Effectiveness and Appreciation #2

Effectiveness and Appreciation, Part 2

The main job of teachers is to start the cycle of appreciation.  They begin by communicating appreciation for their subject matter, the art of teaching and their students.  They will know this has been adequately communicated, when students reciprocate with appreciation for their teachers and lessons.

This is not a new idea. Elliot Eisner has written about educational connoisseurship for a long time.

This idea is incomprehensible, though, to those who believe teaching is an applied social science. They can’t put “appreciation” first, until research provides evidence that it belongs there. That is how paradigms work — they make some ideas comprehensible and others incomprehensible.

Have social science paradigm promoters (researchers and professors) ever been teachers, themselves? If they were, did they apply theory to their practice?  What did that look like? Or did they create learning environments and activities that emerged from their unique teaching styles?  Did they imagine new ways to connect with students? If so, why do they ask teachers to pay attention to the ideas of researchers who have never been in their classrooms? Why do they have so little appreciation for the art of teaching?

Why researchers, policymakers, and teachers believe in the social science improvement paradigm is unimportant. What is important is that teaching is an art. Those who don’t know this have simply never experienced it.

Artistic teachers frame their work with an aesthetic paradigm. It’s a simple idea. Teaching is an art, so improving it starts with appreciation, not effectiveness. Artistic teachers should be able to argue against an evidence-based improvement paradigm that has produced little evidence that learning and teaching improve through the application of research findings.  Even researchers and policymakers know the social science paradigm has done little to improve education. Their latest response to this knowledge is to claim teachers do not apply research with “fidelity.”

I laughed when I read this.  Imagine — social science researchers getting out their rulers in classrooms across the nation and concluding that: (1) “effective” methods were applied, (2) the results were not as good as desired, (3) the reason was that teachers did not apply methods with “fidelity.”  This is the most extreme case, yet, of completely ignoring the aesthetic essence of teaching. Not only does it assume teachers should apply specific research findings to practice, but it also assumes they should do so in ways specified by those who have never been in their classrooms, who know nothing about their students.

The idea is preposterous, but it makes perfect sense to those who believe in the social science improvement paradigm.  It fits within their paradigm, so they defend it and promote it.

There is a pattern here. Researchers and policymakers consistently argue that education does not improve because teachers are inadequate and resistant to change. Why don’t they consider the possibility that education does not improve because their improvement paradigm addresses what is peripheral, instead of what is essential? (Pride might be a cause.)

Another reason they don’t consider this possibility is that the voices of parents, teachers, and principals can’t be heard.  TSVOTEP chapter 2 describes how policy making and improvement proposals have moved to the state and federal levels.  Besides educators are too busy connecting with students to engage in paradigm wars with state and federal policymakers who believe teaching is an applied social science and not an art.

The circle metaphor provides a place for both what research has found to be effective and the appreciation that is always at the center. Educators and policymakers can choose both effectiveness and appreciation, and the choice will always be right, when effectiveness is at the perimeter and appreciation is at the center. Conversely, the choice will always be wrong, when effectiveness pushes appreciation out of the center.

The social science improvement paradigm has done little to improve education because it focuses on what is peripheral, instead of what is essential.  For example, research has found that professional learning communities (PLCs) improve standardized test scores.  Therefore, the formation of PLCs is at the center of some improvement efforts. If teaching is an art, though, at the center should be teacher appreciation for their art and students.

Another example is that researchers and policymakers believe K-12 students are not being prepared for the global economy of the future. At this very moment they are establishing committees and task forces to persuade teachers to model and teach 21st Century skills. If teaching is an art, though, at the center should be teacher appreciation for their art and students.

A final example is the belief that the curriculum has strayed too far from the great ideas of western civilization. Those who believe this are also forming committees and task forces to convince teachers to model and teach the “great” ideas. If teaching is an art, though, at the center should be teacher appreciation for their art and students.

The ideas for improvement go on and on, and all are promoted as being “effective,” with no regard for “appreciation.”

The purpose of chapter 8 is to explain that teachers and principals can use a circle metaphor to understand that research-based “effectiveness” belongs at the periphery of our improvement efforts. Policymakers and researchers can (and should) invoke findings about PLCs, 21st Century skills, or the great ideas of Western Civilization; but these findings must not drive improvement until teachers and other school personnel have adequately expressed their appreciation for their art and their students.  We can adopt any peripheral idea we want, and we can pursue it with fidelity; but education won’t improve if teachers don’t continually express their appreciation for their art and their students. How could it?

That is a sincere question. Please comment by explaining how education improves if appreciation is not at the center.