balance between the public (social reconstruction ideology) and private (market ..... English-language proficiency, and students from non - Christian religious.
CREATING AND SUSTAINING A DEMOCRATIC CLASSROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF MARKET IDEOLOGY ____________
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California State University, Chico ____________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Education Curriculum and Instruction Option ____________
by Annie S. Adamian Spring 2010
CREATING AND SUSTAINING A DEMOCRATIC CLASSROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF MARKET IDEOLOGY
A Thesis by Annie S. Adamian Spring 2010
APPROVED BY THE INTERIM DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE, INTERNATIONAL, AND INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES:
_________________________________ Mark J. Morlock, Ph.D.
APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
______________________________ Cris E. Guenter, Ed.D. Graduate Coordinator
_________________________________ Ann K. Schulte, Ph.D., Chair
_________________________________ Deborah G. Summers, Ed.D.
_________________________________ Michael E. Kotar, Ed.D.
PUBLICATION RIGHTS
No portion of this thesis may be reprinted or reproduced in any manner unacceptable to the usual copyright restrictions without the written permission of the author.
iii
DEDICATION
My mom Anahid and dad Zaven Your unconditional love, strength, compassion, wisdom, humor, and personal sacrifices flow through me daily.
My sister Alina I admire your resilience and courage. I will always be honored that you are my big sister.
All my Friends Thank you for standing by me throughout the years. You fill my days with compassion, kindness, understanding, laughter, and love.
My mentor Dr. Ann Schulte You help make the impossible, possible. I too will one day, “pay it forward.”
The teachers’ books I have read Thank you for your selfless, passionate, and brilliant words which I have had the pleasure of reading.
All of my Students: Past, present, and future You are the hope that fills my heart daily . . . .
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I could not have experienced what this study has afforded me if it wasn’t for the amazing people that were a part. A heartfelt thanks to all of my professors for providing me an amazing form of education. Thank you Dr. Cris Guenter, Dr. Rob Karaba, Dr. Michael Kotar, Dr. Ann Schulte, Dr. Maris Thompson, and Dr. Charles Zartman for modeling the essence of what an empowering form of education can bring to life. With sincere gratitude, I extend a deep thank you to my committee members Dr. Kotar, Dr. Schulte, and Dr. Summers. I appreciate the three of you for always supporting me throughout this entire process. Thank you to all of my family, friends, and colleagues for supporting me and sharing this experience with me. Lastly, thank you to all of my wonderful students. Your spirit resonated in my heart and mind while I wrote every word of this study.
Dr. Cris Guenter – Thank you for believing in me since the first day you met
me (notice the amount of letters). Thank you for teaching me the importance and usefulness of using technology in the classroom. Thank you for helping me become a better writer.
Dr. Rob Karaba –Thank you for being straight forward and challenging me.
Thank you for all your great insight and suggestions which ultimately led me towards recognizing what I was trying to say and do.
Dr. Michael Kotar – Thank you for making all of our conversations and
classes so “interesting.” I am honored. v
Dr. Ann Schulte – I could not have asked for a more dedicated, understanding,
and inspiring mentor. Thank you for empowering me, so that I can continue to seek ways to do the same for my students. Thank you for “having my back.”
Dr. Deborah Summers – Thank you for encouraging me to come back to
school. Thank you for always supporting me and believing in me.
Dr. Maris Thompson – Thank you for responding to my assignments with the
tough questions that I eventually began to seek insight towards.
Dr. Charles Zartman – Your passion and kind heart filled the classroom every
time we met. Thank you for providing me the ideal environment which enabled me to construct my thesis in a relaxed, confident, and caring manner.
My Family and Friends - Thank you for your love and support. Thanks for the
long conversations that helped me grapple with the complexities which transpired during this study. I love you all.
Michael Riley – To my team teacher and friend, I extend to you a sincere and
endless thank you. I could not have done this without you. It has truly been an amazing year in the classroom. Looking forward to next year!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Publication Rights ......................................................................................................
iii
Dedication...................................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................
v
List of Tables..............................................................................................................
ix
Abstract.......................................................................................................................
x
CHAPTER I.
II.
Introduction ..............................................................................................
1
Market Ideology and Democratic Values..................................... Historical Background of Problem............................................... Statement of the Problem ............................................................. Purpose of the Study..................................................................... Theoretical Bases.......................................................................... Definitions .................................................................................... Limitations of the Study ...............................................................
1 5 9 11 13 18 20
History of Curriculum in America ...........................................................
21
Classical Era ................................................................................. Social Efficiency .......................................................................... Scholar Academic Ideology ......................................................... Learner Centered .......................................................................... Social Reconstruction Ideology.................................................... Market Ideology ........................................................................... Democratic Practice in America’s Public Schools in Response to Market Ideology.............................................. The Purpose of Public Schools..................................................... For What It’s Worth .....................................................................
22 23 25 28 29 31
vii
35 38 39
CHAPTER III.
PAGE
Methodology.............................................................................................
40
Introduction .................................................................................. Design of Investigation................................................................. Student Demographics.................................................................. Action Research............................................................................ Data Collection Instruments ......................................................... Data Analysis Procedures.............................................................
40 40 45 45 48 51
Results from Analysis...............................................................................
53
Data Analysis................................................................................ Students’ Understanding of Diversity and Working in Groups ... Students’ Understanding Race as a Social Construct................... Students’ Motivation While Learning .......................................... Quantitative Analysis ................................................................... My Passion for Equity: Relearning to Teach ............................... Synthesis of Analysis ................................................................... Conclusion....................................................................................
54 55 64 71 75 79 92 95
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................
96
References ..................................................................................................................
103
IV.
V.
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
Student Racial/Ethnic Demographics Per Class Period............................
46
2.
Mr. Riley’s Students’ Racial/Ethnic Demographics Per Class Period.......................................................................................
46
Can You Describe a Time When You Have Discriminated Against Others Based on Their Race, Class, Gender, Beliefs, Lifestyle, etc.? ......................................................................
57
4.
Student Response to Working in a Diverse Group ...................................
61
5.
Results Based on Students’ Raw Scores on Genetics Pretests and Posttests........................................................................................
77
Results Based on Students’ Raw Scores on Genetics Pretests and Posttests ......................................................................................
78
Class Proficiency Levels by Class Periods ...............................................
79
3.
6.
7.
ix
ABSTRACT CREATING AND SUSTAINING A DEMOCRATIC CLASSROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF MARKET IDEOLOGY by © Annie S. Adamian 2010 Master of Arts in Education Curriculum and Instruction Option California State University, Chico Spring 2010
Equitable learning environments that empower, enlighten and promote lifelong learning for all students are rare in today’s American public schools. Addressing the need for a forum in which students begin to gain knowledge by the means of critical pedagogy has been silenced and dominated by the rigid discourse driven by market ideology. High stakes testing sustained through sanctions and incentives are promoting a culture of schooling which deems knowledge as a means to an end. In order for equitable learning environments to become a reality, democratic practice needs to come alive in the classroom. This study explores the ways to create and sustain an equitable learning environment by means of democratic practice. The author employs action research, using both qualitative and quantitative measures, and develops meaningful insight into how democratic practice can coexist within the context of market ideology. Seeking x
balance between the public (social reconstruction ideology) and private (market ideology) purposes of schooling was the foundation of this study. This study provided an emic perspective into four seventh grade life science classrooms. By linking theory and practice (praxis), action was taken to meet the needs of all learners, and the results show that it is possible to teach democratically in a system that is driven by market ideology.
xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Market Ideology and Democratic Values I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves. ~ Harriet Tubman American public schools have been consistently moving away from democratic values due to the dominating imposition of market ideology. Market ideology is the worldview that a government’s involvement in education can produce human capital, therefore benefiting the economic market (Engel, 2000). Giroux (2004) states: Neoliberal policies dominate the discourse of politics and use the breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-market rationality to cut public expenditures and undermine those non-commodified public spheres that serve as the repository for critical education, language, and public intervention. Spewed forth by the mass media, right-wing intellectuals, religious fanatics, and politicians, neoliberal ideology, with its ongoing emphasis on deregulation and privatization, has found its material expression in an all-out attack on democratic values and on the very notion of the public sphere. (para. 6) Commenting on market ideology and the demise of democratic practice in our schools, Engel (2000) states, They (political and economic elite) have gradually undermined democratic values in the educational system by weakening the rationale for maintaining it as a publicly controlled institution and by pushing civic education for democracy off the pedagogical agenda. (p. 22) Teachers today are being forced to educate our youth using strict guidelines, prepackaged curriculum, and management strategies similar to those found in the workforce 1
2 (Kozol, 2006). The reproduction of the dominant culture’s hegemonic language marginalizes the educational environment wherein educators’ and young peoples’ perspectives are dispirited and negotiation for inclusive democratic curriculum is unrecognizable. Hierarchical tactics mirroring that of ideological hegemony are perpetuating the struggles of many for the “national security” of the economic and political elite. Engel (2000) states that, Market ideology thus dictates that the extent of government intervention in the operations of the market economy to provide educational services must be determined on the basis of the needs to national security and the market economy. (p. 21) Mirroring that of a hierarchical pyramid, orders from the small top reach the wider base at the bottom (Apple, 2007). As the dominant culture’s hegemonic discourse flows down from the small point at the top, the less and less negotiation for discourse and literacy is found at the bottom. Apple (2007) states: As with all literacies, these involved the control of certain Discourses that call upon individuals to draw upon particular technologies and particular systems of knowledge in particular ways so as to take on identities recognizable to others. In general, these school literacies were characterized by a view of knowledge as stable, standard, decontextualized, bounded, and situated in clear hierarchies that privileged the ‘‘official knowledge’’ of dominant groups… These features of dominant school literacies were strengthened by and helped strengthen the institutional structures and practices of industrial-era schools, including: rigid departmentalization; individual (versus collaborative) teaching; adherence to local and state standards; use of uniform mass-marketed textbooks and pre-packaged curricula; grading of individual students; tracking; standardized testing; 30-to-1 student-to-teacher ratios; and factory-like time management. (p. 439) The hegemonic discourse Apple discusses is one facet of the many complex issues that exist within the multifaceted field of education. Ideological hegemony controls the discourse, thus hindering dialogue from multiple perspectives within education. Such
3 discourse silences any discussion in regards to democratic values in public schools. Absent is a form of discourse, which can provide a moral facet to schooling, thus sustaining democracy for the common good. A form of education which can nurture students and teachers to become part of a culture where they can experience cooperation, anti-oppression, true conversation, equity, and unconditional love are becoming increasingly marginalized due to the strict emphasis brought about by the demands of the free-market. The dominant culture’s discourse present in public schools causes power struggles between everyone involved in schooling, which perpetuates the unjust natural order. In essence, the lack of discourse about multiple perspectives is what denounces autonomy and supports heteronomy. In regards to creating new discourse to sustain democracy through public schooling, Giroux (2009) states, The new illiteracy is about more than learning how to read the book or the word; it is about learning how not to read the world... At the core of any viable Democratic politics is the ability to question the basic assumptions central to an imagined democracy. (para. 4) What is currently silenced in the public school system are experiences that can provide students and teachers the opportunity to become liberated; experiences which bear no limitations, constraints, or directives upon learners, therefore providing them the ability to create new forms of knowledge and language. Such knowledge can change human perception of the inequities presently perpetuated by the uncompromising language of the dominant culture, justified by free-market rhetoric. Inclusive discourse can provide students and teachers a forum in which the notion of blame between “us and them” can
4 be dissolved; and the notion of an empowered “we” can become part of the conversation this teacher wholeheartedly hopes to experience. The exclusion of democratic values in our educational system and the dominating presence of market ideology perpetuates the ongoing cycle of inequity and oppression within public schools and society. Such discourse has silenced educators, who are forced to deliver uninterrupted pre-scripted language that students must digest in order to score high on state mandated standardized tests, thus reproducing and maintaining the unjust status quo. Soder, Goodlad, and McMannon (2001) state that, “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). Soder et al. (2001) recognize that in order for such progress to occur in public schools, human conversation, ethics of care (Noddings, 2005), and moral stewardship, must be part of the public schools mission towards the meaning and practice of democracy as a way of life. Currently, American public schools are held accountable for sustaining democracy solely for private purposes in the name of freedom. The full notion of democracy in public schools is divided by dualistic thinking, which attempts to uphold market ideology (private purpose) and marginalize democratic values (public purpose). While the unchecked, unbalanced, private purposes of democracy are promoted, values such as collaboration, equity, social responsibility, and ethics of care (Noddings, 2005) are seen as time consuming experiences, which take away from market ideology.
5 Historical Background of Problem The rigid implementation of market ideology within public schools has perpetuated the marginalization of democratic values for decades. Since the late fifties, after the launch of Sputnik, social efficiency, scholar academic and market ideologies have encompassed what America’s educational standards have deemed to be the knowledge of most worth. The implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, pledged to provide Americans with the creation and sustainability of equitable schooling and equal access for all students nationally. What the ESEA neglected to address was the importance of democratic values within our schools and the inequities found at the state and local level. These aspects also neglected to acknowledge where the heart of the problem resided. The inequities found within public schools would not be mitigated solely with accountability and rigorous curriculum driven by market ideology. The heart of the problem was and is still beating within America’s classrooms. Students’ hopes and dreams have become scripted with rigid curriculum that presents knowledge as a means to an end. The practice of democratic values, equal-funding for all public schools, and the art of learning have been consistently absent from the equation. With every reauthorization, categorized funding, and standardized test, market ideology has intensified and democratic values have become marginalized. In 1983, Ronald Reagan warned us that we were “a nation at risk.” Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education solely placed the blame for America’s economic failures on America’s public school system (Gabbard, 2007). These attempts to reform education would continue to marginalize democratic values in order to
6 meet the demanding needs for human capital by focusing on core subjects. At the same time, this blame on public schools for America’s economic failures once again effectively shifted the discourse away from democratic values. Thus, the debate maintained that the sole purpose of schooling was for individual private gain in the name of democracy. The discourse was not about the purpose of public schools. The discourse was about the success of public schools in regards to producing human capital. Hence, these political tenets silenced any discourse towards the practice of critical pedagogy (Giroux, 1989) wherein critical thinking, inclusive curriculum, new forms of language, solidarity, and civic literacy became dismantled. No moral regard was placed on equitable schooling for all students and the implementation of vouchers in the name of equal opportunity became the norm. Sole emphasis on producing human capital by means of the public school system was systematically embraced during the George W. Bush administration. The reauthorization of ESEA, under the new name of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), advertised funding for education and market ideology nationwide, making these factors the essence of education; while democratic values such as community, social responsibility, critical thinking, equity, and autonomy were viewed as mere distracters within the educational process. David Gabbard (2007) states: The dominant social paradigm of the market privileges the principles of heteronomy and individualism over the democratic principles of autonomy and community. Rather than looking upon education as a vehicle for enlightenment, economic elites view education as a tool through which to encourage “self-incured tutelage.” Autonomous workers committed to communitarian principles pose a threat to their power and privilege. (p. 3)
7 Today’s youth enter an educational system that acknowledges, models and advertises the notion that the sole purpose of education is to learn the dominant culture’s hegemonic language and system. This form of knowledge will in turn provide students the necessary skills to compete within the workforce and maintain the status quo. Critical pedagogy, (Giroux, 1989) which can provide our students the ability to reflect, analyze, and transform have become silenced due to the adoption of such static practices in public schools. Current Trend Today’s educators are systematically held accountable to teach our students the very same hegemonic ideals that were imposed on them. The educational system in the name of equal opportunity has become a battle zone where failure of the “Other” has become the source of blame and hegemony has driven the game. Current educational practices reproduce the rigid knowledge that the dominant culture deems to be the knowledge of most worth. This reproduction of scripted curriculum creates the basis for the perpetuation of inequities by means of the public school system. Silenced educators continue to deliver uninterrupted pre-scripted language that students must digest in order to score high on state mandated standardized tests. Paulo Freire (1993) describes this as the “banking” system. Students are taught core subjects using rote memorization, and seen as empty vessels that need to be filled like depositories. Freire (1993) describes this form of education stating: It is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient
8 continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other. (p. 72) Without the opportunity for students and teachers to transform themselves and society through curiosity, action, and reflection (Brookfield, 1995; Freire, 1998; Nieto, 1999) human suffering and oppression will continue to be viewed as the natural order. Being aware of perspectives other than what is perceived to be “normal,” (Kumashiro, 2001) is portrayed as being radical or controversial. Kumashiro (2000) states: I use the term “Other” to refer to those groups that are traditionally marginalized in society, i.e., that are other than the norm, such as students of color, students from under- or unemployed families, students who are female, or male but not stereotypically “masculine,” and students who are, or are perceived to be, queer (LGBTI)...I believe it extends to other forms of oppression and to other traditionally marginalized groups, such as students with disabilities, students with limited or no English-language proficiency, and students from non - Christian religious backgrounds. (p. 26) In many instances in public education, diversity is viewed as pertaining to the “Other” (Kumashiro, 2000). Multicultural education is deemed as a kind gesture during its brief interruption from the “normal” curriculum. Inviting a guest speaker, who is not from the dominant culture, is portrayed as a favor. All of these facets are legitimized with the implementation of the “normal” curriculum which exclusively reproduces western dominant cultural ideals that perpetuate ideological hegemony, the marginalization of “Others,” and the unjust status quo. The common sense rhetoric of market ideology in our educational system marginalizes the spirit of democracy in public schools. In essence, market ideology, with its reproduction of the dominant culture’s ideals not only promotes knowledge for the sake of human capital, but also promotes the status quo of the inequities that public
9 schools have deemed to be “normal.” In response to market ideology, Giroux (2004) states: Within the discourse of neoliberalism, the notion of the public good is devalued and, where possible, eliminated as part of a wider rationale for a handful of private interests to control as much of social life as possible in order to maximize their personal profit. Public services such as health care, child care, public assistance, education, and transportation are now subject to the rules of the market. Construing the public good as a private good and the needs of the corporate and private sector as the only source of investment, neoliberal ideology produces, legitimates, and exacerbates the existence of persistent poverty, inadequate health care, racial apartheid in the inner cities, and the growing inequalities between the rich and the poor. (para. 6) By silencing democratic values and maintaining the dominant discourse in public schools, the inequities among Americans have become an unconscious reality, and the “Other” (Kumashiro, 2001) has become the unspoken language.
Statement of the Problem In what ways can my seventh grade students and I create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating within our “public” school systems’ implementation of market ideology? The absence of multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and social responsibility in our educational system is oppressive and inequitable. Raising awareness and modeling democratic values within our educational system does not abandon the notion of providing learners with the necessary skills to contribute to our economic system. The absence of democratic values causes the deterioration of fostering curious, thoughtful, compassionate, and transformative individuals who have the presence of mind to act freely as a part of society towards the common good. By understanding both “competing” perspectives, students and teachers have the opportunity to grapple within both systems as agents, where new forms of language (Giroux & McLaren, 1992) and
10 new perspectives are experienced, reflected, and acted upon. Such action seeks to create a balance between the private and public notions of democracy while wrestling with the power relations which exist in schools and society today. These power relations continue to oppress many, in order to maintain the unjust status quo. This unchecked power is what the political and economic elite perpetuate in the name of democracy and freedom. Critically reflecting on the story (current culture) perpetuated by the dominant culture can provide students and teachers the opportunity to act as agents for the common good. As agents, students and teachers have the opportunity to understand the language from both “competing” systems (private and public forms of democracy), thus becoming empowered to change the story. Inclusive democratic curriculum can provide educators and students the opportunity to engage in thoughtful dialogue thus recognizing and respecting diverse perspectives. Such experiences promote community, compassion, human dignity, and appreciation of differences while grappling with the interrelationships of power and justice. These experiences, this teacher argues, do not hinder students from competing in the free-market. An educational system that empowers, enlightens, and promotes democratic values is absent in American public schools. Addressing the need for a forum in which students begin to gain knowledge by the means of critical pedagogy (Giroux, 1989) in an anti-oppressive (Kumashiro, 2000) manner has been silenced and dominated by the intensive implementation of market ideology.
11 Purpose of the Study Democratic Practice and Market Ideology This study is rooted in both the intense sadness and hope this teacher feels about the public school system. The strict accountability enforced by standardized testing forces public schools to marginalize the very democratic values which can shape a culture of justice, equity, and freedom (in today’s construct), which this teacher feels, human beings desire to experience. The oppressive rhetoric maintained through market ideology, marginalizes the art of learning and teaching by taking away the love, joy, passion, moral purpose, and reason for learning and teaching in public schools. A public place where students from diverse backgrounds share their lives, a forum for experiencing democratic values needs to come alive. This teacher has intense hope that public schooling will one day be a place the public looks to for hope; instead of a system to blame, to justify the inequities, and to maintain ideological hegemony. This inquiry stems from the responsibility and passion this teacher feels in regards to inclusive democratic education. Participating in a forum which provides everyone involved the opportunity to learn in a manner which encourages a moral curiosity in regards to culture, democratic values, and scientific concepts may improve lives through education. Such experiences can bring to life inclusive democratic practice in the classroom. With some feelings of inadequacy not withstanding, this teacher is honored to go on a journey using both her heart and mind in creating and sustaining an environment where students’ and teachers’ curiosities will be fostered and both “competing” systems will be examined, experienced, and critically reflected upon. Hence such experiences
12 may provide the possibilities of bringing about new meanings into the art of teaching and learning. This inquiry attempts to moralize and bring to life the practice of democratic values currently marginalized in American public schools. This study investigates the ways in which democratic values can be practiced alongside market ideology in this teacher’s seventh grade science classrooms. Both “competing” systems will be investigated in the hopes of creating something new. By merging theory into practice, this investigation may contribute to this teacher gaining a better understanding of her practice, her students, and our current educational system. These actions may also provide new insights and inquiries in regards to the practice of inclusive democratic values in the classroom. This study attempts to provide seventh grade learners/teachers the opportunity to engage in democratic practice in a science classroom in order to experience a form of democracy they desire and have a moral right to. A forum will be created in which the integration of democratic values and the critical exploration of the California State Science Standards will be experienced. During this study, learners will not solely be subjected to the “banking” system of education. All learners will be provided an environment where their construction of meaning, voice, and dreams are nurtured through critical pedagogy. The foundation of the class will embrace critical pedagogy, wherein multicultural education, critical reflection, and inclusive democratic curriculum will be brought to life with praxis. The praxis this teacher speaks of can be experienced in education through critical pedagogy. Nieto (1999) states that:
13 Critical pedagogy is an approach through which students and teachers engage in learning as a mutual encounter with the world. Critical pedagogy also implies praxis, that is, developing the important social action predispositions and attitudes that are the backbone of a democratic society, and learning to use them to alter patterns of domination and oppression. (pp. 104-105) The integration of both systems may serve as a meaningful approach in enhancing students’ and this teacher’s learning. These practices may provide students and this teacher the opportunity to begin to grapple and critically reflect on the power and language experienced in a seventh grade science classroom. Research Questions
Research Question 1: In what ways can educators and students work within
the context of the accountability demands set forth by market ideology in order to experience democratic values in public schools?
Research Question 2: Will an environment that embraces critical pedagogy
create a forum where all students can achieve within both “competing” systems (public and private) more constructively?
Theoretical Bases Critical Pedagogy: Bringing Theory to Life Critical pedagogy can bring to life democratic practice in the classroom. Giroux’s (2004) explanation of critical pedagogy provides the essence for what should be occurring in public schools: Critical pedagogy represents a form of cultural production implicated in and critically attentive to how power and meaning are employed in the construction and organization of knowledge, desires, values and identities. Critical pedagogy in this sense is not reduced to the mastering of skills or techniques, but is defined as a cultural practice that must be accountable ethically and politically for the stories it produces, the claims it makes on social memories, and the images of the future it
14 deems legitimate. As both an object of critique and a method of cultural production, it refuses to hide behind claims of objectivity, and works effortlessly to link theory and practice to enabling the possibilities for human agency in a world of diminishing returns. (para. 56) In constructing a forum that can bring to life democratic practice through critical pedagogy several facets need to be explored. These components include 1) the teacher’s role as a transformative learner (Brookfield, 1995; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1996a), 2) students’ personal experiences and the fostering of curiosity (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1998), and 3) the practice of an anti-oppressive form of education (Banks, 1991; Kumashiro, 2000; Nieto, 1999). These factors naturally lend themselves to edifying democratic values in the classroom. These components bring to life critical pedagogy in the classroom, wherein the grappling with knowledge, power, and language occurs amongst teachers and learners (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Nieto, 1999). Teachers as Transformative Learners. Sonia Nieto studied twenty-one, K-12 public school teachers who shared with her their teaching experiences with written essays. In her post analysis of her project ‘Why We Teach’ (Nieto, 2005) Nieto describes five qualities that good teachers possess. These qualities include a sense of mission, solidarity with, and empathy for, their students, the courage to challenge mainstream knowledge, improvisation, and a passion for social justice (Nieto, 2006). In order for good teaching to transpire, the development and ongoing practice of teacher transformation needs to become a way of life. Educators need to critically reflect on their practice through action and reflection (Brookfield, 1995). Through this ongoing process of reflective teaching (Brookfield, 1995), educators can become aware
15 of their “hidden” assumptions in regards to their teaching, learning and students. Nieto (1999) describes the experiences of Elizabeth Capifali stating, “Exploring her cultural background had a profound impact on how she viewed herself and her responsibilities as a future teacher educator” (p. 113). Critically reflecting on one’s practice brings to light new anti-oppressive forms of education and extinguishes old oppressive forms of teaching. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) analyzed the writings of K-16 educators, thus representing valuable inquiries, experiences, and practices from teachers. Teachers’ experiences provide educators meaningful stories to relate, reflect, and expand on. In their analysis they draw upon a reflective essay written by Howard. Based on her experiences in the classroom, Howard states that the emergence of knowledge is one in which, “arises between the inner impulses, interests, and qualities of the child and the physical and cultural world of which he or she is a part” (1993, p. 11). Fostering Curiosity. Within this new found autonomy, educators can begin to create and sustain a learning environment that promotes the freedom of thought (Freire, 1998). In his book, Pedagogy of Freedom, Freire (1998) states that it is, “The role of subjectivity and its capacity to compare, to analyze, to evaluate, to decide, and to break with the past, all of which makes history both ethical and political” (p. 128). Subjectivity provides learners the capacity to question, sustain, or reject old ideas and begin to construct new ideas. Embracing students’ lived experiences (Freire, 1998) and constructing new uncertainties can foster an ongoing motivation for learning. In addition, establishing solidarity (Nieto, 2006) with students based on their lived experiences can bring forth the
16 trust and acceptance necessary for self-motivated learning and reflective dialogue to occur in the classroom. Teachers that genuinely care about the students they teach recognize that the mutual respect and understanding that they share with their students play a significant role in students’ success. Nieto (2006) states that, Solidarity with and empathy for students are not simply sentimental emotions. For teachers who think deeply about their work, solidarity and empathy mean having genuine respect for their students’ identities including their language and culture as well as high expectations and great admiration for them. (p. 466) By placing students’ cultural experiences in the forefront of the learning process educators can encourage the interplay between the learning and unlearning of the dominant culture’s assertions. Developing dialogue with students about the reality of their lives (Freire, 1998) can establish the basis for developing curiosity in learners. Freire (1998) discusses curiosity stating: Curiosity as restless questioning, as movement towards the revelation of something hidden, as a question verbalized or not, as search for clarity, as a moment of attention, suggestion, and vigilance, constitutes the integral part of the phenomenon of being alive. There could be no creativity without the curiosity that moves us and sets us patiently impatient before a world that we did not make, to add to it something of our own making. (p. 37) Anti-Oppressive Education. An anti-oppressive form of education (Kumashiro, 2000) can foster democratic practice in the classroom. Kumashiro explains anti- oppressive education stating: Teaching does not consist merely of what we intentionally “do” with students, which means that we can never fully plan or execute anti-oppressive lessons. After all, what students learn results not only from what teachers teach intentionally, but also from what teachers teach unintentionally and often unknowingly, and different students “learn” different things, depending on the lenses they use to make sense of their experiences. These hidden lessons about the subject matter, about schooling, and about broader social relations are always permeating our schools, emerging
17 from our silences, behaviors, curricular structures, institutional rules, cultural values, and so forth. (2009, Alternative Models of Teaching, para. 1) Thus, the marginalization of the “Other,” the silencing of perspectives that are not part of the dominant culture and the perpetuation of the inequitable status quo (Kumashiro 2000; 2001) are present in our public school system. For example, Kozol (1981) writes about how most textbooks and curriculum guides include Thoreau’s contributions about nature yet they do not include Thoreau’s stance against America’s war with Mexico. Here is a quote Kozol (1981) cited from Thoreau’s essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience: When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country [i.e. Mexico] is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize…As for adopting the ways which the state has provided for dealing with the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too long and a man’s life may be gone. (p. 39) If textbooks and educators in public schools represented America’s history and influential people from diverse perspectives and did not always make America out to be the hero, students may recognize the injustices present in society are malleable and not fixed positions they need to place themselves in. Today’s discourse in public schools represents most of America’s history and knowledge from the dominant group’s perspective. Enabling students to grapple with the harsh realities of the past may prove to empower students to not only examine, but question, feel, and act on the unjust realities of today. Giving our students the opportunity to critically reflect on America’s past and what they are presently learning in schools will foster freedom of thought (Freire 1998) and the sustainability of democracy. Kumashiro (2001) also brings to light how the curriculum in public schools today is oppressive and unjust. He states:
18 The importance of inclusion, then, lies not merely in its broadening of perspectives, but also in its ability to change the underlying story of the curricular unit and its political effect. Rather than perpetuate a story that says “the United States was the force of good” (and perpetuate the notion that the United States is the big brother to the world, the place of freedom and righteousness, a meritocracy), the unit now can teach about the United States’ perpetuation of racism (against its own citizens) and homophobia…The inclusive curriculum, in other words, not only can tell more about women, queers, and Japanese Americans; it can also change narratives of the United States’ role in simultaneously challenging and contributing to various oppressions. (p. 6) Public schools should reflect the true realities of the past and bring to life the diverse experiences students encounter in their everyday lives. Such experiences may reduce the resistance many students have towards education. Anti-oppressive (Kumashiro, 2000) education may prove to foster empowered students and teachers, empowering schools, lifelong learning, and a just society.
Definitions Critical Pedagogy Critical pedagogy represents a form of cultural production implicated in and critically attentive to how power and meaning are employed in the construction and organization of knowledge, desires, values and identities. Critical pedagogy in this sense is not reduced to the mastering of skills or techniques, but is defined as a cultural practice that must be accountable ethically and politically for the stories it produces, the claims it makes on social memories, and the images of the future it deems legitimate. As both an object of critique and a method of cultural production, it refuses to hide behind claims of objectivity, and works effortlessly to link theory and practice to enabling the possibilities for human agency in a world of diminishing returns. (Giroux, 1996, p. 54) Democratic Values The values of democracy which are marginalized due to the uncompromising rhetoric of only one facet of democracy (unchecked private purpose of democracy). Values such as cooperation, conversation, community, equity, trust, autonomy,
19 unconditional love, human dignity, and justice for the common good (public purpose of democracy). Hegemony When prevailing consciousness is internalized by the population it becomes part of what is generally called ‘common sense’ so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling elite comes to appear as the natural order of things. (Boggs, 1976, p. 39) Inclusive Democratic Values The multiple facets of democracy (public and private). Market Ideology The worldview that a government’s involvement in education can produce human capital, therefore benefiting the economic market (Engel, 2000). “Other” I use the term “Other” to refer to those groups that are traditionally marginalized in society, i.e., that are other than the norm, such as students of color, students from under—or unemployed families, students who are female, or male but not stereotypically “masculine,” and students who are, or are perceived to be, queer (LGBTI)...I believe it extends to other forms of oppression and to other traditionally marginalized groups, such as students with disabilities, students with limited or no English-language proficiency, and students from non-Christian religious backgrounds. (Kumashiro, 2000, p. 26) Praxis “Developing the important social action predispositions and attitudes that are the backbone of a democratic society, and learning to use them to alter patterns of domination and oppression” (Nieto, 1999, p. 104-105).
20 Limitations of the Study The limitations of this investigation arise due to the nature of this study. This study was experienced in six, seventh grade science classrooms, located at Bidwell Junior High School, in Chico, California. The uncontrolled variables present within this investigation include the diversity among teachers (my colleague and I), students, classes, class-sizes, classes taking place during different times of the day, and the current culture experienced at Bidwell Junior High School.
CHAPTER II
HISTORY OF CURRICULUM IN AMERICA
Recognizing the curriculum theories and the influences which have historically shaped the development of curricula in American public schools can provide meaningful insight towards the classic question; what is the purpose of public schools? Sometimes conflicting, intertwining, and complementing one another, educational ideologies continue to shape the development of the curricula in public schools. Understanding what shapes the diverse beliefs and values in regards to the purposes of schooling, and examining how different ideologies have shaped the development of curricula in education can help educators gain a deeper understanding of how, what, why, and who they teach. Becoming familiar with the multiple factors that influence the curriculum in public schools today may prove beneficial. Envisioning what public schools were truly like over the past two centuries initially seems unimaginable. Examining the theories and practices of influential movements and the responses to such movements in education from the past to the present make it possible for educators to understand the influences that shape the development of the curriculum in today’s public schools. The past is easier to conceptualize when one becomes aware of the social, cultural, political, technological, and economic issues which influence the ideologies that 21
22 drive the curriculum in public schools. The ideologies discussed in this review, since their inception, continue to influence the development of the curricula in public schools. Nevertheless, from time to time, certain ideologies have been more dominant than others due to the nature of the times. The historical and present ideologies that have shaped and continue to shape how and what is taught in American public schools have always been a source of debate (Ravitch, 1981). For the purposes of this review, five curricular ideologies in regards to schooling will be explored. These perspectives include the Scholar Academic (Schiro, 2008), Social Efficiency (Bobbitt, 1918, 1924; Charters 1923; Kliebard, 1975), Learner Centered (Parker, 1894), Social Reconstruction (Counts, 1932), and the market ideology (Engel, 2000) movements in education.
Classical Era Before the conception of the ideologies mentioned above, the nineteenth century public school curriculum was dominated by mental discipline (Kliebard, 2001). Memorization and recitation were the main forms of instruction that were based off the faculty psychology theory which attempted to explain how the mind worked. By using memorization and recitation strategies, students could exercise their minds and improve their memory, therefore developing the ability to remember more information. For example, by studying math, the student’s mind would become stronger and increase the student’s ability to reason (Kliebard, 2001). The mind was perceived as a muscle that could be shaped with the rigorous practice of reproducing specific facts through
23 repetition. The dominant curriculum during the nineteenth century was discipline oriented, and deemed education as a means to maintain social order.
Social Efficiency In the early 1900s, the emergence of the Social Efficiency ideology inspired by Frank Bobbitt was the basis for the development of science-based curriculum in public schools. Bobbitt’s ideas at the time were influential due to America’s demands in social and economic development (Flinders & Thornton, 1997; Schiro, 2008). The Social Efficiency ideology emerged from the behavioral psychology theory. Behavioral psychologists, Thorndike and later Gagne, had an instrumental influence in giving meaning and shape to the curriculum which was driven by the Social Efficiency ideology. Bobbitt, in his book The Curriculum, identified specific objectives, goals, and aims which curriculum developers needed to use in order to address the demanding need for social and academic efficiency in education (Bobbitt, 1918). Bobbitt felt that public schools needed to become more efficient. He posited that schools needed to operate similar to successful businesses wherein measuring cost, time, and benefits would create well managed and successfully run schools. Bobbitt’s scientific approach not only suggested efficiency in public schools, but he also argued that using scientific procedures to develop curriculum would be the most effective way to maximize and assess learning (Bobbitt, 1918; Flinders & Thornton, 1997). Bobbitt felt that the purpose of schooling was to provide a form of education which provided the learner a place in the existing economic and social structure thus maintaining the status quo.
24 Today, Social Efficiency ideology continues to play a role in public schools. Research-based assessment and management strategies in public schools are products of the Social Efficiency ideology which emerged a century ago. Today, data driven analysis of standardized tests are used nationwide. By evaluating students’ attainment of standardbased curriculum, school districts, teachers, and students are held accountable by the outcomes of standardized test scores. Measuring the learning outcomes of students is used to explain what works in schools and is rooted in the Social Efficiency ideology. The Social Efficiency ideology emerged in the early 1900s and dominated the development of curricula until the early 1940s. During this time the Learner Centered ideology, which will be discussed later, was also dominating the curriculum in public schools. Both ideologies were coexisting during the same time. Nevertheless, some aspects of the Social Efficiency ideology such as funding, large numbers of students in classrooms, standardized testing, and classroom management strategies still play a major role in how schools operate today. In response to the Social Efficiency ideology, Dewey’s approach to learning was quite the opposite. Dewey argued that the experiences of the child should inspire the development of the curriculum. Dewey (1897) in his book My Pedagogic Creed, stated, The only true education comes through the simulation of the child’s powers by the demands of the social institutions in which he finds himself…Through the responses which others make to his own activities he comes to know what these mean in social terms. (p. 291) Dewey believed that the learners’ experiences should be within the context of the social world in which the child presently found his or her realities. In addition, the interplay of knowledge from the past and present would provide the learner a look into the malleable
25 future and provide the learner the possibility of creating new meanings through social experiences. There was not a fixed agenda, as Bobbitt posited, where the learner would be positioned into the existing social and economical order, thus maintaining the status quo (Flinders & Thornton, 1997).
Scholar Academic Ideology Advocates of the Scholar Academic ideology view the transfer of knowledge in a hierarchical manner as an effective approach to learning in public schools. The top of the hierarchy is composed of university professors which hold the knowledge in certain disciplines, i.e. math, science, English, history and foreign languages. The bottom of the hierarchy is composed of the learners which increase their knowledge of specific subject matters in increments by learning standard-based curriculum, in order to eventually reach the top of the hierarchy. In response to the Scholar Academic ideology, Apple (2007) argues that this hierarchical pyramid transfers the dominant discourse from the small top and reaches the wider base at the bottom. As the dominant culture’s discourse flows down from the small point at the top, the less and less negotiation for discourse and literacy is found at the bottom. Scholar Academics place high importance on the content which makes up the curriculum and place little value on the whole learner (Schiro, 2008). The curriculum is composed of standard-based content which is transferred by the teacher to the student, who in turn reproduces the knowledge. How well the student learns the dominant culture’s discourse is measured by standardized tests.
26 Scholar Academics believe that educators should deliver pre-scripted language that the students need to learn, in order to score high on state mandated standardized tests. By successfully accomplishing this task, the learner can move higher up on the hierarchical academic pyramid. Paulo Freire (1993) described this approach to learning, as the “banking” system. Students are taught core subjects using rote memorization, and seen as empty vessels that need to be filled like depositories. Freire (1993) in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, describes this form of education by stating: It is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other. (p. 72) The praxis which Freire speaks of can be experienced in education through critical pedagogy. Nieto (1999) states that: Critical pedagogy is an approach through which students and teachers engage in learning as a mutual encounter with the world. Critical pedagogy also implies praxis, that is, developing the important social action predispositions and attitudes that are the backbone of a democratic society, and learning to use them to alter patterns of domination and oppression. (pp. 104-105) Nevertheless, for Scholar Academics certain academic disciplines are valued as the knowledge that should be taught in schools. Therefore, Scholar Academics promote their discipline of interest constituting what should be taught in public schools and how. A given discipline is taught and standardized test scores show the students’ and teachers’ successes and failures within a specific discipline. What is deemed the knowledge of most worth to Scholar Academics is rooted historically in the decisions that were made
27 by the Committee of Ten and the Committee of Fifteen who were appointed by the National Education Association (NEA) at the end of the nineteenth century. The Scholar Academic ideology and its influence on curriculum development has fluctuated since its emergence in the 1890s. The peaks of Scholar Academics have been sparked by fear and during times when America faced economic hardships. Scholar Academic ideology dominated the curriculum in public schools in the late nineteenth century, the 1950s and 1960s, and emerged once again in the 1980s. In the late 1950s the launch of Sputnik resulted in a reevaluation of what the curriculum should be (Goodlad, 1964) and Scholar Academics in the disciplines of math and science highly influenced the curriculum in public schools (Schiro, 2008). Increased government funding in the fields of mathematics and science influenced the reemergence of the Scholar Academic ideology in public schools. Again, in 1983, after Ronald Reagan warned us that we were “A nation at risk,” Scholar Academic ideology influenced the development of the curriculum in public schools. Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education placed the blame for America’s economic failures on America’s public school system (Gabbard, 2007). These attempts to reform education would marginalize democratic values in order to meet the demanding needs for human capital by focusing on core subjects. In response to Scholar Academic ideology, David Gabbard (2007), states: The dominant social paradigm of the market privileges the principles of heteronomy and individualism over the democratic principles of autonomy and community. Rather than looking upon education as a vehicle for enlightenment, economic elites view education as a tool through which to encourage “self-incured tutelage.” Autonomous workers committed to communitarian principles pose a threat to their power and privilege. (p. 3)
28 This form of knowledge will in turn provide students the necessary skills to compete within the workforce and maintain the status quo. Since the early 1980s Scholar Academic ideology has emerged once again as the dominant system of how and what should be taught in public schools.
Learner Centered The Learner Centered approach to schooling is profoundly different than the Social Efficiency and Scholar Academic ideologies. The Learner Centered ideology is based on the learning theory known as constructivism. Hall and Parker were influential in the child-centered movement. Francis Parker (1894), in his book, Talks on Pedagogics, believed that the learner needed to experience knowledge by bridging. He stated, “This mingling, fusing, and blending [of children from all social classes] give personal power and make public school a tremendous force for the upbuilding of democracy” (p. 421). Public schools therefore can become a place where students from diverse backgrounds bring with them meaningful perspectives which are valued and recognized. Therefore, diversity is embraced, and a forum for sustaining the building up of democracy comes alive. What better place than public schools for students to practice democratic values within a pluralistic society. Dewey (1917) pronounces that valuing learning from diverse perspectives promotes cultural pluralism. The Learner Centered ideology places the interests and desires of the learner at the center of the curriculum. Parker (1894) stated that, “The centre of all movement in education is the child” (p. 383). The students’ background, emotions, desires, interests, and needs are what comprise the learning environment. The experiences of the student
29 during the act of learning are valued. Instead of reading about how to do things, the student learns by doing (Dewey, 1938). As opposed to external demands of what and how to learn, the students’ curiosities and interests drive what, when, and how they learn (Schiro, 2008). Advocates of the child-centered approach to learning recognize that the learners’ experiences must be an integral part of the learning process. Learning in cooperative groups and through creation are deemed as valuable approaches in students’ learning. Although cooperative grouping and creativity are strategies used in the childcentered approach, Nieto (1999) emphasizes that such strategies should be approached critically and with purpose. She states, “The major issue is not to make particular strategies, approaches, or even content prescriptive, but rather to examine critically the environment in which those strategies and curriculum are played out” (p. 108). The Learner Centered ideology emerged in the 1920s and continued to dominate the curriculum in public schools until the early 1940s alongside the Social Efficiency ideology. It emerged once again in the 1970s as the open classroom movement, and lost momentum due to the reemergence of the Scholar Academic ideology in the early 1980s.
Social Reconstruction Ideology Social Reconstructionists view public schools as a means of creating a more just society. Advocates of the Social Reconstruction ideology believe that public schools should be more than just a place for students to learn the core subjects. They feel public schools should also be a place where students and teachers engage in social and political experiences. Such experiences can provide the means to liberate people from the
30 injustices imposed on them based on socially constructed inequalities. George Counts’, who was influenced by Dewey and Parker, was an influential proponent of the Social Reconstruction ideology. Counts (1932) states: The most genuine expression of democracy in the United States has little to do with our political institutions: it is a sentiment with respect to the moral equality of men: it is an aspiration towards a society in which this sentiment will find complete fulfillment. A society fashioned in harmony with the American democratic tradition would combat all forces tending to produce social distinctions and classes; repress every form of privilege and economic parasitism; manifest a tender regard…transform or destroy all conventions, institutions, and special groups inimical to the underlying principles of democracy. (p. 33) Social Reconstructionists believe that the current form of education in public schools is oppressive and unjust. They believe democratic values in public schools are being marginalized. Social Reconstructionists are driven by the hope that social justice by the means of democratic practice in public schools will one day become a reality. Educators such as Apple, Banks, Freire, Giroux, hooks, Kozol, Kumashiro, and Nieto are a few of the many advocates of the Social Reconstruction ideology. Social Reconstructionists believe experiencing discourse from diverse perspectives enables students and teachers to become active members within a pluralistic society. Hence, education should not solely take place through the repetition of the dominant group’s discourse. Learning should also be experienced through democratic practice wherein diverse perspectives, collaboration, and students’ experiences with the world come alive by means of critical pedagogy as part of a liberating learning experience. This interplay of discourse amongst teachers and students with the world brings forth awareness of new perspectives and meanings. These experiences provide students an appreciation for differences, a sense of belonging, and enable students to
31 recognize that their diverse identities, thoughts, actions, and feelings not only matter, but also enable the upbuilding of democracy and are embraced. Learning becomes a social, emotional and meaningful journey. Such an educational environment provides the building up of self-worth, courage, passion, purpose, and advocacy for justice. These qualities bring to life social responsibility among students and educators for the common good. The Social Reconstruction ideology had a brief emergence in the 1930s thanks to Beard, Counts, and Rugg. It appeared once again in the 1970s alongside the Learner Centered Ideology, but was later marginalized by the reemergence of Social Efficiency, Scholarly Academic, and market ideologies.
Market Ideology The dominant curriculum that drives today’s public schools encompasses aspects of two of the ideologies discussed earlier. The Social Efficiency and Scholar Academic ideologies can be seen in their newest forms as facets of market ideology. The perpetuation of standards-based education in the 1980s provided the momentum for market ideology to take shape in public schools. Market ideology is the worldview that a government’s involvement in education can produce human capital, therefore benefiting the economic market (Engel, 2000). Giroux (2004) states that: Neoliberal policies dominate the discourse of politics and use the breathless rhetoric of the global victory of free-market rationality to cut public expenditures and undermine those non-commodified public spheres that serve as the repository for critical education, language, and public intervention. Spewed forth by the mass media, right-wing intellectuals, religious fanatics, and politicians, neoliberal ideology, with its ongoing emphasis on deregulation and privatization, has found its material expression in an all-out attack on democratic values and on the very notion of the public sphere. (para. 6)
32 Commenting on market ideology and the demise of democratic practice in our schools, Engel (2000) states that, “They (political and economic elite) have gradually undermined democratic values in the educational system by weakening the rationale for maintaining it as a publicly controlled institution and by pushing civic education for democracy off the pedagogical agenda” (p. 22). Market ideology hinders the curriculum in public schools today from being experienced from multiple perspectives. The curriculum needs to reflect the pluralistic society which encompasses America today. Diversity needs to be viewed as an asset as opposed to a deficit (Schulte, 2009). In a pluralistic society, public schools can sustain democracy by promoting learning from diverse perspectives. Dewey (1917) states: One cannot contemplate in imagination that every people in the world should talk Volapuek or Esperanto, that the same thoughts should be cultivated, the same beliefs, the same historical traditions, and the same ideals and aspirations for the future. Variety is the spice of life, and the richness and the attractiveness of social institutions depend upon cultural diversity among separate units. In so far as people are all alike, there is no give and take among them. And it is better to give and take. (p. 288). Today’s youth enter an educational system that acknowledges, models and advertises the notion that the sole purpose of education is to learn the dominant culture’s hegemonic language and system in order to successfully compete in the free-market. The interplay of the Social Efficiency and Scholar Academic ideologies maintains the status quo perpetuated by the commonsense language driven by what is known today as market ideology. Market ideologues rhetoric dominates the public’s perception of what the purpose of public schooling is for. Giroux (2004) states: As the prevailing discourse of neoliberalism seizes the public imagination, there is no vocabulary for progressive social change, democratically inspired visions, or critical notions of social agency to expand the meaning and purpose of democratic
33 public life. Against the reality of low wage jobs, the erosion of social provisions for a growing number of people and the expanding war against young people of color at home and empire-building abroad, the market-driven juggernaut of neoliberalism continues to mobilize desires in the interest of producing market identities and market relationships that ultimately sever the link between education and social change while reducing agency to the obligations of consumerism. (para. 10) Critical pedagogy (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992) which can provide our students the ability to reflect, analyze, and transform have become silenced due to the adoption of such static practices in “public” schools. Public schools should not solely be driven by corporate elite tactics perpetuating the unjust status quo at the expense of our youth for their profits. Why is the present purpose of public schools solely aimed at providing private gains for the economic elite? Gibboney (2008) states: I can only conclude that educators have been seduced by the viewpoint that considers only the economic value of schooling as a training ground for workers and not the centrality of public education to the survival of democracy. In the endless parade of education “reforms,” a focus on technical skills has replaced the pursuit of ideas, democratic ideals, and civic courage. (p. 24) Addressing the need for public schools to be sustained through democratic practice is a sad truth. The purpose of public schools has many facets. One of these facets must be to sustain democracy. Viewing public schools from only an economic standpoint hinders the discourse for maintaining education as a public good. In order to empower and sustain public schools, democratic values must become a part of schooling. By recognizing that public schools are places where democratic values are nurtured, dialogue about implementation of equal funding for all public schools may become commonsense. The perpetuation of market ideology in public schools is aiding in the slow yet tactful deterioration of public schools as a public good.
34 Major corporations have recognized the huge profit gains which can emerge from “doing business” with public schools. How can public schools be sustained as a public good when schools are solely driven by market ideology backed up by political accountability and corporate funding? Who decides what the purpose of “public” schools should be? Should major corporations be making these decisions? With the lack of democratic practice for the common good in public schools, schooling becomes a venue where knowledge is attained for the sole purpose of economic gain. Students need to be provided a forum where they are empowered through critical pedagogy. They need to recognize that they do matter, do exist, can make a difference, have the strength, courage, and ability to stand up for themselves and be agents for others for the common good. Historically curriculum ideologies have been influenced by political, economic, social, cultural, and technological issues which guided the development of curriculum from the “top” down. Can students and educators bring to life democratic practice from the “bottom” up and demand that there be new discourse with the “top”? Market ideology threatens the existence of public schools by marginalizing democratic values and maintaining the stance that public schools are places where students are taught how they can be fitted into the current unjust social construct. Today the Social Reconstruction and Learner Centered ideologies are practiced in some universities and public schools. These progressive schools and educators are providing the discourse necessary for the preservation of public schools, as a public purpose, for the common good. Both Social Reconstructionism and Learner Centered approaches open a
35 space for discourse about social justice and bring meaning, purpose, and courage to the lives of students and educators that wish to experience a balanced democracy.
Democratic Practice in America’s Public Schools in Response to Market Ideology Neoliberal rhetoric deems market ideology in the name of “freedom” to be democratic. In response to market ideology Giroux (2004) states: The ideology and power of neoliberalism also cuts across national boundaries. Throughout the globe, the forces of neoliberalism are on the march, dismantling the historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the welfare state, defining profit-making as the essence of democracy, and equating freedom with the unrestricted ability of markets to govern economic relations free of government regulation. (para. 4) Such hegemonic discourse perpetuated through public life contradicts the very essence of democracy. Neoliberals use democratic language to justify the oppressive tactics which hinder educators and students from the art of teaching and learning. This manipulation of language has spewed its way into the educational arena leaving voiceless educators the lofty task of figuring out a way to fight within the educational system, leave, or perpetuate the dominant group’s discourse. How educators respond to market ideology will influence the building up of democracy and the sustaining of public education as a public good. To experience democracy is to learn the meaning of democracy. Dewey (1897) believed that true education occurs through experience. In essence, learning takes place by doing (Dewey, 1938). Dewey (1937) states: What the argument for democracy implies is that the best way to produce initiative and constructive power is to exercise it. Power, as well as interest, comes by use and practice…Unless democratic habits and thought and action are part of the fiber of a people, political democracy is insecure. It cannot stand in isolation. It must be
36 buttressed by the presence of democratic methods in all social relationships. (p. 345) Hoffert recognizes that the learning of democratic methods through experience makes it possible for the development and sustainability of democracy as a way of life (Hoffert, 2001). He discusses how taking on such a challenge is necessary. Democracy must come to life by means of our public school system in order for us to progress as a just, pluralistic society. A classroom where students experience what it means to live democratically can foster the concept of democracy as a way of life. This portion of the review will attempt to answer the following questions. What is democracy? What does a democratic classroom look like? How does one teach democratically? Why should democracy be practiced in public schools? Democracy–Searching for Balance The meaning of democracy can be ambiguous since it is not static. Similar to trying to define the identity of an individual, defining democracy is complex. Democracy, like a person’s identity, takes shape and evolves within the context of the economic, political, cultural, and social world through experience. Many diverse, complementary, and ethical expressions of what modern democracy is, or is not, have been postulated by educators. For the purpose of this review, the multiple facets that provided a clear and fundamental moral expression of what democratic practice is have been comprised by intertwining the ideas of four educators whose combined perspectives express the act of democracy as such: The fundamental practice of democracy is rooted in the unconditional care (Noddings, 2005) and value of all human beings (Hoffert, 2001) which embraces
37 cultural pluralism (Dewey, 1917). Moral and ethical (Soder et al., 2001) public decisions constructed for the liberation and empowerment of all human beings towards a morally just society can be fostered through democratic practice. Soder et al. (2001) state that, “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). Soder et al. recognize that in order for such progress to occur in public schools, human conversation, ethics of care (Noddings, 2005), and moral stewardship, must be part of the public schools mission towards the meaning and practice of democracy. Democratic Practice in the Classroom True human conversation entails listening and reflecting on ideas from multiple perspectives. If only the dominant groups’ uncompromising discourse is the expression of public schools then there is nothing to reflect on. Thus, the opportunity to recognize and critically reflect on the hegemonic language perpetuated by market ideology goes unchallenged. Experiencing democratic methods in the classroom fosters the building up of democracy. Apple and Beane (1999) advise that such methods include critical reflection; trust in individuals to make informed choices; facilitation of the flow of ideas from multiple perspectives, and; bringing forth a genuine concern for the common good, dignity, and rights of all human beings; all of which foster and promote a democratic way of life. In order for such methods to be practiced in public schools, how and what is taught in public schools needs to be explored. Critical pedagogy (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992), anti-oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2000; Nieto, 1999),
38 multicultural education (Banks, 1991; Nieto, 1999), and the teacher’s role as a transformative learner (Brookfield, 1995; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1996a) can bring to life democratic practice in the classroom. These facets compose the theoretical bases for this thesis.
The Purpose of Public Schools In the mid nineteenth century Herbert Spencer (1861) asked the famous question, “What knowledge is of most worth?” A century later, Michael Apple (1990), asked an even more critical question. “Whose knowledge is of most worth” (p. 526)? Apple believes that the debate over this question is not only an ideological issue but also a political issue (1990). Today the purpose of public schools is driven by market ideology. Apple (1990) states that, “Professional discourse about the curriculum has shifted from a focus on what we should teach to a focus on how the curriculum should be organized, built, and evaluated” (p. 527). The purpose of public schools has been minimized to a few simple words which mirror that of the marketplace and the dominant culture’s discourse. Market ideologues rhetoric dominates the public’s perception of what the purpose of public schooling is for. Giroux (2004) states: As the prevailing discourse of neoliberalism seizes the public imagination, there is no vocabulary for progressive social change, democratically inspired visions, or critical notions of social agency to expand the meaning and purpose of democratic public life. Against the reality of low wage jobs, the erosion of social provisions for a growing number of people and the expanding war against young people of color at home and empire-building abroad, the market-driven juggernaut of neoliberalism continues to mobilize desires in the interest of producing market identities and market relationships that ultimately sever the link between education and social change while reducing agency to the obligations of consumerism. (para.10)
39 Negotiation for democratic values in public schools has become obsolete. As more and more emphasis is placed on how the curriculum should be organized, built, and evaluated, the discourse for what should be taught and how has been silenced. The absence of democratic values in public schools is a painful reflection of how the dominant group’s discourse in public schools marginalizes the very spirit of democracy. The curriculum in public schools should be a reflection of the diverse perspectives, attitudes, and values that shape society. Learning should take place by experiencing knowledge from multiple perspectives through critical pedagogy and not solely through the reproduction of the dominant group’s discourse.
For What It’s Worth Ravitch (1981) mentions that the historical and present ideologies that have shaped and continue to shape how and what is taught in American public schools have always been a source of debate. This teacher argues that the dominant group’s discourse has marginalized democratic values in public schools and taken the conversation out of the debate. Discourse about democratic practice in public schools today is deemed as “off topic.” This teacher seeks to create an equitable environment which can provide a balance between the public and private purposes of public schooling by taking a multilayered approach in classroom practices. Soder et al. (2001) state “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). At a time when discourse has shifted away from the public purpose of schooling towards only the private, can educators create a forum for students to experience the true spirit of democracy?
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction This teacher felt she had a moral responsibility to seek out ways to improve student learning by creating and sustaining a democratic classroom in the presence of market ideology. During the process of using action research, I took many emotional steps in a journey towards better understanding myself as a teacher, my students, and my practice. The purpose of this study was to critically examine the practice of democratic values within the context of market ideology in four seventh grade science classrooms. The qualitative and quantitative data gathered during this investigation provided meaningful insight into the art of teaching and learning. This investigation provided an emic perspective into four classrooms where learners, including this teacher and her team-teacher experienced praxis.
Design of Investigation In designing this investigation, my team teacher and I critically reflected on our practice and took action to provide a forum where critical pedagogy (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Nieto, 1999) would be experienced in four seventh grade science classrooms. This research attempted to investigate the ways in which the
40
41 implementation of democratic values in the context of market ideology could improve students’ learning. With high accountability and high stakes testing, action was taken to create an environment wherein democratic values were experienced while interweaving the rigid demands of standards-based education. Students attained standards-based science content by experiencing multiple layers of democratic practice including: a) students’ reflection with journaling, b) collaboration through group projects, c) production of an inclusive student run school wide newspaper, d) choice in curricular content, e) class discussions on diversity, and race, and f) the exploration of race as a social construct. These facets edified democratic values in four seventh grade science classrooms while interweaving the California State Science Standards. Students’ Reflection and Journaling During the genetics unit students kept a journal. The questions posed to the students were reflective in nature. During the six-week genetics unit, students wrote in their journals fifteen times. Students responded to questions about a) how they felt about working in groups, b) how they felt about themselves, c) how they felt about what they were learning, and d) students were also asked questions in relationship to content, labs, or activities they were about to participate in or had recently experienced. Collaboration through Group Projects Throughout the year students worked in groups on multiple labs, projects, and activities. For the purposes of this investigation, three group projects were analyzed during the genetics unit. These experiences included the a) student run newspaper, b) exploring diversity group poster, and c) understanding genetics and race.
42 When my team teacher Mr. Riley and I began the school year, one of the main changes we were making in how we taught was to facilitate more groupwork. Although we both had our students in the past work in pairs on labs and activities, groupwork was not an approach we used for students’ learning. My new found appreciation for groupwork stemmed from my own experiences in my Master’s classes which facilitated many group projects and discussions. The second influence which helped me learn how to facilitate groupwork was reading Stephen Brookfield’s (1995) book Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. With these two resources, Riley and I developed multiple lessons which provided our students the opportunity to work in groups. Before the genetics unit, our students had worked in groups six times. The projects they worked on lasted anywhere from two days to two weeks. In our first attempt to facilitate a week long group project we recognized that although our planned curriculum was effective, not all of our students were participating equally in groups. In our second attempt we provided our students 1) a rubric of what it means to work effectively in a group, 2) a structured approach which required each student in the group to participate in the group discussion two minutes at a time (Brookfield, 1995), 3) we required each student to repeat what the previous student had stated before they shared their thoughts (Brookfield, 1995), and 4) had them write in their journals about their experiences of what worked and didn’t work during groupwork. We used this structure for the next three projects our students did in groups. Once we felt they had gained a better understanding of how to work effectively with each other, we stopped structuring their actions during groupwork. This change occurred during the genetics unit.
43 Inclusive Student Newspaper In groups, students chose to write an article for their peers and school staff at Bidwell Junior High School. The articles included topics ranging from people from different backgrounds who had contributed to genetics, diversity, race, gender, genetic disorders, and some groups chose to write about their personal experiences in regards to race and gender on campus. This project was run collaboratively with students in the computer’s classes. Students in the science classes wrote the articles and a few of the students in the computer’s classes created the layout. We then had the articles printed on newspaper, and had the newspapers distributed to all the students and staff on the Bidwell Junior High School campus. Students’ Choice Based on their interests and curiosities, students chose what they wanted to research and write about for their news article. Students were given brief instruction on the use of computers, essay construction, and were then let loose to work with their groups for five days with minimal teacher involvement. Both myself and my team teacher were there as resources if they chose to seek guidance. For groups that finished early, an extra project consisting of creating ads, crossword puzzles, comic strips, and word searches for the newspaper were available. Students also had the option of creating a presentation to share with their peers about the article they had written. After the first and second drafts had been submitted for editing by their teachers, students completed their final drafts. These final drafts were then sent to the computer’s classes for final layout and printing.
44 Class Discussions In my second period, four classroom discussions on diversity and race took place during the genetics unit. Twice the discussions were planned and twice the discussions emerged from several students wanting to discuss and understand the meaning of race at a deeper level (power). One of those times the discussion started with a student stating, “Race is everyone that is not White.” This same discussion ended with one student after class approaching me and stating that, “It doesn’t matter if people think I am Black, what matters is that I know I am American Indian.” In period one, two discussions on diversity and race took place. The Meaning of Race In preparation for a lesson on the meaning of race, students were asked to write their understanding of what race meant based on their prior knowledge. Students were then given several different definitions of race from different perspectives. An exploration about the meaning of race was then experienced through discussion. Students were then asked to make a hypothesis. Did race have any scientific validity or was race a social construct. After students wrote down their hypotheses, in pairs they explored the PBS website, Race the Power of an Illusion. Students completed short essay questions while they navigated through the website. This two day lesson concluded with a discussion about race and power and whether students thought race was a social construct or if race was a scientifically valid way of grouping people based on genetic variation. California State Standards Through short lecture, classroom discussions, activities, labs, writing, and group projects students learned the California state science standards. Aside from regular
45 assessment by the means of observation, and evaluation of students’ work; students were assessed with a forty question standard-based test developed and evaluated using Edusoft Software. This test was given as a pretest and posttest.
Student Demographics The participants for this study included five periods of my students and two periods of my team teacher’s students. A total of two hundred and sixteen seventh graders gave me permission to gather data in our life science classes for the purposes of this investigation. This study took place at Bidwell Junior High School in Chico, California. Our current student population is six hundred and eighty-four students. Three hundred and eight of our students quality for free or reduced lunches. Eighty-nine of our students have either IEPs or 504 plans. Forty-three of our students are English language learners. The percentages of our students racial/ethnic demographics includes; a) 69.4% White, b) 19.2 % Hispanic/Latino, c) 4.7% Asian, d) 3.3% African American/Black, e) 1.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native, f) 0.7% Filipino, f) 0.2% Pacific Islander, and g) 1.0% declined to state. Table 1 shows the percentages of my students’ racial/ethnic demographics per class period. Table 2 shows Mr. Riley’s students’ racial/ethnic demographics per class period.
Action Research Participatory action research, for me, was a continuous emotional spiraling journey driven by passion, collaboration, reflection, purpose, courage, and hope. Action research provided me the steps to critically reflect and take action in regards to creating and sustaining a democratic classroom within the context of market ideology. The action
46 Table 1 Student Racial/Ethnic Demographics Per Class Period Class Period
White
1
68.6%
2
Hispanic/ Latino
Asian
African American/ Black
American Indian
Filipino
Pacific Islander
Decline to state
22.8%
5.8%
2.8%
1.5%
0%
0%
0%
56.6%
23.3%
6.6%
3.3%
6.7%
0%
0%
3.3%
4
66.6%
20%
0%
3.3%
3.3%
6.7%
0%
0%
5
64.5%
22.6%
6.5%
3.2%
0%
0%
0%
3.2%
6
82.3%
15%
0%
2.7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 2 Mr. Riley’s Students’ Racial/Ethnic Demographics Per Class Period Class Period
White
Hispanic/ Latino
Asian
1
71%
9.7%
6.5%
2
56.3%
21.9%
12.5%
African American/ Black
American Indian
Filipino
Pacific Islander
Decline To state
3.2%
3.2%
3.2%
0%
0%
0%
3.1%
0%
0%
6.3%
research process helped me gain a better understanding of myself as an educator, my students, and my practice. The processes of action research are planning, observation, action and reflection (McTaggart, 1997). I began the participatory action research process with one team teacher alongside me. During the process three other colleagues and one mentor naturally became part of the process. As the journey progressed a team of three
47 teachers dedicated to promoting democratic values in the classroom to improve student learning on campus transpired. Two other colleagues also contributed to the process by having multiple discussions with me about my practice. McTaggart (1997) states that: Participatory action researchers all seek understanding of people’s subjective experience of their institutional situation and at the same time try to give working accounts of the contexts in which meanings are constituted. They also use the views of others to engage their own experience and to discipline their own subjective interpretations. (p. 37) Although I did not go into the action research process planning to form a collaborative group, I am truly grateful for what this process has afforded. Action research provides educators the ability to improve on their current practice by posing a question to a problem they wish to investigate. My action research question was: In what ways can my seventh grade students and I create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating within our “public” school systems’ implementation of market ideology? By following the action research process and participating in the phases of action research, meaningful insights in relationship to my question transpired. After developing the question, I began to gather data on what was occurring in the classroom. The data gathered for this investigation included students’ work, student surveys, teacher made assessments, journaling, classroom observations, dialogue with colleagues and students, audio and video recordings. McTaggart (1997) states that during action research: Information is collected in the usual naturalistic research ways, for example, participant observation, interview, the compilation of field notes, logs, document analysis, and the like. Validation is achieved by a variety of methods including triangulation of observations and interpretations, participant confirmation, and testing the coherence of arguments being presented. (p. 37)
48 By using multiple perspectives across time and triangulating the data, certain themes emerged when analyzing the data. By building on what I already knew, and writing taking center stage, I began to critically reflect on my practice, hence, bringing new insight to my question posed. This form of research naturally lent itself to what I was already doing in my classroom. More importantly, being a participant in this process, and analyzing the data from multiple perspectives, provided me the ability to see, hear, feel, and reflect, on my teaching, my students, and my practice, thus using an emic perspective during this investigation.
Data Collection Instruments For this action research process multiple data collection instruments were used in order to triangulate the experiences occurring in both my team teacher’s and my classrooms. The instruments used for this study included observations, conversations with my mentor, colleagues, and students, video recordings, my personal journal, students’ journals, student surveys, students’ work, field notes, and standards-based pretests and posttests. Observations My mentor observed my classes twice during the first two weeks of the genetics unit. Her observations were instrumental in helping me recognize what was truly occurring in my classroom. She enabled me to “see” things I would not have recognized due to my active involvement in the process. During the genetics unit I met with my mentor multiple times to discuss what was occurring in my classroom. Through our
49 conversations I was able to constantly “see” things I would not have recognized. These conversations gave me the ability to reflect on myself as an educator, my realities, and my false perceptions of what was truly occurring in my classroom. Video Recordings Three days out of the six weeks of instruction during the genetics unit were video taped. These recordings provided me the ability to view my practice from a different perspective. The recordings enabled me to see and better understand what was occurring in the classroom. Personal Journal I wrote in my personal journal throughout the entire genetics unit. The bulk of my journal writings encompassed my thoughts about interactions with my students, analysis of myself, and reflections on how curricular activities impacted students’ learning. These notes differed from my field notes in that my field notes represented experiences which occurred at the moment. My writings in my journal on the other hand, occurred after some time had lapsed since the events had taken place. In essence, these writings took place after I had begun to grapple and reflect on the experiences and my actions. Students’ Journals Students participated in journal writes almost every other day during the genetics unit. Their journals contained responses to questions that I asked them during the first or last five to ten minutes of class. The questions posed encompassed the following ideas: a) how they felt about working in groups, b) how they felt about themselves, c) how they felt about what they were learning, and d) students were also asked questions in
50 relationship to content, labs, or activities they were about to participate in or had recently experienced. Students’ Surveys Students were given a survey which I had constructed containing twenty questions on the topic of race on the very first day of the genetics unit. The surveys were anonymous. My team teacher and I passed out surveys numbered one to thirty-six to every class. We then had the students write their number in their daily planner so they would be able to retrieve their survey number six weeks later when we asked them to take the same survey again. Students’ Work Students were provided individual folders in which they kept their journal writes and all of their work. Our students’ work was comprised of labs, activities, group projects, self analysis of their work, student and teacher made rubrics, student created diagrams, and short answer essays. Field Notes During class sessions, when I observed situations that were not being captured by any other instrument for the purposes of this investigation, I wrote down these experiences during the class session. Sometimes due to the inability of writing the information down during the class session, I made a mental note and wrote the information down during passing periods. Standards-Based Pretest and Posttest After two weeks of instruction during the genetics unit students completed a standards-based genetics pretest composed of forty multiple-choice questions. At the end
51 of the genetics unit students completed the standards - based genetics assessment as a posttest. These tests were made using Edusoft Software. I selected thirty of the questions from the question bank and created ten more questions in order to be able to measure students’ attainment of the California Science Standards in regards to genetics.
Data Analysis Procedures By using three qualitative data analysis techniques I was able to triangulate my data, thus bringing forth meaningful insight into this study. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2008) state that, “By using multiple types of data analysis and, thus, triangulating the results of a qualitative study, we believe the results will be more trustworthy and, as a result, more meaningful” (p. 602). The three types of analysis techniques which were used for this study included qualitative comparative analysis, constant comparison analysis and classical content analysis. For the quantitative analysis of students’ learning, I compared students’ scores on their genetics pretests and posttests. For the qualitative analysis of my students’ learning, while I was critically examining the information, I began memoing and coding the data I had gathered. This allowed me to recognize what was being experienced in the all of the participating life science classes. By triangulating the data I was able to make sense of the experiences and bring validity to what I believe was occurring in the classroom and my students’ learning. The initial analysis of the data consisted of me reading all of the students’ presurveys which they had completed on the first day of the genetics unit in regards to their understanding of the meaning of race. The students’ responses to the surveys provided me an awareness of the experiences they had encountered based on negative and positive
52 interactions with others based on difference. This provided me an understanding of what my students knew about the meaning of race, their experiences in relationship to difference, and a better understanding of the values and beliefs they brought with them in regards to difference and race. Based on my students responses I designed several lessons that would help them gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of race, diversity, experiencing injustice, and provide them the means of critically reflecting on their own behaviors and gain a deeper understanding of the behavior of others and the culture they were a part of. These lessons were interwoven into the genetics unit my team teacher and I designed after we analyzed the standards-based pretest our students completed after the second week of classes during the genetics unit. With the lessons tentatively planned, I constantly relied on my data gathering instruments to guide my teaching. Throughout the six week genetics unit, I 1) viewed the video recordings of class sessions, 2) reflected on the notes my mentor had written out for me during her observations of my class, 3) wrote in my personal journal daily, 4) took field notes when necessary, 5) observed my students’ experiences, 6) analyzed student work, 7) read my students’ journal writes, 8) had daily conversations with my team teacher, and 9) triangulated these phases in order to make sense of the data I had gathered. At the end of the unit, the students completed the standards-based genetics posttest and once again took the survey that posed questions about race, students’ experiences with discrimination, and their understanding of diversity.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS By using three qualitative data analysis techniques I was able to triangulate my data, thus bringing forth meaningful insight into this study. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2008) state that, “By using multiple types of data analysis and, thus, triangulating the results of a qualitative study, we believe the results will be more trustworthy and, as a result, more meaningful” (p. 602). The three types of qualitative analysis techniques which were used for this study included qualitative comparative analysis, constant comparison analysis and classical content analysis. As I began to search through the data, I started to memo, or take notes on information which was insightful, complementary, and contradictory. Since my study was investigating democratic practice in the classroom within the context of market ideology, I was seeking to generate themes that reflected students experiencing democratic practice in the classroom. Using both the constant comparison analysis and the qualitative comparative analysis techniques, I began to code what I had constructed during memoing. The four themes which emerged from what I had coded I categorized and labeled as students’ 1) understanding of diversity, 2) ability to work in groups, 3) understanding race as a social construct, and 4) students’ motivation while learning. Another theme that also emerged was the development of a team of teachers working together towards a common goal, our students learning. 53
54 Data Analysis In my initial analysis of the data, I began memoing information which reflected students experiencing democratic practice in the classroom. I was also noting responses that stood out in the data. During my second analysis of the data, I used the classical content analysis technique (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008) to code the frequency of students’ responses which were representative of students learning democratic values. Lastly, I collected data which reflected students’ motivation while learning based on my observations, conversations with my team teacher Riley, and students’ work. Three themes emerged from the data. I chose to categorize these themes into sections which I labeled as students’ 1) understanding of diversity, 2) understanding race as a social construct, and 3) students’ motivation while learning. Establishing the Foundation During the genetics unit, students learned the Californian state standards while conducting experiments, through short lecture, activities, journaling, groupwork, writing short essays, and class discussions. Through these experiences students learned about the structure and function of genes. By participating in activities which explained heredity, traits, and probability, students developed a strong foundation from which to draw on when they began to apply these concepts towards their classroom projects. With their new found knowledge about heredity, students worked in groups to express their knowledge in writing. Students gained insight about genetics topics that went beyond the state standards by researching information toward which they had a personal interest. Their written articles were compiled to create a science school newspaper which was distributed to the entire school. Their work not only represented their attainment of the
55 core science concepts of genetics, but they also showed through their work and their daily actions how they had grown as learners.
Students’ Understanding of Diversity and Working in Groups The data which provided the essence of what my students experienced in regards to their understanding of diversity were exhibited in a) articles they had written for our science school newspaper, b) group posters they had created during a project about difference, c) their journal entries, and d) their responses on a class assignment on diversity. By triangulating these resources and relying on my field notes about my observations of students working in groups, I was afforded an emic perspective of my students’ understanding of diversity. My field notes were a good reference point for me to turn to when I needed to connect how our students’ interactions and involvement during group work were influenced by the lessons they were participating in at a given time. For example, my field notes about our students’ ability to effectively work together in groups helped me in recognizing how students’ behavior and actions correlated to their appreciation and understanding of difference before, during, and after the genetics unit was completed. Diversity Lesson Drawing from our students’ responses on their pre-survey I had recognized that a majority of students had experienced some form of discrimination based on difference. The two questions which the students’ responded to in regards to discrimination were: “Have you ever been discriminated against based on your physical characteristics (height, size, skin color, hair, eyes, gender, disability, etc)? If yes, please
56 share your experience.” The second question was, “Have you ever discriminated against someone based on his/her physical characteristics (height, size, skin color, hair, eyes, gender, disability, etc)? If yes, please share your experience.” With an understanding of our students’ personal experiences in regards to discrimination, I created a lesson on diversity. During the diversity lesson students were first presented with four different meanings of diversity. Connections were also made to genetics by discussing traits and inheritance. We then had a classroom discussion on difference and how difference can be beneficial both from a scientific and social perspective. We also discussed how respecting others regardless of our differing beliefs and values is essential for our class to work well with each other. After this two day lesson, students were asked to respond to five short essay questions. The responses made by several students showed that they had begun to reflect on their own behavior and were beginning to respect the differences among their peers. I found four of my students’ responses surprising because the question only asked them to describe a time that they had discriminated against others based on difference. Yet these four students expanded on the question and reflected on their past behavior and personally chose to change their behavior. Table 3 shows these four students’ responses. Even within these responses, I recognized the differing levels of responsibility my students were able to take for their actions. For example, Student 1 took full responsibility for his actions. Based on his response, it is apparent he was truly upset by his past actions. Student 2 took responsibility but also chose to still seek comfort and validity in her behavior by expressing her reflection through her group’s actions. Student
57 Table 3 Can You Describe a Time When You Have Discriminated Against Others Based on Their Race, Class, Gender, Beliefs, Lifestyle, Etc.? Student
Response
1
“I DON’T WANT TO! Made bad decision. Called an African American person “brownie.” Don’t want to do it again. Nuf said.” (Note: the student put the quotes around brownie)
2
“Yes, last year I did make fun of a few people who were a little overweight behind their backs. My friends and I thought it was funny, but now we all feel really bad. Even though the person didn’t know we were laughing. We still feel guilty.”
3
“Perhaps size in forth grade. I regret being so harsh to that person, but at the time I was thinking it was funny.”
4
“In elementary school I made fun of a girl with buck teeth and other physical characteristics that I made fun of, but now I know it was the wrong thing to do.”
3 recognized and regretted his actions, but found it difficult to fully recognize he had discriminated against someone based on size. Lastly, Student 4 took responsibly for her actions and recognized her actions were wrong. All four students regardless of the level of awareness showed they wanted to change their behavior towards others in the future. These responses were different than the pre-survey. During the pre-survey no students expressed any remorse for their past behavior.
58 Science School Newspaper One group of students chose to write their article for the science newspaper on diversity. In the article the students discussed the value of appreciating differences. The students stated: In relation to diversity our class took steps to understand the role diversity plays in our lives…Some people think diversity is a negative thing that they can use to separate themselves from others. The main difference people use is skin color and race…but race is really something made up…Our class thinks that having differences is good. We think it helps us create new ideas, and we are able to work together well. This response from my students shows that they have begun to appreciate diversity and value working in groups. In the article the students also used a quote from another group’s poster which was hung up on our classroom wall since the first week of school. During the first two days of the school year students had created a group poster. The project had the students give their group a name, write their similarities and differences, and then express how these characteristics would influence their ability to work together. The quote from the poster which my students included in their article was, “By having many different ideas, we can all work together respectfully, and help create a great new idea.” Not only did my students show resourcefulness, they had also used another group’s response from a project that had taken place over six months ago. This showed me that my students were able to draw from previous class lessons to enhance their own learning. Another component in their learning process was how this group of students valued another group’s work. By using another group’s work in their article, these students were beginning to show through their actions that they valued learning from one another and
59 recognizing that their peers have valuable insights. Their responses also reflected an emotional connection with the topic they had chosen. Groupwork In Chapter III, a detailed description of the evolution of groupwork in our classrooms was described. Once we felt our students had gained a better understanding of how to work effectively with each other, we stopped structuring their actions during groupwork. In my journal on February 2, 2010, I wrote: “I think its time I give our kids the opportunity to facilitate their own learning in groups. I think they can hang. I hope it’s the right call. I can’t wait to see what happens tomorrow.” Our students were able to work effectively in groups. This was the group project that resulted in every group submitting an article for our science school newspaper. Based on my observations and evaluation of the work students turned in, it was evident that every student participated in the writing of the articles. This project took place after students had learned about diversity, reflected multiple times on how to work well with one another, and had experienced working in groups multiple times before this project. The post-survey our students responded to was identical to the pre-survey except I added the questions, “What is diversity? Do you feel working with a diverse group of people is more beneficial or less beneficial? Why? During the diversity lesson, our students were introduced to four different definitions of diversity. I was specifically looking for students responses that mentioned difference. The different facets of difference they discussed ranged from beliefs, age, personality, race, ability, ideas, culture, and lifestyles.
60 Out of one hundred and sixteen students that took the survey, six students were not able to provide a correct meaning for diversity. They either had no response or stated they did not know. Of the one hundred and ten students that did know what diversity meant, one hundred and nine stated that working with a diverse group of people was more beneficial. The one student that did not think working in diverse groups was more beneficial stated, “I like working with my friends more.” Since the surveys were anonymous, I am not sure what this student meant by this statement. Table 4 shows 25 responses from students that felt working in diverse groups was more beneficial. These responses were chosen from a random sample. It took my team teacher, Riley and I six months to teach our students how to effectively work together in groups. In my journal, on February 16, 2010, I wrote: “I feel like I am battling against a system in place that requires students to work individually…They finally said in their journals that they worked well with each other. And that everyone contributed. Riley and I can’t do this alone!” The ability for our students to be able to work together effectively in groups occurred after the diversity lesson. This shows that students valuing and understanding the meaning of diversity is in an important facet in regards to students learning to work with one another in groups. Within their multiple experiences of working in groups, students learned to listen, respect one another’s differences, and contribute equally while working on projects as a group. Although our students’ perceptions of what diversity meant varied, each of them understood an aspect of diversity and a majority viewed diversity as a beneficial component in their learning. Their responses on their surveys show that they reflected on their own experiences about working in groups. Students
61 Table 4 Student Response to Working in a Diverse Group Survey #
Students’ Responses
2
I think it is beneficial because we get to work and not just sit and do worksheets all day.
12
Diversity is your differences from each other. Yes, because we all have different skills that benefit the group.
4
Diversity is the difference in a group. It is more beneficial because you learn more things.
27
I think more beneficial because each person would help in a different way.
31
Diversity means different. I think it is beneficial because maybe they know more.
18
Diversity is all the people in the world. Yes because everyone contributes something different to the group.
24
Diversity is like people who are different in any way. A diverse group is very beneficial. We all have something good to contribute.
11
Beneficial because different points of view. But you have to listen.
20
Its fun because you get to share our answers.
22
I think it is beneficial because you get different personalities which means more ideas.
7
Diversity is a group or place with many different races. It would be more beneficial because you can see what different races say about something.
30
More beneficial because then everyone would think or have different ideas.
15
Beneficial you learn more.
62 Table 4 (Continued) Survey #
Students’ Responses
30-2A
Diversity is appreciating whats different about us.
19
More beneficial because you all get the work done.
23-2A 32
Yes because you can share each others cultures. Yes cause it makes you more comfortable.
2-1A
Diversity is the differences that make who we are. I think its beneficial because it will help understand everyone and their different lifestyles.
22-1A
Diversity is different kinds of physical characteristic and ability.
17
Diversity is being different than other people. We are all different. I feel it is more beneficial because you get to hear about peoples ways of thinking and what not.
25
Diversity is people from different races. Working with a diverse group of people is beneficial because you can learn about their culture and race.
34
I think diversity is more beneficial.
13
Diversity is something different. I think it is more beneficial because you learn more things.
21
I think working with a diverse group of people is more beneficial because they all have different skills they can show you.
16
Difference. More helpful, we all can contribute differently.
recognized through experience that everyone brings with them meaningful perspectives that benefits a group when working towards a common goal. A Team of Teachers Emerges During the genetics unit, Mr. Riley and I recognized that we needed help from Ms. Bailey, the computers instructor. If we were going to start a student newspaper, we
63 needed Ms. Bailey and her classes to help. We met with Bailey several times before our students began the project. As our students started working on the project, Riley and I found ourselves visiting Ms. Bailey’s room frequently during our prep time. She had so many great ideas that helped our project evolve throughout the process. During the project Mr. Riley, Ms. Bailey, and I decided we wanted to continue to work together on projects in the future. We started discussing proposing to administration if we could share the same students next year and form a team. Recognizing how rewarding it was to work with Ms. Bailey, I approached Ms. Hopper, a history teacher, and asked her if she would be interested in being on a team with us next year. She loved the idea, and agreed to be part of the team with us next year. Other teachers have also showed interest in creating teams campus wide. Many discussions have transpired with our principal, and staff about forming teams at Bidwell. We have begun to seriously discuss the possibility of forming a demo-team or teams for next year. These discussions have taken place at faculty meetings, and at staff leadership meetings. A group has been formed to research and construct a proposal for teams at Bidwell Junior High School for next year. A presentation of our findings will be presented this year at a faculty meeting. The conversations that have taken place across disciplines is a reflection of how democratic values and action research can transform education. This potential for a team emerged because our new approach to students’ learning demanded it. This team emerged due to passionate teachers recognizing that together we can provide our students a better learning environment. At the core of democratic values is working together towards a common goal. In order for us to provide such a forum for our students, it is
64 essential that we as teachers do the same. It took our students six months to learn the value of working together; it took us teachers six and a half months to learn the same thing. In my analysis of the data in regards to students’ learning through groupwork, the diversity lesson, and their articles for a school newspaper, it is evident that students learned genetics and democratic values by means of democratic practice. Further on in this analysis I will provide results from students’ standard based test scores on genetics which show students can successfully learn California state standards by means of democratic practice.
Students’ Understanding Race as a Social Construct The data which expressed the fundamental nature of what students experienced in regards to their understanding of race as a social construct were compiled during the analysis of their 1) responses to an online activity on race, 2) responses in journal writes, and 3) articles. Students in both Riley’s and my classes completed these lessons during and after a three-day lesson on understanding the meaning of race. By triangulating the data, I was able to gain meaningful insight into our students’ understanding of race as a social construct. Again, I relied on the pre-survey our students had taken prior to the start of the genetics unit to inform me of their current understanding and past experiences in regards to race. By using the constant comparative analysis technique (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008) I compared their pre-survey responses with their post-survey responses. Utilizing the data I had coded from all six resources
65 provided me the means of obtaining meaningful insight in regards to our students’ understanding of race as a social construct. The Foundation While coding students’ responses on the pre-survey, a high frequency of students had mentioned they would feel, “uncomfortable,” “nervous,” “awkward,” “weird,” and “anxious” talking about race in class. This was in response to two survey questions which asked our students, “How do you think talking about race in class will make you feel?” and, “How does talking about race or racism make you feel?” Recognizing our students’ discomfort, when constructing the lesson on race, I felt I could ease some of our students’ discomfort by having them work in pairs using the online companion website for the documentary about race (Race—The Power of an Illusion. What is race?) on PBS.org (California Newsreel, 2003). Although this discomfort is what I wanted to have our students grapple with, I wanted students to be able to participate in class discussions. By giving them a foundation on understanding the meaning of race before we had a class discussion I felt would generate a more meaningful conversation. The high frequency of responses by students on three other survey questions also led me to this decision. The three questions were, “What is race? What race are you?” and “What is ethnicity? What is your ethnicity? High frequencies of students were able to state what race they were. High frequencies of students also responded to the question, “What is racism?” stating that it meant putting people down/making fun of people because they were a race/ethnicity that was other than White. The frequency in our students’ responses to this question was much higher than the one in regards to, “What is ethnicity? What is your ethnicity?” The majority of students that were a race
66 other than White were able to respond to this question. The majority of students that were White were not able to respond to this question. They either wrote, “I don’t know” or had no response. Before I coded the pre-surveys I had reviewed the demographics of both my classes and Mr. Riley’s classes, therefore knowing what my students’ racial/ethnic groups were. This enabled me to recognize that most of the surveys in which the students had written no response or had written, “I don’t know,” belonged to our White students. I recognized that during our discussion on race, having our White students become curious as to why they did not know their own ethnicity or the meaning of ethnicity would maybe help them understand the meaning of race at a deeper level; they might better understand assimilation, transparency, power and privilege. Therefore, again, while constructing the lesson on race, I decided that providing our students multiple definitions of the meaning of race and explaining the meanings of social construct and scientific knowledge were necessary before they began the PBS online activity. The lesson on race took place the day after our lesson on diversity. Mr. Riley’s students came over to my classroom and we team taught the introductory part of this lesson. We began by providing our students the multiple definitions of race, explained the meaning of social construct and scientific knowledge, and reviewed heredity and traits. We then asked our students using the information they were provided that day and their knowledge of genetics, to hypothesize whether race was a social construct or based on scientific knowledge. After students wrote down their hypothesis, in pairs, they went online and navigated through the PBS website on race.
67 Students’ Responses during Online Activity During the PBS online activity as I was observing our students, the portion of the activity which they reacted to the most was the “sorting people” section. The “sorting people” activity had twenty pictures of people from different racial/ethnic groups. The interactive activity asked our students to drag and drop the pictures into the correct racial/ethnic categories. As students got to this part of the activity, I heard different pairs of students say, “No way this guy isn’t White,” “Let’s do it again,” and “We only got five right.” At this point, I had the students stop doing the activity and asked them to raise their hands if they had recently completed the “sorting people” activity. A majority of students raised their hands. I asked them to state how many they got right. A majority of students stated getting about four to six right. I then asked them to raise their hands if they were surprised by the results. All of the students that had completed the section raised their hands. One group of students chose to write about their experience during the online lesson as part of their article on racism. In their article titled Racism, this group stated: We did an activity from the PBS online website. We had to try and group people based on what they looked like into racial and ethnic groups. We did not get most of them right because it is impossible to tell a person’s race by just looking at them. There are many ways to define racism, and how it occurred. Race is a social construct where people with similar features are lumped into categories. Racism is the using of power to affect people’s life based on skin color or ethnicity. Racism is a horrible thing, and should not happen. Racism is still happening today. It is up to us how our generation chooses to deal with it! These students were able to recognize that racism still exists today. They were also able to recognize that race has to do with power. They also advocate taking action against such injustice by stating that, “It is up to us how our generation chooses to deal with it!”
68 Their article also shows that when students become aware of their own assumptions they begin to recognize the realities of their own lives. Students Journal Writes and Articles On the second day of the race lesson, I asked our students to respond to the following question in their journals: 1) What is race? 2) What was your hypothesis before you began the online activity? Based on what you have learned from the online activity was your hypothesis correct? Please explain. As I walked around the classroom, I noticed that one of my White students had written down, “Race is everyone that is not White.” I decided I would reference this the following day when we had our class discussion on race. I will return to this in another section of my analysis on students’ learning. As I began memoing our students’ journal entries I noticed that a majority of our students’ defined race as categorizing people based on physical characteristics, skin color, or background. Twelve students added to this definition mentioning that race was a social construct which created inequalities amongst different groups. One of those twelve students stated, “Race was made up so that White people could make money using Black people.” On the same survey when students were asked if racism exists in America, most students responded from a historical perspective. Most students wrote about racism in the past tense when it came to institutional racism. The connection a majority of students made to racism today was in regards to people using racial slurs and telling jokes. Many students from different racial/ethnic groups stated that racism no longer exists at the
69 institutional level. One student stated, “Martin Luther King Jr. put an end to all of that.” These responses took place before our class discussions on race. The second question in the same journal write asked, “What was your hypothesis before you began the online activity? Based on what you have learned from the online activity was your hypothesis correct? Please explain.” Although the majority of our students were not able to connect race to today’s institutional power struggles, many were able to recognize that race was a social construct. They were also able to recognize that based on scientific knowledge, there is no gene for race. After our class discussions on race had taken place, one group of students connected race to power stating in their article: Race was created to make one group of people feel more powerful, and by doing that they made the other group feel not as important. Therefore race was used to justify against social groups and made one group more powerful then all of the others and made them feel not as important…There isn’t one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes members from one race to another. There is no gene for race…Many people believe race is real, but race is a made up thing. Race is an invention made to divide people because of their skin color. Race affects people everyday. Race has changed and will keep changing with time. Another group of students were able to show they understood institutional racism stating: Racism still happens today, but it is less obvious. People still today have to deal with injustice based on their so called race. There is no gene for race. Race is a social construct, or made up by people to separate White people from Black people so that causes power issues. During slavery, White people made way more money than Black people so they have more power. They still hold this power today. People like us know racism exists but we still have to live with it. The statement, “They still hold this power today. People like us know racism exists but we still have to live with it” shows the students recognize that the power struggles exist today and that they are, “living with it.” The statement “but we still have to live with it,” also shows that the students did not feel they could take action to change the story of our
70 present culture. They recognize that race is a social construct, and bears no scientific validity. At the same time, they recognize that it is something real that they “are living with.” Class Discussions Although I wanted to capture our class discussions on race by videotaping the lessons, I felt recording the lessons would cause my students to be less willing to participate in the discussion. By memoing my students’ responses on their post-surveys and articles, I was able to gain insight into what they learned through our class discussion. Based on my observations during our class discussions, watching my students grapple with their words, show emotion, and explain their new insights about the meaning of race was a new experience for us in the classroom. Listening to them express themselves as they revealed their past or current assumptions was a heart pounding experience for me as a teacher. I was able to triangulate these experiences and bring forth more insight into my analysis of my students learning by memoing their pre and postsurveys, and the articles several groups chose to write about in regards to race. These classroom discussions were the most intense teaching and learning experiences I have ever experienced in my nine years of teaching. The discussions helped my students and me gain new insight into understanding the meaning of race, and caused some of them, including me, to reflect on our own thoughts about race and racism. At this time, I recognize that I not only need to provide my students more opportunities for classroom discussions, but I also need to begin to learn how to facilitate classroom
71 discussions in order for them to be truly effective. Effective in that a larger number of students would be participating in class discussions. These observations, when triangulated with students’ written articles, surveys, and behavior in groups, brings forth great insight into what I perceive as students not only learning what democratic values are, but living it. In my analysis, I recognize that many students were not able to go beyond the notion that race is a social construct. In response to my analysis, I recognize that by providing more meaningful classroom discussions, future students will be able to gain further insight into the meaning of race.
Students’ Motivation While Learning As I was searching through the data which reflected students’ experiencing democratic practice, a theme which emerged was students’ motivation while learning. As I re-read my writings in my journal, I recognized I had written about my students a) behavior, b) class work, and c) emotional ties to learning. Using the qualitative comparative analysis technique I began memoing the data from my students’ work, my field notes, and my journal. I then coded this data in order to bring further insight into what I had memoed in my journal in regards to students’ motivation while learning. Students’ Behavior In daily discussions with my team teacher Mr. Riley, we recognized that as the genetics unit progressed, students began to take responsibility for their own behavior and learning. The behavior we were finding fascinating was this natural evolution of autonomy and community which transpired in all four of our classes that were experiencing democratic practice. We both reflected daily through our discussions that
72 this change in students’ behavior was due to the way the curriculum was being taught. We both recognized that the behavior we were observing was something that we both had never experienced in our nine years of teaching “life” science. Students had begun to enter the classroom ready and eager to get started on their projects. I could feel the energy as they waited for me to say, “get amped,” which meant join your groups and get to work. There were times I would stand in the middle of my room and look around and be amazed how much they had grown as learners. They no longer needed us the way they did when we first started working with them in the beginning of the school year. The relationship between my students and me evolved into something I had never experienced before. During projects, many students at some point would approach me with something they had recently learned that they wanted to share with me. Many students would approach me to ask questions about some complex information they had stumbled upon that they wanted to investigate further. They would not ask me for the answer. They would ask me what the best way was for them to go about finding the answer themselves. They came to me when they wished to share their new found knowledge or to get small bits of advice on something they had already begun working on. They would approach me and let me know the direction they were taking as a group and why. Many groups were able to lead themselves through the entire process until the completion of the project without needing my guidance at all. The only time I intervened was when I asked them to revise, revise, and revise their writing. Through conversations with Mr. Riley, he expressed that he had similar experiences in his classroom.
73 We both observed our students beginning to walk in so excited about what they were working on in class. We recognized that every student was motivated to learn. We did not have to trick or create learning environments to temporarily charge our students’ motivation. I did not need to use excessive amounts of humor in order for them to make it through the class period with smiles on their faces while they were learning. We both discussed how it was so inspiring to see so many of our students genuinely enjoying learning. The questions they asked of us were more in depth and authentic than the questions we were “used” to fielding from our students from previous years. They were not merely seeking answers for a test they were going to take in the future. They were seeking answers about information they were curious about. The support they gave one another while they learned showed me that they not only had respect for their peers, but also respect for what they were learning. Students’ Class Work Our students’ motivation was reflected in the high quality of work they were turning in. Many projects went above and beyond what was asked of them. While assessing our students’ class work, we recognized that we needed to set even higher expectations for our students. Our students had begun to expect more from us also. We recognized that as the unit progressed a relationship had developed in which a give and take of expectations had developed. We asked more of them, they asked more of us. While students were working in groups on their articles, we both reflected on how inspiring it was that all of our students had completed every single assignment. Each student was able to show what they had individually constructed during the composition of the article. I recognize that one reason these assignments were completed was because
74 it was something they had chosen to work on. The assignment was meaningful to them. They expressed repeatedly that they were so excited that their work was going to be distributed to everyone on campus. Part of the reason they worked so hard was because they had an audience that was going to listen to what they had to say. When the science newspaper was delivered to our room for a final check, our students simultaneously clapped, with huge smiles on their faces. Students’ Emotional Ties to Learning Again, through daily discussions with Riley we noticed that another theme had emerged in our students learning. Our students had begun to truly care about what they were learning. Students had begun to tell kids around campus what they were working on in class. I had several past students of mine approach me and say, “I heard they get to choose what they are learning.” Colleagues of mine would approach me and say that they had heard from students about the “things” that were going on in our science classes. We noticed that this emotional tie they had formed towards their learning was due to the fact that they had a choice in the matter, and what they chose is what they cared about learning. The fact that a conversation had been sparked around campus that students were getting to choose what they were working on was a very interesting and unexpected event. Conversations about the things they were learning about were also lingering through the halls. Past students began to come into my classroom to ask about the curriculum. Usually when my students visit me it’s just to say hi and talk about random things. It was again a new experience for me to have to explain to my past students what was occurring in my classroom in regards to curriculum and instruction.
75 The discourse which has begun to take place among students outside of class reflects the motivation and interest our students have developed towards learning.
Quantitative Analysis Students in both Mr. Riley’s and my first and second period classes completed the genetics standards based pretest after two weeks of instruction on genetics. My students in my fourth, fifth, and sixth period classes also took the pretest after two weeks of the same instruction. After the genetics unit was completed students in all seven classes took the same test as a posttest. I constructed a genetics standards based content validity test using Edusoft software. I included thirty questions from the Edusoft question bank, and I also developed ten more questions which I included on the test in order to assess our students on all of the California standards in regards to genetics. Our first and second period classes learned the California state standards for genetics while experiencing democratic practice. I labeled these classes at the Action group. My fourth, fifth, and sixth period classes experienced instruction in the manner which I normally instructed. I labeled this group the Standard group. The different styles of instruction the two groups experienced were the instruments discussed in detail in chapter three. The different forms of instruction our first and second period classes experienced included a) students’ reflection with journaling; b) collaboration through group projects c) production of an inclusive student run school wide science newspaper; d) choice in curricular content; e) class discussions on diversity and race, and f) the exploration of race as a social construct. These facets edified democratic values in our
76 first and second period seventh grade science classrooms while interweaving the California state science standards. This action was taken was in order to gain insight into the influence democratic practice has on students’ learning. Since this study was investigating students learning democratic values in the context of market ideology, I was seeking insight into my action research question which was: In what ways can my seventh grade students and I create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating within our “public” school systems’ implementation of market ideology? By assessing my students using the standards-based genetics test, I was afforded the data necessary to compare how democratic practice influenced students’ learning in the context of market ideology. Since market ideology demands students attain state standards, I was seeking to gain insight into the forms of instruction which reflected democratic values, while still teaching our students the California state standards. The data gathered based on the results from both the genetics pre-test and posttest gave me the ability to analyze how well our students’ were able to learn the California state standards through democratic practice. Using Edusoft software, I was able to analyze individual students’ and class period’s a) pretest and posttest results, b) proficiency levels, and c) learning growth in regards to attaining standards based genetics concepts. By comparing my first and second period’s results with my fourth, fifth, and sixth period’s results I was able to gain insight into how students’ learning was influenced based how they were taught. Using Edusoft software, I first retrieved my students’ raw scores from both the genetics pretest and posttest. I then entered the data into Excel in order to find the
77 averages of all five of my classes’ students’ results on their pretests and posttests. I grouped my first and second period’s data together. I then labeled this group the Action group. I then grouped my fourth, fifth, and sixth period’s data together. I labeled this group the Standard group. I then calculated the standard deviation of both the Action and Standard groups’ results on their pretests and posttests. I then I used this information to find the effect size of both groups. The effect size calculation was the difference in means divided by the pooled standards deviation. The results used to compare the two groups included: a) pretest and posttest gains, b) class averages, c) standard deviation, d) confidence limits, and e) conduct a t-Test. Tables 5 and 6 show the results from the calculations.
Table 5 Results Based on Students’ Raw Scores on Genetics Pretests and Posttests Groups
Means Posttest
Means Pretest
Standard Deviations Posttest
Standard Deviations Pretest
Effect Size
Action
33.4
26.9
6.07
7.36
0.52
Standard
32.9
26.9
6.07
6.89
0.93
Table 6 shows that the 95% confidence limits of both the Action and Standard group overlap one another. This means that the two groups performed similarly on the pretest. The results from the t-Test also show that the two groups’ performed very similarly on the pretest. Again, the pretest was administered before there was any change
78 Table 6 Results Based on Students’ Raw Scores on Genetics Pretests and Posttests Groups
Confidence Limits Pretest
Confidence Limits Posttest
Action
28.03
25.78
Standard
28.00
25.75
t – Test Pretest: Action group and Standard Group 0.977
in the way the students were taught. Therefore, the similarities in the two groups provided me the ability to compare the results between the different groups after they had experienced different forms of instruction. As noted in Table 5 the effect size for the Action group was 0.52 and 0.93 for the Standard group. This shows that there was a significant gain in both groups in regards to students’ learning the California state standards. These results show that democratic practice does not “get in the way” of students learning the California state standards. Table 7 shows that all classes showed a significant increase in learning the California state standards for genetics. These high proficiency results by all the classes show that students can learn the California state standards through democratic practice.
79 Table 7 Class Proficiency Levels by Class Periods Class Period
Class Proficiency on Pretest
Class Proficiency on Posttest
Class Gains
1 – Adamian (Action)
66%
89%
23%
2 – Adamian (Action)
40%
80%
40%
4 – Adamian (Standard)
55%
84%
29%
5 – Adamian (Standard)
58%
84%
26%
6 – Adamian (Standard)
42%
73%
31%
1 – Riley (Action)
56%
83%
27%
2 – Riley (Action)
32%
69%
37%
Note. Data retrieved using Edusoft software.
My Passion for Equity: Relearning to Teach Foundation The purpose of this study was fueled by my recognition that action needed to be taken to improve students’ learning through critical pedagogy (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Nieto, 1999). My passion to teach students an anti-oppressive form of education (Banks 1991; Kumashiro, 2000; Nieto, 1999) is driven by the uncompromising rhetoric sustained through high-stakes testing, which is oppressive and unjust. My insistence on equity in the classroom, which can only transpire from how I “see” my students, is essential if I have any chance of sustaining a classroom that can be regarded
80 as a place for hope, instead of a place for blame which inevitably perpetuates the unjust story we are all a part of today. In our present culture, ideological hegemony controls the discourse in education, which in turn suffocates the art of teaching and learning in public schools. Such uncompromising discourse hinders dialogue from multiple perspectives within education. This form of discourse silences any discussion in regards to democratic values in public schools. A form of education that can nurture students and teachers to become part of a school culture where they experience anti-oppressive education is becoming increasingly marginalized due to the strict emphasis brought on by the demands of the free-market. The marginalization of democratic values caused by the rigid and strict accountability measures enforced with standardized tests leaves many teachers feeling they have no choice in regards to what must be taught in the classroom. Add to this the inequitable circumstances our students’ experience through public schooling and we are left with a battle that must be fought by passionate teachers within the public school system that know our students’ futures can only go only as far as we can see. Passion The essence of how my experiences constructed my passion towards creating and sustaining democratic practice in my classroom emerged when I began coding my personal journal. These facets include my 1) Master’s class, Access and Equity 609, 2) mentor, 3) readings, and 4) students experiencing the dignity, love, respect and the high expectations they have a moral right to while learning. These facets provided me the passion, courage, knowledge, and hope to participate in the action research process in
81 order to continuously seek ways to provide my students an anti-oppressive (Kumashiro, 2000) form of education. My Master’s Class on Access and Equity During my studies towards attaining a Masters degree, I attended a class that changed my perceptions of what a good teacher is and what a good teacher does. As the course progressed, the principles which guided the class helped me gain a sense of empowerment. These experiences led me to want my students to develop the same sense of empowerment that I had gained through an amazing form of education. This course took place at Chico State and was comprised of twelve class sessions which lasted four hours each day during a three week course. The life changing experiences which I had during this time gave rise to the actions which took place in my classroom in regards to how I teach, how see myself as a teacher today, and how I see my students. I will continue to consistently seek ways to improve my practice and myself in order to provide all my students the equitable environment that they deserve. My professor, whom later became my mentor, sustained a learning environment that consistently challenged my assumptions and contradictions. The first day of class consisted of us writing an autobiography about our past experiences as students. Through this activity I was able to reflect back on my experiences as a young student struggling within the public school system. Written at the beginning of this course, my autobiography reflects how I viewed education based on my own personal experiences through schooling: Before I moved to America, my name in Iran was Ani Adamian. I was named after a city in Armenia known for its many churches. Today, my name is Annie Sunshine Adamian. The changes in my name reflect the experiences of my life. My
82 experiences both inspired and motivated me to become an educator. My experiences provided me the passion and skills I needed to help individuals hopefully live a positive and meaningful life with less suffering…. My first day of public education resulted in me being placed in the lowest reading group and being made fun of…The kids were not happy with my attire. Letting them know my mom had made my skirt did not help either. This didn’t last long though because at lunch time I played basketball with the boys and schooled them (still wearing the skirt)…It took some time for the kids at school to like me. This included a change of wardrobe and name. By fifth grade I had adjusted well. I had only gotten into four fist fights, two of them with boys. By sixth grade, I had fought my way to the top. I was finally accepted by my peers. I was finally cool. My name was Annie Adamian. I wore surfer clothes, Guess, Nikes, and Vans. This entry reflects how I viewed education before I participated in this course. When I wrote this section of my autobiography, I recognized the actions and experiences that initially led me into the field of teaching. Yet, I was not aware of what was causing the suffering about which I wrote. I did not truly understand what I meant at the time when I stated, “My experiences provided me the passion and skills I needed to help individuals hopefully live positive and meaningful lives with less suffering.” I just felt that something was not right. At the time, I knew in my heart that my involvement in education could help make things right. The insight I have today, about how much education can truly change lives and empower or oppress students based on what and how they are taught is where my passion as a teacher lives today. This portion of my autobiography reflects the beginning of my resistance towards education due to the lack of expectations placed on me while I was a young student: I listened to the Beastie Boys and Easy E, and cursed on the playground. I started smoking cigarettes and with every puff I blew my authenticity, identity, promising future, and my parents’ sacrifices away.
83 When I wrote this, I was reflecting on the ways in which I faced injustice as a student growing up in America. I reflected on the low-level courses I was placed in. I reflected on the misunderstandings, misbehavior, fist fights, suspensions, threats of expulsion, and my failures. Today, I understand why I inevitably became the student that my teachers expected. Teacher expectations shaped my secondary years. I entered my senior year one hundred and ten credits short out of the necessary two hundred needed to graduate. While teaching, this memory helps me stay conscious of my relationships with my students. When my colleagues’ discourse unconsciously oppresses our students, this memory gives me the courage to challenge the status quo. My senior year of high school consisted of several events that I was later told by one of my junior college professors made me an “exception.” This began with my counselor telling me that I had no chance of graduating from high school. When my mom found out about my circumstances she told me that her greatest wish was for me to graduate high school on stage. This resulted in me going to continuation school and taking night classes which enabled me to come back to my high school and graduating on stage. This experience reminds me how valuable my education was to my family. Yet, my teachers most likely thought otherwise. My parents did not go to parent nights or make appointments to see my teachers. This was not because they did not care. This was because at the time, they had a difficult time speaking English. They also recently told me it was because they did not want to embarrass me. When I hear teachers say that parents do not care, or I myself begin to question a parent’s behavior, I reflect on these experiences to bring understanding and care into what I do.
84 On graduation day, over eight hundred students graduated and three students received a hug from our vice principal on stage. I was one of them. This man saw what the others could not see, or chose not to see. I was not a kid with issues; I was a kid that needed to be valued and challenged. I was the “exception” that barely survived within a blind, inequitable system, which was not designed with me in mind. Today, these experiences which I see with a new lens, is the root of my passions. There should be no “exceptions” only expectations. The Beginning of My Transformation These reflections of my past during the summer course quickly evolved into a moral responsibility for me to take action towards providing my students an antioppressive form of education. This occurred after an interactive talk by Dr. Kevin Kumashiro via an online video chat. I came home from school that very same day and retrieved the archived video talk by Dr. Kumashiro in order to gain a better understanding of what he was saying. I listened to his talk two more times. And then it happened. In my course journal that day I wrote, “I feel like my brain is expanding out of my skull.” This experience resulted in me recognizing that when someone hears about something they truly care about, or that challenges their assumptions, deep and affective learning can take place. As a result, this experience brought forth new opportunities for me to examine my false realities that up to this point had only caused me to perpetuate the same injustices I was so angry about. This is what it felt like to realize that as a teacher, I was perpetuating (through silence and ignorance) the same things that I did not want my own students to experience. For the next two weeks, I began to grapple with my assumptions and contradictions. These assumptions and contradictions were about myself and how I
85 taught my students. How I viewed myself and how I had been taught had been constructed for me through my own schooling experience. This day, I recognized it was time for me to construct my reality. Dr. Kumashiro’s talk enabled me to begin to “see” myself and my practice with a critical lens. Once I was able to see myself, I was able to see my students. As the course progressed, I began to hear things that I had somehow never been able to hear before. I was starting to hear myself say and think things that I discovered myself to be so wrong (even about myself). As the days went on in class, I heard my own classmates with the best intentions say the most oppressive, unjust, and demoralizing things about the “Other.” I even heard the “Other,” say things that perpetuated the oppression they themselves faced. I saw my own classmates refuse to recognize White privilege when our professor had us read, White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh (1989). On this day, I went home frustrated. I was frustrated because so many of the things I had always felt in my heart, I could now understand with my mind. I was frustrated because I did not speak up. I was frustrated because I still did not have the courage or the ability to say something meaningful. In my last journal entry for the course I wrote about how I connected more with my “Other” students than I did with my White students that were successful in school. I wrote about, how I wondered if my colleagues (all of them are White) connected more with their White students that were more “like them” in school. I need to understand why I hold certain biases and boundaries that are keeping me from creating and maintaining the same rapport with my “good students.” What if I had instead said, I work really well with my White students that have good behavior and grades, but I do not work well with my “Other” students… I wonder what other
86 educators’ biases are. Do they have a better rapport with one group of kids more than another? I recognize the beginning of my transformation from this point on. This point in my journal is the beginning of my journey towards, as Brookfield (1995) says, “Becoming a critically reflective teacher.” As I began to gain a better understanding of Whiteness, I started to recognize the injustices I was learning about in a much more powerful way. I began to recognize how overwhelming this thing was. I began to recognize how I myself had tried so hard to give up so much of my own identity in order to have some of this privilege. That day, I wrote this in my personal journal: I am so angry that through all my years of public schooling I was told to change myself if I had any chance of success. I can’t believe they encouraged me to give up my ethnicity, language, and culture so that I could live the “American Dream.” I can’t believe they got me to believe that they were better than me. I am so embarrassed and so ashamed that I was not smart enough to see what was truly happening to me even though I always felt that things just didn’t seem right. I grappled with this anger and blame, which lasted in my heart for some time. This anger and blame was released when I read, Things Get Glossed Over by Victoria S. Haviland (2008), and heard a 2008 online talk by bell hooks, when she brilliantly spoke at the Women of Color Eleventh Annual Conference. hook’s talk still resonates in my heart today. She helped me recognize that I am not a victim, for I have agency and hope. She helped me appreciate that I have the imagination (hooks, 2008) to see beyond the culture of power that I live within today. Her words about casting blame and victimization helped me realize how the ideology of blame perpetuates injustice. Here are some of her words:
87 We want to divide the world into this binary of good and bad guys, so that when we do that we actually keep dominator culture in place. For one aspect of that culture is the projection outward onto an enemy whenever things go wrong. Casting blame is a crucial component of dominator thinking. It helps promote a culture of victimization. When we are more energized by the practice of blaming than we are by efforts to create transformation, we not only cannot find relief from suffering, we are creating the conditions that help keep us stuck in the status quo… My Mentor A month after the course had ended, my professor became my mentor. The privilege of having a mentor that sets high expectations that you yourself could never even dream of fulfilling is exhausting and overwhelming and yet, at the same time, energizing and rewarding. This mentorship has afforded me the ability to take action in my own classroom towards creating and sustaining an equitable classroom driven by high expectations for all of my students. During this process, I learned through her modeling how to teach my own students to learn in ways that required them to reflect about themselves, and what they were learning and doing. I was able to challenge my own students’ assumptions, as she had and continues to do for me. The facets of this mentorship, which continue to help me improve my practice include modeling, the lending of books and articles, conversations, critical questioning at the right times, support, humor, dedication, observations of me teaching, trust, and again I cannot emphasize enough, the high expectations. These experiences support me in finding ways to create and sustain an equitable classroom through democratic practice. My Readings Towards the beginning of the mentorship, I was lent Stephen Brookfield’s (1995) book, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher and Sonia Nieto’s (1999) book, The Light in Their Eyes. Brookfield’s book was the first book I ever read cover to cover
88 in my life. The line in his book that helped me deal the most with what I was experiencing at the time was what he called being in, “the state of limbo” (p. 243). I read parts of Brookfield’s book over and over again before I returned it. A few months ago I bought the book, and I am reading it again. From Brookfield’s book I picked up names of educators who I had never heard of in my life. For example, he introduced me to Freire, Giroux, Gramsci, Kincheloe, McLaren and Shor. At the same time I was rereading Brookfield’s book, I started reading Nieto’s. As the new school year approached I found myself relearning how to teach. I had a sense of purpose, and was ready to do things differently. I had just finished reading books and articles by Apple, Beane, Brookfield, Freire, Giroux, Kozol, Kumashiro, and Nieto. I had developed a deep moral responsibility to provide my students the same opportunities and experiences to learn, that I had recently experienced. I was shown that it could be done with college students; however now the question was, could I do the same for my junior high school students? As my literature review reflects, I began to read articles and books by many educators. I began to recognize how oppression was perpetuated through schooling. My passion to teach my students in a manner that gave them the opportunity to be empowered was my motivation, purpose, and hope. I began my year very conscious of how I was interacting with my White students that were “good students.” I made more of an effort to see all of my students and not just those that were having a difficult time due to the low expectations that are placed on them throughout their schooling years. If I was going to encourage my colleagues to teach an anti-oppressive form of education, I had to make a conscious effort to not only focus on my students that were not “good students,”
89 but also see my “good White students.” These relationships do not come as naturally for me as they do with my “Other” students. I wrote in my journal: I am starting to make solid connections with my “good White students.” Some of them play basketball so I use this as a conversation piece for us to bond with. Some of them enjoy my humor so I try to use my humor to connect with them more. Some of them talk about their fears, their insecurities, their hobbies, and I just listen and am enjoying just getting to know them better. I realize that it’s not that I do not have the ability to bond with them; it was the fact that I did not “see” them. I still hold the bias though that my colleagues and society have their backs. I still have the feeling that if I do not look out for the “Other,” who around here will. I know it is more about my assumptions, and I still feel like I cannot give them what their other teachers have to offer because I do not understand what they have. It is important that I begin to see my kids for who they are and create the relationships I truly wish to have. I wonder what my colleagues “see.” I recognize today that what I was writing about was privilege. This was the same lack of privilege that had driven me to become a teacher nine years ago when I felt that “something wasn’t right.” These were the struggles that I did not want students “like me” to go through when I wrote my autobiography on my first day of my Access and Equity class. Today I recognize that what I chose to not “see” was one of the many painful realizations that I am grappling with as a teacher. The statement below reflects how one of my “good White students” is experiencing our relationship in class. This e-mail message reflects how I have began to consciously seek ways to improve in my relationships with my “good White students:” I wanted to let you know that (student’s name) thinks you are “incredibly smart” and gave her the “best advice she has ever had”. I’m referring to “facing fears” conversation. Thank you, Mom. Today, I consciously make an effort to see all of my students. I am consistently seeking ways to provide my students the support, unconditional love, and challenging learning experiences they all deserve. If there is any chance of changing the
90 story of our culture, I recognize it is not about “us” and “them” but an empowered “we” that can bring to life the spirit of democracy. Mentor and Readings As I began writing my first chapter for this study my passions intensified even more. I was inspired by the writings of Apple, Engel, Freire, Giroux, Kozol, Kumashiro and Nieto. I was challenged by my mentor through her analytic questions that I grappled with daily in my practice. After completing chapter one, my passions for democratic practice in the classroom emerged. I had gained great insight into why it was so important for such action to be taken in the classroom. I began to develop an understanding of how to create an anti-oppressive (Kumashiro, 2000) classroom where all my students could be proud of who they were and recognize their individual strengths and the strengths of others. While writing the first section of chapter two for this study, I learned about the history of curriculum and why the curriculum was constructed the way it is today in public schools. I began to understand where most of my actions stemmed from as a teacher. I understood why I did certain things in my classroom. It was at this time, that I gained the knowledge I needed in order to change how I taught the curriculum in my classroom. I began to focus on how and what I taught, how I interacted with my students, and began to listen to what my students needed from me. I attempted to stay conscious of how my students were experiencing the curriculum and tried to stay aware of my contradictions. The second section of chapter two provided me meaningful insight into democratic practice in the classroom. My passion for my students to experience the art of
91 learning through dialogue, groupwork, choice, creativity, curiosity, meaning, purpose, and high expectations drove how the curriculum was going to be taught. My desire for equity in my classroom was the foundation of my teachings. Where I am Today While reading Soder et al.’s (2001) book, Developing Democratic Character in the Young, they stated that, “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). This quote is what has helped me as a teacher grapple with the concept of teaching democratic values in the context of market ideology. In their quote, I recognize democratic values as meaning the public purpose, and the California state standards as meaning the private purpose. Therefore, I continue to seek creative ways to teach the standards through democratic practice. I view the public purpose as movement and the private purpose as static. The private purpose lends itself to the status quo, whereas the public purpose lends itself to the possibilities of a just world. Today, I grapple with how to create curiosity, inspiration, and choice, with set objectives. I search for ways to manipulate concreteness for authenticity, imagination, and creativity. I continue to consistently search for ways in which to construct an equitable learning environment for all my students. I ultimately recognize what I am most passionate about as an educator today. I want my students to experience “the balance” between collective responsibility and individual freedom. I will continue to look for ways to teach within an oppressive educational system that challenges and silences everything that reflects the public purpose of
92 democracy. The quote by Soder lives in my heart daily and motivates me to teach within the very system that has silenced the discourse for democratic values in education. I teach with my heart and mind in order to provide my students’ an equitable environment of which they have a right to be a part. Hope for All of My Students’ Futures My passion to teach my students through democratic practice transpired from the ways in which I was taught at Chico State while I was in the Master’s program. Many professors modeled for me that such practice was not only doable, but life altering. Through these experiences, I began to understand what it meant to truly meet the needs of my own students and provide them a learning environment that enabled them to critically think about their lives, their world, and what they were learning. My hope is that through democratic practice, my students will experience a form of education which is equitable and liberating. My hope is that they too, will become empowered and seek ways to change the unjust story of which we are all a part today. My desire is that every one of them can create their own story and reach their highest potential. When my students reflect back on their educational experiences, my wish is that they will not see public schools as a place to blame, but the place that gave them insight, hope, agency, and care.
Synthesis of Analysis My analysis of the data brought meaningful insight into my action research question which was: In what ways can my seventh grade students and I create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating within our “public” school systems’ implementation of market ideology?
93 By using both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques, I was afforded the methods to analyze the ways in which students learned standards-based genetics concepts through democratic practice. In revisiting the qualitative analysis portion of this study, the aspects which brought insight into my action research question were 1) students learning through democratic practice, 2) students learning democratic values, and 3) the ways in which I created an equitable learning environment. The quantitative portion of my analysis provided me the results I needed in order to measure 1) students’ learning of the California state standards on genetics, and 2) the reliability of my results comparing the two groups (Action and Standard) experiencing different forms of learning. By using both qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques I was able to gain meaningful insight in regards to the ways in which democratic practice was negotiated within the context of market ideology. Quantitative The results depicted during the quantitative analysis portion of this study show that both the Action and Standard groups successfully learned the standards based genetics concepts. Both groups also show similar gains in regards to their attainment of the genetics concepts. However, during this study, the quantitative analysis techniques did not provide me the methods with which to gain insight into how our students were taught. In regards to students’ learning, the quantitative analysis techniques only provided me insight into what standards our students learned. Therefore, as a teacher, a new insight that has developed during this portion of the study is that standardized testing does not aid in improving students’ learning. For example, the analysis does not reflect how the standards were taught. Such methods are precisely what marginalize democratic practice,
94 thus perpetuating the rigid accountability that sustains the inequitable status quo in our public schools. As a teacher continuously searching for new ways to improve students’ learning, qualitative analysis techniques afford me the ability to critically reflect on how I teach and how students learn. With the absence of qualitative analysis in our educational system, I regretfully do not see how standardized tests will provide our nation the valuable insight into how to successfully teach all of our students. As I searched for meaning about how I taught, the quantitative analysis methods only showed me what was and was not learned and by whom. Qualitative The results which are reflected through qualitative methods show that the Action group learned democratic values despite the context of market ideology. Therefore, teaching and learning through democratic practice provided students a successful forum to learn the California state standards on genetics. By using qualitative analysis techniques I was able to capture how students’ were learning. Hence, I was afforded the joy of grappling with the art of teaching. The qualitative analysis process provided me the ability to critically reflect on how I teach and how students learn. My analysis shows that students experienced a learning environment that fostered equity, curiosity, creativity, cooperation, critical reflection, and empowerment. In order for students to begin to experience a balanced form of democracy in public schools, the results show that how students learn reflects what students learn. Therefore, by using both analysis techniques I was able to gain
95 meaningful insight in regards to how to continue to improve in my practice, in order to more successfully meet the needs of all my students in the future.
Conclusion In order to sustain democracy through public schooling and in order to sustain public schooling through democratic practice—the passion for action and change in regards to how and what students and teachers learned is reflected in this study. Again, Soder et al. (2001) stated that, “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). The purpose of this study was to seek the ways in which to create and sustain a democratic classroom within the context of market ideology. The results show that when teachers continuously reflect on their practice through action research, a classroom can transform into a place of endless possibilities for both students and teachers. The action research process provided me the steps to critically reflect on how I taught. As my team teacher Mr. Riley and I continue to seek ways to improve students’ learning, we recognize that sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (Soder et al., 2001) and individual freedom can become a reality.
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Critical pedagogy can bring to life democratic practice in the classroom. Critical pedagogy provides the essence for what should be occurring in public schools in regards to creating and sustaining equitable learning environments for our students. Giroux’s (2004) states that: Critical pedagogy represents a form of cultural production implicated in and critically attentive to how power and meaning are employed in the construction and organization of knowledge, desires, values and identities. Critical pedagogy in this sense is not reduced to the mastering of skills or techniques, but is defined as a cultural practice that must be accountable ethically and politically for the stories it produces, the claims it makes on social memories, and the images of the future it deems legitimate. As both an object of critique and a method of cultural production, it refuses to hide behind claims of objectivity, and works effortlessly to link theory and practice to enabling the possibilities for human agency in a world of diminishing returns. (Giroux, 2004, para. 56) When seeking ways to construct the forum that brought to life democratic practice by means of critical pedagogy, several facets were explored, experienced, and then analyzed during this study. These components included 1) the teacher’s role as a transformative learner (Brookfield, 1995; Giroux & McLaren, 1986; Zeichner & Liston, 1996a); 2) students’ personal experiences and the fostering of curiosity (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1998), and 3) the practice of an anti-oppressive form of education (Banks 1991; Kumashiro, 2000; Nieto, 1999). These factors naturally lent themselves to edifying democratic values in the classroom. These parts brought to life critical pedagogy in the 96
97 democratic values in the classroom. These parts brought to life critical pedagogy in the classroom, wherein the grappling with knowledge, power, and language occurred amongst teachers and learners (Freire 1998; Giroux & McLaren, 1992; Nieto, 1999) in order to created and sustain an equitable learning environment for all learners. In order to meet the needs of all learners, action was taken to create and sustain a learning environment which brought to life democratic practice in the classroom. Hence, as this study shows, students learned the California state standards in an equitable environment that continuously transformed through action and reflection to meet their needs. For example, students attained standards-based science content by experiencing multiple layers of democratic practice including: a) students’ reflection with journaling; b) collaboration through group projects c) production of an inclusive student run school wide newspaper; d) choice in curricular content; e) class discussions on diversity, and race; and, f) the exploration of race as a social construct. These facets edified democratic values in four seventh grade science classrooms while they learned the California state science standards. During this study, action research provided me the steps to critically reflect and take action in regards to creating and sustaining a democratic classroom within the context of market ideology. The action research process helped me gain a better understanding of myself as an educator, my students, and my practice. The steps which took place during this study through action research included planning, observation, action and reflection (McTaggart, 1997). This participatory action research process began with one team teacher alongside me. During the process three other colleagues and one mentor naturally became
98 part of the process. As the journey progressed a team of three teachers dedicated to promoting democratic values in the classroom to improve student learning on campus transpired. McTaggart (1997) states that: Participatory action researchers all seek understanding of people’s subjective experience of their institutional situation and at the same time try to give working accounts of the contexts in which meanings are constituted. They also use the views of others to engage their own experience and to discipline their own subjective interpretations. (p. 37) Although I did not go into the action research process planning to form a collaborative group, I am truly grateful for what this process has afforded. Thus, by embracing action research, teachers and students began to seek ways to transform the culture of learning at our school. Therefore, this investigation provided me meaningful insight in regards to my action research question, which was: In what ways can my seventh grade students and I create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating within our “public” school systems’ implementation of market ideology? In order to gain insight into my action research question data was gathered in order to seek ways to create and sustain an inclusive democratic science classroom while successfully negotiating the California state standards. The data gathered during this investigation included students’ work, student surveys, teacher made assessments, journaling, classroom observations, dialogue with colleagues and students, audio and video recordings. McTaggart (1997) states that during action research: Information is collected in the usual naturalistic research ways, for example, participant observation, interview, the compilation of field notes, logs, document analysis, and the like. Validation is achieved by a variety of methods including triangulation of observations and interpretations, participant confirmation, and testing the coherence of arguments being presented. (p. 37)
99 By using three qualitative data analysis techniques I was able to triangulate my data, thus bringing forth meaningful insight into this study. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2008) state that, “By using multiple types of data analysis and, thus, triangulating the results of a qualitative study, we believe the results will be more trustworthy and, as a result, more meaningful” (p. 602). The three types of qualitative analysis techniques which were used for this study included qualitative comparative analysis, constant comparison analysis and classical content analysis (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2008). The four themes which emerged from what I had coded I categorized and labeled as students’; 1) understanding of diversity, 2) ability to work in groups, 3) understanding race as a social construct, and 4) students’ motivation while learning. Another theme that also emerged was the development of a team of teachers working together towards a common goal, our students learning. Again, these facets provided meaningful insight into the ways in which to continuously seek ways to create and sustain an equitable learning environment for all learners. Ideological hegemony controls the discourse that hinders dialogue from multiple perspectives within education. A form of education which can nurture students and teachers to become part of a culture where they can experience cooperation, antioppression, equity, true conversation, and unconditional love are becoming increasingly marginalized due to the strict emphasis on standards as brought about by the demands of the free-market. Soder et al. (2001) state that, “Sustaining the delicate balance between collective responsibility (public purpose) and individual freedom (private purpose) is the work in progress referred to as democracy” (p. XVII). Soder et al. recognize that in order for such progress to occur in public schools, human conversation, ethics of care
100 (Noddings, 2005), and moral stewardship, must be part of the public schools mission towards the meaning and practice of democracy as a way of life. Hence, this study attempted and successfully brought to life the silenced discourse in regards to the practice of democratic values in public schools. Currently, American public schools the full notion of democracy in public schools is divided by dualistic thinking which attempts to uphold market ideology (private purpose) and marginalize democratic values (public purpose). While the unchecked, unbalanced, private purposes of democracy are promoted, values such as collaboration, equity, social responsibility, and ethics of care (Noddings, 2005) are seen as time-consuming experiences which take away from market ideology. Therefore, this study brought forth meaningful insight into the methods that reflected the teaching and learning of the California state standards through democratic practice. This investigation shows that a balanced form of democracy can be experienced in the classroom, thus successfully creating and sustaining an equitable environment for all learners. In order to lend validity to the idea that standards-based content and student empowerment can be successfully negotiated in the classroom, quantitative methods were used to analyze the impact inclusive democratic practice had on students’ learning. The data gathered for the quantitative portion of this study was based on the results from both the genetics pre-test and post-test gave which provided the data necessary to analyze how well our students’ were able to learn the California state standards through democratic practice.
101 For the quantitative analysis portion of this study I used Edusoft software, in order to analyze individual students’ and class period’s: a), pretest and posttest results b) proficiency levels, and c) learning growth in regards to attaining standards based genetics concepts. By comparing both the Action and Standard groups’ results, it is evident that students can successfully learn standards based concepts through democratic practice. The combined results reflected in this study show that students experienced a learning environment that fostered equity, curiosity, creativity, cooperation, critical reflection, and empowerment. The results also showed that within this construct, students successfully learned the California state standards on genetics. The significance of this study was and is still rooted in both the intense sadness and hope this teacher feels about the public school system. The strict accountability enforced by standardized testing forces public schools to marginalize the very democratic values that can shape a culture of justice, equity, and freedom (in today’s construct), to which this teacher feels human beings have a moral right. The oppressive rhetoric maintained through market ideology, marginalizes the art of learning and teaching by taking away the love, joy, passion, moral purpose, and reason for learning and teaching in public schools. A public place where students from diverse backgrounds share their lives, a forum for experiencing democratic values needs to come alive. I have intense hope that public schooling will one day be a place the public looks to for hope, instead of a system to blame, to justify the inequities, and to maintain ideological hegemony. These experiences provided my students, my team teacher, and me the ability to bring to life new meanings into the art of teaching and learning. This study brought to
102 life the practice of democratic values which are currently marginalized in American public schools. This study investigated the ways in which democratic values can be practiced in the context of market ideology in seventh grade science classrooms. Both “competing” systems were investigated, thus creating an equitable learning environment for all students. By merging theory into practice, this investigation contributed to this teacher gaining a better understanding of her practice, her students, and our current educational system. This study provides teachers new insights and generates new inquiries in regards to the practice of inclusive democratic values in the classroom. My recommendation for teachers considering investigating the ways in which to create and sustain equitable learning environments for all learners is to: drink lots of coffee, read as many books as you can (see references), create meaningful dialogue with your colleagues, critically reflect on your practice, love and believe in your students, find a solid mentor, and go for it!
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Apple, M. W. (1990). Is there a curriculum voice to reclaim? Phi Delta Kappan, 71(7), 526-530. Apple, M. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2007). Schooling, literacies and biopolitics in the global discourse. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education Age, 28(4), 433-454. Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (1999). Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Cambridge, MA: Riverside Press. Bobbitt, F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Boggs, C. (1976). Gramsci’s marxism. London, UK: Pluto Press. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. California Newsreel. (2003). RACE – The power of an illusion. Retrieved from http: www.pbs.org/race/ Charters, W. (1923). Curriculum construction. New York, NY: Macmillan.
104
105 Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447-474. Collin, R., & Apple, M. (2007). Schooling, literacies and biopolitics in the global age. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(4), 433-454. Counts, G. (1932). Dare the school build a new social order? New York, NY: John Day. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York, NY: E. L. Kellogg. Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York, NY: Liveright. Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administration. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The later works (pp. 217-225). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control of public-education market ideology vs. democratic values. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Flinders, D., & Thornton, S. (Eds.) (1997). The curriculum studies reader. New York, NY: Routledge. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Rev. Ed.). New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Gabbard, D. (2007, January). Inclusive democracy and the educator roundtable: Challenging no child left behind. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no1_Gabbard_ID_educ ator.htm
106 Gibboney, R. A. (2008). Why an undemocratic capitalism has brought public education to its knees: A manifesto. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 21-31. Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling for democracy: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. London, UK: Routledge. Giroux, H. (1994). Doing cultural studies: Youth and the challenge of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(3), 278. Giroux, H. (1996). Fugitive cultures: Race, violence, and youth. New York, NY: Routledge. Giroux, H. (2004). Neoliberalism and the demise of democracy: Resurrecting hope in dark times. Retrieved from http://dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Giroux0807.htm Giroux, H. (2009). The spectacle of illiteracy and the crisis of democracy. Retrieved from http://www.truthout.org/091509A# Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 213233. Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1992). Writing from the margins: Geographies of identity, pedagogy, and power. Journal of Education, 174(1), 7-30. Goodlad, J. (1964). School curriculum reform in the United States. New York, NY: The Fund for the Advancement of Education. Greene, M. (1976). Challenging mystification: Educational foundations in dark times. Educational Studies, 7(1), 9. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.mantis.csuchico.edu
107 Greene, M. (1984). “Excellence,” meaning, and multiplicity. Teachers College Record, 86(2), 167-171. Hoffert, R. W. (2001). Education in a political democracy. In R. Soder, J. Goodlad, & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), Developing democratic character in the young (pp. 2644). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. hooks, b. (2008). Mind, body, and soul. Women of color eleventh annual conference [Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/ Kliebard, H. (1975). The rise of scientific curriculum making and its aftermath. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 27–37. Kliebard, H. (2001). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory Into Practice, 21(1), 11-17. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for American curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Kozol, J. (1981). On being a teacher. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. Kozol, J. (2006). Confections of apartheid continue in our schools. The Education Digest, 71(6), 4-22. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53. Kumashiro, K. K. (2001). “Posts” perspectives on anti-oppressive education in social studies, English, mathematics, and science classrooms. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 3–12. Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). Center for anti-oppressive education. Retrieved from http://antioppressiveeducation.org/definition.html
108 Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 587-604. Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1987). Critical pedagogy and teacher education. Journal of Education, 169(3), 117. Liston, D., & Zeichner, K. (1990). Reflective teaching and action research in preservice teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(3), 235. McTaggart, R. (Ed.). (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (Ed.). (2005) Why we teach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2006). Solidarity, courage and heart: What teacher educators can learn from a new generation of teachers. Intercultural Education, 17(5), 457-473. Noddings, N. (2005), Identifying and responding to needs in education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 147–159. Parker, F. (1894). Talks on pedagogics. New York, NY: E. L. Kellogg. Ravitch, D. (1981). Forgetting the questions: The problem of educational reform. The American Scholar, 50(3), 329-341. Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Boston, MA: Sage Publications. Schulte, A. (2009). Seeking integrity in teacher education: Transforming student teachers, transforming my self. New York, NY: Springer.
109 Soder, R., Goodlad, J., & McMannon, T. J. (2001). Developing democratic character in the young. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Spencer, H. (1861). Education: Intellectual, moral and physical. London, UK: Watts & Co. Zeichner, K., Grant, C., Gay, G., Gillette, M., Valli, L., & Villegas, A. (1998). A research informed vision of good practice in multicultural teacher education: Design principles. Theory Into Practice, 37(2), 163. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996a). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996b). Culture and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
![[PDF]Book Special Events: Creating and Sustaining a ... - Google Sites](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdfbook-special-events-creating-and-sustaining-a-g_6477af75097c474d228c50b6.jpg)
![[PDF] Special Events: Creating and Sustaining a New ... - Google Sites](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-special-events-creating-and-sustaining-a-new-g_64778cbb097c474e708bd39f.jpg)
![[PDF] Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open ...](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-opening-up-a-guide-to-creating-and-sustaining-_64784df4097c47a9708cadd9.jpg)