The Power of Language and Mental Frames, Part 2
In February I noted that the mental structures related to some commonly used terms in our profession enable those who possess them to achieve their goals by providing direction, clarity, and a steady flow of energy. Other mental structures disable by cognitively freezing the status quo in place. Consequently, the frames created by language and the ideas they link in our minds are critically important aspects of professional learning and improvements in practice.
This problem first came to my attention several years ago when an issue of the JSD devoted to “restructuring” elicited manuscripts whose authors more often than not simply added the term restructuring in front of long-standing programs (“restructured Madeline Hunter” comes to mind as the subject matter of an article which described a training program not unlike that offered at that time in countless “unrestructured” school districts).
Likewise, that same phenomenon occurs today when educators say they are part of a “professional learning community.” Even a brief conversation often reveals that the term is applied to already existing and virtually unmodified groupings such as grade-level teams, departments, school improvement committees, etc. in which participants do what they’ve always done. All that has changed is the name, and professional learning continues to remain separated, at least in some teachers’ minds, from teaching. (A tip-off for me is when teachers say “I am going to my PLC.” Similarly, teachers who are part of “delivery system” forms of staff development perceive themselves as leaving their jobs to be “inserviced” and rightfully see such activities as separate from their real work rather than as a fundamental part of it.)
Such commonly-used terms as “teach” and “dialogue” also suffer from the same problem. Teaching, in the mental web of many educators, means “delivery system for the curriculum,” “presentation of information,” “performance” (as in performance evaluation), etc. That web is obviously quite different from the schema residing in the mind of someone who deeply understands constructivist theory and methods, to cite but one example. Likewise, “dialogue” is often used interchangeably with the terms “discuss,” “talk over,” and “have a serious conversation.”
What these terms and many others have in common—in addition to the imprecision with which they are used—is that their meaning can be incredibly difficult to alter, at least in my experience. So when I explain “job-embedded professional learning” to educators and offer lots of examples, I’m no longer surprised when in our next conversation they revert to the language of workshop, training, and presentation (with the distinction that these events should occur during work hours and probably in the school).
A similar thing happens when I explain Noel Tichy’s concept of the “teaching organization” to educators, being very careful to note that leaders’ teaching does not mean directing, telling, or persuading, but rather a dialogue-like interaction that includes tentativeness, an openness to mutual influence, and the continuous refinement of one’s point of view. Those with whom I’m interacting nod their heads and then continue to use words that illustrate a “convey the information” and compliance-oriented view of teaching and leadership.
My point is not to criticize those who don’t “get” things in the ways I’d prefer. Rather, it’s to recognize the substantial influence of language and mental maps on professional practice and to encourage exploration of ways that such cognitive structures may be revealed and altered.
Next month’s posting will discuss ways I think language and mental maps may be influenced. In the meantime, I look forward to reading your comments on this important subject.
This problem first came to my attention several years ago when an issue of the JSD devoted to “restructuring” elicited manuscripts whose authors more often than not simply added the term restructuring in front of long-standing programs (“restructured Madeline Hunter” comes to mind as the subject matter of an article which described a training program not unlike that offered at that time in countless “unrestructured” school districts).
Likewise, that same phenomenon occurs today when educators say they are part of a “professional learning community.” Even a brief conversation often reveals that the term is applied to already existing and virtually unmodified groupings such as grade-level teams, departments, school improvement committees, etc. in which participants do what they’ve always done. All that has changed is the name, and professional learning continues to remain separated, at least in some teachers’ minds, from teaching. (A tip-off for me is when teachers say “I am going to my PLC.” Similarly, teachers who are part of “delivery system” forms of staff development perceive themselves as leaving their jobs to be “inserviced” and rightfully see such activities as separate from their real work rather than as a fundamental part of it.)
Such commonly-used terms as “teach” and “dialogue” also suffer from the same problem. Teaching, in the mental web of many educators, means “delivery system for the curriculum,” “presentation of information,” “performance” (as in performance evaluation), etc. That web is obviously quite different from the schema residing in the mind of someone who deeply understands constructivist theory and methods, to cite but one example. Likewise, “dialogue” is often used interchangeably with the terms “discuss,” “talk over,” and “have a serious conversation.”
What these terms and many others have in common—in addition to the imprecision with which they are used—is that their meaning can be incredibly difficult to alter, at least in my experience. So when I explain “job-embedded professional learning” to educators and offer lots of examples, I’m no longer surprised when in our next conversation they revert to the language of workshop, training, and presentation (with the distinction that these events should occur during work hours and probably in the school).
A similar thing happens when I explain Noel Tichy’s concept of the “teaching organization” to educators, being very careful to note that leaders’ teaching does not mean directing, telling, or persuading, but rather a dialogue-like interaction that includes tentativeness, an openness to mutual influence, and the continuous refinement of one’s point of view. Those with whom I’m interacting nod their heads and then continue to use words that illustrate a “convey the information” and compliance-oriented view of teaching and leadership.
My point is not to criticize those who don’t “get” things in the ways I’d prefer. Rather, it’s to recognize the substantial influence of language and mental maps on professional practice and to encourage exploration of ways that such cognitive structures may be revealed and altered.
Next month’s posting will discuss ways I think language and mental maps may be influenced. In the meantime, I look forward to reading your comments on this important subject.
posted by Dennis Sparks at 11:39 AM
4 Comments:
I understand the sentiments raised in this piece, but when there's a curriculum to follow and the time constraints are so difficult, it is little wonder that many teachers have problems breaking out of the "convey the information" view of teaching.
I just finished reading your previous blog on The Power of Language and Mental Frames, Part 1. I had to read it for a class. I did find it a little wandering off the point. However, I thought that I understood your main point and wanted to continue to read further. I see that your difficulties stem from how people learn new material. Just as in my analogy with the nerves in the brain sparking and connecting new ideas and thoughts to old ones, a person creates their own unique mental frames. Any new information is easier to remember when it is connected to something previously learned. So, the educators that you speak to need to connect what you are telling them to something that they already know. The closest connection that they can make would be something that you think is completely mistaken.
I am interested to find out what you reveal about how to ascertain you own mental frame and how to change it. I look forward to reading more.
I found your posting on mental frames and using "professional learning communities" to elaborate your ideas very interesting. We use "professional learning communities" in my district. Most teachers share the same idea of PLC's being a "delivery system" as you stated. I know many of my colleagues who view PLC's as "seperate from their real work", because unfortunately, my colleagues to not believe that PLC's are a critcal part of our practice. I would really like to hear more on how you view the role of professional learning communities in the education field. I think the way PLC's have been implemented in my district has not been effective.
Applying what we understand from the latest brain research about student learning--rehearsal, mapping--to the professional learning community...of course! I am anxious to learn more.
Post a Comment
<< Home