Overcoming resistance to change

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

Regular readers of my blog know that I lament the stagnation of assessment results in literacy and numeracy and the lack of improvement in achievement among Indigenous students and students with special needs designations. For the several months I have been reading the strategic plans developed by school boards in British Columbia that are designed to align with the goals of intellectual, social, and career development as expressed in the Statement of Education Policy Order. I am wondering how school districts are going to produce the changes that are required to fulfill the goals in their plans.  

Teachers are, of course, the key agents of change. Without their support, change cannot occur. There are other factors at play, but it is essential that teachers be willing to change their practice to improve student performance and outcomes.  

In my quest to understand change, I recently read an article that so resonated with my experience that it has me thinking along new lines. That the article resonates with my experience doesn’t prove anything, but it is worth considering the implications of what the scholar-practitioners—the authors of the article--learned from their experience.  

Two university researchers, McKenzie and Scheurich, both with teaching and research experience in urban educational settings, conducted a collaborative action research project at a diverse urban elementary school. Their objective was to work alongside the school's administration and staff to boost the academic success of all students across various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. While the school's accountability data showed some progress, particularly for the lowest-performing students, the project revealed four main obstacles to change: the tendency to blame external factors for low achievement, the perception that accountability systems undermine teaching, the belief that proposing change implies criticism, and a general reluctance to embrace leadership roles.[1]  

McKenzie and Scheurich found that the teachers with whom they worked and with whom they had positive relationships frequently blamed factors outside the school, such as parenting, student behavior, and poverty for students' academic struggles. They inferred that pointing to external reasons suggested that the teachers were hesitant to consider how their own methods might contribute to student performance. They also found that biases against students' diverse backgrounds also played a part, leading teachers to view some background differences negatively.  

The authors also found that, across various educational settings, teachers voiced concerns that accountability measures, such as standardized testing, hindered their teaching. The teachers argued that these systems limit their creativity, fail to address the needs of all students, and create a stressful environment. McKenzie and Scheurich found that the resistance went beyond pedagogical objections to the teachers' sense of autonomy within their classrooms. Accountability was often viewed as an intrusion, challenging the traditional power teachers hold in the classrooms and leading to a defensive stance against perceived external scrutiny.  

Teachers with whom the authors worked frequently viewed suggestions for improvement as personal criticism, regardless of how they were presented. McKenzie and Scheurich believe that this issue was linked to the power dynamic between school administrators and teachers. Despite efforts to work together on changes, teachers often felt that improvement suggestions were a critique of their work. That situation made it hard to change teaching methods and revealed the challenging tension between leadership and teacher resistance to change.  

McKenzie and Scheurich wrote that, although the idea of shared leadership assumes that teachers will welcome the chance to take on leadership roles, the reality was that teachers were hesitant to accept these roles. They tended to avoid actions that might set them apart from colleagues or disrupt established norms. Even teachers who were formally acknowledged as leaders frequently resisted using their authority to guide teaching practices. The authors opined that such behavior indicates a widespread reluctance within the teaching profession to embrace leadership responsibilities.  

The McKenzie and Scheurich article has me thinking about four related questions:  

• How can we design professional development programs that encourage teachers to reflect on their teaching methods and view challenges as opportunities for increasing their effectiveness?
• How can we involve teachers in creating assessment systems that recognize their creativity and the diverse needs of students so that teachers see accountability as a professional responsibility and opportunity rather than a punitive measure?
• How can we redefine educational leadership to emphasize collaboration?
• What mentorship programs can we establish to support teachers transitioning into leadership roles?  

These are difficult questions to which I do not have ready answers, but I believe that it is crucial to involve teachers in answering them. Without their participation it will be difficult, if not impossible, to shift the perception of change from something that is done to teachers to something that is done by them.

I am going to think about these four questions between now and the Fall when my blog will resume. 

---

[1] McKenzie, K.B.  & J.J.  Scheurich (2008) Teacher resistance to improvement of schools with diverse students, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11:2, 117-133, DOI: 10.1080/13603120801950122  

Teaching: Making A Future

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

The central job board for teacher recruitment in British Columbia is a website called Make a Future. Although the catch phrase is close to becoming a cliché, there is much truth in the claim that teachers can make the future.  

Teaching is one of the most influential professions. It shapes the future of the students taught and in doing so helps shape the future of society. Research, coupled with real-world economic considerations, makes the case that competent, effective teachers help promote student success and social improvement.  

John Hattie's Visible Learning summarizes much of the research about the immense impact teachers that have on student learning. That research summary and subsequent research shows that teachers exert a greater influence on student learning outcomes than any other single factor. The pedagogical strategies, content knowledge, and rapport-building skills that teachers possess are pivotal to student achievement.  

Teacher influence extends well beyond the boundaries of the classroom and academic achievement. Economists have found that teachers also contribute substantially to students' long-term life outcomes. Studies show that the quality of the teaching students receive can significantly affect their future employment opportunities and health outcomes. These findings confirm the value to society of effective teachers.  

Well-prepared teachers represent a significant investment. Considering salary, benefits, including pension costs, the amount exceeds $3 million per person over a thirty-year career without factoring in the costs of recruitment, professional development, and the cost of supply or substitute teachers during periods of absence. This is a substantial financial investment for any educational organization. Given the educational benefits that skilled, effective teachers bring, the expense is necessary and justifiable.  

The hiring of teachers extends beyond simple economic calculations. The educational and economic repercussions of employing ineffective teachers or those who leave the profession prior to retirement are considerable. Effective pre-employment assessment strategies are pivotal to hiring competent teachers.  

Although they are too infrequently used, teaching demonstrations provide real-time insights into an applicant’s teaching. Applicants may be asked to teach a lesson to a class while evaluators observe. This allows schools to directly assess an applicant's teaching skills, classroom management strategies, and ability to engage students.  

If the situation is like the one for which the applicant has applied, the students and curricula should be familiar. If the situation is too disparate with the position, the curriculum and students may be unfamiliar to the applicant and may violate the expectations of the observers.  

While it is inadvisable to make a strong judgment based on a single observation, even a single observation is preferable to no observations at all.  

Applicants may be asked to submit sample lesson plans. Reviewing these can provide insight into a teacher's planning skills, their understanding of curriculum standards, and their ability to structure lessons effectively. Like demonstration lessons, this method requires expert evaluators who can recognize effective lesson planning.  

Interviewing applicants for teaching positions is a near universal practice. During interviews, applicants may be asked to describe how they have handled (or would handle) specific situations in the classroom (often called behavioural or situational interviewing). Their responses can provide insight into their problem-solving skills, understanding of student development, and classroom management strategies. The quality of these interviews largely depends on the questions asked and the interviewer's skills. The validity of interviews depends upon using a robust question set and skilled interviewers.  

It is fashionable among some recruiters to ask applicants to submit a professional portfolio. The portfolio may include prior lesson plans, samples of student work, teaching philosophy statement, and performance evaluations from previous positions. Portfolios are intended to provide a holistic view of a teacher's abilities and achievements through representative objects and documents. The effectiveness of portfolios relies heavily on their design and the evaluators' ability to interpret them accurately.  

Reference checks, like interviews, are nearly universal. They are intended to provide additional insights about a candidate. Their value is limited by the referees' willingness to provide candid and unbiased feedback. This is difficult to achieve because applicants understandably select referees who will provide positive appraisals.  

I do not think it is an overstatement to say that teachers make a future for students and the wider society. They drive student achievement, influence long-term life outcomes, and create social value. For those reasons I also think it is of great importance that the education sector prioritizes the hiring of highly competent teachers. Each pre-employment assessment method I have enumerated adds information about as applicant’s potential, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Given the magnitude of a school district’s investment in teachers, an approach that combines these methods is likely to yield a more comprehensive understanding of an applicant’s suitability for a teaching position than one that is more limited in scope. 

Fostering Evidence-informed Teaching Practice

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia 

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

I have long been an advocate for the application of research evidence in teaching practices. Over the past century, an abundance of education research has been accumulated, much of it with practical implications for the classroom. Teachers are not as receptive to integrating this research into their daily practice as I hope they would be. From time to time, I have suggested that teachers should follow the example of their counterparts in the field of medicine, who seem to more readily apply research findings to guide their practices. There are some intriguing differences in the part that research plays in each field and in the dispositions practitioners in both fields have toward such research.  

Medicine and education are multifaceted disciplines with a shared objective—to improve human well-being. For medicine it is physical health and for education it is intellectual growth.  

The role of research in these two fields has notable differences. Medical research often delivers results in the form of tangible treatments or protocols, such as a new medication or surgical procedure. The benefits of these treatments can be directly observed, and their use is often mandated by regulatory bodies. A clear example is the widespread application of cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins) that were quickly adopted after research demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing the risk of heart disease.  

Educational research often yields findings that are more interpretive and less prescriptive. Research findings in education provide insights into teaching strategies or learning theories but are challenging to apply. For instance, research highlighting the benefits of formative assessment might not specify the best ways to administer or use formative assessment to inform decisions about instruction in classrooms with varied student populations.  

Physicians and teachers have different dispositions toward research. Physicians, by nature of their profession and continuous learning requirements, tend to be more accepting of research findings. They often work in an environment that supports and encourages the integration of the latest research into practice. A stark example can be found in the rapid implementation of COVID-19 treatments and protocols based on emergent research.  

Teachers often enjoy more flexibility and autonomy in their methods. They may adopt evidence-based practices, but the implementation is frequently dependent on individual judgement, administrative support, and available resources. For example, a teacher might choose a project-based learning approach over a more traditional teaching method, despite the lack of consensus in research on its superiority, because they believe it suits their specific classroom context.  

The differences in the uptake of research between medicine and education are not intended to disparage the teaching profession. Calling attention to them points to the need to understand the factors affecting the decisions that teachers make and their use of evidence in arriving at those decisions.  

It is essential to increase the accessibility of research for teachers, communicate findings in a practical, applicable manner, and foster a system that supports and encourages the application of research in the classroom. These changes could propel education towards a more evidence-informed future, much like what we observe in the field of medicine today.  

Ministries of education are in a uniquely powerful position to influence educational practices on a large scale. They can set priorities, shape policies, and allocate resources in ways that can significantly impact the application of research in schools and classrooms. It is imperative that ministries take an active role in enhancing the utilization of educational research by teachers.  

Ministries can increase the accessibility of research for teachers by investing in platforms that collate and distribute educational research. These platforms should be user-friendly and easily searchable, catering to the busy schedules of teachers, and provide a range of research from promising studies to multiple studies conducted over time. By making research readily available, teachers can stay informed about the latest findings and best practices.  

Ministries can facilitate the translation of research into practical, actionable strategies for teachers. Educational research can often be opaque in its presentation. By developing resources that present research findings in a clear and digestible manner, ministries can help teachers apply research to their teaching methods. This could be in the form of summarized research briefs, practical guides, or webinars that discuss research implications for classroom practices.  

Ministries can foster a system that supports and encourages the application of research in the classroom by implementing policies that value and incentivize evidence-based teaching practices. This could include providing professional development programs that focus on the practical application of research, creating opportunities for teacher collaboration and discussion of research findings, and incorporating the demonstrable use of evidence-based strategies into teacher evaluations.  

Ministries can work with universities and teacher preparation programs to ensure that pre-service teachers are equipped with the skills to understand and apply educational research. This can foster a culture of evidence-informed teaching from the beginning of a teacher's career.  

Ministries can fund further research into educational practices, particularly those that explore the implementation of research in diverse classroom contexts. This supports the generation of more relevant and applicable research and demonstrates a commitment to the continual improvement of teaching practices based on evidence.  

By leveraging their resources, influence, and strategic capabilities, ministries of education can promote the use of research in education, leading to improved teaching practices and better educational outcomes. The ripple effect of this could extend far beyond the individual classroom, influencing the entire educational system.