Five Perspectives on Teaching

Chapter 3 Alternative Frames of Understanding: An Introduction to Five Perspectives on Teaching From: Pratt, Daniel D. and Associates (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult & Higher Education, Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing. ISBN: 0-89464-937-X Introduction When people ask, "What's your perspective on this?", what are they asking? Chances are, they are asking where you stand on an issue. What is your view, outlook, position, or stance? Can you put into words your commitments -- your thoughts and beliefs related to a specific issue? They might just as well have asked, "What is your own bias on this?", for each perspective is really a particular bias, based on how you ‘see’ the issue and what vested interests are most important to you. When we speak of a perspective on teaching, we are speaking of much the same thing; an inter-related set of beliefs and intentions that give meaning and justification for our actions. Thus, although perspectives are enacted through activities, they are far more than the activities or even the specific commitments we hold. They are a lens through which we view the world of teaching and learning. We may not be aware of a perspective because it is usually something we look through, rather than look at, when teaching. As we shall see in later chapters, it becomes the object of our attention only when we reflect upon our beliefs, intentions, and actions as a whole. For the most part, each person’s initial perspective on teaching was received without question or challenge. It was the result of years of being a learner, in the home, at school, in the community, on sports teams, and in a thousand other moments responding to someone acting as teacher. From watching others teach, we form impressions about what teachers do, what learners do, and how the process of teaching works and doesn't work. Eventually, within an individual, a set of conceptions related to learning and teaching evolves and is carried forward until it is challenged, perhaps because it no longer 'works,' or because an alternative perspective emerges and seems to work better. But until we change a perspective consciously, how does it operate? How does it affect what and how we see? The German philosopher Nietzsche claimed that it is a fiction to assume we can take a pure, objective stance toward knowing anything. Knowing from such a posture requires, an eye [that is] turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something... these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objectivity”, be. (Nietzsche, translated by Kaufman & Hollingdale, 1969, p. 119) The same is true for perspectives on teaching. If we know only one perspective on teaching, it will dominate our perceptions and interpretations of all that goes on, yet remain hidden from view. Just as the world above the pond is invisible to a fish, so too are other perspectives invisible to those who know only one perspective on teaching. Thus, if we are to understand our personal perspectives on teaching, we must consider other ways of thinking and believing about teaching, alternative ways of constructing learning, knowledge or skill, and multiple roles for instructors. The account of the teaching workshop presented at the beginning of Chapter Two showed how the workshop involved an implicit denial of perspective and, consequently, denial of alternative ways of thinking about teaching. That is, the workshop portrayed a uni-dimensional view of teaching, characterized by generic skills and behavioral objectives, and devoid of variation in context, content, learners, beliefs and commitment. Knowledge, learning, and our roles as teachers could only be interpreted within the prevailing, but invisible, perspective; alternative views did not exist. What happens, then, when we behave as though all teachers do share the same perspective, the same criteria for ‘effective teaching?’ Perspective as judgment Each perspective on teaching is a complex web of actions, intentions, and beliefs; each, in turn, creates its own criteria for judging or evaluating right and wrong, true and false, effective and ineffective. Perspectives determine our roles and idealized self-images as teachers as well as the basis for reflecting on practice. When you talk with another teacher who believes as you do, there is an immediacy of communication and the feeling of being understood. However, just the opposite holds true when there are disagreements between people holding different perspectives on teaching. It is as if each is from a different culture, where the values and meanings are different. This commonality or disparity in perspective becomes even more apparent and significant when one’s teaching is being evaluated. Evaluation makes more sense and is less disturbing if it is done by someone with a perspective similar to your own. It is easier to understand and agree upon criteria and judgments of what is “effective” when like-minds negotiate these things. On the other hand, evaluation that crosses perspectives can be problematic, to say the least. For example, a friend's teaching was being evaluated for his promotion at my university. The evaluation process called for two colleagues to review his teaching syllabus and observe at least three consecutive hours of instruction. This is how he told his story to me: On the evening of their observation I was leading a discussion of learning styles and approaches and their implications for research on adult learning. In the session, which ran from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m., I had set out several questions and put people into buzz groups to discuss the questions. After about 40 minutes of this I re-convened the large group of 18 graduate students to talk about their small group discussions. Through all of this, my evaluators sat silent and observed from the back of the room. At the coffee break they both explained they had to leave but would meet with me in the next few days to discuss their observations and report. Three days later one of the evaluators met with me at a coffee shop on campus and, after polite exchanges, opened the conversation with the question, "Do you think your students are getting their money's worth?" I was stunned. Everything I had experienced to that point suggested my teaching was not only adequate but, in some regards, exemplary. I was so shocked I could only ask, "What do you mean?" The response was, "Well, you didn't answer their questions; they asked several questions and you just turned the questions back to the group. In fact, they left that evening with more questions than answers. I expect you know the answers to their questions and they deserve answers." No amount of explaining would answer this charge. Two very different perspectives on teaching were about to collide. My friend held the view that graduate seminars were a forum for exploration and inquiry; his colleague was of the opinion that the role of a professor was to provide information, not questions; to act as authority, not co-learner. It was as if people from two different cultures were speaking past each other, even though discussing the same episode. Unfortunately, one person was in a more powerful position than the other. Evaluation presents problems of power imbalance, which conflicting perspectives can exacerbate. As mentioned earlier, perspectives are enacted through techniques, but they are far more than simply the actions or techniques of teaching. In the example just given, the educators’ disagreement went well beyond the issue of lecturing versus questioning. It included different conceptions of knowledge, and how knowledge is learned, different conceptions of graduate school and the purposes that are most central to that enterprise, and different conceptions of roles and responsibilities for a professor leading a graduate seminar. In other words, each of them brought to this transaction a set of meanings and values that “framed” the events and people in particular ways. Each of their personal “frames” consisted of a set of inter-related conceptions. From within each of their perspectives, conclusions made sense. Each one could have written an evaluation of the teaching and justified his conclusions on the basis of his observations. Each evaluation would have been internally consistent, that is, coherent and logical, based upon the ways in which key elements and processes were interpreted. Internal consistency is quite natural in long-held perspectives. A similar process may have happened to you if you have ever left your home culture to travel or work in another culture. Back home, your understanding of ‘what’s done’ is intact and solid, your world view is internally coherent and logical. And yet, walking around that first street, encountering that first social situation in a market square or a post office, it becomes obvious that your logic is not shared! At that moment, that which was invisible and taken for granted becomes visible and, as a result, becomes the object of awareness and open to scrutiny and examination for the first time. In 1984 I was getting ready to teach my first course in Hong Kong. As you can imagine, I was excited to learn about Hong Kong and shared that excitement with a friend. To my surprise, he dismissed this as naive and said that I would very likely learn more about Canada than about Hong Kong. I dismissed that, thinking that he really didn't understand what I had said. But, after ten years of teaching there I believe he was right; I learned a great deal more about my own culture than I did about the culture of Hong Kong. I had a basis of comparison and, for the first time, my own culture was visible to me. In much the same way, perspectives on teaching are 'cultural views' of teaching, powerful but largely invisible frames of reference through which all of us make meaning of our worlds. They limit our perceptions in much the same way; until we encounter a basis for comparison, our own assumptions remain invisible. It isn’t possible to ‘forget’ our perspective, any more than it’s possible to forget our cultural upbringing; but still, it is possible to engage meaningfully with new perspectives. Accepting vs. adopting new perspectives Just as it’s quite common to judge a new cultural experience on the basis of our own ‘logic,’ it’s also quite common to judge another’s teaching in terms of one’s own perspective. This is especially true within institutions where evaluation of teaching crosses disciplinary or programmatic boundaries (e.g., colleges and universities). In such instances, evaluation focuses on the technical or skill-based activities of the teacher, more than any underlying beliefs or intentionality. It is assumed that effective teaching is similar regardless of variations in context, learners, content, and teachers. This approach is justified on the assumption it is more “objective” and expedient. It may be more expedient, but it is neither objective nor impartial. This doesn't mean people have to adopt another’s perspective before they can evaluate his or her teaching. People can learn about other perspectives without adopting the commitments and beliefs of those perspectives. It is much like the distinction between learning a culture and becoming acculturated. To learn a culture is to learn about, or acquire, its propositions or statements of meaning and value; to become acculturated is to 'internalize' them as personal beliefs, that is, as beliefs, meanings, and propositions that are thought to be appropriate, significant, or true for you! In much the same manner, we can learn ABOUT other perspectives on teaching, and acknowledge their appropriateness for other people and circumstances, without taking them on as our own. That is, we can learn ABOUT a different perspective, as opposed to COMMITTING TO a different perspective. This is the most common result of reading a book on teaching. Most people find ways to confirm what they already believe rather than change the more central beliefs they hold regarding teaching. The remainder of this chapter is given over to briefly introducing five perspectives on teaching. However, before reading about alternative perspectives, try the exercise below as a way of exploring your own perspective. It is important that you do this before reading about other perspectives if you want to have some indication of what you believe before exploring other beliefs about teaching. E X E R C I S E Think about a subject that you teach. It can be any subject or content. Then identify a typical set of learners engaged in learning that content. Once you have identified a subject matter and can visualize or imagine a group of learners, complete the sentence below ten times. I know my teaching has been effective when ... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. As you look over your list of responses you might see a pattern or trend that suggests underlying beliefs and commitments about knowledge, learning, and/or your role as teacher. The list of sentences is best used as a point of departure for exploring beliefs and commitments. Although you may see some trend or pattern in your responses, the list is not very revealing in-and-of-itself. However, it is a useful place from which to begin a conversation about beliefs and commitments related to teaching, learning, and knowledge. Introducing Five Perspectives on Teaching A Transmission Perspective: delivering content My job is two fold: First, I have a lot of people that have to learn this math so they can go on to something else, whether it’s some application of it or the next course in algebra, or calculus. For them, I need to be really clear about the sequence of what comes next and what they need now. I mean, math really is quite simple, if it’s presented clearly and you do each day’s work. So, I need to be clear about what it is they need to learn and then be sure they do the assignments. If I do that, they should have no trouble when they go on from my class to the next one. My second job, although no one tells me this, is something I got from my professors at university... I represent math. I really do! And if I didn’t like math, they (the students) wouldn’t like it either. So I let my enthusiasm show. I do like it. It’s beautiful. How many things in this world are so straight forward and organized? So, I try to show people that math isn’t the ‘baddy’ that every one says it is. They don’t need to be afraid of it. I did it, and I’m no Einstein. (community college math instructor) This is, perhaps, the most “traditional” and long-standing perspective on teaching. It is based on the belief that a relatively stable body of knowledge and/or procedures can be efficiently transmitted to learners. The primary focus is on efficient and accurate delivery of that body of knowledge to learners. Thus, teachers with this as their dominant perspective feel obliged to adequately cover the content, regardless of time constraints. The dominant elements are the teacher and the content; and the dominant relationship between elements is represented by line Z (content credibility), that is, the teacher’s concern for and authority over that which is to be learned. (Figure 5) Figure 5. A Transmission Perspective The arrow’s path and direction illustrate the instructional process, which has first regard for adequate representation and efficient presentation of content. Notice that the process arrow goes through the content to the learners, suggesting the name of this perspective, that is, the transmission or delivery of content from teacher (or other resources) to learners. Therefore, the primary responsibility of a teacher is to accurately present content and help learners accurately reproduce that same content. With this rather substantial respect for the content, teachers are expected to be ‘expert’ in what they teach. Good teachers are expected to be knowledgeable in their subject areas and should be, first and foremost, experienced in their fields. They are expected to know their content well enough to answer most questions, provide multiple examples, give clear and detailed explanations, and specify with authority and precision just what people are expected to learn. Therefore, content credibility (Line Z) is of paramount importance. Compared to other perspectives, this one is primarily “teacher centered” with an emphasis on first, what the teacher does in the process of teaching and second, how well the content has been planned, organized, represented, and transmitted. Very often teachers from this perspective are concerned about adequately “covering” the content within constraints, such as a limited amount of time. They also speak about the integration and coordination of their material or course with other parts of a program or curriculum, thus, implying assumptions about the hierarchical nature of the knowledge they teach. That is, what they teach is understood to be dependent upon what has come before and, in turn, forms a necessary basis for the mastery of subsequent courses and content. Teachers holding this as their dominant perspective often end up teaching ‘well-defined’ content, that is, material where there is clear agreement about ‘right’ answers and where new content fits hierarchically into or upon prior knowledge. This kind of knowledge can then be managed and presented in a step-by-step fashion. Content that is traditionally thought to be well-defined includes language grammar, plumbing, math, safety procedures, electronics, military training, most competency-based programs, and so forth. However, as Boldt notes in Chapter Four, no matter what the content, teachers from this perspective either find or impose structure on their subject matter. In fact, to regard most content areas as well-structured is not a difficult task for transmission teachers. This is especially so for the initial teaching stages where basic concepts or techniques are introduced in presentation, applied in practice, and then built upon step-by-step as a subject matter becomes increasingly complex. (p.13) Thus, most often it is not the content itself that determines how it is taught, but the teacher. A most convincing example of this is found in Nesbit’s chapter on teaching mathematics from a Social Reform Perspective (Chapter Eight). As you read Chapter Four, notice the poor reputation that characterizes this perspective. As Boldt notes, we all seem to have had a great deal of negative experience with this perspective. Recalling those experiences very likely conjures up images of conceptions one and two of learning (Chapter Two). Many teachers from this perspective believe learning is a matter of accumulating a body of information and reproducing it on tests or assignments. This received view of knowledge, and reproductive view of learning, typifies much of what has been found in research on conceptions of teaching in higher education (e.g., Fox, 1983; Prossor, et al, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992). Furthermore, the work of Gow and Kember suggests that this perspective is associated with surface approaches to learning. (Gow & Kember, 1993; Kember & Gow, 1994) This evidence, along with the experience of many readers, might lead one to conclude that all teaching within the Transmission Perspective results in rather superficial learning. Yet, it is my contention that this is the result of its implementation, rather than its underlying structure. Even though we may be able to cite more examples of negative, rather than positive, learning within the Transmission Perspective, we should not use that as grounds for dismissing it as a potentially legitimate view of teaching. There are too many examples of effective teaching that fall within the Transmission Perspective to say it is categorically, and unequivocally, ineffective. The Transmission Perspective can be an exciting, engaging, effective source of learning, as illustrated in chapter Four. An Apprenticeship Perspective: modeling ways of being For me, teaching means helping this guy [his apprentice] get beyond the stuff they taught him at school and learn how to work a job. There’s a big difference between nailing 2 x 4s in a class project and working with a bunch of guys on a construction site that are never sure about the next job... There’s more to carpentry than pounding nails... I mean, first of all, I have to be good at this, not just talk about it [carpentry]. There’s no way I could teach him if I wasn’t a pretty good carpenter myself. But it’s more than that. I mean, this is a way of life, not just a job... Sure, I have to know what he can do and what he can’t do. When he started he couldn’t do much of anything besides the most basic stuff. And that’s what you do when you start. It’s scut work but it has to be done... Now, he’s doing more than hauling stuff up to us on the roof; he’s actually doing most of what we do. But still, there’s so much more, you know? (carpentry instructor) While the Transmission Perspective is the stereotypical view of teachers in classrooms, this perspective represents a long-standing view of teaching outside classrooms. Within this perspective, teaching is the process of enculturating learners into a specific community. By community, I mean a group of people with a common sense of identity and purpose, and clearly defined roles, usually suggesting levels of authority and responsibility. Community can refer to a family, a trade or vocation, a profession, one of the marital arts, or even a cultural grouping such as the First Nations People of Canada. In each of these “communities” the process of enculturation results from intensive, diversified, and prolonged participation in the work and social relations of the community. The dominant elements in the General Model of Teaching are the Teacher, Content, and Context. However, in this perspective, the content and teacher are fused as one, signifying the inseparability of teacher and content, within context. (Figure 6) Insert Figure 6: An Apprenticeship Perspective In this perspective, teachers are expected to embody the knowledge and values of their community of practice. They are an extension of the values and knowledge as lived or practiced within that community. Therefore, what they know (and wish to teach) cannot be learned in any authentic way if it is abstracted or removed from the place of its application, that is, its context. Therefore, what one learns, and can then do, is ‘textured’ with the context and situation within which it was learned. Learning something in one context for application in another is believed to be fraught with problems. Indeed, if we consider the difficulty people have transferring and applying what they learn at short, intensive training sessions, there is justification for this belief. Practicing the skill of listening and paraphrasing within a two day workshop on communication skills is not the same as learning to listen to someone under the press of an argument; practicing soccer drills is not the same as playing in an important game; learning to do math problems from a textbook is not the same as figuring out which groceries to buy with a limited amount of money; and practicing first aid in the classroom is not the same as applying what you know at the scene of an accident. Furthermore, from this perspective what we learn is not only ‘textured’ by the context in which it is learned, it is also ‘indexed’ by that context. That is, we are dependent upon similar cues, from the context, to retrieve and use that knowledge. An everyday example of the situated and ‘indexed’ nature of knowledge comes from recognizing people and knowing who they are. Outside the usual context of our local neighborhood we may recognize the grocery clerk as someone we ‘know’ but can’t quite place. We know she is familiar, but can’t remember who she is because she is out of context, not ‘indexed’. (Arseneau, 1994, p. 34) A convincing example of this argument comes from the director of a self-defense program for women in Vancouver, called Model Mugging. The program is based on the principle that one must practice self-defense under conditions that come as close as possible to the real thing. It was started by a woman who was attacked and raped, even though she had earned a third degree black belt in karate. When she most needed them, her considerable skills in self-defense were nearly useless. Why? Because she had trained in contexts devoid of the flood of emotions that accompanies a real attack. She had practiced and learned a great deal about self-defense in the dojo, or training center, but, when confronted with the shock and fear of a real attack, she froze. Something was terribly wrong with her learning that it was so completely unavailable when she most needed it. Finally, this view of teaching is committed to learning a role and identity as well as a set of skills or body of knowledge. Learning is directed as much at learning to be someone, as learning to do or know something. Through guided practice, and success on real tasks, this perspective professes that people begin to believe they have a legitimate role in relation to others, whether as a negotiator, as a member of a soccer team, as a responsible and capable shopper, as a first-aid attendant, or as a woman trying to regain a sense of confidence and control. Johnson and Pratt’s chapter (Five) will give more details. For now, it is enough to know that this view of teaching is fundamentally committed to locating teaching and learning within contexts that are as authentic as possible. In that context, one learns not just a set of skills or body of knowledge, but an identity within, or in relation to, a social group. Consequently, teachers try to move learners from the periphery to more central roles, from low risk to high risk procedures, and from simple to complex ways of understanding, in an attempt to have learners take on ways of thinking and problem-solving that are necessary for membership in a community of practice. A Developmental Perspective: cultivating ways of thinking What am I trying to accomplish? That’s simple -- help these people learn how be good family physicians. But, in addition to that, I want them to learn how to continue learning beyond the supervision of someone like me. You can’t survive on the knowledge you get in medical school and residency training...my job is to take them beyond that, to think like seasoned physicians. So, I tend to ask a lot of questions. I ask a LOT of questions. Rarely do I provide an answer. I don’t mean I ignore questions. But when they ask a question, I have to be sure not to provide an answer that they could find out for themselves. When I do, it seems to interrupt learning rather than move it along... I also show them how to find the answer to their questions and I’m not afraid to say I don’t know... Mostly, it’s getting out of the way and resisting the natural tendency to give them the answer and show them how smart I am. That really stops learning! (family physician) This is the emerging dominant perspective in North American “schooling” today, particularly in science education, but increasing in other disciplines. It is based on a view of learning derived from cognitive psychology wherein each learner is assumed to have developed a personal cognitive ‘map’ to guide his or her interpretation of the world. As learners encounter new information or situations, they first try using their existing map; if that doesn’t quite work they are confronted with a dissonant situation where they must either revise their map or reject it and construct a new one. Either way, prior knowledge and ways of thinking form the basis of each learner’s approach to any new content and provide a window into their thinking. It is this process of constantly revising one’s map of the terrain that gives this perspective its focus. Learners are perceived to be in a state of balance or equilibrium as long as their map fits the terrain. When they are confronted with new information that doesn’t fit, it causes a moment of imbalance or disequilibrium until they can either dismiss the new information or revise their cognitive map. Thus, the teacher’s role is to challenge and disturb that equilibrium, causing learners to re-establish it through reconstructing their understanding of something. Within this perspective content moves to the background and learners come to the foreground, making it a “learner-centered” philosophy of teaching. (Figure 7) Insert Figure 7. A Developmental Perspective Whereas in Transmission and Apprenticeship perspectives commitment centered on authentic forms of representing the content, here teachers are committed to developing particular ways of thinking or problem solving. Most often this is expressed as helping learners think and problem solve in ways that resemble expert thinking or problem solving. The teacher’s task, therefore, is to help learners think like experts (in a discipline, profession, vocation, etc.). Content is the means through which preferred ways of thinking are developed. Learning, therefore, is the process of considering new knowledge, skills, or attitudes with existing cognitive structures and revising or replacing those structures. The product of learning is the emergence of new or enhanced understanding and cognitive structures that allow learners to move beyond their previous ways of thinking. Stated somewhat differently, learning is a change in the quality of one’s thinking rather than a change in the quantity of one’s knowledge. Thus, learning is not simply a process of adding more to what is already there; it is, initially, a search for meaning and an attempt to link the new with the familiar. Ultimately, it is a qualitative change in both understanding and thinking. Effective teachers, therefore, must be able to build bridges between learners’ present ways of thinking and more “desirable” ways of thinking within a discipline or area of practice. Bridging between these two forms of knowledge means teachers must be able to identify and then reconstruct essential concepts in language and at levels of meaning that can be understood by learners. In addition, learners’ conceptions of knowledge and ways of thinking must be respected as legitimate, though incomplete, ways of knowing. Thus, instead of working to pass along information or “get information across,” these teachers try to introduce learners to the “essence” of their content in ways that engage what they already know and expand their ways of knowing. Thus, within this perspective, it is necessary for teachers to explore learners’ current conceptions of content and then challenge those conceptions to help learners move to more sophisticated levels of thinking and reasoning. This is not always easy. A common tendency for beginning teachers within this perspective is to fall back into the role of “expert” and provide more answers than challenging questions. But perhaps the most difficult challenge for teachers in this perspective is to develop means of assessing learning that are congruent with the beliefs and intentions of this perspective. While teachers may be able to bridge from the learner’s prior knowledge to more desirable ways of understanding and thinking, they may not be able to develop tests, assignments, and means of assessment that allow learners to demonstrate how their thinking has changed to more resemble that of a professional. As you might have already guessed, teachers holding this as their dominant perspective on teaching have a profound respect for learners’ thinking and prior knowledge. Indeed, they take that as the starting point for their work, proceeding from the known (learners’ prior knowledge) to the unknown (more sophisticated forms of understanding and thinking). Therefore, teaching must take its direction from the learners’ knowledge, not the teacher’s. This is a significant shift from more traditional, especially transmission, perspectives on teaching. Arseneau & Rodenburg (Chapter Six) set out seven guiding principles, the first of which is that prior knowledge is the key to learning. From this principle, they move on to explain how a teacher can activate prior knowledge so learners can bridge between new content and what they already know. A Nurturing Perspective: facilitating personal agency Most people, at least here in the west, think outdoor recreation means developing some kind of skills. For example, in kayaking that would mean boat handling skills, pre-trip planning and management skills, understanding tides and river currents, or any other tasks that focus on the activity of kayaking. The essence of my work, and of recreation in general, is the development of a person’s sense of well-being. Not just their physical well-being, but their whole being. I try to provide physical, intellectual, and emotional challenges to people; that means I have to attend to their whole being, not just to their physical ability or their physical accomplishments. (outdoor recreation instructor) Philosophically, the Nurturing Perspective has been the most prevalent view of teaching for adult educators within North America for at least twenty-five years, as represented in the work of Malcolm Knowles (1970, 1980, 1984). Yet, it is not confined to the cultural norms of the United States and Canada. The original research for this study found variations of this perspective in Singapore, China, and Hong Kong as well as the United States and Canada. As with each perspective, this one is characterized by a fundamental belief about what influences learning and gives direction to teaching. In the Transmission Perspective it was the belief that effective teaching depends, first and foremost, on the content expertise of the teacher; in the Apprenticeship Perspective it was the belief that learning must be located in authentic social situations related to the application of knowledge; with the Developmental Perspective it was the belief that prior knowledge and ways of thinking are the essential determinants of what people will subsequently learn. In the Nurturing Perspective, it is the belief that learning is most affected by a learner’s self-concept and self-efficacy. That is, learners must be confident that they can learn the material and that learning the material will be useful and relevant to their lives. Thus, in Figure 6, the dominant elements are the teacher, the learner, and particularly the relationship (Line Y) between them. Insert Figure 8. A Nurturing Perspective A nurturing relationship is neither permissive nor possessive. It is, in its own way, professional and demanding, characterized by a high degree of reciprocal trust and respect, and always seeks a balance between caring and challenging. Caring means empathizing with learners while providing support and encouragement as they attempt to learn; challenging means holding to expectations that are both achievable and meaningful for learners. As one person expressed it, his teacher believed in him and cared about him, but she also set high standards and didn’t let him “get away with anything.” The goal is to help people become more confident and self-sufficient learners. To achieve this, it is believed that learners must not only be successful, they must also attribute success to their own effort and ability, rather than the benevolence of their teacher or the serendipity of circumstance. This perspective is, therefore, fundamentally concerned with the development of each learner’s concept of self as learner per se. Thus, once again, content becomes a means rather than an end; it is the means through which individuals achieve certain goals and, more importantly, learn that they are capable and self-reliant learners. From this perspective, a learner’s self-esteem must never be sacrificed to professional or institutional standards. A Social Reform Perspective: seeking a better society Teaching, for me, is more about changing society than repairing cars. When these women are wrestling with a wrench that’s heavy and trying to reach down into the engine, I want them to think about why it’s so difficult. It’s not accidental that the wrench is heavy and the bolt a long reach away. Who do they think designed the tools and the engine? Who were they intended for? What does that say about being a mechanic? Or even repairing your own car? That kind of discrimination is what I’m out to change. Sure, I want them to be able to maintain their car; I don’t want them dependent on someone else for that. But, my teaching is just as much about changing society as it is about repairing cars. If they can keep their car running but have no idea they’ve been excluded from certain occupations... what’s the point? (automotive repair instructor) As with the Developmental Perspective, this view of teaching is gaining popularity and prominence around the world, most notably in movements that espouse a clear and articulate vision for social reform. From the feminist movement to fundamentalist religious movements, this perspective is distinctive for the presence of an explicitly stated ideal or set of principles which are linked to a vision of a better society. Each ideal is based on a core or central system of beliefs, usually derived from an ethical code (such as the sanctity of human rights), a religious doctrine (such as the sanctity of God’s law), or a political or social ideal (such as the need to redistribute power and privilege in society). Although some readers may not agree, I take the position that all teaching is ideological. Every teacher represents an underlying “political” stance towards the individual, society, and the role of education within society. In turn, one’s ideology gives rise to ideals, that is, one’s conception of what might approximate “the good,” or “the just.” Yet, many teachers claim a personal and epistemic neutrality in terms of their ideals and ideology, denying that they, and that which they teach, represent certain interests and exclude others. This is not the case with social reform teachers. In the Social Reform Perspective, ideals emerge from an ambiguous and covert position of influence to occupy a clear and prominent place of significance in thinking about one’s role and responsibility in teaching. They become the focal point of a teacher’s beliefs and commitment (Figure 9). Insert Figure 9. A Social Reform Perspective The dominance of ideals over-shadows all other elements within the General Model of Teaching. Emphasis is on social, cultural, political, or moral imperatives that determine, to a great extent, how each of the other elements and relationships are understood. The focus of commitment, and therefore of teaching, shifts from micro to macro concerns, from finding better technologies of instruction, ways of knowing, and means of facilitating cognitive or personal development to issues of a moral or political nature. Learners and content are secondary to a broader agenda as the commitment and agenda shifts its focus from the individual to the collective. No single ideology characterizes this perspective; consequently, there is no unifying view of knowledge, learning, or learners. Within in this perspective, there are multiple views of knowledge, ranging from objectivist views based on the immutable truth of God’s word, to subjectivist views based on the need to understand what it means to have choice over matters concerning one’s own body. For example, one individual, teaching in the People’s Republic of China, spoke of how he was guided by the Communist Party’s teachings regarding obedience to authority and the need to maintain harmony and order in society. For him, these were “first principles” which were necessary for China and for himself. Another person, a woman teaching other women in a work re-entry program in Canada, expressed the view that knowledge and authority were socially constructed and relative, and, as part of the learning process, were to be challenged. One fundamental difference between perspectives can be found in the nature of the means and ends of each perspective. The nature of the ends they seek and the means they choose, depend on the beliefs which comprise them. As you read Nesbit’s chapter (Eight) notice that within the Social Reform Perspective the ends of the other perspectives (e.g., mastering content, moving from the periphery to more active and central roles in a community, developing ways of thinking, and enhancing self-efficacy) become the means towards the accomplishment social changes beyond the bounds of the participants and learning environment. Thus, while Social Reform teachers may be pleased with their students’ learning, it is not sufficient; they must have an impact on society to accomplish larger their teaching mission. That is the ‘end’ and all else the ‘means’ by which they seek their teaching goals. Summary As mentioned in the introduction, the original research that resulted in discovering the five patterns I call Perspectives, came from interviews with over 250 people teaching adults a variety of subjects, in a variety of contexts. Their experience represents years of choices, reflection, and refinement of actions, intentions, and beliefs. It is impossible to capture the richness of that diversity, particularly the cultural and social nuances that are not easily understood by outsiders such as myself. Ideally, this volume would present accounts of the perspectives layered with dimensions of those cultural nuances and the myriad applications that made the evidence of these five patterns so striking. But the publication and linguistic constraints of the book, and the desire for authored chapters by colleagues whom I could regularly encounter have necessitated a North American bias for the detailed contextual descriptions of the perspectives. These are contained in Section Two (Chapters Four - Eight). Section Two, nevertheless, does present a glimpse of the richness of detail and emotion that was evident during the original research. Each chapter features a colleague who responded to my request to write from within a perspective about a personal philosophy and approach to teaching. These individuals were asked to tell their stories, that is, to represent their views on teaching, in a way that would be faithful to the original research, while also revealing their own personal beliefs and commitments. None of the six authors was involved in the original research, either as co-researcher or as respondent. They did, however, self-select into one dominant perspective after studying all five perspectives. The six authors and I met four times over the course of a year to review drafts of chapters and provide feedback, while allowing each other the right to speak in our own voices and write in styles that reflect personal values and commitments related to teaching. I was surprised by their responses: some chose to write in the first person and some in the third; some are more academic and others more personal; some chose to follow the general model, while others took an entirely independent form of representing their perspectives; and, some are more strident in their advocacy of a particular perspective than are others. These differences, along with the lengths of chapters, are simply a reflection of the authors’ choices and narrative style. Each chapter is a personal elaboration of one perspective, as if I had asked, “What does it mean, to ‘teach’ from this perspective? Thus, each of the chapters in Section Two represents a “mirror” for readers to look into and see if they find an image of themselves. Of course, as mentioned before, you may see reflections of your beliefs and commitments in more than one perspective, as did the authors who wrote these chapters. In Section Three, I will return to present an analytical framework, an analysis of the perspectives using that framework, and then revisit the difficult matter of evaluating teaching while respecting the diversity you are about to encounter in the next five chapters. REFERENCES Arseneau, R. (1994). A Study of the Impact of a Resident Teacher Education Program on Teaching Self-efficacy, Beliefs about Teaching, and Self-reported Teaching Behaviours. Masters Thesis, The University of British Columbia. Fox, D. (1983). Personal Theories of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 8(2), 151-163. Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of Teaching and their Relationship to Student Learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33. Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to Teaching and their Effect on the Quality of Student Learning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58-74. Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). A Phenomenographic Study of Academics’ Conceptions of Science Learning and Teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4, 217-231. Samuelowicz, K. & Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of Teaching Held by Academic Teachers, Higher Education, 24, 93-111. Nietzsche, F. (1969). On the Genealogy of Morals. Trans. By W. Kaufman and R.J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books.