he responded, "All good questions and 160 points made. These books have asked you to take on and experience something that you are not used to. That is scary, but you did it well.” Uplifted by their accomplishments (and relieved), they all filed out of the room. Mr. Johnson replied, after the last student had left the room, "Well, they’ve all done it . . . haven’t they?" This was the master teacher seeing his handiwork succeed and reflecting upon it. I smiled and said, ”Yes, they have." He had to hurry on to an appointment, so further discussion was difficult at that time. Analysis of the last book seminar finds Mr. Johnson pleased with his students’ level of participation and synthesizing the information and opinions their books had to offer on the Sixties. They were asking each other higher-order, challenging questions, to which he responded, "All good questions and points made." Some of Mr. Johnson’s comments to the groups were vague, and occasionally they were in the form of questions. I asked him about this, and he said he did this intentionally because he wanted students to discuss and critique the seminars rather than listen to "teacher talk" about them. This is another case in which there were conflicting agendas. The students wanted to hear the teacher’s evaluation (a product orientation) of their work, and the teacher wanted the discussion to be student centered to examine the process. [he Laet Two Weeks of Sehgel (May zg-duue 2): I! E' 1 E . l ! E' 1 E E ! The last two weeks of school found the students anticipating the end of school. The O’Neill book had been completed, and the 161 Epilogue, a commentary leading from the Sixties to the Seventies, was the topic for discussion in class. Students watched the musical, flelr, during the remaining class periods before the Memorial Day holiday. Mr. Johnson announced that there would be no final exam, but instead a project that could be done individually or collectively 'that represented some aspect of 'the Sixties. The choice was left up to them, with no guidelines given. These projects would be presented during the period scheduled for their final exam. The students completed the following projects and presented them to the class on the last day: Joshua: Two free-verse poems, ”Reflections on the Sixties" and ”A Jewish Response to the Sixties." Project grade: 8. Janet: A collage representing women’s rights in the Sixties. Project grade: A. Stuart and Wolfgang: Both boys collaborated on a collage representing the Sixties. Project grade: A. Randy: A news broadcast in the Eighties that told about a march protesting a trash incinerator, comparing the marchers to the protesters of the Sixties. Project grade: C. Brenda: Free-verse reflections on the Sixties, ”We Blew It.” Project grade: A-. Claudia: A play, err Wh . Project grade: 8+. Alex: A short story, ”Transformation." Project grade: B-. Ella: An original song and lyrics, ”Why Is the Right So Wrong?" Project grade: A. 162 Nancy: A poem, “The Sixties." Project grade: 8+ (see Appen- dix C, p. 262). Thurston: A poem, "Green Grass Genesis.” Project grade: B (see Appendix C, p. 263). Jackie, Holden, and Charles were ”May Project“ students. As such, they were not required to take final exams, so they did not submit a final project. Annette did not submit a final project and received an E. This final activity allowed the students in Mr. Johnson’s class to be creative and express themselves in a way best suited to their own talents. For example, Claudia, who was interested in drama, wrote a play; Alex, who was interested in writing, wrote a short story. The final grade for each student in the class is listed below: Jackie: 8+ Josh: 8+ Holden: C+ Annette: C+ Stuart: 8+ Randy: C Brenda: C+ Claudia: 8- Alex: 8- Ella: 8- Wolfgang: 8- Nancy: E (She did not turn in a research paper and failed the course.) 163 Thurston: 8+ Charles: (Auditing the class) An analysis of the grades shows what I nfight have expected. Grades on the final projects were high and, as Mr. Johnson indicated, were the "fudge factor" that allowed lower grades to be raised. Students whose scores were lower on the research paper were allowed to improve them with revisions unless the paper was late. This, of course, acknowledges the performance disposition characterized by grades. Mr. Johnson was very willing to talk to students about raising their grades, as evidenced by Janet’s improved effort. She was absent quite a lot at the beginning of the semester and was in danger of failing the class. I found it very surprising that Annette (an English exchange student) did not turn in a final project, which lowered her grade considerably, and that Nancy (the other English exchange student) did not complete her research project, thus insuring a failing grade in the course. I think they gave up toward the end of the semester. Wolfgang, whose participation was inconsistent, received a much lower grade than he was capable of achieving. The most vocal and active participants, Josh, Stuart, Rachel, Thurston, and Claudia, received 8’s; Ella and Nancy, whose participation was somewhat inconsistent, also received 8’s. Holden’s participation also was inconsistent, but he received a 0+, as did Brenda. Randy, perhaps the most reluctant participant, received the lowest of the passing grades, a C. 164 fls_Dsdgsd_An2ther_Qne .2. . Didn’t He? It seems only fitting to begin the discussion of my discrepant case by using the observation of Wolfgang made by Mr. Johnson after the third book seminar. Mr. Johnson’s explicit and implicit expectation for students in his class required each student to be responsible for the assigned readings, participate in class discussions, prepare for a two-day test on terms and written essay questions, participate as a member of the book seminar, and conduct original research on a self-selected topic. I observed all of the students in the class meeting these expectations to varying degrees. First, they were aware that they were being graded on their participation in 'these activities and were, for the: most part, conscientious about their grades. Second, Mr. Johnson had a rapport with them that was conducive to their doing their best for him, either because they wanted to please him or because they were performance oriented. Students who appeared not to be trying to meet these expectations became my discrepant cases. One of these students, Janet, was not meeting the expectations because of frequent unexplained and unexcused absences. However, she became concerned about her grades, talked with Mr. Johnson, and brought them up during the second half of the semester. Because she was not there for me to observe, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about her. The other student was Wolfgang, the discrepant case on which I will focus. Wolfgang was a student of many observed contradictions. FHs participation in class discussion was sporadic and inconsistent, and 165 this belied the fact that his SAT scores were the highest in the class. Initially, I wondered if he thought he was not being graded on class participation. Fieldnotes recorded student participation for the first four days of class, and he was the only student recorded not participating in any of the discussions. The other students had at least a minimal level of participation (two responses per class period). The only other exception was Janet, and students reported that she had the flu that first week of class. Mr. Johnson did not comment on this, but on the fifth day drew Wolfgang into the discussion for the first time. Wolfgang’s responses indicated that he had read the material, but it was a factual response to the question, "What was going on when the U-2 was shot down by the Russians, Wolfgang?" He replied, ”The Summit Conference.” The other students were taking notes or at least had writing materials with them in class. Wolfgang, on the other hand, was seen infrequently making notes in his book (which was a paperback). This was even the case during the week in which Mr. Johnson was reviewing terminology and asking for questions or clarification for the two- day test given on March 2 and 3. All students were present for the review and taking notes, but Wolfgang followed his established pattern of writing in his book. Wolfgang scored the third highest score on the term identification and the fourth highest on the essay section of the test. 166 Wolfgang was the only student observed sleeping during class discussions with Mr. Johnson (2/13/89), and Mr. Johnson awakened him by directing a question to him. He asked to have the question repeated, and then he replied with a vague answer. I asked Mr. Johnson about it after class. His response was that students of Wolfgang’s ability often had conflicting academic demands put on their time, and sometimes it caught up with them. It is to be noted here that Janet was asleep during the video on the Kennedy years in early February, but no students were observed sleeping during the discussions. Wolfgang also was observed sleeping when a guest speaker came to talk about the musical, Heir (5/26/89). Wolfgang’s observed behavior and comments during the first book seminar were illuminating. Mr. Johnson had given the students the written format for the discussion February 2 but had added the following cements regarding their participation, which are again repeated for reference: Contribution [for the seminar] means coming in with something to offer. I think that your fellow participants would agree that we don’t like anyone taking a "free ride." This is really what it is all about. Intelligent conversation. I think you need to be aware of certain people dominating the group. When you are speaking, someone else is not. I’m wondering why that person is not speaking. On the day of the first seminar, all of the students except Wolfgang arrived early and began discussing what they were going to do. Thurston commented to the group that Wolfgang had called before, wondering which group (of the five groups of readings) had not been selected. He had to read something fast. This group was 167 the last to present, so they technically had two days without class to prepare for the seminar. Wolfgang arrived, announcing he had read Bleek_tlre_fle_(one of the shortest books on the list). He talked about staying up half the night (he was a boarding student) and about the late movie that was on television. Brenda, another group member, commented, ”How can you watch so much TV without it affecting you?" He replied, "Oh, I really wasn’t watching it, I was reading my book." Mr. Johnson came in, and the group was still casually chatting (the time was 12:10). He said nothing to them but sat in a chair with his note pad and a pencil, preparing to write. At 12:23, the group finally got started when it became obvious that they were stalling. Wolfgang was in large part responsible for this with his conversation (see discussion of the second book seminar). They did the same as the other two groups once they started. Wolfgang’s description was brief but detailed; however, his participation and interaction among the group for the remainder of the seminar was very limited after he talked about his own book. As a matter of fact, in noting interaction patterns and responses, I observed that he asked the fewest questions of all the participants. It was during the post-discussion that Wolfgang admitted, "At 7:00 last night, I didn’t know what I would read.” To this Mr. Johnson asked, "Should you have been allowed to participate then? Did you do the work that the group needed? What happens if you don’t read the book? Do you think you contributed to the group?” Wolfgang replied, "No . . . probably not the way I could or should 168 have." The other* members of his group were not critical of Wolfgang’s lack of participation, either in not reading his book earlier or in not asking many questions. Suggestions coming from the group for next time included meeting beforehand, not taking too much time getting started, and Wolfgang added, "When we read these books, we should have a purpose.” The next group seminar (4/9/89) found Wolfgang prepared (the students noted this beforehand) and actively engaged in asking lively' questions about the other participants’ books. Had his behavior and motivation for participation been changed by Mr. Johnson, and would this be reflected in other instances? I was watching carefully. Wolfgang’s participation in class discussion was still inconsistent on the days following the seminar. He was observed to be a very animated and involved participant when the subject for discussion was the reading, "Student as Nigger," by Jerry Farber (2/13/89). He had definite views on learning and grades, which he expressed in the following excerpts from fieldnotes: This thing about grades is very interesting. It is a real power that teachers have over students. Why grades in the first place? You would get more out of it if you didn’t have to worry about grades. I took history last year and all I cared about was getting the grade so before each test, I just memorized everything. I got a 8+, but at the end of the year, I didn’t know anything. Wolfgang continued throughout the discussion offering several alternatives to grades. He did make the statement, however, that colleges really looked at SAT scores and grades, no matter what they 169 said. When I asked each student to fill out the class profile sheet (4/27/89), Wolfgang’s SAT scores were the highest combined total of any student in the class. His Verbal was 730 and his Quantitative was 780. Wolfgang’s performance on the final book seminar was, once again, a. contradiction based on his behavior during the second seminar. He read a book that was not on the book list and not part of any of the categories. It was a book quickly and easily read, but it did have a symbolic message that fit in with the Sixties theme. It had not been approved by Mr. Johnson, however. Wolfgang had not checked with either his teacher or his group beforehand to let them know of the change. He brought in the newspaper article about the Sixties and diverted discussion, initially, from the books to the article. This was without the group’s prior knowledge but, once he got them interested, with their consent. The group pulled it off, but it could have gone either way. Wolfgang did not seem to function well with the cooperative learning structure. Was Wolfgang making a statement. with this behavior? Was he asserting his academic freedom as a result of the discussion about his disdain for grades? Was he experiencing ”senior slump" and academic burnout? Did he really not have time with other class commitments to prepare by reading one of the books on the book lists and therefore chose the easier book? Since Wolfgang was a student who did not return a consent form for a formal interview and came in late so that informal discussion was impossible, I can only speculate on what I observed. His response 170 to my question on the first day of the semester, however, was very insightful: School has taught me only knowledge in mechanical subjects and only to a nominal degree. Most/all of my learning has arisen from outside reading of literature, Hesse and Nietzsche being my favorites. I want to go to college/write/study what I am interested in. Possibly go on to graduate/professional school. Wolfgang was offering responses inconsistent with his behavior. As pointed out earlier in the discussion of student learning dispositions, Wolfgang disliked grades and tests, but his readings would indicate interest in the kind of sorting and separating based on performance'that testing and grades allow one to do. In some respects, Wolfgang showed characteristics of a higher-order thinker (choosing his own book that was not on the reading list, being able to present a novel way to change the book seminar by relating it to a newspaper article). Mr. Johnson had expressed to me an awareness of Wolfgang’s potential, based on these actions, and respected him for it” Wolfgang’s classroom engagement, on the other hand, was inconsistent in both interest and involvement to a greater degree than that of the other students. QAepter §ummery In Chapter V, the pedagogy of teaching higher-order thinking and discourse in the socially constructed environment of the classroom during 20 weeks of instruction was revealed. First, a reference to Newmann’s (1988) Observational Scales and Cuban’s (1984) teacher-centered and student-centered instruction aided in analyzing the observations. I next focused on a chronological 171 unfolding of Mr. Johnson’s teaching strategies in the classroom. In looking at his teaching, his interactional patterns were discussed, the types of questions (process versus product) he asked were noted, and the unique teaching strategies he used to bring about higher- order thinking were examined and analyzed. The reactions of the students to the class and Mr. Johnson’s perceptions of the students’ work were noted throughout the description. I then discussed the discrepant case, Wolfgang, who was observed not meeting many of the expectations of Mr. Johnson or his classmates. Whereas this chapter featured my description and analysis of particular events, Chapter VI contains some of Mr. Johnson’s observations and thoughts on occurrences during the semester. CHAPTER VI TEACHER THOUGHT PROCESSES Brophy (1980) noted that research on teacher thinking and planning, as well as research on teachers’ judgments and decision making, has concentrated on the elementary level. He further concluded, ”Virtually nothing is known about the mental life of secondary teachers. It may be that they spend more time thinking about curriculum and objectives because they usually stress their role as subject matter specialists and authority figures" (p. 21). Further addressing the lack of research on teacher thinking, Lortie (1973) stated: Someone unfamiliar with the specifics of school and teacher literature might expect to find it replete with information on how classroom teachers see the world in general and their world in particular. Too many studies tell us of relationships between weak, exotic variables and research-centered dimensions of sentiment and values; in balance, we have too few studies which explore the subjective world of teachers in terms of "their" conceptions of what is salient. (pp. 489-90) Probing Mr. Johnson’s thinking about his teaching can provide some insights into a secondary school teacher’s thought process and what is salient to him as a teacher, which, in turn, is reflected in his pedagogical practices. I Jackson (1968) noted that the complexities of the teaching profession are so numerous and varied as to make it difficult, if 172 173 not impossible, for teachers to monitor their own behavior, let alone remember later what was done or why. 0n the other hand, Clark and Peterson’s (1986) research and their suggested model offer a methodology to probe teacher thinking before, during, and after an extended period of reflection on the part of the teacher. Their model of teacher thought and action (shown in Figure 2, p. 36) includes the following three categories: (a) Teacher Theories and Beliefs, (b) Teacher Interactive Thoughts and Decisions, and (c) Teacher Planning. These categories are discussed individually in this chapter and serve as a means of further data analysis. Conelly and Clandinin (1988) referred to the idea of narrative as providing a metaphor for understanding the curriculum of our students. If we understand our own personal practical knowledge through narrative it will tell us how to understand the way we expect others to acquire it. We learn from being a learner, and we reconstruct our own experiences as a learner from our own narrative experience. We also learn from being a teacher, and this influences our own narratives. With the narrative approach in mind, Mr. Johnson was given the opportunity to relate his own narrative of personal practical knowledge, and it was analyzed to see how it ”played out" in the classroom. Isashenlhssfleummjsis Curriculum theorist, James 8. McDonald (1975), stated, "Concern for the nature of human beings, value theory, and the nature of 174 knowledge are intricately woven into action contexts“ (p. 8). It was important to determine Mr. Johnson’s perceptions of the nature of knowledge and learning and how his beliefs were translated into his teaching. I asked him, ”What is the nature of knowledge/learn- ing according to your own beliefs?” He responded: You can never completely answer that question to your satisfac- tion. I enjoy students announcing information, putting themselves to the materials, and having ownership of the knowledge. Against that, you have the other argument that this kind of knowledge doesn’t really mean anything. Plenty of thinkers think that learning is rooted in emotion. I asked him, "What does that mean?" What does that mean? It means that knowledge is not only a rational response but an emotional response. Students who know but who do not feel things and express the commitment of the ideas behind them have not gone beyond the knowledge. ”And then what do they do with the knowledge?” The ability to communicate the ideas becomes important. In talking with students, their own presence is to count for something. ”How does this play out in your classroom?" I would like to know about them and what ideas they bring to the subject. What students learn from school is very limited, but their lives are full. There is a combination of experiences that they can use to bring to the community of learners. Our whole puzzle is that we don’t really know what knowledge is because people pick it in) so differently. (Interview notes, 5/6/90) Mr. Johnson’s response to my question, ”What is knowledge?” was consistent with what I observed in the classroom. He expected students to be prepared with content knowledge by keeping up with chapter reading and other reading assignments, a content, performance-oriented behavior. When students came to class, he urged them to participate in the discussion and respond to an 175 affective, experiential, process approach to knowledge, which is student centered. He expected them to take the content knowledge and go beyond it. This was most graphically evidenced when he asked them to become emotionally connected with the feelings of racism and prejudice in the Sixties. They discussed it in class; they saw it in the video, Eye_eu_the_£rlze; they were asked to share their first experience with racism with each other in a class discussion; and they were asked to analyze prejudiced behavior in the £rleudly_§eme, which was subtle and had many levels of meaning. They were asked to analyze, synthesize, and discuss these experiences on an emotional as well as an analytical level. They were not responding simply to events but to the emotions behind those events. The next question was, ”What is learning and how does the teacher facilitate the process?" Mr. Johnson thought for a moment and continued: It begins in a formal way with accumulation of information. The added idea of application of knowledge and then the exchange of knowledge with others. A part of learning is the suspension of belief. I asked, "Do you mean that you suspend your belief in the authority of the written word? Yes, that’s always been, I’d like to think, a code of mine. Learning is listening but with the idea that you might want to reply. To come full circle in some way there has to be an expression that something has been learned. You can do that by giving back exactly what has been given to you, you can interpolate, you can add to, or you can further question. "Is that why you ask the students to do ’original’ research?" Yes. Some students do some good research, but they don’t make it significant. They don’t put it on a big enough stage for it to be really important. They end it and they had no further 176 questions. We do draw on further questions. Maybe '50 what" . or “and then." So learning is on-going. Mr. Johnson’s response to learning and how a teacher facilitated the process of learning was also evident in his teaching. He expected students to accumulate information in his requirement of a two-day test on term identification and essay. He expected them to do the required readings. He facilitated ”wanting to reply . . . express a viewpoint" by the pattern of his classroom discussions, the book seminars, to some degree with the original research, and in the final project. Students were also asked to reply as "critics" to the videos and films shown in class. The review of the literature revealed several different philosophies and viewpoints about what teaching social studies and history should accomplish. Should it be content oriented or process oriented? It was therefore important to this study to ascertain Mr. Johnson’s thoughts on this, and how a course of study should ideally look at the high school level. What frustrates me is ‘that ,you get to know 'the students, address the materials, watch them become more conversant and better disciplined in their learning, and you would like to watch the experience go on longer. I asked him, ”How do you see the controversy between content and process in teaching social studies?” I think we have the argument here between content learning and affective experiential learning and we cannot find a way to blend both. The lecture course is very important to acquire information. Students need to acquire information that their contemporaries will have. Content-oriented lecture courses like European history, American history, etc., where the content is very well known is critical. This information will become code words in philosophy, literature, and politics. These are the people who are the exemplars of virtue and evil 177 and everyone should have that knowledge so we know who we are talking about. It is useful as metaphor and everyone must have it. "Which do you prefer to teach?" Content [pause]. . . I am frustrated by the fact, however, that I cannot teach that anymore. I just cannot stick to it. The path of information has too many side roads to explore and generally they are, "What do you think about this?‘' History isn’t expert enough in the social sciences to be descriptive or even experiential enough. My sense of it is that history is a means by which students can confront questions that they don’t have answers to. Another way to put it is not events and personalities but a succession of ideas that are classified as great because we’re still confused about them. You might find this as easily in literature, or in a portrait by an artist, or even in a biography. I have taught straight content courses in the past but I get too much of a kick out of watching students argue with ideas. It isn’t enough to know that stuff [content], but the real things are the ideas that we are using to make connections with history and mankind. I observed the struggle of content versus process in Mr. Johnson’s teaching. He had decided to use a text, even though the text had definite opinions and interpretations of the people and events that made up the turbulent Sixties. He gave a two-day test on content. He became angry when students had not prepared for class by reading the material and knowing the content of the chapters. He also applauded them for risk taking, and he willingly encouraged them to challenge him or the authors whose works they were reading. He did not follow a daily lesson plan, but he followed the content framework provided by chapters in the book. On the other hand, he covered the content of the chapters in a student- oriented fashion, responding to their questions, observations, opinions, concerns, and interests. 178 The next question was, 'Is this consistent with the viewpoints and beliefs of your colleagues?" Mr. Johnson smiled faintly and chuckled before replying: No, I lost battles with my colleagues because I cannot teach content over and over. Maybe it’s boredom. I can use the same materials [text, films, literature]. I can do this because the questions are always going to be different. The kids will always respond to the questions differently. They will ask questions differently and answer them differently. If I had a table of contents that I had to follow, we couldn’t do this. As a teacher this is what I’ve got to do, yet I can tell my colleagues this is the way they’ve got to do it. I don’t think they’d be comfortable if they tried it. It is very much a matter of control. "How do you mean?” They can’t give up the control over the students. I think that all of American history could be taught this way, but there isn’t enough time. Maybe 20 or 30 years is needed. The questions we ask are really the questions they will have to deal with out there. Not just what did the president do . . . but why did he have to do it and what would you have done? Mr. Johnson’s reluctance to tell his colleagues what to do or how to teach was partially grounded in having to evaluate his colleagues as History' Department chairman, using the evaluation instrument agreed on by teachers and administrators at Lakeview. This was also evident when the guest speakers came to talk with the students. He did not tell them how to present their information, nor did he tell the students what his expectations were of their participation with the speaker. An exception to this was the students’ lack of response to the Peace Corps speaker. Mr. Johnson’s beliefs on the nature of knowledge and learning were observed to influence his teaching practices. It was evident in his description of the course on the first day of class that he 179 wanted the students to focus on content. He asked them to come prepared for class having read the assigned readings, and expected them to learn information for the two-day test on content. His other beliefs on content versus the affective side of knowledge and learning also were apparent and documented in some of the other activities (role playing, book seminars, and original research projects). Use of student experiences was an integral part of his teaching, as noted on several occasions in both class discussions (on grades) and written activities (on the students’ first contact with racism). The next question concerned the teaching/learning relationships (deCharms, 1984) with which he most clearly identified: 1. The learner is developing habits; the teacher demonstrates the correct responses, the learner imitates those responses, and the teacher strengthens (reinforces) them into good habits. 2. The learner is a passive receptacle and the teacher fills the receptacle with knowledge, as one fills a cup from a pitcher. 3. The learner is an active agent engaged in interaction, as one sets a stage for a drama but cannot completely control the action. (p. 275) Mr. Johnson’s reply to this question was, ”The third one sounds a little gaudy [with a laugh], but I guess that would be the one I would choose." I responded, "I thought you would choose that one. You have a real flair for“ dramatic presentation (like the day Kennedy was shot), and you are a facilitator more 'often than a lecturer in class discussions." 180 It was my observation that Mr. Johnson exhibited the other two teacher-learner relationships at other times in the classroom, although less frequently. He exhibited the characteristics of teacher-learner relationships (number one) when he guided participation in class discussions and modeled expectations for students’ questions in book seminars. His comment the first week of school, ”You are the students into whom the information must pour,“ was characteristic of the second teacher-learner relationship. The next question dealt with learning dispositions. I used the definitions found in the definitions section of this study for performance, mastery, and higher-order learning dispositions. He had some difficulty seeing the difference between the mastery and the higher-order disposition, which I fully understood because they were not defined by the same source (Dweck, 1986; Newmann, 1989). I explained that my interpretation of the higher-order disposition was that it challenged existing authority and asked the students to seek new answers to their questions and to support their own opinions after genuinely reflecting on the problem. His response follows: I think students in my class have primarily the mastery learning disposition. Kids who are achievement oriented stay away from my classes. The class is an elective, and I don’t see many of them. I think they come in at pretty much the mastery disposition and if I can get them to the higher-order disposition then I’ve done a pretty good job. It was evident that the students in Mr. Johnson’s class, like Mr. Johnson himself, represented all three learning dispositions at different times during the semester because the activities demanded all three approaches. Although the students professed, in their 181 comments about grades and learning for class discussions, to want the mastery or higher-order disposition, their actions were more characteristic of the performance disposition. The 'role' of student carries with it the performance disposition when any type of evaluation is associated with it. Some students, like Jackie, Brenda, Stewart, and Joshua, told me they found it enjoyable to learn for the sake of increasing competence, as the mastery disposition suggests, but there were also times when their enthusiasm was sustained by the fact that they were being evaluated by the teacher--therefore, the performance disposition. The reality is that competence is going to be assessed by the teacher, who will base that assessment on performance. At the same time, the teacher is assessing the competence of other students in the classroom. In addition, students have other demands on their time and energy to meet the expectations of other classes; as Mr. Johnson noted, "Sometimes [the students’] busy schedules begin to show on them." Wolfgang was probably the least motivated by the performance disposition. In many cases, he seemed reluctant to meet the evaluation criteria that he knew were in place. He was able to participate in the higher-order discussions when he chose to do so, but he did not seem consistently to meet performance or mastery expectations. When asked what learning disposition the school, as a whole, reflected, Mr. Johnson responded: The school as a whole, when the chips are down, reflects the performance disposition. It exists in the goals. It is good to have both, but education in a private school shares a 182 consensus about achievement. We don’t want to be elitist, but we do want to be achievement oriented. (Interview notes, 5/6/90) This is consistent with the philosophy and goals of the school, as stated in Chapter IV. WWW Researchers on teachers’ thinking have tried to probe teachers’ thoughts while they were interacting with students. One method used to do this, consistent with my research, is stimulated recall, or asking a teacher why he responded a certain way during the lesson. Clark and Peterson (1986) summarized the results of six studies designed to describe the content of teachers’ interactive thoughts shortly after teaching. In those studies it was found that interactive thoughts of teachers fit into four categories: (a) concern with the learner; (b) the instructional process, including instructional procedures and instructional strategies; (c) content or subject matter; and (d) instructional objectives. The largest percentage of teachers reported interactive thoughts that focused on the learner. Mr. Johnson’s interactive thoughts were consistent with these findings. In the numerous discussions we had immediately after class when the opportunity presented itself, I noted the fbllowing learner-oriented responses when I asked the probing questions, "How did it go? What was your perception of the class today?” Boy, they just weren’t moving were they? I just about told them we needn’t go further if they hadn’t anything to say. [An indication of this occurred earlier in the lesson when he 183 commented, 'No questions? . . . Then I will assume you know it all.'] (Fieldnotes, 2/6/89) This group has not jelled yet. They are just going through the motions. (Fieldnotes, 2/7/89) Today we had poor attendance and with the flu going around only half of the students were here. Sometimes we have to adjust. (Fieldnotes, 2/13/89) In order to keep pace they have to push themselves on the reading [also stated as such to the class]. Their busy schedules are beginning to show on them. (Fieldnotes, 2/13/89) Maybe the class will come together now. [The day’s class had addressed, among other things, their poor participation with the guest speaker the day before.] (Fieldnotes, 2/16/89) If I can just get the group to stop being intimidated by Stuart, I could really see what the others are capable of doing. (Fieldnotes, 2/22/89) I’m concerned about them as a group. I applaud their honesty as a group, but it is important to be an individual, too. (Fieldnotes, 4/12/89) Students need time to sort through what it means to be a liberal or a conservative. Further discussion will enable them to see differences and similarities more clearly. (Interactive thoughts on content; fieldnotes, 5/8/89) When colleges reject kids, you’ve lost them, and if they come back at all it is only tentative. (Fieldnotes, 5/21/89) Mr. Johnson responded to my questions on his thoughts for the lesson less frequently in the other categories defined by Clark and Peterson. Here are a few of these with the corresponding category noted in parentheses after the quotation: Obviously I am doing very little about competence right now. Competence comes up in alertness, energy. inquiry, and risk. All those things make up what I think shows- a classroom competence before we even get to the writing or the affective ideas of classroom learning. (Interactive thoughts on instructional objectives; fieldnotes, 2/1/89) Role playing is spontaneous to the situation, but I use this type of role playing a great deal to make difficult concepts 184 like military spending useful to the student. (Interactive thoughts on instructional process; fieldnotes, 1/31/89) I have grouped the students randomly for the book seminars. I guess there is some thought to dominating personalities, but on the whole it is a random decision. The personalities they will have to learn to deal with as a part of their own learning process in group dynamics. (Interactive thoughts on instruc- tional processes and student needs; fieldnotes, 2/7/89) I really love discussing this film, A_£rlendly_§eme, with the students. There is always a point at which it dawns on them exactly what they have been witness to. Then they are anxious to discuss it. (Interactive thoughts on content; fieldnotes, 4/6/89) Berlak and Berlak (1981) wrote of the interrelated and competing decision situations a teacher encounters both while planning and during teaching. A gain for one student might mean a foregone opportunity for others. A motivationally and intellectually profitable digression for one student may reduce time devoted to the ideas of another. Such conflicts among teachers’ multiple commitments, one of which is higher-order thinking, lead to practical dilemmas that must be managed in interaction with students. Mr. Johnson was involved continually with these types of decisions, and they came out frequently in our discussions. ”Should Stuart be allowed to dominate the discussion at the expense of the other, less vocal students," when one of the characteristics of higher-order thinking is a high degree of involvement? "If students do not come to class prepared for discussion of the material, do I send them on their way [as he did on one occasion] and just meet with the students who have prepared?" Students need to be able to support answers and opinions with content to challenge and derive new answers. Can feedback to students on their research 185 projects and focus sheets be too supportive or critical to elicit their best efforts? Clark and Lampert (1986), described three types of teacher knowledge in interactive decision making: WHDecisions made that are situation specific and take into account the immediate situation, making it different from any other case. Mr. Johnson’s comments on student participation in book seminars are an example of this. He had to decide how to comment to each of the groups on their performance, based on their group interactional patterns, their examination of content, the contributions of group members, and their growth and progress as a group. lutereetiye__ruduledge--Teachers asking questions, expecting responses, and watching for signs of understanding. Daily class discussions with the students required that Mr. Johnson continually use this type of knowledge. He had to know when to probe, when to move on, and when to challenge. He modeled the same type of behavior that he wanted the students to use in their book seminars, class discussions, and research paper. Speculetive kugwledge--Teachers meeting the uncertainty of their work by allowing for multiple, unanticipated contingencies beyond their control. When to use role playing, when to go to an alternative lesson because half the class was absent with the flu, and what to do when the class was not responding favorably to the guest speakers are examples of this. 186 I observed, however, that many of Mr. Johnson’s interactive decisions were tied to his expressed thoughts and beliefs about knowledge/learning and teaching the social sciences, corresponding most frequently to interactive knowledge. leasbstlanans Mr. Johnson was asked to reflect on his initial planning for the course, ”America in the Sixties and Seventies": what goals and objectives were outlined and defined, and how he selected the content of the course to meet these goals and objectives. His response was: In designing a course like this, you want the course to be sequential, to survey the material of the sixties and seventies. You want factual understanding of larger events and the historical causes of these events. I want depth into certain attitudes. I want student input. Students are then encouraged to find something of their own interest and examine it more closely. This comes with examination of the literature and the political statements in the books read for the book seminars and the research paper. Unfortunately, I have to ask them to begin this before we have had a chance to look at the lifestyles closely tied with the historical events [referring to O’Neill’s Chapters 8 and 9, on the cultures and counter- cultures of the Sixties]. I see this as a weakness, but I don’t know what to do about it. I then asked Mr. Johnson how he selected the materials for the course to meet these goals and objectives. He said: To accompany a course like this, you want a book like O’Neill’s tuning Apert to survey the material, yet the author must have a critical opinion with the factual matter. O’Neill is a writer with the sixties style and complaint, and you are going to get a reaction from the students. 15 there something you don’t agree with or have an opinion about? You [the teacher] don’t know all the answers, and the material frees the student to disagree with the teacher and the author. I like the book for its level of subtlety, humor, and irony. The correlating material is picked because it supports or challenges viewpoints. I’ve used them for a long time, but my evaluating 187 criterion is, 'Do you still get different answers and reactions from it?“ It’s sixties materials getting nineties reactions. These thoughts were consistent with my first reaction to the O’Neill text and why I included an excerpt from the book. Mr. Johnson’s comments in response to this question directly relate to Newmann’s higher-order* observation, which addresses teacher awareness that all assertions emanating from authoritative sources are absolute or certain. Clark and Yinger (1979) noted that research on teacher planning has contrasted with the rational model of curriculum planning proposed by Tyler (1949) with its focus on objectives, followed by generation or identification of activities that might be useful in accomplishing these objectives. They concluded, instead, that planning time is concentrated on the content that they will be teaching and activities that are built into the curriculum. Objectives, if considered at all, are taken into account only within the contexts of these activities and only after the strategies and activities themselves have been studied in detail. Mr. Johnson’s views on planning for the course seemed to be consistent with Tyler in this regard. He had the text and “objective for higher-order thinking in mind, and he planned activities and strategies to support them. He did not follow written daily plans or weekly lesson plans. In their study on teacher planning, Clark and Yinger (1979) referred to teachers as being either incremental planners or comprehensive planners. Incremental planners preferred to move in a 188 series of short planning steps, using day-to-day information from the classroom, valuing spontaneity, staying in contact with the needs and states of their students, and being concerned mostly with activities. Comprehensive planners preferred developing a general framework for future action and valued the unit as a whole. They developed detailed long-range plans built on predictions about how students would react, rather than on direct experiences with the students. Having this extensive long-range plan to fall back on is a benefit of comprehensive planners, but being locked into this plan hinders their flexibility. When asked what kind of planner he was, given these two possibilities, Mr. Johnson replied, I have always been a short-term planner. My dream is to get the course together so I wouldn’t have to have that. I’ve structured materials that are timeless. I spend most of my time thinking about the class and not the materials. The assurance is that the two fit my rule, which is to fit the student and the teacher in a joint exploration of ideas. There should be an on-going review of materials and of the responses they are generating. When it works, we are connecting with each other and with the sixties and seventies. In analyzing his response, it seems that Mr. Johnson, with his concern for individual student participation and connecting with the teacher in exploring ideas, will never be a comprehensive daily planner, not because the course has not come together, but rather because the focus for the comprehensive planner is not consistent with his thoughts and beliefs about teaching. He likes the aspect of flexibility in his teaching. Finally, I asked Mr. Johnson which he believed was more important: depth of coverage in the course content or breadth of 189 material covered in the course. Stated another way, he was asked if he felt compelled to cover all of his curriculum content or to see certain topics covered in greater depth, depending on the attitudes and interest of his students. His response was predictable, based on my observations. He said, Depth of coverage, of course, because this is how my students see the connections in history . . . by exploring ideas in depth. Looking at several different sources and perceptions of what is going on gives them a lot of conflicting answers and opinions to sort through to ultimately come up with their own. (Interview notes, 5/l7/90) i li ' n ex u i The last examination of teacher thought processes is how different sociopolitical contexts influenced Mr. Johnson and his teaching. These contexts are comparable to the "Constraints and Opportunities" found in Clark and Peterson’s model (Figure 2, p. 36). These sociopolitical contexts were outlined in Figure 3 (p. 68) and described in Chapter IV. Mr. Johnson was asked to respond to each of these contexts. I asked him, I'How does each of these contexts influence your teaching? Elaborate on each one for me.” National Association of Independent Schools: Standards are set by this organization for all private schools. There is somehow a command to exact or exercise your authority as a teacher--to push your own high standards. This is the way it is in private schools. I’d like to feel that the push to academic excellence would be the same without these standards, but this is what gives me the authority to teach to my high standards. Independent Schools Association of Central States: We have a larger representation through this organization although it does not have the impact professionally. The big thing is that both of these organizations protect you as a 190 teacher. He, our school and History Department, recently went through an ISACS self-evaluation, which resulted in routine self-analysis, coming together with the middle school, and assuring the evaluating team that we had looked ourselves over. He had argued these things out beforehand. Our different personalities decide and define the spectrum that makes up the History/Social Sciences Department. Association of Independent State Schools: He go to the conferences every two years and in this way get to know many of our other private school colleagues. Professional growth is the focus for these conferences, and I have enjoyed attending them. Lakeview Administration: We each have academic freedom and yet there is some challenging accountability. Maybe we should be more accountable; we don’t do enough talking about that. If we aren’t doing the job, we won’t have the students. The Parents and Alumnae Associations: There is little or no influence coming from these groups that affects my teaching. Their support is desirable in other ways (commitment to the school, resources, fund—raising). The History Department: He are individually and collectively the History Department. In that sense, each of us does what the department expects of us. The Classroom: This is really what we have been discussing. This is my domain, and it has been carefully analyzed from every aspect-- by myself, my colleagues, and my administration. The Students: The students exert a great deal of influence over my teaching. I try to read the students and provide a social climate to their advantage and my pleasure. That is not always easy. Both sessions today were unsuccessful. All of the stuff was a waste of time. I dismissed the class because they had nothing to};;lk)about. We were not talking together. (Interview notes, 5 90 191 As can be expected, the contexts that Mr. Johnson encounters daily, the History Department, the classroom, and the students, were the most influential in his teaching. Mr. Johnson indicated that the students were the most context influencing his teaching, and this was consistent with the student-centered classroom. In a teacher-centered classroom, the History Department, the administra- tion, and/or the parents might be more influential. n ko ve or Mr. Johnson was asked to take the Teacher Thinking As It Relates to Promoting Higher-Order Student Thinking inventory (see Appendix A, pp. 235-236), adapted from Onosko’s (l988) research. An analysis of Mr. Johnson’s responses to the inventory gave me a chance to apply triangulation to the data. I could determine whether his responses were consistent with my observations of his teaching and whether they were reflected in his stated beliefs about teaching and learning. These are three distinctly different sources of data to compare, in looking for consistencies and incon- sistencies. Results of the analysis of Mr. Johnson’s responses to the inventory are as follows: I ll E i 'l' [E 1 Mr. Johnson ranked the ten goals in terms of priorities in his own personal goals toward teaching social studies in the following order (he stated that Items 7 through l0 could be in any order): 1. Other (To do that which would let a student say, ”This has been a most important class in my life.') 192 2. Develop self-confidence and self-esteem. 3. Develop critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities. 4. Teach facts, concepts, and theories of history and the social sciences. 5. Teach past and present problems and issues faced by the United States and the world. 6. Develop creative-thinking abilities. 7. Teach students how to study, take notes, and learn. 8. Develop discussion skills. 9. Develop reading and writing abilities. lO. Teach social values and foster citizenship. Analysis. In the first section of the inventory, Mr. Johnson was asked to rank ten goals in terms of priorities in his own personal goals toward teaching social studies. His top item was "other," which he defined as "to do that which would let a student say, ’This has been a most important class in my life.’” This was consistent with his student-centered approach and his concern for the emotional (affective) side of learning. The goal Mr. Johnson ranked second was self-confidence and self-esteem, also a student-centered goal. This was not as obviously played out in the classroom. Risk taking, if successful, leads to an increase in self-confidence and self-esteem, as does the teacher’s encouraging participation by all members of the class. On the surface, some of the comments to the students, especially after the book seminars, may have been intimidating. Some of his unconscious reactions might be noted as judgmental or evaluative, 193 but not to the point of discouraging a student from participating. He took special care to bring reluctant participants like Annette and Nancy (the two English exchange students) and Ella into the discussion. Mr. Johnson ranked ”develop critical thinking and problem solving" third. It was evident that he was trying to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and higher-order thinking, which are also student centered. This was one of the main objectives around which many of his activities and discussions were focused, and I am surprised that he did not rank it higher. That Mr. Johnson ranked fourth and fifth items that related to content, a teacher-centered goal (teaching facts, concepts, theories, past and present problems and issues), is consistent with his beliefs and practice. He believed that content played an important role in his teaching, to achieve a balance, but at the same time he stated that he could not be ”bound" by it. He liked the freedom to adapt content to the students and their interests. The sixth-ranked goal was creative thinking. Mr. Johnson expected his students to come up with creative responses in role- playing and the book seminars. Creative thinking is also a student- centered goal. Also, it involves risk taking to be creative in front of one’s teacher and peers. Mr. Johnson said that Items 7 through lO on the inventory could be ranked in any order, indicating they were less important to him. 194 WWW Mr. Johnson ranked the ten goals that focus his lesson planning in order of their importance in guiding his decisions about planning: l. Other ("That each class will be a kind of culmination of the shared experience.') 2. Develop critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities. 3. Teach facts, concepts, and theories. of' history and the social sciences. 4. Teach past and present problems and issues faced by the United States and the world. 01 Develop creative-thinking abilities. 6 Develop self-confidence and self-esteem. 7 Develop reading and writing abilities. 8. Develop discussion skills. 9 Teach students how to study, take notes, and learn. lO. Teach social values and foster citizenship. Analysis. This section of the inventory pertained to goals that focused lesson planning. Mr. Johnson’s first goal was "Other,” which he defined as ”a culmination of the shared experience." This was a student-centered response, and it related to his emphasis on student involvement and activities that promote participation. It came through clearly in his belief that learning should be a shared experience. The responses in this section were ranked as they were in the first section, with the notable exception that self-confidence and 195 self-esteem dropped to number six. This bears out my observation that specific strategies for building self-confidence and self- esteem were not evident in the tactics Mr. Johnson planned for in the classroom. Items 7 through lO were less important, and were left in their original order. W Mr. Johnson thought that, in general, exposing students to subject-matter content was less interesting for him as a teacher than developing students’ thought and reasoning processes. This was evidenced in the importance he placed on participation in classroom discussions and his belief that students ought to ”reply” to learning. He ranked, in descending order, the following items that gave him the most satisfaction as a teacher: 1. Students thinking. Students responding. Lesson planning. #00“) Working with colleagues. Analysis. Ranking the items in this order shows a student- centered awareness. WW On a Likert scale with l negatively influencing higher-order thinking in social studies and 5 positively influencing higher-order thinking in social studies, Mr. Johnson assessed the following potential barriers to promoting higher-order thinking: He ranked most negatively large class size, student course load, and 196 graduation requirements. He personally did not have to deal with large class size because classes at Lakeview were limited to 18 students. He did find student course load to be a problem because the students had less time to prepare for his class if their other classes were making demands on their time. The increased graduation requirement was a barrier because if that was done and his class was an elective, he might not be able to offer it. Mr. Johnson liked the 45-minute period, the length of his class, and therefore ranked it positively. He did not like fewer than 45 minutes, however, as he expressed on several occasions when classes were shortened or canceled due to an assembly. He also ranked positively having four or five class sessions per week. His class met five times a week unless there was a holiday; then it met four times a week. In terms of three wishes to promote thinking, Mr. Johnson chose the following, in rank order: peer observation, team teaching, and freedom to cover less material. This played out because he already implemented a form of peer observation both in his role as department chair and with his use of guest speakers for the class. The guest speakers were also a form of team teaching because teachers from the English and History Departments were contributing to his curriculum, although they did not plan together. Freedom to cover less material seemed to be somewhat inconsistent with what I observed because Mr. Johnson did not seem to be under pressure to cover materials he did not ultimately plan to cover himself. It is noted that he was not able to cover much of 197 the subject matter on the Seventies, other than what was provided in the "Epilogue” of the O’Neill book. He was not bound by state or school curriculum guides. The remaining choices that Mr. Johnson did not select were fewer students, better curriculum materials, staff development, paid leave of absence, team/group planning, more lesson-planning time, fewer classes per day, and a different group of students. These were items that I noted did not seem to be particularly important to him, either in our discussions or in my observations. W Mr. Johnson’s thought processes were explored in this chapter, using Clark and Peterson’s (l986) model. The chapter was divided into five sections: 'Teacher Theories and Beliefs, A ‘Teacher’s Interactive Thoughts, Teacher Planning, Sociopolitical Contexts Influencing Pedagogy, and the Onosko Inventory. Mr. Johnson’s thoughts were revealed through informal and formal interview questions, which were developed during and after classroom observations. It was found that Mr. Johnson’s theories and beliefs played out in the classroom observations, and there were no glaring inconsistencies. His responses to the Onosko inventory were also consistent with his beliefs, with the exceptions noted, allowing for triangulation of the data and further support of the assertions. Nith the careful analysis of the data complete, it is now time to consider the findings suggested by the data, as well as their implications. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the findings of the study, reflect on their significance and implications, and conclude by offering questions for future research. I sought to answer four research questions with the rationale/context of observing a teacher whose pedagogy and stated curriculum goal was to foster higher-order thinking in a student-centered social studies classroom. I used the tools of an educational ethnographer to seek answers to these questions. In interpreting the findings and conclusions, I challenge the reader to bring his/her own lens of experience to examine the findings with me as a shared experience between the researcher and the reader, much as Mr. Johnson might ask his students to do. m r e i f r' Perhaps the most significant finding of this study is the importance of teacher thinking in determining a style of teaching and promoting higher-order thinking in the classroom. One would expect an ethnographic study to focus on the beliefs and perceptions of the participants in the socially constructed environment of the classroom. After observing Mr. Johnson’s interactions with the 198 199 students and his style of teaching for the entire semester, I asked hinI to reflect. on his beliefs and ‘theories about knowledge and learning. I was surprised at how remarkably consistent these beliefs were with Mr. Johnson’s teaching style and how this methodology included the characteristics of higher-order thinking. Shavelson (l986) stated: The teaching act is a result of a decision, whether conscious or unconscious, that the teacher makes after the complex cognitive examination of available information. This reasoning leads to the hypothesis that the basic teaching skill is decision making. (p. l8) I would extend Shavelson’s statement to include that a teacher’s teaching style constitutes a conscious decision on the part of the teacher, based on his/her own theories of knowledge/ learning. Included in this are the teacher’s attitudes about higher-order thinking, student-centered versus teacher-centered instruction, student learning dispositions, and a content-versus- process orientation to learning. Newmann’s (l988a, l988b) research clearly showed that classrooms that are student centered and process oriented are more likely to have the characteristics of higher-order thinking. To facilitate higher-order thinking, students must be able to examine content critically and participate actively to a greater extent than feeding back the material. Mr. Johnson was aware that his own teaching style was more student centered and process oriented; he saw it as being consistent with his beliefs about teaching/learning. I observed this teaching style throughout the entire semester of observation. It was not exclusive to social studies, a certain lesson or activity, or a unit 200 of study he had developed. He also was aware that his methods were different from those of many of his colleagues and that there existed a full spectrum of teaching styles in the History Department. He was just as aware that his colleagues might not be comfortable with his style, any more than he would be with theirs. He saw a benefit to the student, however, in having both student- centered, process-oriented teaching and teacher-centered, content- oriented teaching. Achieving a balance was important to him, both in the context of his own teaching and in the context of the History/Social Sciences Department. This is also consistent with current recommendations for teacher-preparation/education programs which are focusing on a knowledge base. Students who choose to become history teachers should have the knowledge base about history and social studies. It is balanced with the inclusion of methods courses after content is in place. This balance carries with it the implication that teachers must value higher-order thinking in their own theories about knowledge/learning before they can address these issues in their teaching. Inherent in student-centered teaching for higher-order thinking is giving up some aspects of teacher control found in teacher- centered instruction. Mr. Johnson acknowledged this in one of his interview comments. In some instances, this entails giving up teacher control over content in class discussions, the material covered, student participation, and evaluating student responses. 201 Teacher training has usually emphasized classroom-control techniques which adapt to teacher-centered instruction at the high school level. It. will be especially difficult for the ,younger, less experienced teacher to give up this control to achieve higher-order thinking. At the same time, it might be more productive for an experienced teacher like Mr. Johnson, who feels comfortable with content, to give up some teacher control to facilitate higher-order thinking. It is important to note, however, that Mr. Johnson still exerts control over his classroom with his presence and demeanor when interacting with students. It stands to reason, then, that programs designed to promote higher-order thinking skills that come packaged for inclusion in the curriculum cannot be effective unless they are consistent with the beliefs of the teachers charged with and comfortable giving up teacher control to implement them. In other words, these skills simply cannot be taught effectively if mandated for the curriculum. This consideration appears to be important, based on the fact that a great deal of attention has been given to higher-order/critical thinking at both the state and national levels. The pressure to include higher-order thinking in the social studies curriculum has increased, and many schools are rushing to include these skills in all content-area curricula. As shown in this study, social studies can be a rich subject area in which to promote higher-order thinking, but the teacher must be aware of the implications, and both teacher and students must have a commitment to do it well. 202 The successful teacher is one who is able to use the content/process orientation compatible with his/her own beliefs. The less successful teacher finds him/herself restricted to or mandated a process/product orientation that contradicts, or at least compromises, his/her own beliefs on knowledge and learning. The result is a teacher who must adapt to meet the expectations of administration and the school but who is not completely comfortable with what he/she is doing. As was evidenced by the guest speakers, there were both teacher-centered, content-oriented teachers and student-centered, process-oriented teachers at Lakeview. This study also has implications for the debate regarding content versus process in the social studies curriculum. The battle is being waged at the decision-making level, with little input sought from the teachers charged with implementing the curriculum as to their beliefs and comfort with teaching by one style or the other. As Cuban (1986) would concur, the hurricane winds of reform are blowing on the surface, but the bottom of the sea (the classroom) still remains calm and indifferent to these reforms. Mr. Johnson, I am sure, would see the need for both content and process but would be comfortable focusing on process. If one looks at the criteria for higher-order thinking, however, it can be seen that teacher-centered, content-oriented instruction is not conducive to process-oriented, higher-order thinking. In most cases, a students is given little chance in such an atmosphere to do little more than give a cursory response to questions about content, to check for comprehension or clarification. 203 H - 1 MW Newmann (l988b) and Onosko (l988) suggested that certain teacher beliefs and behaviors promote higher-order thinking in students. Hy study was not designed to correlate behaviors with outcomes, but rather to point out perceptions of participants experiencing teaching focused on higher-order thinking. I found the participants, the teacher and the students, receptive to higher-order thinking because it was consistent with their beliefs about knowledge/learning. It was also consistent with their professed views on learning dispositions. Mr. Johnson in his interview, and his students in their written responses on their own learning experiences, seemed to agree with the mastery and higher- order learning dispositions. That is, they were learning (or mastering) the class curriculum for competence in the subject of history of the Sixties to generate new ideas. Their agreement on learning dispositions seemed to enable them mutually to benefit from their shared experience. These students did, at times, appear to be motivated by the performance disposition, as documented, but one wonders how a student highly oriented to the performance disposition, always seeking right answers and positive responses to his/her work, would fare in this classroom learning experience. Hould he/she find it difficult to function within a “risk-taking" environment? Mr. Johnson stated during our interview, ”Students who are performance oriented usually stay away from my classes” (Interview notes, 5/l9/90). Should not those students also be 204 exposed to this type of teaching/learning environment at some time in their learning experience, to seek a balance? Hill these students be effective in later experiences when faced with situations in which independent thinking is asked of them? My observation, which research has borne out, is that most learning at the high school level is intended to motivate a student solely with the performance disposition, using grades as the reward or the punishment for effort and behavior. Hence the 'role" of student is defined with the performance disposition in place. Therefore, students do not develop a commitment to learning beyond that required to achieve a certain grade or meet the expectations of the teacher. This commitment is essential to higher-order thinking and developing a higher-order learning disposition. Holfgang’s comment in regard to learning proved to be insightful. He stated: Teachers don’t like to teach students who don’t want to learn. I think human beings, by nature, are curious and want to learn. If you can change the system [use of grades, tests, etc.l you will get a system where kids will want to learn, not because they have to learn but because they are curious. (Fieldnotes, 4/l3/89) Another essential factor conducive to higher-order thinking and discourse in the classroom is a student-centered environment. Students need to feel comfortable with the teachers and with themselves before they begin the process of risk taking that comes with higher-order thinking. Students may not naturally challenge the opinions of the teacher or course reading material without being encouraged to do so by the teacher in an atmosphere where they do not feel there will be retribution. 205 Jackson (l968) described the pattern of a young elementary student adapting to the crowd (i.e., turn taking, seeking teacher attention, interacting with other students), the praise (from the teacher or authority), and the power that combine to give a distinctive flavor to classroom life and collectively form a “hidden curriculum“ that each student and teacher must master if the student is to make his/her way satisfactorily through school. The demands created by the hidden curriculum may be contrasted with the academic demands-~the official curriculum, so to speak--to which educators traditionally have paid the most attention. This pattern continues throughout the educational experience of the student. As might be expected, the two curricula are related, but in the case of Mr. Johnson’s class, his expectations often broke the traditional rules and patterns learned by the student. Students in Mr. Johnson’s class were encouraged to question or disagree with the teacher or to challenge the authority or written opinions of others. They were asked to seek their own answers to questions and their own questions to answer. They were asked to probe and react to their peers’ thoughts and ideas. They were expected to be aware of personalities dominating the book seminars. Mr. Johnson’s comment, “You need to be aware that when someone else is talking you are not,” was echoed throughout the book seminars. On occasion, these two curricula, the official and the hidden, came into conflict. I observed times when students, because of the demands other classes placed on their time and energy, simply were 206 not prepared to meet Mr. Johnson’s agenda and the rigorous pace of his daily discussions. He commented to me, "The kids just weren’t moving today. Their busy schedules are catching up with them." Jackie, one of my informants, stated at one such time, “Sometimes I wish this class was more like some of my other classes [she did not specify which ones]. I can just read the material, listen to the lecture, take notes, take the test, and not worry too much about anything else.” After reflecting on her conlnent, however, she stated, "I really do like Mr. Johnson and the chance he gives us in class to get into some interesting discussions about the Sixties.“ This comment was from a conscientious student who was interested in history and usually an active participant in class discussions. Higher-order thinking demands much energy from both the teacher and the student. Mr. Johnson sustained a high energy level throughout the semester. The students, on the other hand, found it more diffi- cult to keep up with his pace because of other demands on their time. Mr. Johnson was not unaware of this problem and often adjusted his teaching schedule and strategies accordingly. The students had some classes in which they were given a break from preparing for class discussion. They watched a documentary or a video (£yg_gn_1hg Prize, jlhg friendly game), viewed a movie (W. Easy Rider, 1, Hair), read and discussed a special reading (”Student as Nigger,“ "New York Critique of Z,” “Excerpt From W”), or had time off when their book seminar group was not scheduled to meet. These variations also served the purpose of adding viewpoints 207 and opinions of others through different media for comparison and discussion. WEN An evaluation process must be geared to promote higher-order thinking. Mr. Johnson expressed on more than one occasion the "weight of accountability for evaluation of his students. He had to come up with grades for each student to assess performance in a way that would not inhibit their progress toward mastery and higher- order learning. This proved to be a dilemma for Mr. Johnson, as it is for most teachers. It is much easier to give information, test for that information, and then assess performance on the test for the information than it is to determine whether a process is being learned and internalized. The two-day test was decidedly a content, product-oriented activity, and students’ scores were reflected in their final grade for the course. However, this activity was consistent with Mr. Johnson’s belief that knowledge of content plays a part in learning. In the other course requirements, however, Hr. Johnson’s response to facilitate the mastery/higher-order learning disposition was continual feedback and dialogue with the students. The original research paper, for example, provided an opportunity for feedback and dialogue at various stages of its development. In the beginning, with the selection and focus of the topic, the students were asked to fill out a sheet on their proposed topic and then were given written feedback from Mr. Johnson at a scheduled conference 208 with him. At various intervals during the writing of the paper, Mr. Johnson encouraged students to make an appointment with him to discuss their progress. Upon completing the paper, students were given a written evaluation sheet and had an opportunity to discuss low scores in certain areas and improve on them unless the paper had been turned in late. This type of on-going feedback and dialogue enabled students to work at the mastery and higher-order level. They were not simply doing the work to get a grade and to meet the subjective expectations of the teacher, but both teacher and students were working together to explore the subject for mutual satisfaction and learning. The book seminars also provided on-going feedback. There were three scheduled seminars, with feedback after each one. This time, part of the feedback came from group members themselves, who were encouraged to meet beforehand and discuss their books. By the final seminar, all groups had determined that meeting beforehand was the most effective way to organize the seminar. They were also encour- aged to respond as a group to the discussion following the book seminar. Mr. Johnson was doing the evaluation of the group, but he shared part of his evaluation as feedback for improvement the next time. Mr. Johnson modeled the behaviors that he would be evaluating, so the students were not asked to behave in a manner unfamiliar to them. In classroom discussions, as part of a conscious effort on his part, he directed the group, whenever possible, away from 209 dominating personalities seeking to control the discussion. Mr. Johnson and I discussed this behavior in many of our after-class conversations. He wanted all students to be involved in the discussions, and when one student tried to dominate the class (and the other students let him/her), he became very frustrated. He wanted them to be aware of this in their book seminars. Mr. Johnson provided a diagram of interactional patterns and commented on these patterns during his feedback evaluation at the end, to be sure that each person contributed and that the conversation was not dominated by one individual. He challenged written authority, offering alternative thinking and new answers to old questions; he gave them different viewpoints through literature, guest speakers, and selected readings; he acknowledged that some problems in history had no "right” answers; he brought his own experiences, as well as those of students, into the discussions; and he made learning a ”shared” experience, as he called it, among all participants. e v u r Mr. Johnson was able to promote higher-order thinking because he made a conscious effort to cover the material in depth rather than a prescribed set of information in breadth. This is consistent with Newmann’s and Onosko’s observations on teachers who rated high in thoughtful classrooms. Mr. Johnson stated on many occasions that he could not be bound by a ”table of contents" but that in his teaching he looked at content in depth from many different approaches. 210 An example of this is Mr. Johnson’s coverage of racism to include attitudes from the Sixties, the Seventies, and the present. He began covering the topic by showing the film W, a documentary on racism in the United States in the Fifties and Sixties. Students were able to compare this viewpoint with O’Neill’s coverage in their text. On another occasion, students were asked to relate their first experiences with racism (see Chap- ter V). Another activity had them viewing a short film, 111: MM- At first glance, the film was simply a chess game between a black man and a white man. Upon deeper analysis, however, the viewer could begin to see the deep-seated stereotypes and atti- tudes on the part of both participants in the chess game. This movie was shown twice; the dialogue from the movie was typed and distributed to the students after the second showing (see Appendix C, pp. 257-259). This prompted in-depth analysis on the part of the students (Fieldnotes, 4/5-6/89). Students were asked during the same week to examine, in small groups, some advertising from the Sixties for possible discrimination and stereotypes. They were then asked to present their findings to the class. Students were able to discuss the subtleties of discrimination in advertising and its underlying effect on the reader (Fieldnotes, 4/ll-l2/89). Students had books dealing with racism and prejudice as part of their seminar book list. As a final activity on the effects of racism, they were given Farber’s "Student as Nigger" to read and discuss. Mr. Johnson comented, ”I want them to turn the experience inward to see if 211 there are any parallels in their own lives with stereotyping and racism.” In the research paper, students were asked to explore in depth a topic of their own choice, formulating questions or hypotheses to which they would find answers. In the book seminars they were to explore the literature and writing of the Sixties and Seventies. Providing this in-depth coverage of a subject allowed them to 'go beyond knowledge into the emotional experience of the ideas behind it,” as Mr. Johnson described it in an interview. It also allowed the students to see a wealth of viewpoints and opinions on the subject, using literature, documentaries, advertising, each other’s experiences, and their teacher’s experience. They were able to analyze and contrast these opinions with their own, which is characteristic of higher-order thinking. io ' s T Mr. Johnson and the researcher identified the sociopolitical contexts given in Figure 3 (p. 68). In our interview (4/l7/90), we examined his perception of the effect that each of the contexts had had on his classroom teaching. Mr. Johnson indicated that the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) and the Independent Schools Association of Central States (ISACS), the two main professional organizations, empowered him as a teacher. Their traditions and high standards gave him authority and academic freedom, and at the same time, he felt obliged to uphold the tradition of excellence for which they 212 stand. It is noted here that Mr. Johnson, who was not initially trained to be a teacher, could be certified under the new guidelines for certification proposed by NAIS because state certification and an education degree are not prerequisites. He did go on to take the required courses for state certification, however, to meet Lakeview’s standards. The regional professional and political organization, ISACS, also mandates a year-long self-evaluation study every six years. Under its guidance, a great deal of rigorous self-examination takes place. This is a time for the school, the History Department, and classroom teachers to see if they are doing what they say they are doing in all of their documents about themselves. This facilitates dialogue within the department and self-evaluation of existing programs. Mr. Johnson believed the administrative staff was supportive, stood behind him, and gave him the academic freedom to carry out professional responsibilities consistent with his beliefs, goals, and objectives. He felt the weight of accountability to the school and to the students. His statement, 'If we aren’t doing the job . we won’t have the students," brings up an interesting dilemma for education. Public schools, at least in many large urban areas, face the increasing problem of school closings simply because of lack of students or lack of funding, with no correlation or accountability to the quality of education they are providing. However, teachers and administrators in the private school setting feel the need to be accountable for providing a quality education, 213 or they will not have students. Consequently, the teachers and administrators would not have jobs. This is a contradiction to Mr. Johnson’s earlier comment that parents and alumni had little influence on his teaching. Perhaps he did not regard their influence on him personally but on Lakeview, the school. Mr. Johnson thought the students exerted a great deal of influence over his teaching, as would be expected in a student- centered learning environment. He was sensitive to I'reading" the students. He knew when to probe, when to prod, when to praise, and when to send them off with a scolding and an admonition to come prepared the next day. Mr. Johnson believed he had academic freedom and support from his administration to do this. He looked to his own experience and intuition to guide him and believed strongly enough in his ideas and beliefs about teaching/learning to justify his actions. This is teacher empowerment balanced, as it were, by a high degree of accountability. Two other factors exist with regard to the sociopolitical contexts of this study. The first is the inclusion of higher-order discourse characteristics in the eight goals of Lakeview School. The importance of articulating clear academic goals for a school has been stated as part of effective schools research (Joyce et al., l983). Lakeview recognizes higher-order discourse characteristics, and their inclusion in the academic goals of the school attests to their importance to the curriculum. In doing this, school personnel are identifying these characteristics for their constituents, 214 especially teachers, parents, and students, and to a lesser degree the national, regional, and local professional organizations. The second factor is Lakeview’s concern for input from the sociopolitical contexts. The Inventory discussed in Chapter IV was administered in fall 1989 to the parents, students, and teachers of Lakeview. It had been administered six years before, in fall l983. This shows a concerted effort on the part of the school to seek input from sociopolitical constituents on a regular basis, in addition to providing data for self-study. This information gives Lakeview a more accurate picture of its constituents’ opinions and perceptions rather than solely those of the limited few who offer positive or negative comments voluntarily. The administration of a survey like this is both costly and time consuming, but it serves the purpose of identifying strengths and weaknesses as perceived by the constituents and allows these perceptions to be addressed. h f of l e e A t nce an n This brief section is included here because of the effect of college acceptance and rejection on the students as observed in the classroom. As an observer of Mr. Johnson’s class for one semester, who got to know the personalities and behaviors of the students, I could not help but be aware of the disruptive effect college acceptance and rejection had on the students in this learning environment. I wondered if it carried over into their other classes. I would see students come to class in tears or very silent and pensive, only to discover from my informants or Mr. Johnson that 215 they had received a letter of rejection that morning. These reactions underlie the fact that a student’s future, at least getting into the college of his/her choice, is tied to the performance disposition, no matter what he/she might think about learning or knowledge. Higher-order thinking is not assessed by colleges looking for applications, nor does it show up in GPAs or in SAT scores. Jackie, after receiving a rejection letter from Brown, simply could not understand it and felt totally at a loss to explain why, because her SAT scores (650 Verbal, 680 Math) matched Brown’s requirement (640 Verbal, 670 Math), and her GPA was over 3.00. For several weeks, until she was accepted by Georgetown University, her participation in class was observed to be much less enthusiastic. Mr. Johnson stated, ”When the colleges reject the kids, you’ve lost them, and if they come back at all it is only tentatively." Some teachers have to bear all the sorrow of their advisees in this period of turmoil, adding another burden to their already frantic lives. He said that he wanted the students to discuss Farber’s article, "Student as Nigger," to let all of the angst they were dealing with come out in a discussion with their peers. The situation also can work in reverse. Youngsters who are accepted to the college of their choice often think they have the world by the tail and lose their commitment to learn for the rest of the semester. It is almost as though someone has given them the freedom to take the semester off because their future is secure. 216 In all the literature I examined about improving the school experience in secondary schools, I found no mention of this phenomenon. For this reason, in the brief biography of each of the students in Chapter IV, I indicated what college they would attend in the fall and whether it was their first choice. My, Jghnsgn Bgyjsjtgg There came a point, near the end of this research, when I wondered if what I had witnessed, analyzed, and interpreted as an ethnographer was simply a unique collection of information on a teacher and his students, frozen in time through my audiotapes, fieldnotes, documentation, and interview data. What was the information really saying to me? Would this information serve a purpose to others? Was it an experience unique to the personalities that came together for that semester, or would Mr. Johnson’s teaching practices be adaptable to other students in other classrooms and settings? Would his teaching have been as dynamic without a dominating Stuart, a sensitive Jackie, an enthusiastic Josh, a reticent Holden, or the enigmatic Wolfgang? Would Mr. Johnson’s teaching style produce similar reactions from a whole new group of personalities? It was with these questions in mind and at the encouragement of my guidance committee that I asked permission to visit Mr. Johnson’s class again one year later. Perhaps the answers to these questions might provide further insight into my findings and conclusions. I specifically asked to visit the week of the second book seminar 217 because I thought this was the activity that captured Nr. Johnson’s spirit and teaching style and determined whether the students had begun to internalize higher-order thinking. The week of April 23, l990, I entered the classroom. The room location had changed, but the conditions still felt the same. There were four unfamiliar faces. The students were sitting in a circle and the dialogue was getting under way. I slipped in beside Mr. Johnson, with my fieldnote pad (I was not audiotaping these observations), and noticed that he was drawing an interactional- pattern diagram, just as he had in the past. I carefully listened to the dialogue. Stuart was not there, but Craig (a pseudonym) had taken his place. The pronounced English accent of Benjamin (also a pseudonym) echoed the same enthusiasm that Joshua had for the ”shared" experience, which the book seminar represented to some of the students. Robert questioned, "So how does this relate to the Sixties?” James responded, ”A lot of people are against the societal norm. We can speculate about those people who cut themselves out by what they say in their books.” Hr. Johnson’s comment to one group was, “Did we really accomplish anything as a group, or were we all here for ourselves? I think you are really a fascinating combination waiting to come together, but what can you do to accomplish this?" Their interactional patterns reflected that Craig had somewhat dominated the discussion, much as Stuart had dominated the group the year before. 218 To another group of students, who were somewhat nervous and stiff, the teacher said, 'Get to know each other and your books and come in next time to have a good time." The last group was not as successful as they had been the first time because they had not met together beforehand. Mr. Johnson pointed this out to them. This came out in their post-discussion, and they realized they had not discussed the topics and books with the same enthusiasm as in their previous seminar. Some of it was blamed on their other course commitments, but they all vowed to meet together in preparation for the last seminar and to bring the enthusiasm back again. In summary, the groups were remarkably similar to those I observed the preceding year, even with different personalities. Mr. Johnson’s actions and reactions were also similar and even predictable to a certain degree to this researcher. This told me that Mr. Johnson’s pedagogy remained much the same and produced similar results with the students. What I had observed initially was not a group of unique personalities meeting together but the resulting pattern of behavior based on social interaction guided by Mr. Johnson. W This dissertation began with the poem, ”The Bridge Builder," by W. A. Dromgoole (l948). The bridge builder provides a metaphor to represent Mr. Johnson and countless teachers who daily build bridges of knowledge and ways to use that knowledge for the students in their classrooms. The poem implies that their journey is not always 219 easy and requires the teacher’s commitment to the student. He also speaks of the journey that the bridge builder has already traveled, just as we, as educators, have also traveled the path of the student. It becomes important that the metaphor of teacher as bridge builder be carried further into research. Teachers are building a bridge for research to study education and educational practices. To do this, we must look at the beliefs and practices of the teachers who are performing the daily tasks of educating America’s students. Researchers must not look at curriculum per se, but what a teacher can do with a curriculum. They should look at the complexities of the teaching profession with respect to what educators are expected to accomplish under varied conditions. We must examine how their beliefs and thoughts on teaching and learning are reflected in their practices, and we must not forget the sociopolitical contexts that influence these practices. Further, we must look to teachers as practitioners who respect knowledge and learning and who are committed to helping students along the path in their educational experiences. Nor should research overlook the student. Researchers should look at how it feels to be a student in a classroom today; they should examine students’ perceptions of knowledge and learning and how it is socially constructed in the classroom. This examination can help determine how we can educate students to use higher-order thinking and to be productive and involved citizens of the future 220 with an understanding of their past and an appreciation of their own perceptions and experiences. Shaver and Larkins (l973), in their chapter, ”Research on Teaching Social Studies,” noted that classroom ethnography is important to research on teaching social studies, and it may be comforting to know that research using this approach is in progress. They concluded the chapter by suggesting modifications in the traditional approach to research on teaching social studies and suggested that "there are alternative research strategies, such as ethnography, which may be more appropriate to certain research tasks" (p. l258). The study of Mr. Johnson raises questions for future research. Among these are: 1. How do college-bound students cope with the dilemma of taking risks versus going for the grade? 2. How would a student with the achievement learning disposition fare in a classroom like Mr. Johnson’s, in which mastery and higher—order thinking dispositions are the goals? 3. How are high school seniors affected by college acceptance and rejection in their senior year? How do teachers deal with this trauma in their classrooms? 4. How do teachers perceive the process/product controversy as influencing their classroom teaching? What role does administrator and colleague input play in this perception? 221 5. What does pedagogy to promote higher-order thinking look like in other subject areas (math, English, the sciences) at the high school level? These are just a few of the questions that surfaced for further research. It also would be interesting to do a follow-up study on the students in Mr. Johnson’s classroom to see how they succeed in college. At the beginning of this chapter, the reader was challenged to bring his/her own experiences to the findings and conclusions. It is hoped that by doing this the reader also will generate questions for further research, making reading this document a shared experience of the kind that Mr. Johnson espouses. If that occurs, the metaphor will be complete and the bridge builder will indeed have accomplished a major first step. REFERENCES Aikin, W. (1942). T o ht . New York: Harper & Brothers. Ames, C, & Ames, R. (Eds. ). (1985). R c ti in edgcetien: V9). 2, The elessneem milieu. Orlando, FL: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ames, R. & Ames, C. (Eds. ). (1984). r m ti t' n in edueetien: Vel. I, Student netiyetien. Orlando, FL: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Anyon, J. (1981). In H. Giroux & W. Pinar (Eds.), Currieglun ene insiynetien (pp. 317-341). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Apple, M. (1979). d r ' l m. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Archbald, D., 8 Newmann, F. (1988). s nda iz d in -- A sessin aut nti a emi ch m nt n sengol. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Armento, B. (1986). Research on teaching social studies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hendbggk gf :eseeneh en teeehing (3rd ed., pp. 942-951). New York: Macmillan. Atkinson, J. (1964). An_ininegneijnn_ie_ngiiyetien. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Ball, 5. (Ed.). (1977). untiyetien_in_egneetien. New York: Academic Press. Barr, R., Barth, J. L., & Shermis, S. S. (1977). Defining_ine seejel_singiese_flnlletin_§1. Arlington, VA: National Council for the Social Studies. Barton. L., & Walker. 5- (l98l). 55W- Sussex, England: Falmer Press. Barzun, J. (1945). Ine_teeenen_1n_Aneniee. Boston: Little, Brown. 222 223 Bennett. H. (1987). James_uad1s9na__A.2urrisulum_£2r_American students Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Bennett. W.. & Finn. C. (1986). Wnat_uecks;;8esearch_abeut ' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Berger. P.. & Luckman. T. (1966). Ihe_secial_censtructien_e£ reelity. New York: Anchor Press. Berlak. A.. & Berlak. H. (1981). D11emmas_e£_seheeling;__leaching end_seeiel_enenge. London: Methuen. Beyer, B. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? fieeiel Edusatien. 52(4). 270-276- Bloom, 8. (1956). Tax m n b'e v n t' om n. New York: McKay. Bloom, 8. (1974). Time and learning. Anenieen_£syennlegist, 22, 682-688. Bloom, B. (1980). A11_eun_enilgyen_leenning. New York: McGraw- Hill. Bogdan, R. C., a Biklen, S. K. (1982). Quelitetiye_neseenen_fen duc ' ’n ' nd m th . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Boyer, E. L. (1983). High seheel: A repent en seeengeny egueetign in Ameniee. New York: Harper & Row. Brophy, J. (1970). v ' te h t'v ear . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Associa- tion of Colleges of Teacher Education, Chicago, IL. Brophy, J. (1980). Teaenens’ eegnitiye eetivities end eyert ' (Occasional Paper No. 39). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Brophy, J. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Eguee; tignal_E§xsh91991§t. 18. 200-215. Brophy. J. (1985). Ieacher_ses1al1zatien_as_a_mechanism_£er dexe1ening_student_motixatien_to_learn (Research Series No. 157). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Brophy, J. (1986). Qn_net1yeting_students (Occasional Paper 101). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. 224 Brophy, J. (1988). higher under applieetions df soeiel studies edntent (Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 3). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Broudy. H. (1972). WWW;- New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Bruner, J. (1961). Ine_nndeess_df_edueetidn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burgess, R. (1984). ° neseenen. London: Allen a Unwin. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Hendbeok df researen en teeening (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan. Chipman, S. F., Segal, J. W., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1985). h'n ' ° . guestidns. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Clark, C. M., & Lampert, M. (1986, September-October). The study of teacher thinking. W. 27-31. Clark, C. M., 8 Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), ndb k arc n hin (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1979). innee studies df teaenen plenning (Research Series No. 55). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching. Coleman, J. S. (1960). The adolescent subculture and academic achievement. Ameriean ddunnal df Seeielegy, §§, 337-347. Conant. J. (1959). law. New York: McGraw-Hill. Conelly, E., & Clandinin, D. (1988). Ieeenens_es_eunnieulun Wm- New York: Teachers College Press. Costa, A. (1985). v ° thinning Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press. Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Edueetidne1_nsyendldgy (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World. Cuban, L. (1984). ow ch r Amenieen_elessnedms New York: Longman. 225 Curti, M. (1963). T d Patterson, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Cusick. P. (1973). Ins1de_h1gb_school;__1he_student:s_world. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Cusick. P. (1983). Ihe_e9a11tar1an.1deal_and_the_American_high senedl. New York: Longman. deCharms, R. (1984). Motivation enhancement in educational settings. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Beseenen_dn_ndtiyetidn in edueatidn; le. I, Student netiyetidn. Orlando, FL: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Delamont. 5. (1983). Interact19n_1n_tbe_slassroom (2nd ed.). London: Methuen. Delamont, S. (1984). ea ° 5 i 1 London: Methuen. Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebreske synpdsjun on ndtivetien (pp. 275-319). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Qemdeneey in edueetidn; An intndduetidn tn the phildsdpny ef edueetion. New York: Macmillan. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. v ew r r n ’ . Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Dromgoole, W. (1948). The bridgebuilder. In C. F. Lytle (Ed.), Leeves ef gdld (p. 132). Williamsburg, PA: Coslett Publish- ing. Dweck, C. W. (1986). Mental processes affect learning. Amerieen Esxshnlngist. 51. 1040-1048- Engle, S., & Ochoa, A. (1988). ° r o n- ' ' ° New York: Teachers College Press. Ennis, R. H. (1962). A concept of critical thinking. fienyend Educational_8ex1ew. 32(1). 81-111. Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds. ), leaching th1n_1ng_sk11ls:__Iheorx_and_nrastice (p 10) New York: H. Freeman & Co. 226 Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In N- C- Wittrock (Ed.). flandbook_o£_research_on_teashing (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. Evertson, C., & Green, J. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), r teething (3rd ed., pp. 162-213). New York: Macmillan. Farber. J. (1970). Ihe_student_a§ nigger: Essaxs_and_steries. New York: Pocket Books. Feely, T., Jr. (1976). Critical thinking: Toward a definition, paradigm and research agenda. Iheorx_and_8eseanch_1n_§ecial Education. 1(1)- Feiman-Nemser, S., a Floden, R. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In N- C: Nitrock (Ed-1. flandbook_o£_researcb_on_teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. Flanders, N. A. (1970). l ' s u h vi . New York: Addison-Wesley. Flesch. R. (1955). th_Johnnx_can’t read--And_what_xou_can_do ebdut it. New York: Harper & Row. Geer, B. (1969). First days in the field: A chronicle of research in progress. In G. McCall & J. L. Simmons (Eds.), pentieinent_dnsenyetion: A text end needen (pp. 152-153). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Geertz, C. (1973). h n r r ti n 1 . New York: Basic Books. Giroux, H. (1978).. Writing and critical thinking in the social studies. Cunnieuiun Inguirx. §(4). Glaser. 8.. a Strauss. A. (1967). Ihe_discoxerx_o£_grounded tnedny. Chicago: Aldine. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1984). Legging_in_elessndens (3rd ed.). New York: Harper a Row. Goodlad, J. (1984). future. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greene, M. (1978). Lendseenes_df_leenning. New York: Teachers College Press. Gross. 8.. a GrosS. R. (1985). Ihe_9reat_sshool_debate;__flnich_wax fen_Anenieen_edueetien1 New York: Simon a Schuster. 227 Grossnickle, D., 8 Thiel, W. (1988). Endndting_effeetiye_student ndtivatidn in sehddl end elessnddn; A pnactitidnen’s perspee- tiye. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Hammersley, M., 8 Atkinson, J. (1983). Etnnegnennyt__£nineinles_in greetiee. London: Travistock Publications. Hill, K. (1980). Motivation, evaluation and educational testing policy. In J. L. Fyans (Ed.), m ° trends_in_theorx_and_research. New York: Plenum. Hirsch, E. (1987). ° td knew. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Holt, J. (1964). Hdw children feil. New York: Dell. Hunt, M. P., 8 Metcalf, L. (1968). ' i o s i 1 studies. New York: Harper 8 Row. v r' Jackson, P. (1968). ife room . New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston. Johnson, D., 8 Johnson, R. (1985). Motivational processes in cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning situations. In C. Ames 8 R. Ames (Eds.), Reseergh dn ivat uc i n° 1 ssr ' ieu. Orlando, FL: Academic Press/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Jones, 8., Palincsar, A., Ogle, D., 8 Carr, E. (1987). §tnetegie e instnuetidn in the en e t teeching end leerning: Cognitiv c t n eneas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press. Joyce, 8., 8 Harootunian, B. (1967). Ine_stnueture_df_teeening. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Joyce, 8., Hersh, R., 8 McKibbin, M. (1983). Ine_stnuetune_df sendd1_innndyenent New York: Longman. Joyce, 8., 8 Morine, G. (1976). ,££§§I109_1h2_§§0991- Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Kierkegaard, S. (1962). ' r eutndn. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Kohlberg, L. (1981). h m ° stages_and_the_idea_o£ciustice. New York: Harper 4 Row- LeCompte, M., 8 Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Beyieu_df_£dueetidne1 Rm: 5.2.: 31-60- 228 Levine, J. (1983). Social comparison in education. In J. Levine 8 M. Wang (Eds.), ° fdn_1eenning. New York: Erlbaum. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., 8 White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Jdunnel of , 19, 271-299. Lightfoot. S. (1983). MW ten_end_eu1tune New York: Basic Books. Likert, R., 8 Likert, J. (1980, April). New resources for improv- ing school administration. NA§§£_Bu11etin. Lippman, M. (1988, September). Critical thinking--What can it be? Edueetidnel Leadership, pp. 38-43. Lortie, D. (1973). Observations on teaching as work. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.). MW (99- 474-497). 'Chicago: Rand McNally. Lortie, D. (1975). Senddlteeenen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marshall, J. (1985). Honors: An educational criticism. In E. Eisner (Ed.). W211 (pp. 296-3221- New York: Macmillan. May, W. (1985). h n : w - yeen_eese_study Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University. Mayer, R. E. (1983). ' i o v ’ n. New York: W. H. Freeman. McCutcheon, G. (1982). tb c n i lement r sendel. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. McDonald, J. (1975). Curriculum theory. In W. Pinar (Ed.), tunnieulun_tnedyizing. Berkeley: McCutchan. Mehan, H. (1979). ' elessnddn Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morrissett. 1. (Ed.). (1982). MAW . Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. National Association of Independent Schools. (1989). fenun. S. Clem (Ed.). Boston, MA: Author, Fall 1989. 229 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A_netidn ' ' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Council for the Social Studies. (1979). Revision of the NCSS curriculum guidelines. 59$131_EQU211120. 55, 261-278. Newmann. F . (1988a). WWW studies. Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Newmann. F. (I988b) W31 ‘0 ' n1 0 . r00 ,1. . Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. F."— Newmann, F. (l988c). Higher order thinking in the teaching of social studies: Connections between theory and practice. In D. Perkins, J. Segal, 8 J. Voss (Eds.), interne1_neesdning_end edueetidn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Oliver, D. W., 8 Shaver, J. F. (1966). leeening publie issues in tne_nign_sendd1. Logan: Utah State University Press. O’Neill, W. (1971). ° f m in_tne_12§Q;s. New York: Time Books/Random House. Onosko, J. (1988). Exploring aspects of teachers’ thinking about promoting students’ thinking In WW1: sshgol sdciel studies; An enelys is df elessrddns, tea ener rs, d an 1 er hi . Madison. University of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Passow, H. (1984). Tackling the reform reports of the 19805. Eni Delte Kannan. §§(10), 674-683. Perkins, D., 8 Salomon, G. (1988, September). Teaching for trans- fer. We. pp. 22-32- Perrone, V. (1985). r h -- s o - er' Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Powell, A., Farrar, E. 8 Cohen, 0. (1985). Ine_sndnning_ne11_nign ‘00‘ .ll 0 11":_-1:-'ar‘--‘ Boston, MA: Houghton- -Mifflin. Ravitch, D., 8 Finn, C. (1987). Whet dd due 12 yeen d]ds knee; A ‘H n 1' . Y‘ 1: H - ‘ 11‘: 0 I 0 :1: ' .- tune. New York: Harper 8 Row. 230 Roberts. L. (1988)- MW 1‘ -.. :"C.5"1‘-.11"-11':- 1-.1°1 sendel_elessnddn. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1988. Rosaen. C. (1988). WILLOW ti r (Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 6). East Lansing: Michigan State Univer- sity, Institute for Research on Teaching. Rutter, M. Maughn, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., 8 Smith, A. (19791.5flew4hmsangmmndamchegls3mm ,effeets_dn_enildnen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ryan, R. M., Chandler, C., Connell, J., 8 Deci, E. (1983). inter; i mo v i ° m limin r e - netieel_sdeeuletidns. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, MI. Schatzman, L., 8 Strauss, A. (1973). Eield_neseenen. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Schulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Whittrock (Ed.), Hendbddk df neseereh on teeening (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Sedlak, M., Wheeler, C., Pullin, D, 8 Cusick, P. (1986). Selling _e'1 o ' . on .. o. I .nd. .0 m sforu h- Anenieen_nign_senddl. New York: Teachers College Press. Shaver, J., 8 Larkins, G. (1973). Research on teaching social studies. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), ond §_e_c___h3n_db9_p_k_g£ [eseenen dn teething (pp. 1243-1262). Chicago: Rand McNally. Sizer, T. (1984). ce’ m is : Ihe djl n h o 1. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Smith, L. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observations, educational ethnography, and other case studies. In L. Shulman. (Ed.). WW (Vol. 6). Itasca, IL: Peacock. Steinberg, A. (1988). Testing: Is there a right answer? Ine fienyend_£dueetien_tetten. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sternberg, R. (1985). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. In F. Link (Ed. ), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 231 Sternberg, R. J., 8 Wagner, R. K. (Eds.). (1986). Prettieel 1t: -en -° L: - .1o . . 1 . .m.- -n 1 h: - e 1. nerld, New York: Cambridge University Press. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Besie nrineidles df eurrieulum end instrue- tidn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Unks, G. (1979). It bears repeating: The eight-year study. flign W9 £2.98: 350'353 - Wagner, H. (1983, September). Fifteen ways to improve classroom teaching/learning. NASSE Bulletin. PP. 22-24. Webb, E., Campbell, 0., Schwartz, R., Sechrest, L. 8 Grove, J. (1966). sive a e ° soeiel seiences. Chicago: Rand McNally. Weber, M. (1978). The nature of social activity. In W. C. Runciman (Ed.), Weber: Selectidn in trensletidn (pp. 7-32). Cambridge, Engl: Cambridge University Press. (Originally published in Wirtsenaft und gesellseneft, Vol. 1, pp. l-l4. Lubingen, 1922.) Weiner, B. (1972). heor of v n: m ani eegnitidn. Chicago: Rand McNally. White, M. (1977). Social motivation in the classroom. In 5. Ball (Ed.), Mdtjvetion in edueetidn. New York: Academic Press. APPENDIX A GUIDELINES, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND INVENTORIES 232 233 Steps to Be Considered in Conducting an Observational Research Study (Evertson 8 Green, 1986, p. 206) Define question: What questions are pressing to me? Are they meaningful? Define terms. Define assumptions about the subject to be observed. Locate past research and consider how this work bears on the question. Take a constructive perspective. Go beyond criticism to consider alternatives to overcome problems of past work or issues not considered. Ask: How is the present or proposed approach better? Think about how to show predictive power of the alter- native approach. Define grade level and subject matter of interest. Define aspects of the topic (e.g., content, delivery, social aspects) that are to be studied. What dimensions of the question will be looked at in what time frame (e.g., weekly, daily, yearly): Define strategies with which to answer questions. Consider: 1. Which have been used previously? Which are available for use? What is important to collect? How are data to be analyzed? Is special training needed to use the approach or strategy? 0'!th Define next study to be done after this one. Consider the program of research. What are the limitations of the study? What statements can or cannot be made? Specify the issues, questions, phenomena that both intrigue and/or excite curiosity. Identify the whole; delimit the topic specifically. Consider the perspectives or points of view from which to consider the question (e.g., student, teacher, observer, combination, etc.). How can teacher, hour, materials, students, and so forth, which are important to the topic, be conceptually related? 234 Consider the levels of context (e.g., micro or macro). Define terms and get descriptors. Clearly define and delineate topic. State questions and rationale clearly so that others can know what the question is. Identify related theories. What topics relate to the specific topic? Identify the scope of information needed to delimit the topic fully. Explicitly state assumptions about the phenomena, about the knowledge we have. What is the groundwork underlying my question? What other questions might relate to the question? Determine whether hypotheses exist to be tested or whether the purpose of the study is to generate questions to be tested within and across studies. What do I know about the topic? What are my own experiences? Work? What is required in state/local curriculum guides? What are ”real time" constraints (e.g., curricula, schedules, access, etc.)? What can be drawn from others’ experiences that might help (e.g., other teachers, friends, etc.)? At each step, what are the trade-offs for the decisions made? 235 TEACHER THINKING AS IT RELATES TO PROMOTING HIGHER-ORDER STUDENT THINKING (Adapted from Onosko, 1988) TEACHING PRIORITIES/GOALS Please rank the following goals in terms of priorities in your own personal goals (as opposed to school or history department goals) toward teaching social studies. The ranking is from 1 to 10, with the first being the most important with the highest priority and the tenth being least important with the lowest priority. ___Develop critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities ___Teach facts, concepts, and theories of history and the social sciences ___Teach past and present problems and issues faced by the U.S. and the world Teach social values and foster citizenship Develop creative thinking abilities Develop reading and writing abilities Develop discussion skills Teach students how to study, take notes, and learn Develop self-confidence and self-esteem Other GOALS THAT FOCUS LESSON PLANNING Please rank the following goals that focus your lesson planning in order of their importance to guiding your decisions about planning. They are ranked from 1 to 10, with the first goal being the most influential and the tenth being the least influential. ___Develop critical-thinking and problem-solving abilities ___Teach facts, concepts, and theories of history and the social sciences ___Teach past and present problems and issues faced by the U.S. and the world Teach social values and foster citizenship Develop creative thinking abilities Develop reading and writing abilities Develop discussion skills Teach students how to study, take notes, and learn gezelop self-confidence and self-esteem t er 236 TEACHER INTEREST/TEACHER SATISFACTION Would you say that, in general, exposing students to subject- matter content is a. more b. equally c. less interesting for you as a teacher as is developing students’ thought and reasoning processes? Rank the following items that give you satisfaction as a teacher from 1 to 4, with the first item giving you the most satisfaction and the fourth item giving you the least satisfaction. ___Students thinking .___Students responding Working with colleagues ___Lesson planning TEACHER ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS On the following Likert scale, rank the following potential bar- riers to promoting higher-order thinking in social studies: Extremely Extremely Negative Positive Large total number of students 1 2 3 4 5 Large class size 1 2 3 4 5 Large student course load 1 2 3 4 5 Short 45-minute class period 1 2 3 4 5 Large number of graduation requirements 1 2 3 4 5 Four or five class sessions per week 1 2 3 4 5 Student ability grouping l 2 3 4 5 THREE NISHES TO PROMOTE THINKING If you could choose three of the items below to promote student thinking in social studies, what would they be? Fewer students Freedom to cover less material Better curriculum materials Staff development to improve my teaching Paid leave of absence to think, read, or develop curriculum Team teaching Team/group planning More lesson planning time Peer observation Fewer classes per day Different group of students 237 STUDENT OPINION INVENTORY PARTA Thepurposeofthismweyiswasdstinharningmonabwtywrsdml'smaiond pmganmropinionsandatfimdesmofvitalimpa’tancemthieumsmenL mkmtammemmfightwwmgmmanswmngivewmbe completely confidential Donotsipymnameoridmtifyymnelfinanymy. Remembathatyomapinimsandatfimdawflludstochodpamndinmkingbeua decisionsregardingimpmvemmthmachod Directions Thefoflowingsmmudmibeawidevaduyofomdifimsrdaudmflwopaafimofm schooL Wewantwknowwwhatutentymagneadingruwitheachmtementl‘haefmin dicateyouropinionbymarldngeachstatunentufoflowo: Circle the SA if you STRONGLY AGREE with the “amt A ifyou AGREE butnotaumgly Uifyou are UNDECIDED D ifyou DISAGREE SD if you STRONGLY OISAGREE (NUPEdfymhavebeengimmmaheatmhtbmmuksudeoaibedmthem sheecifnocyoumaymrktlnlettastothedghtofachml Exemplalenjoymyclmm SA®U D SD hthisasethestudmtAGREESwitbtheMbutmtflmglmwAmmarked Turntothonextpogolndbogin. 11am SmdentOpinknm.PmAhWQIr-fldyd bopmchuedinqunfityfiun theNafimnlSmdyodeaoolEm W NATIONAL STUDY OF SCHOOL EVALUATION 5201 Leenburg Pike, Falls Church. Virginia 22041 CopyrightO ImbyNafiondSmdyofWMNomdeflmchhmy [om udthoutpfiorwfimmofficm 10. 11. 13. 14. 238 STUDENT OPINION INVENTORY PART A CircletbeSAifym STRONGLY AGREEwitbtbestatenmt A if you AGREE but not my U if you are UNDECIDED D if you DISAGREE SD if you STRONGLY DISAGREE . Iaminallthesmdentoctivitieo (clubs. plays. sports. music. etc.) that I want to be in .Inthesmdentactivitieainwhichl participate (clubs. plays. spouts. music. etc.) students uninvolved in planning all theactivities. . Iwouldfeelweloomeinalmstnll .‘I'hendultspanmintheactivitia thatlaminseemsinoaely Wintheactivitia. .mnrietyofacfividesisgnat mghsothateveryonecanfind enactivitythatmatcbeshlslha’ inta'est. . Iamsatisfiedwiththequnlityof . Teechersareoonoa'nedthnt students learn the subjecds) they teach. .Tenchersumllypovideanthe helpIneedwithusigmnents. . Tenchersdonotexplnindeuiy howassignnmtamtobedone. Mostteechasuewillingtogive omdentsindivithnlhelpoutsideof dastime. Fewmehersgiverneenmgh pamlenoomagunenthimy schoolwork. Sdioolooimsalu'sandloradvison givealltbehelpsmdentsneedin mausoleum; IngmaLIamnfisfiedwithtbe timelamgivenbyouroouneelaa. Sclnolootmselorsandla'ndvisms givesmdentsalltbehelptbey needintheeelectionofavoafim. SA SD 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Mymnelorisaooew‘bleiflneed hdphoolvingpa'sonalproblenn thdaproblemormggestmn' hthep'incipaLIeoulduamlly oaelimlberthatsameday. Inmlthepeopleintbe phfipal‘sofioeeeemtowe MMtsasindividuals. Imnfisfiedwiththewaythe ndnlinimfionincludasmdmts inmldngdedsionsabwtmtten wflcbdinctlyaffectthestudents idrumdaamanbfiesetcl. Imnfisfiedwiththepenonal meimipelgivee Montana-m our ednolwa'k. . lawmany' alloom'aework Mmammhxp' ' bummttbeyarestudying andtha'revaydayliva. 21. Innnotafmyclusworklam ufisfiedwiththemethodsusedto ”them 2?. mofwbatmygradeo myhlfeelthatinmostotmy Mmbiectshmleemingalot thin. 23. W'hanewakisnotvery Wmmdocbod abject; - 24. Alltllingamdaed.‘ studenteare ‘ Mantheyunfmm ' Maps-lam; Whithettbey"fitin"at arched. 26. Inmlmromnnnmityia 27. puddmnchool. “Sdlodqilfi”isvu'ypod. 99 SD SD SD SD 239 TEACHER OPINION INVENTORY PAHTA GidetheSAifymSI'RONGLYAGREEwiththem A Ifyou AGREE but m U “you In UNDECIDED D ifynu DISAGREE If ya: STRONGLY DISAGREE 1. Whenymneedtotnlktoln adminimmrqmanboowitb mlnfiveeue. z mmmmhmp divided. 10. Invirtmllyallmk 11. Insane-alarm“ 12. Studmtndoumgblndividml wakibothinandwtdchlto Inmwhntintmgbt. 18. 'I’eachcagivemflmtnllthelflp theyneedwitbthn’ncboolwak 14. WWW“ ““th m 16. ’l‘nchunmallomdhadanh diodecfiondtenchin‘m 16. Mummdnflyinvnlvedin WW 1?. Mtheedanin tbodedionoftacbingmetboh 18. Wmaflowedfnedanto puntdificmtpa'ntootviowm Missiles. 18. Oil-Itndmteueddom yumtivatedtodotbeirbutwk. muddle-chine. 22. Mudflats-Methods; Wammma ulnlrole’mlenrning. _ 23. magdmdmeolhfitour hue-1mm 24. tumor-81mm dualism 20. AbunaDtbmd-uwbwhbto hhdfledhdonlmfiviflun blinded. 2!. mammal-nun “Vida-housed WW 240 Circle the SA if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement AHymAGREEhItnotaUuigly UifyouaneUNDECIDED DifyouDISAGREE SD if you STRONGLY DISAGREE 28.11amverysatisfiedvviththe ‘3‘ “WW1“ 000855wa by “mic" MPH” aatisfied with bang‘ ateacher. SA A U D so problemsarehnndledbyother . teachers. SA A U D so “- mulleducationalpmgnm . ' oflaedtoatudentsisofhigh 29. lamverysausfiedmththeextent my. SA A U D SD towhichtheadnfinismtion includesstudentsinmaking decisions about matters which Are . . . . . . . . . ywaanafiedadlaaatiafiedmththeelnphamstlntm directly affect. d1scxplmeidreas - “of ' ' school? . I bliee. bangphoadon thefollomngareesmour etc.). 5* A U D 5” Faeaehitemmarkasfollowa: 30. Iflhaveadisciplineproblemthe A Vayaatisfied adminstration gives me the B. Satisfied supponlneed. SA A U D SD C. Neitheraatisfiedmrdiaaatiafied . . D. Dissatisfied 31. lamsausfiedmththeway . . studentsaresewedbyoounaela's. SA A U D SD E“ Verydissatnafied 321nm3atisfiedwiththeway annual“ am A B C D E studsnwm'mtedby dahlainaaaducatim A B c D E admmstrafitZ'athme SAAUDSD 47" l' ABCDE 33.1amsau's wi way 48. Engliahlangnagearta A B C D E teaches. studentsaretmatedby SAAUDSD 49.1'1 ABCDE 34- Featherewmselwe 50.1mlthandfitneas A B c D E ndmlmstrators give all the help . smdentsneedineolvingpersonal 51.11am. eoonomxea A B C D E pmbm SAAUDSD 52mm ABCDE 35.51] I and/oradviaors flmfimaledueau'on ABCDE giveallthehelpatudentamedin Min-thumb}: A B C D E programplanmng’. SAAUDSD Bananac' ABCDE 36. Schoolcounselorsandloradviaors 56.3de A B C D E givestudentsallthehelpthey 51mm A B C D E MEWMMOIIVOGUOTL SA A U D SD “mm“ A B C D E 37.1welcomepamt-initiatedoontact SA A U D SD 59, dmgeducau'on A B C D E 38. Teaclmstypicallyomtactmoatof comma... A B C D E theiratudents'parents. SAAUDSD armygfim ABCDE 39. Pamtahaveverylittlelmowledge abdividmfintion A B C D E abwttheachoolanditaprognm SAAUDSD 63mm A 3 c D E 40. 'I'heatatusofteacha'ainmr . Maidenllaaativethinkingfilla A B C D E ommnmfityishieh SAAUDSD adamant-cavities ABCDE 41. Forthcmostpartlamaatiafied Canadian-Item A B C D E withourachool. SA A U D so 42. Thachod'ap'iorifiesfa' Wefhndsarevery Wane. SA A U D SD APPENDIX 8 CONSENT FORMS AND HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL FOR PILOT STUDY AND ADDITIONAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH 241 242 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmmmmm MWODCHIGANOCD‘IIII WWW”) “mam (5171355479 Janaurya, 1989 W Mrs. Shirlev Nuss Dear Mrs. Nuss: Subject: 'INTERACTION AND PEDAGOGY IN TIDE CLASSROOM AS IT IS PERCENED BY THE PARTICIPANTS AND HOW IT BRINGS ABOUT CLASSROOM ENGAGEMENT W“ The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of human ctslubjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the resear You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this pro'ect beyond one year, please make provisions forgobtainins appmpriatc U appmvalmnmhpflnualanuamfi. Any chan es in rocedures involving human sulaects' must be reviewed the UCRfi-IS pri)or to initiation of the change. CRIHS must also be by notified promptly of any roblems (unexpected side efiects, complaints, etc.) involving human su jects during the course of the work. Thank on for bringing this project to our attention. Ifwe can be of any future elp, please do not hesitate to let us know. S'n rely, Hudzilt, Ph.D. ° , UCRIHS JKH/sar cc: .1. Alleman mun-WWW“.- 243 Student Interview/Parent Consent Form Dear Parents and Students, During the second semester of the 1988-1989 school year we will have a visitor in our classroom. Her name is Mrs. Shirley Nuss and she will be observing the classroom, taking notes, and audio taping (to insure accurate data) our class to learn more about interactional patterns, teaching pedagogy, and how it brings about classroom engagement. This work could possibly become part of the dissertation research on her doctoral degree from Michigan State University. Her presence in the classroom will be strictly in the capacity of an observer and will not in any way affect classroom instruction or student participation. Student and teacher confidentiality will be respected and pseudonyms will be used in all transcription of the data collected (which will be done by Mrs. Nuss) to insure that no student can be identified. She will be looking at some of the students’ work but in no way evaluating or commenting on it. If samples of student work are used, then student permission will be asked and confidentiality of the student submitting the work will be maintained. In order to gain insight into how the students perceive classroom interactional patterns and teaching pedagogy. Mrs. Nuss would like to conduct some formal and informal interviews with selected students lasting no longer than 30 minutes. The formal interviews will take place twice during the next three months and be held with both the student’s and the teacher’s permission. They will not be intrusive or disruptive and take place during a time when the student is not involved in academic activity or before or after class. Interview questions will relate only to the students’ perceptions of the classroom learning process and the information will not be shared with the teacher until after the data is transcribed with pseudonyms. These interviews will not be conducted with any student whose parents have not given their written permission on the attached consent form. The interviews will be audio taped to insure accuracy of the data but when they are transcribed, actual student names will not be used. This is with the understanding that the student may have the taping stopped at any time during the interview and may choose to have any portion of the tape deleted upon review of the recording. All of the data collected through observation, interviews, and student work will be treated with strict confidence and the students will remain anonymous. We hope that you will allow your son/daughter to participate in the study and we hope that it will prove a valuable experience for all involved. Please sign and return the attached consent form indicating whether you are willing to allow your son/daughter to be 244 interviewed. If you would like to know more about the interview procedures or about the research project itself please call Shirley Nuss at 478-2443. Sincerely, Mr. Johnson 245 Student Interview/Parent Consent Form Please check one of the following I do give my consent for my son/daughter to be interviewed. I do not give my consent for my son/daughter to be interviewed. I understand the questions asked in this interview can be shared with me upon my request, but individual student responses to these questions will not be shared with either the teacher or the parents until such time that the data is transcribed so the interviewee cannot be identified. All information will be handled with confidentiality. If information or sample work is used in the final report or subsequent reports, no student will be identified by their real name (fictitious names will be used). This interview is to gather information about classroom interactional patterns, pedagogy and class engagement through the student perspective and no experiments or treatments are involved. Mrs. Nuss is in no way providing instruction or evaluation to the classroom activities in her capacity as an observer. My son/daughter will be free to discontinue the interview at anytime without negative consequences. Please sign and return this consent form by Friday, January 12, l989. Signature of parent or guardian: Date: Student consent: I have read the information about the study being done in my classroom and have no further questions. Participation in the study is strictly voluntary and I have the option to choose not to participate. I understand that by signing below, I am consenting to participate in the interview process with the understanding that I may be free to discontinue participation in the study at any time without recrimination. Signature of the student: Date: 246 Teacher Consent Form I agree to participate in the research project, "Interactional Patterns, Pedagogy, and Classroom Engagement" carried out by Shirley Nuss for possible use in her dissertation research at Michigan State University. The purpose of this research has been explained, and as the teacher collaborator on this project, I understand I am expected to do the following: l. Allow my class to be observed and audio taped as I go about my normal routine of classroom instruction during the second semester at specified class times. This is with the understanding that I may interrupt, edit, or request that taping be stopped at any time. 2. Allow approximately six of my students to be interviewed by Shirley Nuss twice during the research project if permission has been granted by their parents and allow these interviews to be tape recorded for the use of the researcher with the students not identified by their real name. The information gained from these interviews may be used as part of the research data. 3. Meet with the researcher, Shirley Nuss, informally as she or I have questions about the project. 4. Take part in two formal interviews taking no longer than 15-20 minutes each with the understanding that some of the information will become a part of the research project but at no time will I (or my school) be identified. Allow the researcher to tape record these interviews to facilitate taking accurate notes on the interview with the understanding that I may interrupt, edit, or request that the taping be stopped at any time. 5. Allow the researcher to examine some of the documents connected with classroom learning (student assignments, projects, tests) and some samples of student work for possible use in the research project or subsequent projects. This is with the understanding that all original samples will be returned (although they may be photocopied if the student submitting them remains confidential) and that no student or teacher is identified by his/her real name. 6. Mrs. Nuss will be in the classroom as an observer and interviewer and will not be involved in any other capacity. 247 I understand that I may receive the following benefits as a result of my collaborative participation: 1. I will have the opportunity to discuss and gain information and insight into my own teaching practices which involve interactional patterns and promote student classroom engagement. 2. I may use the researcher as a resource to find out more information about teaching practices and student engagement from her inquiries into the subject. I also understand that the following precautions will be taken to protect against any abuse of confidentiality of data resulting from this study: l. All data collected will be kept confidential and reported without any individual identification of teacher, students, the school, or school district. 2. The raw data, (field notes, tape recordings, etc.) will not be used in any evaluation and will not be released to any personnel of the school district or the parents of students involved in the study. 3. I may waive my personal confidentiality should I wish to do so as in the case of co-authoring or co-presenting papers. In such case I will give the researcher written permission to identify me by name. Otherwise, pseudonyms will be used in all public presentations. 3. I may withdraw from the study at any time without recrimination. Teacher signature: Date: 248 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mmwmmma MWGOWOClfl-uu WWW “mam. (517)”!473. April I7. l990 IRB# 90-157 Mrs. Shirley Nuss Dear Mrs. Nuss: RE: 'LOOKING AT PEDAGOGY AS rr PREPARES HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS TO USE HIGHER-ORDER THINKING IRB# 90-157' The above project is exempt from full UCRIHS review. I have reviewed the proposed research protocol and find that the rights and welfare of human subjects appear to be protected. You have approval to conduct the research. You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you plan to continue this project beyond one year. please make provisions for obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval one month prior to April I7, I99l. Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects. complaints, etc.) involving human subjects during the course of the work. Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely J K. Hudzik, Ph.D. Chair, UCRIHS JKH/sar CC: J. Alleman Wham-“WWW 249 Teacher Consent Form: 1 agree to participate in the continuation of a research project conducted by doctoral student, Shirley Nuss, first piloted in my classroom (Ian-May 1969) with my full consent I understand am this additional data will then become part of the dissertation research Mrs. Nuss is carrying out for her degree at Michigan State University. I understand that I am free at any time to discontinue my participation in the research and that I have full control over editing any part of my interview comments that might at any time put me at rislt either professionally or personally. I understand the purpose of this research is to: 1. Mine teacher thought processes that promote higher order student discourse both oral and written in the classroom. 2. amino the contexts that influence classroom teaching (to; the history department, the school and its philosophy, student attitudes about learning etc.) and how they might influence a teacher's thinking about using higher order thinking strategies within the context of his own curriculum. 3. Emine the feelings of the teacher about the student learning dispositions, both performance and the mastery learning dispositions, how he sees these two dispositions working together and how he sees the two dispositions in conflict With one another. 4. Emmlne the teaching strategies that you feel are most conducive to higher order thinking in our classroom. in order to find the answers to some of these questions, I agree to be interviewed (with the interview tape-recorded for accuracy of data collection) by Mrs. Nuss with the full understanding that l have the right 250 accommodate my busy schedule. All steps have been taken to insure my confidentiality and the confidentiality of my school. That all raw data will transcribed With pseudonyms as it was in the pilot study. That the raw data will not used in any way for evaluation and will not be released to any one in this form. In agreeing to continue this research I have the right to withdraw at any time without recrimination. Teacher signature: 251 APPENDIX C TEACHER-GENERATED DOCUMENTS AND STUDENT HORK 252 60'- 1. 2. 5* Politics and War: Pall. Vietnam witness The Two Ligt Nazis Fanon, The Nretched of the Earth Pullbright, The Arrow. of Power sum-amt, gm.- New Ifldustrla; State Goldman, The Traced; of LBJ Herr, Dispatches 3. Kunen, The Strawberry Statement McGinneas, The Selling of the Presidegt '68 Salisbury, Behind the Lines §ocia1 Cement: Brown, _lganchild in the Promised Land Bruce, How to Talk Dirty and Influence . . 1,, Cleaver, W Galbraith, The Affluent Society Georakaa, BetroitLI Dogging Goodman, Erwin: up Absurd Gregory, Nigger Griffin, _B_lack Like Me Harrington, The Other America Hazlitt, Economics in OnegLeggg Hershey, The Algiers Motel Inci_dgg’g Kozol, Beath at an Early Ace World View: Baldwin, The Fire Next Time Burnhan, _S_uicide of the Heat sBrown, yr. attainat Death «Castaneda. _'I_'he Teachings of D3; Juan Priedan, The Feminine glutinous Neill, finmerhill Seminars Heading List Literature Burgess, Clockwork Orange Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles Dickey, Deliverance Ellison, The Invisible Han Greene, The Silent American Heinlein, Stranrer in a Strance Land Hesse, Siddhartha Kerouac, On the Read Lederer-Burdick,‘The_ggl3¥American Miller, Canticle (gr_Lgibcwigg The Culture Aldridge, ink Country of the 23y; Jacobs, gig: and Deng: of Amerigniit Heniaton, The Unconmitted Leary, _HiLhPriesti Politics Ed Ecsta Lombardi, gun to Davlicht McLuhan, The Media 1544;: M‘s-eggs; Nearing, The Good Life Reich, The Greening of America Stalvey, The Education of a Hag Uhyte, The Organization Man Terry, For Whites Onlz Thompson, Fear and Loathinc fii_n_Las'v’e-a Volta, The Electric Heal-aid Acid Test From, Escape from Freedom 1.1m Art of Loving Kirk, _Tthg C_g_n_servative Lli_r_i_d Result, The Hakim: of the Counter-Cult- Schumacher, gig-all is Beautiful Goodman, gomunitaa 253 60's Coming Apart. Summary, Part One Identify and give the significance: 1. 3. The influence on race relations of: the Kerner Report MFDP separatists The influence on American idealism of: ”I have a dream" Peace Corps Camelot The influence on escalation of: Tonk in} Cu lf Senator Fqubright credibility gap 254 The influence on protest of: draft cards Greensboro teach-ins The influence on economics of: "The Great Society" 0E0 Dow-Jones Index The influence on foreign relations of: "Munich" Berlin Wall Bay of Pigs 255 The influence on politics of: New Hampshire primary Voting Rights Act "you know in your heart he migh u The influence on "socialism for the rich" of: the military-industrial complex Medicaid investment tax credit 256 60's Coming Apart. Summary. Part Two 1. Explain any two: (twenty minutes) “He was killed before his mediocre record could be redeemed" “Non violence . . is what the weak use to turn the oppressor's strength against him” ”Big government. big business and big labor needed one another" "In Vietnam. the means used defeated the ends” The Cuban Missile Crisis: “The most dangerous moment in the Cold War" 2. Explain any one: (twenty five minutes) The promise of the Great Society was destroyed by the war in Vietnam. “The teach-ins made dissent respectable“ “Education was seen as the chief element in upward mobility” The Peace Corps: nigh Vision or Cheap Policy? 23 film W (3.4% . 1' W‘gdbu ( fir;4231 101.7) W (It: 1., ‘*%> .Eif‘ Jrfl fi 'tMJL flkiox (i 257 . N a , a II 1- Black: Hind if I watch? . ' 3 5 White: (Shakes head yes) You play chess? Black: Uh huh... White: Where do you play? You’re not a member of the club I don’t think, are you? Black: No White: Well, make yourself at home.Do you see what i’m doing here? This is called an end-game problem. White is going to checkmate black in two moves. Here. Here. Checkmate.- Black: Hey. that’s terrific. Say. all you cats here play like that? You must be pretty good. huh? White: Well. some of us are pretty good. but there’s a lot of novices around.too. We try to help them. bring them along as best we can. Why that’s the Job of any chess club really. You learn to play chess in a club? Black: Oh no. in the army. These cats used to play all the time. i picked up a lot from them.- White: on. well how’d you like to play me a game? Show me the Army way. Black: Yeah, ok! What color you want? White: No. you’ve got to choose. Look. I’m going to put one piece in each hand because white has the advantage of the first move 0 Black: Nah. i don’t care about the first move. You can have white. White: No. pick a hand. Black: That one. (Black picks black) White: You got your wish. Would you like to play with the timers?‘ Black: Pine. I don’t care. You’ll have to show me how they work. White: Why. it’s Just like a timer on a wall oven. Black: You don’t say. White. No. look. it’s like two alarm clocks: you have one and I have one. You see the button on the top there? You press that and it stops your clock and starts mine. For instance, now your clock is going and you move. Now it’s my turn. Now. the more time I take to make up my mind the more time i waste and the less time i have later on. So. if we decide to play for. uh. five minutes each. then if time runs out for either one of us. why then that person loses. do you see? BlackzLet’s go. White: Five minutes each ok? Black: Like you said. White: 0k. (They re-set the board.) Ready? Black: Go ahead. (They play. The game goes for about 45 seconds.) White: That’s not a very smart move...You didn’t press the timer. (Game continues.) Black: You really like this game. don’t you man? You really dig'lt. White: Chess is Just a friendly game. Somebody wins. somebody loses. I don’t take it too seriously. 258 Black: But you like to win. You like to win anyway you can. I mean this business with the timers. man. You really know how to use them timers. White: Well. look. I don’t cheat if that’s what you-mean. I showed you how those timers worked before we started to play. Now. if you want to call this game off and start all over again. well. then why don’t you Just say so. That’s my advice. Black: No. man. I’ll stick it out. I wouldn’t Give you the pleas.. White: I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I mean you sat down here. We started to play and now that you’re losing you want to give me all this crap about cheating. Where if it was the other way around. you wouldn’t open your mouth. I mean it’s not as if we’re playing for money or anything. Are we going to play or not? Black: You know that’s a beautiful chess set. I bet it cost you a lot of bread. It must be great to have a chess set like that. You can play with it, you can hold it. you can put it away and Just think about. You always know you got it. Say. man. how much was it? White: It was pretty expensive. But that doesn’t matter. It’s Just a nice set. I don’t think about the price. Black: No. man. tell me. twenty bucks? thirty bucks? fifty? White: Well. actually it cost more than that. But that’s not the point. This is very unusual set. I don’t think you could find a set like it anywhere. I think that’s why I like it so much. Black: I’ll tell you what. man. We’ll play for the set. I’ve got a hundred bucks against your chess set. White: Look. I don’t want your hundred bucks. I want the set. And besides the way things are going here on the board you’re Just going to lose that hundred dollars. Now. do you want to play this game or do yo Just want to call it quits. Black: I said we’ll play for your set. What’s the matter? Don’t you want a hundred bucks? Now. you got me in a bad way on the board an I’ve got a hundred bucks against your set. Man. I think you’re a little pink chicken. White: Why look. you could buy a perfectly good s...I mean you could buy a beautiful set for that kind of money. in any store in town. I could even tell you some of them. I could make a list for you if you wanted. Black: Here it is. baby. Now all you have to do is finish out the game. White: Do you realize your clock’s been going all this time? I mean, you couldn’t possible win with that kind of a handicap. Now. if you’re really serious about this I’d give you more- time. Maybe we can start the clocks again...for five minutes each. Black: Anything you say. baby. White: Well. I don’t know what the hell you’re driving at. I mean. you’re Just going to end up giving me a hundred bucks, and I don’t even know your name. you don’t know mine. I’ve never done anything like this before in my life. 259 Black: I know that. , - White: Well. I don’t know how you know that! (Pause) Alright. I don’t know...0k. let’s start the clocks. (White resets the clocks and they resume from the same position.) . . Black: 0h. you’ll never make it that way. baby. (Play continues. Black begins to capture some of white’s pieces.) pieces. White: Look. this is getting ridiculous. This is a beautiful set. How can you Just come in here and sit down and try to take it away from me? Suppose it were your set. I wouldn’t do that to you. Black: If I were you. I’d stop talking and start playing. (Game continues. Black has several pawns and his queen against white’s King and a few pawns.) Black: Check. (Several moves) Check. (A few more moves) Check. (A move or two) Checkmate. (Black begins to gather up the pieces to the set and put them in his pockets.) White: That’s my set. Black: It’s mine now. baby. White: You Just can’t come in like that and walk away with my set. I mean that’s Just li e stealing it. Black: Sure it is. And you’fig glvet-me back my hundred bucks. Don’t cry baby. You had y r chance. NW 260 60's lesearch Project: Setting the Focus Paper 0“" “ V Iue: 1. Choose a badly topical area from the list below: 30 5. 6. 7. uncrity groups sedia power/dissent elections Vietnam cultIn-al expression/criticise: education other (be specific) lifestyle At this point in time, sy interest seems to lie primarily with: I would like to find out: The event (personality, circmstance, idea etc.) that appears most suitable to narrow the topic to an appropriate focus sight be: Of three ms to narrow the focus further: a. b. I'npicking to stu with For which my Originating Question is: Pros which I can state as a: hypothesis (or argument, or angle) that: (supp: ) Intensity of focus: Ii lied Lo Submitt ed : Thurston- Argument: ! l Content: ’ l Style: I I In sum: 26] Wfihu 'Qy. Tonkin M? Intro. is a clean joo - setting. significance of problem and thesis well-expressed. clear. cogents etc. Conclusion re-estanlishes intro. and goes on to new possibilities of the evidence. Everything in best odderl Concentrates on event and immediate implicadons. Argues succinctly. keeps q. uppermost. Narration is clear. and account carries some tension. Nice transition from war zone to D.C. Prelim work pretty much in order: oib and foots excellent form and of best authority. Writing lucid. good sense for timing and dramatic tension. You a- make it all look easy. It's good to see the progress in confidence and a competence you have made since we were last togetherl 262. _ . fining mow mAhjLQ-LQQkD-LS me WWW .. {W W¥QQ§. ___L’LnuaLnng gnu-emu muons- MWWW .W4Acung __LQQDLQ .mica .- _ ”W413. WW -- Wflw _ MW .knipa.-.__-_- _ -. f.V:\$§kAS L159. (BkAI-2- _--_-_.-_ _.__ -- _ --_--- 6mm cans Md mpg-bags --- .- ---- ‘- .chumnovxjuh gram M WW -_ m .Mungs hie-nanny _ -.---_--.-. --_- Dw .MWDMW fails u): .... MflWfi 9:90.! -_..:26p-inoun3AL.-- - ._ W.W gums m WM sum- ,_ -- J plum--mnmudsfifnuflom--- - -_ .WMQMfiMA Wis-ulccflgws . JMMMSMQMu-ggwm- 263 Green fiFflSE beneala :lDWEhfi jam the barrela 0f the gums It ah unpopular rally. My -‘ _ 1 ~ ." . . . .. . . J . ‘II \ FempL: laughlhgiy linger 1h the 501m1ers I Jew waves C31: E-(T)|.-|.F“zd Hugh aver the crmwd 1ke the FEtLWTWiJf the tide. ’— 13 crew-cut CFUfiadmra are not Drowned ifl ita wakE. L. cm Q 44.5511. 1’" 8?ij p r“ ear-1:. h u r“ :3 2- *5 I F :—.~. h it: ti?) 312+ 1: h f: t HERE}. it: h :27." '52 hhw schuolu Hfia Ckmnarful IUWdlfTYN”EDCE‘ fer§ immartality thrhumh fi____ - he gmmkey a1r2 "— h +7.;- 55 {:1} a r“ Li. h 1.1;} C 55:. p i h 'r‘ '5. L-'».f--5:1+...!Z'.Z h 'i’. h » Lin 1 ‘f IIiH""ITt-’:3fj may '7' Farm. .. 'f .51!" _., firm; prlgmwfiera:z f Lima gaftfiPfl;9i flhlldrwfln. - Q brightly Clan ymuth H K proaahag the platfmrm LI ‘1: addrwamafrhsifiawfmund Framaom. She orderwd ahafichy nuietfi down. The wind r0115 away? Hacking the trees, Eauaing, ?he hirdg fifid the beea to fall S‘rcun tjfie eflav _—h» " The youthful laadgr Starta To Sing his melody. The crowd rmara in returh With harmony. The prlamherg break free. m MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 1|HIWWW”IWIIIIHHIWHIHVI‘WIWWII 31293009175500