With having completed,
in the last posting, a review of the concerns one should have of individual
staff member while implementing a change strategy, this blog will now return to
considering the change landscape. There
are three phases remaining in the change model this blog is describing: testing, evaluating, and finalizing.
In terms of both testing and
evaluating, teachers are familiar with those types of activities. They evaluate student progress all the
time. Therefore, a change approach
should take advantage of that knowledge.
Teachers are trained to design objectives, competency measures,
evaluation instruments, and the like.
They are told to look for those behaviors that indicate objectives are
met; they even think, beforehand, what those behaviors should be.
This
more typical view of evaluation looks for specific indicators as to what
constitutes learning substantive content or skill attainment, such as discovering
relevant information or formulating generalizations. That is what the aims in the classroom
entail. In terms of change in school
policy, however, the objectives are more open ended. This, therefore, creates a somewhat
inconsistency in how a change agent approaches a change challenge.
In
an attempt to be clear, this blog has argued that change efforts should be about
addressing specific problems. As much as
possible, this should be the case. But
with that proviso, when one talks of personnel interactions, an institutional
landscape, the unpredictability of school dynamics, one is humbled by the
openness of such an environment. So,
while a targeted problem is specific, and a proposed change is as specific as
possible, the ramifications of such attempts can be and usually are widespread
in a school’s setting.
To
illustrate this point, teachers and other staff members have a lot going
on. They are in a social milieu that
have its patterns, its friendships, its antagonisms, and its normal psychological
forces – such as, the lack of self-awareness most people have. This blog has stated that a lot of one’s
behavior comes from unintended or unaware motivations. And then there is a student body with all the
challenges of either young childhood in elementary schools or adolescence in
secondary schools. It’s a truly dynamic
place.
Earlier
in this blog, the writer shared an experience where a change was being
instituted in a school in which he was a member of the faculty. He noted that fellow teachers who verbally
committed to the change, when the time came, they behaved as they had before
and not in the way the change demanded.
This was not done from a malicious motivation; it was that those
teachers’ hearts were not changed. They
thought they had bought into the newer policy, but they had not.
What
these conditions indicate is that testing, evaluating, and finalizing – the last
three phases of the model – is not a 1-2-3 process. The first thing to do is to break down the
change, no matter how specific it is, and devise testing portions – sub
portions that can be implemented in limited bases. Once that is set up and performed, testers see
what happens, ask how teachers feel and whether they need “practice” in this
newer protocol or process, and think up any modifications to the initial plan. This is a rough outline of what is described
in this and next set of postings.
Testing:
Under testing there are various activities. The ground work for this phase, at a minimum,
is: a specific change is identified; the
change is sufficiently analyzed so that sub portions of that change are
identified in such a way that they can be tested individually; a list of
objectives – what the sub portion is to accomplish – are stated; the logistical
provisions – mostly time and place – is determined; and the actual testing is
performed.
A description of the evaluation phase
of the testing is left for the next posting.
At this point, the concern is to make the testing conditions, as much as
possible, reflective of how the change will be administered once the change is
in place. Of course, given that a sub
portion, in a testing situation, is isolated from the rest of the change, this
will affect how viable the testing will be. But, using good sense can attempt to
ameliorate this shortcoming.
The
testing is not only to see if the planned change is viable, but to get subjects
use to performing any new behaviors the change entails. While this next aspect will be revisited in
the next phase, here a consideration of the philosophy, approach, psychological,
and sociological beliefs of the individuals directly involved in the testing
should have been estimated and considered.
This
blog has given an overview of what the prominent views of these domains are starting
with the posting, “A Functional Philosophy of Education,” February 16, 2016. The point was made that individual educators
will hold consistent ideas across these domains – if they hold, for example, a
conservative educational philosophy, they will most likely have a conservative
approach in how they conduct their instruction or see their students
psychologically.
A look at the change this writer is
promoting can be used to illustrate what is being described here. He promotes a change in curricular content for
the subjects of civics and American government.
This change proposal is specific in that it is more concrete than simply
calling for an improvement in civics education, but broad enough to have
numerous sub portions.
Let
one sub portion of that change proposal be that a particular unit of instruction
of the proposed curricular change be inserted into the existing offering under the
course, American government. For the
purposes here, its objectives – not instructional ones, but ones that are
written with this change testing in mind – give the testers a sense of what the
implementation of the sub portion should demonstrate as to whether the change is
workable.
Questions
can be asked: does the abstraction level
of the content match the sophistication levels of the students; do the teachers
feel comfortable with the material; do they perceive the material as legitimate;
do the students genuinely reflect over the issues the content presents; have
teachers demonstrated an internal motivation to utilize the material once they
are not under the testing situation; etc.?
Another related issue, albeit more
specific, is whether the testers are seeking quantitative information or
qualitative information. The Center for
Innovation in Research and Teaching offers a list of conditions under which
each form of research should be utilized.
Qualitative research or testing should be used when researchers/testers
wish to gather information or use information that has the following qualities:
Seek
to explore, explain and understand phenomena – What? Why?[;] Data provided as a
narrative, pictures or objects[;] Methods less structured – Data gathered
through interviews, observations, content analysis, etc.[;] Asks open-ended
questions in an effort to explore[;] Research design has flexibility – can
emerge and evolve as study develops[;] Results may be presented subjectively – may
reveal biases, values or experiences that impact how the results are
interpreted[1]
Quantitative research or testing
should be used when researchers/testers wish to gather information or use information
that has the following qualities:
Seeks
to confirm a hypothesis about a phenomena – How many?[;] Data is in the form of
numbers and statistical results[;] Highly structured methods – Data gathered
through the use of tools, equipment, questionnaires, etc.[;] Asks closed-ended
questions that give quantifiable answers[;] Research design is highly
structured and laid out in advance of the study[;] Results are documented using
objective language[2]
It
should be pointed out, that some of the information sought in a
normative-re-educative change strategy would lend itself to quantitative
information – student testing scores – and some would be qualitative information
– attitudinal surveys of subjects.
Testing should be prepared to implement testing procedures that summons
both forms of information.
As
for the other aspects of this phase, such as what wording should be used in an
attitudinal survey, is concerned, they would be addressed in a more extensive
presentation of this model. What is of
more concern here is the logistical challenges with setting up and conducting
this testing process. This should be
given ample planning time. Testers
should take to heart the notion that much is dependent on testing results.
A
faulty testing phase can either lead to implementation of a dysfunctional change
or the dismissal of a useful change that, if implemented, could have led to significantly
better educational results or more efficiency.
And again, the testing itself can be a time to climatize the subjects into
“doing” the change. A few dry runs with
directed supervision can ease the upcoming phase of finalizing the change.
There
are, in the professional literature, sophisticated models for testing or
analyzing organizational operations.
Professional change agents are trained in these models. But, unless a school district – a relatively affluent
one – wishes to institute change in the schools of its jurisdiction, a specific
school within a district needs depend on in-house teachers to plan and implement
sought after change. That includes using
above ideas to devise responsible testing protocol.
A
lot of this is common sense and teachers have an advantage in that they are
trained in issues associated with evaluation.
And that will be the next phase to be described as it is the topic of
the next posting. As a final word in
this posting, the writer wants to leave the reader with a thought.
The
nation’s public-schools are under siege.
There are those who repeatedly criticize them and think up “reforms”
whose intent is to do them in. They have
a point; these schools should be doing better.
But they should be saved and to save them in some functional form,
change must occur in grand fashion. For those
who want to have a national, viable public-school system, learning how to “do”
change is going to be important.
[1] “When to Use
Quantitative Methods,” Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, accessed
February 15, 2018, https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/quantresearch/whentouse.
[2] Ibid.
