I’ve witnessed a number of teachers changing discourse patterns towards a more transformative approach these past many years. This has made me wonder if it’s best to take baby steps and make changes as one can, or to patiently bide time until a more holistic pedagogical approach can be embraced (school, district, or nationwide) so that the field of education is presenting a stronger, more connected voice?

The individual in me, and as one that likes to see more immediate success and to chart my course, says: Make steps as you can. Try anew. Model for others. Push the envelope and get noticed. Swim upstream. The whole will come. It'll be stronger along the way.

The collective voice on my shoulder conversely wonders, should we: Be patient, thoughtful, strategic, prepared. Wait for fellow teachers, administrators, and policy-makers to come aboard. Reserve resources. Wait for the shift. It'll be stronger in the end.

Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and the physicist/philosopher that coined the term “paradigm shift,” says shifts are driven by agents of change. His view on paradigm shifts was via hard sciences, but the term is widely used today by social scientists and the phenomena can be seen throughout many societal matters.

Technology is a prime example of a modern-day agent of change, and is arguably the lead factor in the shift from the industrial age to a dynamic, organic, and global world. In an Editorial “Shift Happens” by Dr. Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, she writes that “Change starts when scientists observe anomalies—things that do not fit within the prevailing paradigm. As these anomalies accumulate, some will be labeled as errors, some will make small changes to the existing paradigm, and some will lead to revolution.” We might label as educational anomalies: the achievement gap, racial disparities, ADHD, an unprepared workforce, increased violence in our schools. I contend that the majority of our responses thus far to the anomalies in education are leading to large-scale but small-in-scope changes to our existing educational paradigm of didactic pedagogy. We change the curricula, standards, and classroom management methods within our existing paradigm. Those implementing flipped classrooms, designing virtual classrooms, pushing pedagogical norms, and researching, carrying out, and communicating the results of studies on transformative pedagogy are essential to leading our nation to an education revolution. I also believe we need to comprehensively make the case for educational change by including the amazing and relevant advances from neuroscience, human ecology, and psychology. How about some easy and accessible steps: what if all of us (teachers, parents, policy-makers, academics, researchers, children, psychologists, board members, etc., etc.) watched RSA and Sir Ken Robinson’s “Changing Education Paradigms”? How can we more publicly bring research and creative/new thought into public, and not just academic, dialogue?

An image from Sir Ken Robinson and RSA's animated talk on "Changing Education Paradigms."

So, the answer to the question posed - should teachers push the envelope of change and take a step at a time (be it muddled or not) or wait for a more collective voice - is, I think, “it depends.” For a shift of this nature, we need pushers and patient thinkers. We need respected leaders and strategic followers. We need innovative thinkers and stringent researchers. We need policy makers and politicians. We need engaged parents, enthusiastic children, and committed community members. We need a village where everyone has a role in making the needed change occur -- what is your role?

-------------------------------------------

Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolution, 3rd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.