The Future of Middle Level Schools

In his article, New Middle Schools for New Futures (2009), Anthony Jackson posed the question:

“How should middle schools address the "old" problem of poor academic achievement and the new demands of globalization?”


He then immediately answered is own question with this response:

“What students need is a new skill set that includes but goes beyond reading, math, and science to include international knowledge and skills. Deep knowledge about other cultures, sophisticated communication skills including the ability to speak at least one language in addition to English, expert thinking skills required in a knowledge-driven global economy, and the disposition to positively interact with individuals from varied backgrounds—these are the foundations of work and citizenship in the 21st century (Jackson, 2008).”

My first question is:

Do the new common core standards address the old problem of poor academic achievement and the new demands of globalization?

I reviewed the standard setting criteria taken directly from the Common Core website, which guided the standards development work groups. The new standards seem to explicitly address international knowledge, expert thinking skills required in a knowledge-driven global economy, and sophisticated communication skills. The following is what I found that may align with Jackson’s recommendations.

These standards have been developed to be:
•    Fewer, clearer, and higher, to best drive effective policy and practice;
•    Aligned with college and work expectations, so that all students are prepared for success upon graduating from high school;
•    Inclusive of rigorous content and applications of knowledge through higher-order skills, so that all students are prepared for the 21st century;
•    Internationally benchmarked, so that all students are prepared for succeeding in our global economy and society; and

•    Research and evidence-based.

In addition, the standards developed will set the stage for US education not just beyond next year, but for the next decade, and they must ensure all American students are prepared for the global economic workplace.

Goal: The standards as a whole must be essential, rigorous, clear and specific, coherent, and internationally benchmarked.


Rigorous: The standards will include high-level cognitive demands by asking students to demonstrate deep conceptual understanding through the application of content knowledge and skills to new situations.

High-level cognitive demand includes reasoning, justification, synthesis, analysis, and problem-solving.

Coherent: The standards should convey a unified vision of the big ideas and supporting concepts within a discipline and reflect a progression of learning that is meaningful and appropriate.


Internationally benchmarked: The standards will be informed by the content, rigor, and organization of standards of high-performing countries so that all students are prepared for succeeding in our global economy and society.

I did NOT notice any standards that address deep knowledge about cultures, the ability to speak at least one language in addition to English, and dispositions to positively interact with individuals from varied backgrounds.

I have a couple of points that I would like to mention with regard to the above competencies. First, I’ve noticed a de-emphasis on foreign languages in my district recently due to budget cuts. This seems to be an issue across the nation as well (check out this article). Also, teaching about cultures and dispositions when interacting with individuals from diverse backgrounds can be a huge disadvantage and challenge for the more rural regions that do not have significant cultural diversity.

My next question is:

So how do we get there from here in Maine? Jackson posited that the middle-level concept already has the infrastructure to meet these challenges. All we need to do is revise what is already in place, that is (a) the vision, mission, and culture of the school; (b) curriculum, assessment and instruction; (c) teachers' professional development; and (d) connections to parents and community.

The more rural parts of the state may be at a disadvantage with regard to cultural diversity, but we are at a huge advantage with one-to-one computing initiative. Why not capitalize on this with the use of available open-source collaboration tools? Students can interact in meaningful ways with peers from across the planet. Guest speakers from different cultures can Skype in and present their views on important world issues. Why not have students develop a “Passport Portfolio” to demonstrate their global and culture competence based on these rich experiences?

I agree with the many of Jackson’s suggestions and I think it is a good idea for every middle school team to get actively involved with the national network called the Partnership for Global Learning (www.AsiaSociety.org/education).

Helpful Tools in the Classroom

In this course, I had the opportunity to practice with various technology tools to support collaboration and facilitate my learning.  Whereas I have had some experience with most of the tools, this class actually allowed me to explore them more in-depth. The tools that I found to be the most helpful and that I can see using in my own future courses are Moodle and Google Docs.

I found Moodle to be extremely practical, clean, and efficient. Course resources and information were easy to access. The weekly outline was well organized and helped me keep things straight. I liked how we uploaded our assignments and received feedback from the instructor (via written and audio) right in Moodle. The forum feature we used for the first week‘s discussion was easy to navigate.  Overall, this course management system has a well-designed interface, which is easy to use. I would definitely use Moodle for my own courses.

Google Docs was a great communication tool for us to share our ideas and engage in rich discussion. I loved all the editing and formatting features, which made it fun! It was easy to use and I intend to use it in the future. The one thing I did not like about Google Docs is that I could not access it offline.

Skype is a real-time communication tool, which allowed me to share ideas with the members of my group, which closely approximates a face-to-face experience. However, in all instances when using this tool for this class, either the video or audio feature did not work—but never at the same time. When the video feature did not work, we were all still able to engage in a meaningful discussion. When the audio does not work, it makes it more challenging. You can still use the chat feature, but that is not as efficient and you do not get that face-to-face feel.

Final Thoughts…There is overwhelming potential with existing technology tools (and ones that have not yet been created) that can facilitate student centered learning and collaboration. However, it is important to keep in mind that the tools you select to use and how you use them should be shaped by the objectives of the assignment.

RTI and the Middle School Model: Social Validity

Vital to the long-term sustainability of any systems change implemented in schools are the acquisition of teacher buy-in and positive teacher perceptions. School change starts and potentially ends with whether or not the teachers see the process as being valid. This case study  explored how middle school teachers make-sense of Response to Intervention (RTI) during the first year of implementation. Adamant believers in the middle school philosophy, these teachers and the principal negotiated the core practices of RTI as they carefully implemented it in their school. This is at an especially critical time, as support for the middle school concept is currently on the decline as its essential attributes and characteristics appear to be at odds with the standards and accountability movement that’s sweeping across the nation. Globalization and the impact of technology have also forced us to rethink the 21st century learner.  Furthermore, this middle school community has combated recent cuts in programs, services, and staff, which have seriously compromised their integrity as a middle school.

Social Validity of RTI Impacts Sense Making and Implementation

The education policy implementation research is scant with regard to exploring what teachers understand about a policy as they attempt to link their understanding to implementation (Coburn, 2001; Coburn & Stein, 2006).  Many studies of curriculum reform have focused on how teachers implement policy or how leadership practices contribute to success, but little has focused on how teachers interact with a reform to understand it and to change their practice. Spillane et al. (2002) contended that understanding teacher sense-making is important for understanding policy implementation. Coburn (2001) posited that “many researchers now suggest that rather than policy influencing teacher practice, it is more likely that teachers influence and shape policy. That is teachers interpret, adapt, and even transform policies as they put them into place” (p. 145). Social validity refers to the social significance of the program interventions and goals, the social acceptance of the procedures employed to obtain said goals, and the social importance of intervention outcomes (Wolf, 1998).  Therefore, an important consideration is how the teachers view and to what extent do they accept the comprehensive process and model of RTI in relation to middle school practices. 
  
For the remainder of this paper, I will discuss the teachers’ and principal’s perceptions as they relate to Wolf’s three levels of social validity. The main question posed is: How do the teachers and principal perceive RTI in relation to the middle school philosophy?

Social Significance of RTI

During the planning stages of LAC, the teachers created their school’s vision and mission statements. A force behind this educational creed was their strong commitment and dedication to students and the middle school philosophy. These strong values and beliefs held true when asked to provide their definition of a good middle school, all three teachers touched upon a fundamental characteristic of having committed teachers and learners. “A good school has teachers who love being where they are, not dead weight. Teachers who can get them [the students] excited about learning” and “When you see teachers volunteering to do things not for pay but because they want to, you know that you have a good school and things are happening because people want it to. They’re invested in it, so that’s good.” The backing by the leadership in the school helps preserve the teachers’ passion and commitment toward their students.

A principal who is supportive of the teachers in the school is a fundamental belief that all teachers expressed as a defining characteristic of a successful middle school. In the context of the current initiative, all asserted that the principal has been extremely supportive of their efforts. He has demonstrated this in multiple ways: from offering professional development, “He will send us to conferences. He’s already said if we want to go somewhere and learn more he’s fine with that, there’s money for that;” to providing professional learning community (PLC) time, “He also gave us the 45-minutes twice a week to work together;” to making sure necessary materials are available, “if we need materials, which happened, you know, we go to him and he does what he needs to do to, you know, get materials and to make sure we all have what we need;” and to just fostering their autonomy, “He trusts us the freedom to not adhere to rigid rules. He trusts me. He trusts all of us to do what’s right.”  Teachers are more devoted when they know that their hard work is recognized and supported. Throughout the entire process, these teachers have felt incredibility supported by their principal.

Social Acceptance of RTI

The principal’ sense-giving activities have played an integral role in the teachers’ sense-making of LAC. By providing the conditions of a support (i.e., offering professional development, providing PLC time, making sure materials are available, fostering autonomy), the teachers have collectively navigated the process. However, getting the initial buy-in from the entire staff and the students was a challenge for the principal at first. One teacher explained her observations of the teachers’ behavior.
     "I think the teachers have bought into it so I think that’s done. I, you know, that was one of the biggest obstacles I thought that we were going to run into. I think that by saying, Okay, get over it. We’re doing it. We need to just move on and do the best we can. They finally realized we were going to do it."

While another teacher reported that once the teachers accepted the change, the students followed suit.
      "I heard at the beginning a lot of teachers saying oh how much work it was going to be and we decided on our committee, let’s just keep it to that hour. Don’t give them homework. Let them work in class. Have conversations in class. And I have not heard any complaints at all. It’s been great. I love it. I love seeing more of literacy. It’s just amazing."

The principal had much to say with regard to his perceptions of the teacher and student buy-in, which matched the views of the teachers. He was especially concerned with how the teachers might come to terms with the many changes they were facing. For example, the teachers lost a prep period, as the principal explained: "Honestly, backlash that the teachers may portray based on the extra time that it was going to take to actually teach the LAC. To take that prep period away from teachers who have had that prep period for years."

In addition to the teachers losing a prep period, they also were required to teach a class that they had never taught before. The principal shared his observations of how the teachers responded to this change.
     "[To] ask them to take on another graded class, basically, in reality, a remedial class, so it was not a typical language arts class. This was going back to basics. Teaching kids, students, how to read. How to comprehend, um, so I was fearful a lot of the backlash would be a lot of balking, a lot of we don’t have to do this, this is just ridiculous, it’s just another reform coming down from the feds to the state that’s going to be here for two or three years and gone again for two or three years."

The principal noticed the resistance by the teachers at first. However, he observed a change in the teachers’ behavior and how that in turn started to affect the students’ behavior.
     "A little bit of that happened in the first week or so; lots of grumbling about how difficult it was, how much extra work it was, then it kind of just got quiet and I actually started hearing positives about the program and seeing kids that came in real, real low all of the sudden taking interest in the class. Overall, I think it’s turned out to be a fairly positive experience for the kids and for, for the teachers and for the school."

The principal shared additional thoughts about how the teachers contemplated the change, “I think they’re finding it’s actually kind of a neat break from their typical routine.” He further explained, “What I’m hearing from the teachers that are in those classes, those classes are running very well and probably better than some of their core classes that we’ve had in place for years. So, I think the kids have adapted really well to it.” Teacher and student buy-in has been an instrumental step in the implementation process. A contributing factor to teacher buy-in has been their ability to collaborate with each other on a regular basis.

The teachers all felt that the culture of collegiality in their school has allowed the implementation process of LAC to run much more smoothly. The negotiating of multiple policy messages associated with LAC, through both informal conversations and formal problem solving, has allowed the teachers to construct new meanings and change their practice. The existing collegial relationships have provided a foundation for improved collaboration throughout the implementation process. One teacher explained how the support of her fellow colleagues, either individually or collectively during their PLC time, has helped her.
    "I always go to [Teacher B]. I do that because she’s a seventh grade, she’s got the same, you know, kids that I do, that level. She is about a week ahead of me and so she always is the one that works out all the glitches. She’s the one who will-she’s the best at it. Definitely. Better than any of us. She takes it very, very seriously. She’s a perfectionist so I know that she’s going to have all the answers. And if she doesn’t, we look together back at some of the material. And we have our time to do that that’s set aside. We have every Tuesday and Friday for 45 minutes to sit together."  
   
The principal also recognized how the culture of collegiality and the PLC are an essential component for the success of LAC.
     "The teachers here have always been pretty good about talking to one another and about issues and about concerns and about their subject matters or whatever, they’ve always communicated very well. But I’ve noticed a lot of new partnerships coming about because of the LAC. You know, teachers that had specifically not talked, spoken with each other much are now talking with each other. I mean we do have a time set aside for them to meet one another throughout the week, so they are talking because of that as well. But you know you do see them in the hallways communicating more than they used to communicate with certain individuals."

Overall, the existing culture of collegiality and the principal’s support of the Language Arts PLC have helped in the process of implementation.

Social Importance

Within three months of implementation, all three teachers shared their excitement with how LAC is building students’ overall confidence in reading and consequently are more motivated to do well. One teacher commented, “I’ve asked them. Do you find that this has made a difference? And yes. Yes. And I see their chart, their graphs going upwards. I see their confidence in reading in front of a group; it has gone way up, way up. They are taking more care with their reading. You know, they’re not substituting words; they’re not leaving words out; definitely, definitely a big difference. Big difference.”  While another teacher shared her experiences with her group’s improved confidence, “They want to do well. They like it when they do well. We’re in it together as a group.” In this particular case, the teacher referred specifically to the positive reinforcement system that is built into the reading program. In addition to constant praise by the teacher for responding correctly, the students earn points for completing their daily lessons. Within the first three months, the teachers noticed that the progress monitoring graphs and the positive reinforcement system motivated the students to do well.
  
Overall, at seven months into the reform initiative, all three teachers commented on the positive student outcomes they have seen with LAC. Students increased test scores and self-confidence was a predominant theme. The principle shared his observation of the increased confidence and motivation of the students, “I think they’re seeing that the value of doing it is going to help them in science, in math, in social studies.”  The students, for the most part, have bought into the program and have settled into a grove. One teacher remarked that her students have expressed and interest and desire to continue with the program next year. This reassured the teacher that LAC has worked as intended and has great promise for the future.

An unforeseen outcome of LAC was the development of rich relationships with students that the teachers have encountered. The smaller class sizes for tier two instruction has given the struggling students the support and attention that they need. One teacher shared, “I like that I’ve really gotten to know-I have eight in my class and I’ve really, really gotten to know them and it’s like they’re my babies. So, I don’t know. I kind of, like, bonded with them differently.”

The principal commented to this effect as well.
     "I think a lot of good is coming out of it. I think because the groups are smaller, they’re smaller groups we can, we can spread it out a little bit. I think we’re seeing a lot of relationships that are blossoming between the teachers and students that may not typically have blossomed in the past because they’re having real close contact with 12 or 13 students every day that they typically would not be having. So those kids, I think, are feeling that they’re getting the extra attention that they, you know, they truly need. And I think the teachers are enjoying the fact that they’re seeing those students that are, especially again, tier two, tier three, who are struggling finding positive achievements and are getting excited about it, and the teachers are getting excited about it as well." 

The close relationships that have developed have made implementing LAC worth the teachers’ efforts and all the participants have eluded to this multiple times throughout the study. However, the hard data that the teachers can use to inform their decisions about student progress has initiated significant changes in their practice.

The teachers slowly changed their practices as they received subtle confirmation that LAC was making a positive difference. During the second interview, all three teachers and the principle seemed more confident with how they spoke about LAC. They have now worked out many of the kinks and established a routine, as the essential components of LAC have become part of the everyday infrastructure of the school. For instance, I noticed that they all used the key RTI terminology as though it was part of their daily vocabulary.

One substantial change that I did notice was how the teachers talked about student assessments. In the first interview, Teacher C was skeptical of the utility of using test scores. However, in the second interview she focused on her students’ test scores throughout most of the interview.  When asked about evaluating student progress as compared to before, she stated, “Well I didn’t have anything to really gauge it, except for my own opinion. This I have numbers to back me up, so I like that a lot. With Title 1, it was what do I feel just based on my observations, and I didn’t really have numbers at my fingertips.” The test scores showed her which students were responding well to LAC. It also provided her with concrete data to support her recommendation to refer one student to special education.

When asked about what has been the most challenging aspect of LAC, one teacher described how changing her teaching behavior has been exhausting.
     "In my tier groups there’s a lot of having to be on all the time. I mean you’re in front of the class, with the book, with the script and delivering it. There’s not a lot of downtime at all. Like I lose my voice by the end of the day like I’m losing it right now. And my class that I meet with them is from one to two so it’s the last class of the day. Everybody’s a little bit tired. Um, I guess that’s the big difference, is it’s really, really tiring. But it’s very beneficial. So, knowing that, you know, it’s kind of worth it."

The principal recognized the toll a major reform can have on the teachers even when they are committed to the change. He stated in his second interview, “Overall I think they’re tired. Having the literacy program everyday has been difficult… I think at times for the students, as well as the staff, especially for those Tiers 2 and 3.” This comment showed the sensitivity the principal had toward the teachers, which also speaks to the kind of support he has provided throughout the process.

Multiple themes have emerged that supported the social validity of RTI at this middle school. In this particular case, RTI has complimented or even enhanced the essential attributes and defining characteristics such as: shared vision, value young adolescents, committed leaders, and active learning (TWB, 2010). Social validity will continue to be analyzed for the final round of interviews after one year of RTI implementation.

In many ways, RTI has revitalized this middle school that has been static for the last couple of years. Exhausted and frustrated, many of the teachers have closed their classroom doors and regressed to the more traditional practices. RTI requires breaking down silos within the schools and structures that support working in isolation.  It is about integrating all staff and their expertise and combining service delivery models, including special education, into one unified system of learning.

References

Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in
      their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.

Coburn, C.E. (2005), Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading   
      policy. Education Policy, 19(3) 476-509.

Coburn, C.E., & Russell, J.L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational      
      Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

Coburn, C.E., & Stein, M.K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher   
      professional community in policy implementation. Albany, NY: State University of New York
      Press.

Spillane, J., Reiser, & Reimer T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing
    and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3).

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior
       analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.

Middle School Teachers' Sense Making of RTI: A Case Study

Read about the Context for the Study, an Overview of RTI, and the Conceptual Framework for the study in previous posts.

Methods:

This qualitative case study used a cognitive perspective to examine the sense-making of a team of middle school language arts teachers who received professional development in Response to Intervention (RTI) and sought to implement strategic literacy instruction into their instructional practice during the 2010-2011 school year. Spillane, et al (2002) defined a cognitive framework as a view of policy implementation “that takes into account basic information processing, as well as the complexities and influences involved in the processing of information about abstract ideas, the influence of motivation and affect, and the ways that social context and the social interaction affect sense-making” (p. 388).

I used a case study approach in order to “explore a bounded system (one setting and one particular event) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information” (Creswell, 2007. p. 73).  This design approach is often used for documenting organizational processes as they unfold (Yin, 1984). Whereas I am a beginning researcher in this capacity, I used this as a pilot project and started with limited data collection to help gain some initial experiences (Sampson, as cited in Creswell, 2007).  I relied primarily on in-depth interviewing and supplemented this strategy with observation of meetings and document analysis. I used an analytical framework to help deconstruct the teachers’ sense-making of LAC as they attempted to incorporate it into their practice.

Site Selection: The selection of this case study school was based on two main factors; the middle school is in its first year of RTI implementation and my accessibility to the participants. In addition, my desire and passion to unpack the middle school teachers’ sense making of RTI motivated me to do the study. The reform effort was led at the school site by a leadership team composed of the principal, four language arts teachers, two math teachers and a Title-1 teacher. During the spring of 2010, the RTI team participated in three full-day meetings directed by the researcher. A comprehensive overview of RTI for literacy was provided during the first day. The other two days were dedicated to the creation of a plan that included a program initiative for improving the reading competence and confidence of students and thus improving scores on district and state level tests. The initiative involves the implementation of Literacy Across the Curriculum (LAC), a RTI program that requires content area teachers to infuse reading instruction into their daily practice. Additionally, prior to the implementation at the start of the school year, the teachers received a full day of training on the chosen tier two reading intervention program called Corrective Reading from an expert from the publishing company.

This case study is based on purposeful sampling strategies (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 1996). Although LAC is a school-wide initiative, I intentionally limited the case to three teachers and the principal. My selection was based on very specific criteria. First, although twenty teachers are directly implementing the program, I was interested in only those teachers that are members of the RTI team and who received training in both RTI and the tier two reading program (i.e., Corrective Reading). Second, I chose general education teachers who are implementing tier two reading interventions to seventh graders. Two language arts teachers and a Title-1 teacher met the specific criterion. In this way, I gained different perspectives to the problem, which did not dilute the overall analysis (Creswell, 2007). 

Field issues can result when researchers attempt to gain access to the site of their research (Creswell, 2007). Problems that may arise include building credibility at the site, gaining access to the individuals at the site, and getting participants to respond to requests for information. By focusing on the two language arts teachers, the Title-1 teacher and the principal who know me, these field issues were addressed. I understood that gaining access involves a continual negotiating and renegotiating of my relationship with the participants (Maxwell, 1996). Furthermore, I am aware that my relationship with the individuals is a complex and changing entity (Maxwell, 1996). My particular relationship to the respondents was a key element in my sampling strategy.

Data Sources and Collection: I gathered and analyzed data throughout the study from a variety of sources (i.e., in-depth interviews, participant observation, and documents). I attempted to produce descriptive case of the phenomenon of teacher sense-making of the implementation of a particular policy, Literacy Across the Curriculum (LAC). In order to capture the participants’ worldviews on their general beliefs about schools and instruction, I conducted semi-structured interviews with two of the language arts teachers and the Title-1 teacher. “At the root of in-depth interviewing is an interest in understanding the lived experience of other people and the meaning they make of that experience” (Seidman, 2006, p. 9). Maxwell (1996) posited that, “Your research questions identify the things you want to understand; your interview questions provide the data that you need to understand these things” (p. 53). To help unpack the participants’ beliefs and values, I structured my initial interview questions (Appendix A) based on Glickman, Gordon, and Ross-Gordon’s (2004) work on developmental leadership related to forming an educational platform. An educational platform may include the aims of education, views of knowledge, the social significance of students’ learning, the image of the learner, the image of the curriculum, the image of the teacher, the preferred pedagogy, and the preferred school climate (Sergiovanni & Starrat, 2001, pp. 78-79). The subsequent questions of the first interview and those of the second interview related to the cognitive perspective framework of the study.

In addition to obtaining an understanding of the teachers’ educational platform, I wanted to learn the ways the teachers connected the main principles of the reform to their personal assumptions, beliefs, values, and attitudes toward teaching and learning. Spillane et al. (2006) posited, “If implementation involves interpretation, because implementers must figure out what policy means and how it applies in order to determine how it is used, then a cognitive framework that unpacks the ideas that implementers construct from reform proposals” is beneficial (p.49). I was interested in knowing how the teachers individually and collectively make sense of the policy. Additionally, I interviewed the principal to gain more insight into how he directly influenced shifts in practice by shaping the conditions under which the teachers attempt to unlearn the present way of doing things and relearn LAC.

In this study, I audio recorded the interviews via an iPod Nano and obtained informed consent of the interviewees. The university institutional review board approved this project and interview protocols. A work initiative student and myself shared the responsibility of transcribing the interviews using Microsoft Word. The transcribed interviews were then transferred and stored electronically using NVivo software. I interviewed the participants one time each, which ranged from 30 to 45-minute sessions during the third month of implementation and again at seven months. I sent the transcribed interviews to the participants as a word document via email for them to review in order to assure transcript accuracy. This process was one way for me to solicit feedback from the participants, known as member checking, rule out validity threats and increase the credibility of my findings (Maxwell, 1996).

I collected and examined various documents including, the LAC materials that I obtained as a participant observer, which included the notes from the RTI leadership team meetings, school email correspondences and attachments connected to LAC, a state-wide middle school blog post, and documents related to a school board meeting (i.e., observation field notes, analytic memos, email correspondences, newspaper article). The documents helped provide me with an in-depth look at the broad context of the study, the policy (RTI/LAC), and what the principal intended in terms of implementation. I scanned relevant documents, organized them into NVivo, and referred to them throughout the study. The previously described conceptual framework helped guide my development of sub-research questions, interview questions, data collection strategies, and data analysis efforts. Table 1 illustrates the relationship between the different components of the conceptual framework and data sources that I used.

Middle School Teachers' Sense Making of RTI: A Case Study

Read about the Context for the Study and an Overview of RTI in previous posts.

Conceptual Framework of the Study:

This case study examined the participants’ negotiation of uncertainties and ambiguities related to the technical aspects of LAC implementation. Weick (1995) asserted that “sense-making is about the placement of items into frameworks, comprehending, redressing surprises, constructing meaning, interacting in the pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning. It is grounded in both individual and social activity” (p. 6). Coburn (2005) further posited that sense-making is influenced by the sense-giving or shaping actions of school leaders and by other policies from the larger context of the district. Spillane, et al. (2002) created a cognitive framework that they maintained is “designed to unpack the implementing agents’ sense-making from and about policy” (p. 392). Spillane, et al. (2002) defined a cognitive framework as a view of policy implementation “that takes into account basic information processing, as well as the complexities and influences involved in the processing of information about abstract ideas, the influence of motivation and affect, and the ways that social context and the social interaction affect sense-making” (p. 388). Coburn and Russell (2008) suggested that teachers’ social networks play an important role in policy implementation. Collaborative communities create trusting environments that encourage risk-taking, access to expertise to support learning, and opportunities for teachers to negotiate the meanings and implications of reform (Coburn & Russell, 2008).

This study’s conceptual framework (Figure 1) was a compilation of the aforementioned framework and ideas of the various researchers mentioned (Weick, et al., 1995, 2005; Spillane, et al., 2002, 2006; Coburn, 2005; Coburn & Russell, 2008). The framework was developed into three domains. First, the teachers’ sense-making was explored through an individual cognitive perspective. That was the consideration of how prior knowledge, beliefs, and experiences or worldviews influence the construction of new understandings (Spillane et al., 2002). Sense-making was emphasized over the simple deciphering of new information, because the focus was on the active attempt of synthesizing new stimuli within an extant knowledge and belief system (Spillane et al., 2002).  Teacher motivation, goals, and affect also influences one’s ability to make sense of and reason about reform (Spillane et al., 2002). The influence of motivation and affect on cognitive processing is called motivated reasoning (Spillane et al., 2002; Kunda, 1990).

While individual cognition in teacher sense-making is important in the understanding of reform initiatives, Coburn (2001) posited that it is not a solo affair. Situated cognition involves the collective sense-making within social contexts and networks (Coburn, 2001; Spillane et al., 2002; Coburn & Russell, 2008). Spillane et al. (2002) asserted that knowledge embedded in social situations or contexts as the practices and common beliefs of a community, influences sense-making and action in reform implementation. Coburn (2001) argued that “the nature and structure of formal networks and informal alliances among teachers play a powerful role in shaping the sense-making process and ultimately the kind of sense that is made” (pp. 145-146). Coburn and Russell (2008) provided evidence that district policy affects the nature and quality of teachers’ social networks by cultivating structure of ties, access to expertise, trust, and depth of interaction.

Teacher individual and situated cognition are indirectly influenced by the principal’s sense-giving actions (Coburn, 2005). By shaping access to policy ideas, the social construction of meaning, and conditions for learning, the principal creates an environment under which learning and policy implementation can unfold (Coburn, 2005).

The conceptual framework helped guide all aspects of the study including the research sub questions, design methodology, data collection and analysis strategies, and conclusions. The sub questions were as follows: (a) how do teachers’ individual worldviews influence how they construct understanding, interpretation, and knowledge of LAC; (b) how do teachers’ collective social interactions (among teachers, teachers and leaders, and teachers and students) influence implementation of LAC; (c) how does teachers’ behavior change as they unlearn the present ways of doing things and begin to implement Literacy Across the Curriculum; and (d) what sense-giving role does the principal play in terms of influencing teacher’s sense-making and creating conditions for LAC implementation? The other components of study are addressed in subsequent sections.

Response ~ Turn Middle School Into ‘Boot Camp for Life'

Valerie Strauss' call to action: “So let’s consider a different kind of education, one that would allow kids to learn skills in unconventional ways and that would give them far more time to engage in physical activity outside the classroom.”

This statement seems to capture a big part of the middle school concept and parallels the expeditionary learning model used at King MS and Beane’s curriculum integration model at Maranacook MS. 

I believe Strauss has some very good points in her article. All of her suggestions seem to align with the middle school concept. I would think that many of the activities she proposes, do occur in schools with young adolescents. Perhaps she is addressing the schools that claim to be MS, but in actuality only mimic some of the core practices. I am not sure I agree with her statement, “Forget about the rigor.” Perhaps what she means is that the students (and teachers) are completely engaged and having fun—reaching maximum flow.

For example, (although upper elementary) my son’s 4th grade teacher partnered with the school health coordinator and a chef from UMF food services to offer a cooking/nutrition program. The students walked to a different location once a week for six week to actually prepare three course meals! This experience has had a profound impact on my son. He is now asking to help prepare meals and is actually doing some cooking on his own.  He is taking on more of a role with grocery shopping as well. I lost him momentarily in the store the other day. When I finally found him, he was knelt down reading the nutrition labels on soup cans. He is more mindful about what he eats and what are the more healthy food choices. My husband and I are very health conscious and of course model and teach these behaviors as well. Nonetheless, this experience was meaningful for him—perhaps because it was something different than the often-mundane lessons in the classroom. Did I say that out loud?

Check out the story in the local on-line newspaper.
http://www.dailybulldog.com/db/features/chefs-in-the-making-fourth-graders-complete-cooking-class/

Integrative Curriculum and Multidisciplinary Curriculum—Are They Virtually the Same?

The answer is NO.

I believe many educators are confused by these two terms. Drake (2000) asserted that most commonly K-12 educators think of curriculum integration as "making meaningful connections between topics or skills that are usually addressed in different subject areas" (p. 3).

What exactly is the difference between an integrative curriculum and a multidisciplinary curriculum?

I came across several definitions, but the major difference is that an integrative curriculum is student-centered and a multidisciplinary curriculum is subject-centered. Below is a list of a few definitions that I found—And yes, there are variations among practitioners and theorists.

Integrated:

•    "Integrated curriculum is based on a holistic view of learning and recognizes the necessity for learners to see the big picture. . . . Integrative curriculum ignores traditional subject lines while exploring questions that are most relevant to students. As a result, it is both responsive to students' needs and intellectual—because it focuses on helping learners use their minds as well" (Brazee & Capelluti, 1995, p. 9).

•    "The term integrated curriculum . . . refers to a way of teaching, planning and organizing . . . so the discrete disciplines of subject matter are interrelated and 1) match the developmental needs of the learners; 2) help to meaningfully connect the students' learning to their current and past experiences" (Roberts & Kellough, 2000, p. 4).

•    Beane (1997) defined the integrative model as, “A curriculum design theory that is concerned with enhancing the possibilities for personal and social integration through the organization of curriculum around significant problems and issues, collaboratively identified by educators and young people, without regard for subject area lines” (p. 19).

• "Integrated studies, sometimes called interdisciplinary studies, brings together diverse disciplines in a comprehensive manner, enabling students to develop a meaningful understanding of the complex associations and influences within a topic" (Edutopia Staff).

Multidisciplinary:

•    “Two or more subjects are organized around a common theme or topic such as "pioneers"; or different disciplines may be viewed as "lenses" to explore a problem or issue. There is an attempt to make explicit connections across subject areas” (Drake, 2000).

•    “The juxtaposition of several disciplines focused on one problem with no direct attempt to integrate” (Meeth, 1978).

For more information, check out this article, Organizing the Middle Level Curriculum by Beane.