A ConstctivstApproach to Staff

Development

n the summer of 1980, four teach-ers and an administrator fromShoreham-Wading River Central

School District participated in a sum-mer institute at Brandeis University. Itwas there that we began developingplans based on an intriguing notionthat was to become the initial workinghypothesis of the Cognitive LevelsMatching (CLM) project: cognitive de-velopment can befacilitated b, appto-

priate educational intervention Theintervention, as initially envisioned,required teachers to assess the cogni-tive demands of curriculum and thecognitive abilities of students, andmatch the two. We hoped to reducemuch of the frustration vnpicallv felt byteachers and students when curricu-lum is poorly matched to students'needs and abilities (Hunt, 1961)

Our first step in structuring the in-tervention was to organize a 20-ses-sion inservice course that introducedparticipants to cognitive developmen-tal theories and research, most promi-nently the works of Inhelder and Pia-get, Arlin, Elkind, Sigel, andDuckworth. Course requirements in-cluded extensive reading of cognitivedevelopmental literature and the mod-ification or adaptation of a specificcurriculum unit based on the notionof appropriate matching. The courseemphasized application of develop-mental theories to classroom settingsand encouraged teachers to try withstudents the ideas discussed in class.

Adult logic applied tochildren's fhinkingneglects theimportance of thechild's point of view;the Cognitive LevelsMatching Projecttakes anotherapproach.

An advanced course was developedduring the project's second year. afterthe first group of participants hadcompleted the introductonr course.This course focuses on refining teach-er skills and techniques, such asquestioning and elaboration. Teachersdiscuss such issues as appropriatewait-time after posing questions to

Martin Brooks is Director of Elementan,Education, Sborebam-Wading River Cen-tral School District, Shoreham. New York.and Co-Director of the Cognitie LevelsMatching Projeact

students, the recognition and valuingof students' ideas, methods of infor-mall' assessing students' cognitiveabilities, and wayxs to structure envi-ronments in which students feel freeto reveal their points of view. Partici-pants are also required to modif,/adapt curricula based on analyses ofstudent cognitive abilities and curricu-lar cognitive demands.

The abilities to analyze and adaptcurriculum and to assess the cognitiveabilities of children are critical. Smock(1981) xmTites:

curriculum development, from a Pia-getian perspective. necessitates informa-tion about the logical-mathematical struc-tures characterizing a particular "contentso as to make judgments as to the possibili-n' that a child. in a particular cognitive-developmental stage. will be able to learnat either the figurative or conceptual levels(p 64)

.the teacher needs to have proceduresfor determining "appropriate mismatchesand the extent to which the child's learningis dependent on figurative and/or opera-tive processes (p 6-)

Since the project began. approxi-matel' -'0 percent of the district'steachers have voluntarily taken theintroductory course. Both the intro-ductorv and advanced courses. whichare held after school, have been of-fered for insern-ice credit, universin-graduate credit, or a stipend (via fundsobtained through a private foundationgrant).

NOVEMBER 1984

"The notion thatknowledge canbe acquired viaincremental skillor subskillacquisition ...ignores theprimacy of thechild's point ofview yet remainsa preeminentfoundation of oureducationalsystem."

Thinlkng as a Process, Not aProductRecently, the thrusts of both courseshave been shifting in subtle wavsMore attention is being paid to thephilosophical and psychological un-derpinnings of Piaget's theories andobservations-namely, contructiuism.Briefly, the constructivist theory oflearning states that each person con-structs a unique realiry to organizeemerging knowledge of the worldDuring infancy and early childhood,much of the construction is concreteand physical, involving action on ob-jects For example, a young child islikely to learn more about marineecology by actually seining than byreading a bo(xk about fish As the childmoves into adolescence, much of theconstruction becomes abstract. For ex-ample, when presented with the ratio"5 chain links = I cube" in weight,many adolescents can abstractlv con-struct rules to help them understandthis equation. Most young children,however, still need to physically ma-nipulate the objects and may not eventhen understand the weight relation-ship between chain links and blocksthey are simply not vet ready to men-tally construct this knowledge.

A vital tenet of constructivism con-cerns the relationship between theknower and the known Smock (1981)calls this 'subject-obiect unity" andwrites:

Knowledge does not arise from the ob-ject nor from the subject. hut from theirinteractions (p 65)

Traditional views of teaching andlearning assume that there exists agiven, identifiable body of knowledgeand that the function of schools is toteach children these conventionallyaccepted 'truths" von wGlasersfeld(1981) identifies this assumption asbeing "at the venr core of traditionalepistemology" and writes of peoplewho espouse this view

theN face the scenario that was set upby the pre Socratics and then formalls anddefinitivel- by Plato There is, on one side,an existing, fully structured sworld and, onthe other, a Knower whose eternal task it isto get to klouw that world (p 89i

This 'one-truth" orientation hassome rather disconcerning manifestations in school settings First, sinceknowledge is thought to be prede-fined, little value is given to activitiessuch as hypothesis development, ex-perimentation, and speculation In-stead, emphasis is on learning thatwhich is alreadv defined as knowl-edge Next. since only one truth-orbodv of knowledge-is recognized,little effort is made bv teachers todiscover and understand other truthsthat exist in everv educational setting:students'points of lieu, ( Elkind, 1976)

The notion that knowledge can beacquired via incremental skill or sub-skill acquisition, the sequence ofwhich is pre identified and imposedthrough adult logic applied to chil-dren's constructiolhs, ignores the pri-macv of the child's point of view Yet itremains a preeminent foundation ofour educational svstem For instance,an adolescent may possess the neces-sar' cognitive schemes (conservationand proportional reasoning, for exam-ple) to understand "' chain links = Icube" in weight A five year old, how-ever, mav not he able to conserveweight as the salient variable in theproblem and mav instead perceivesize as the key to successful solutionConsequently, the child may constructthe ratio "2 chain links = I cube" insize. To the teacher who does not seekto understand the child's point ofview, and who instead looks only forthe "correct" answer, the child is"wrong." To the teacher who valuesthe child's point of view, and who askselaborative questions to elicit it, thechild has given the correct answer to adifferent question: the question thechild asked himself or herself. Thisteacher understands that the child

E[I (-AT1iONAI l.FAItF.RSIIIP

I

does not vet possess the cognitiveschemes required to address the issueof weight, and may either introducereadiness activities as a means of pre-paring the child to understand morecomplex concepts or may wait untilthe child naturallyv constructs the nec-essarv schemes before adding suchactivities to the curriculum.

The child's point of view is mostoften elicited through thoughtfulquestioning It is no secret that the vastmajority of questions asked in a class-room have only one correct answer,which the teacher already knows. Moststudents, being both intelligent aboutand sensitive to their environments,understand these dvnamics and oftendecide not to waste time ponderingthe questions but to quickly determinethe answers valued by the teacher.These dynamics serve not onlv to stiflecreative thinking but to thwart risk-taking: if a child understands that theteacher is seeking one correct answerto a question, and the child is some-what unsure of that answer, the likeli-hood of offering a response is re-duced A strong focus of the CLMproject has been the thoughtful struc-turing of questions Teachers are en-couraged to ask open-ended and elab-orative questions, and to value thestudents' responses as pathways to un-derstanding their points of view

Constructivism stands in sharp con-trast to the more traditional, skills-based approach to teaching The thrustof most skills-based curriculum mod-els is to divide the whole into the sumof its parts, clearly defining thoseparts, developing criterion-referencedtests to evaluate student mastern ofthose parts, and moving studentssteadily and sequentially through eachuntil the whole has been taught. Exam-ples of such models are publisher-developed management svstems.which often accompany basal texts inreading and mathematics, and somemastery learning systems The skills-based orientation to the teaching/learning process has resulted in somenot-so-subtle changes in the structureof many educational programs andenvironments: that which is directlyobservable and directlh measurable ishighly valued Cognitive developmentis generally regarded as too delicateand complex to observe and measure.Consequentlv, even when educatorsdo stress the need for greater em-

phasis on teaching thinking, some ap-proaches often look remarkably simi-lar to skills-based models of instruc-tion. Bever (1984), for example.proposes breaking the whole of think-ing into a curriculum of its subskills.The CLM project views thinking as awhole that transcends the sum of itsparts: as a process. not a product.

Making Change HappenSince the CLM project has neither aprepackaged. fixed curriculum norspecific curriculum materials, it hasaffected different teachers differentlvFor some, it has sparked changes inthe sequence of curriculum introduc-tion and presentation. For others. ithas facilitated changes in questioningstyle and methodology, For still oth-ers, it has provided a rationale foradapting or modifying specific lessonunits

"The child's pointof view is mostoften elicitedthroughthoughtfulquestioning."

NOvrIMBFR 1984

I I I i

I

The common thread, that has tiedtogether these changes is increasedattention by the teacher to child devel-opment: what we call "taking a devel-opmental perspective." The variousmanifestations of this emphasis are afunction of each teacher's style.Regardless of the manifestation, how-ever, teachers understand that chil-dren develop at different rates, that formost children cognitive developmentoccurs sequentially and at generallypredictable times, and that children'spoints of view are often different fromboth teachers' points of view and fromcorrect answers. Each teacher hasbeen involved in both formal and in-formal assessment of students' cogni-tive abilities, and each has adapted ordeveloped at least one curriculumunit/lesson/activitv. The dilemma forparticipants in the CLM project is: howdoes one translate this knowledge intochanges in classroom practice?

Many unsuccesful change effortshave used an approach seemingly sim-ilar to the CLM project: a large-scaleinservice course is conducted by con-sultants external to the district. Uponcompletion of the inservice work,teachers are expected to return totheir classrooms and implement, withgreat fidelity, that which they just

learned in the course. This assump-tion has proven faulty Completion ofthe inservice course is not comple-tion of the change effort. Indeed, themost difficult aspect --implementingchange in the classroom--is just be-ginning.

Helping teachers make changes hasbecome a major concern of the CLMeffort. First, in addition to conductingthe courses, project consultants spendtime in classrooms, working withteachers who are puzzling throughquestions about implementation. Thiscoaching (Joyce and Showers, 1983)has proven mutually beneficial.Spending time in classrooms hashelped consultants develop more rele-vant and practical inservice content,while the opportunity to meet individ-ually with consultants has sparkedsome teachers to try new techniqueswith their students

Next, all building administratorshave been encouraged to take theintroductory CLM course Because thisenables administrators and teachers tospeak a common language and viewdevelopment the same way, it has alle-viated some of the frustrations felt byteachers who, after being observed,wanted to discuss their child-centeredadaptations only to have the adminis-

trator focus on other aspects of thelesson. The training also helps theadministrator serve as a coach/moni-tor when observing classrooms and tooffer ongoing facilitative feedback toteachers concerned with implement-ing CLM techniques.

Third, peer teaming and peer obser-vations are critical to CLM implemen-tation. Because observations by consultants are usually infrequent andthose by administrators threatening,observations by a trusted colleaguewho is also concerned with CLM al-lows for consistent feedback. Peerteaming also provides an institution-alized support system for makingchange happen (Miles, 1983).

Observations by consultants andteaming with colleagues centeraround a list of CLM descriptors thatenumerate classroom behaviors differ-entiating CLM teaching from moreconventional methodologies. For ex-ample, descriptors at the primary levelinclude teacher behaviors aimed ateliciting representational and relation-al ("bigger than," "first, second, third,"and so forth) thinking. At the interme-diate elementary level, descriptors in-clude activities designed to elicit chil-dren's thinking about classification("What attribute do these objects havein common?"); seriation ("Can youplace in order the events that hap-pened in this story?"); and some formsof conservation ("If two beakers con-tain the same amount of water, whathappens when I place the contents ofone into a differently shaped bea-ker?"). At the middle and high schoollevels, descriptors include activitiesthat provide opportunities for studentsto reason abstractly (proportions,propositions, probability, combina-tions, coordinating multiple frames ofreference, and so on). Before the ob-servation, the person to be observedexplains to the observer his or herrationale for structuring the lesson,developing questions, grouping stu-dents, and so on. After the lesson, theobserver and the observed meet againto discuss the lesson in light of thepre-stated objectives and the CLM de-scriptors. Missed opportunities areidentified and positive teacher behav-iors are reinforced. In addition, manyteachers have requested to be video-taped.

Er)I CAT)IONAI L.FA[)ERSHIP

L

Concerns About the ProjectNot all teachers in Shoreham-WadingRiver have participated in the CLMproject. Some are concerned that"good teaching" will become synony-mous with having a CLM orientation.They feel that good teachers have al-ready been using the practices andtechniques advocated through theCLM course. Others do not subscribeto constructivist notions of cognitivedevelopment, and still others feel thatchild development theories have noplace in the classroon. These con-cerns are certainly valid. CLM is notthe only path to effective teaching, andmany teachers do, in fact, intuitivelyuse child developmental techniques.Indeed, manv of the teachers whohave chosen not to participate in theproject are considered among the fin-est teachers in the district.

Another concern pertains to label-ing and all its ramifications. Someteachers, for example, perceive thebeginning and end of the project asthe ability to determine if a child is atthe pre-operational, concrete opera-tional, or formal operational stage ofreasoning. Such an orientation canlimit the child if the teacher feels thatconcrete operational children shouldbe exposed only to concrete activitiesand experiences Moreover, most for-

mal measures of cognitive ability areobtained from instruments that usuallytest reasoning through mathematicsand science tasks. If a child reasonsconcretely on given science activities,it is dangerous to assume that he orshe will also reason concretely whenasked to interpret a work of literatureor compose a song.

Another concern is the difficultn in-volved in evaluating a project as com-plex as CLM. Before effects on childrencan be examined, it is first necessary todetermine if CLM is actuallyv occurringin classrooms. Do teachers view chil-dren differently? Have teachers alteredtheir curricula or teaching techniques?Are teachers asking more questionsthat require students to think and elab-orate? In order to determine the ef-fects of CLM on teachers and children,the district hired an independent eval-uator--lrving Sigel-to conduct a lon-gitudinal evaluation of the project.

Informal EvaluationJust as we ask teachers to be sensitive.when assessing students' cognitive de-velopment, to the ongoing, unobtru-sive, informal information they receivefrom their students, so too is informalfeedback from teachers essential to anaccurate formative assessment of theproject. Preliminarv data indicate that:

1. The CLM experience has signifi-cantly touched most participants: "Inever realized that my questions wereso closed"; "I finally understand whymy students never understand thisconcept"; "The problem I presentedto the class was not the same problemmost of the children perceived."

2. It gives teachers a common focusfor communicating about children:"Missing addends is a tough conceptfor John because he is unable to con-serve numbers."

3. It gives teachers a way to assessthe appropriateness of curriculum ma-terials: "The metaphors in this bookmay be too complex for my class."

The CLM project enables teachers tounderstand, within a constructivistframework, the dynamic interplay be-tween teaching and learning. Howwell this understanding translates intoimproved classroom practices and ul-timately proves facilitative to chil-dren's cognitive development is vet tobe answered.

References

Berman, Paul. and McLaughlin, Milbrey,W. Federal Programs S4ppxrting Educa-tonal Change (8 volumes) Santa Monica,Calif: Rand Corporation, 1978

Bever, Barn K. "Improving ThinkingSkills--Definmng the Problem" Phi De'iaKappan 65 (March 1984).

Crandall, David P "The Teacher's Rolein School Improvement" EducationalLeadersbip 41 (November 1983)

Elkind. David Child Derelopmenr andEducation. New York: Oxford Press. 1976.

Hunt, J McV intelligence and Eperi-ence New York Ronald Press, 1961

Joyce, Bruce R., and Showers. BeverlyPower in Sff Development Througb Re-search and Training Alexandria. Va.:ASCD. 1983

Miles, Matthew B. " nraveling the M.s-terv of Institutionalization" EducationalLeade1r'op 41 (November 1983).

Smock. Charles D -Constructivism andEducational Practices." In NVew Directionsin Piageian 7heorn and Praace. Editedby Ining E. Sigel, David M Brodzinskv,and Roberta M Golinkoff Hillsdale. NJ.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981

son Glasersfeld, Emst. "The Concepts ofAdaptation and Viability in a Radical Con-structivist Theon of Knowledge"' In NeuDirections in Piagehtan Tbeonr, and Prac-tice. Edited by Irving E Sigel, David MBrodzinskv. and Roberta M. GolinkoffHillsdale. N I LawTrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, 1981

NOVEMBHER 1984

Copyright © 1984 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.