September 29th Class: FRAME FACTORS

September 29th Class

Summary (201-215)

This section analyzes the impact of frame factors on the curriculum. Analyzing frame factors helps us to understand what resources are available to help us implement curricular change, and what barriers exist to prevent implementation.
- Some people believe that when they modify frame factors that they are modifying the curriculum
- However, moving a wall, ordering a new textbook; these things may facilitate curriculum change, but they are not curriculum modifications
- You have to alter the interactions between teachers, students and subject matter to evoke curriculum change
- Frame factors can act as facilitators or barriers to curriculum change
- Some frame factors are:
o Temporal- time, scheduling
o Physical- the physical environment, building, equipment
o Political- state and federal mandates
o Organizational- administrative factors
o Personal- backgrounds abilities, interests of students
o Economic- cost and benefits
o Cultural- values and beliefs of the school and community
-

How Frame Factors work in Different Contexts

Traditional
- Focus on a single-subject matter
- Teacher-centered instruction
- Textbooks and worksheets emphasized
- Regular assessments with written tests
- Emphasis on grades
- The strength of this approach is content coverage and management
- It also provides for a system of accountability as the assessment methods also provide the teacher with more control
- Not compatible with early elementary grades

Experiential
- Crosses subject-matter lines
- Relies more on the community as a resource than on textbooks
- Requires student-centered classrooms emphasizing small group, cooperative rather than whole-group competitive work
- Depends on a teacher who acts more as a facilitator
- Evaluation is directed at competence in real-world tasks
- Drawback- content coverage is significantly reduced
- State-mandated test scores could be compromised

Structure of the Disciplines Approach
- Confined to a single discipline within a single subject
- Focuses on a small set of themes
- Requires extensive use of primary source material
- Utilizes written tests that require problem solving
- Requires a teacher who models inquiry int he discipline rather than acts as a source of information
- Drawbacks: time pressures, does not fit well in the elementary classroom, content reduction, requires more professional development to train teachers, classroom management can be problematic

Behavioural
- Discrete performance objectives aligned with evaluation methods
- Ample opportunities to practice explicitly taught skills
- Criterion-referenced evaluation methods
- Reward system for successful performance and appropriate behaviour
- Relies on the philosophy that all children can succeed and that IQ is not an innate quality.
- Strengths: mastery of skills, classroom management

Constructivist
- Treat topics in great depth
- Teach skills and concepts only in the context of students’ background experience
- Rely on intrinsic motivation
- Prefer clinical interviews and observations to standardized tests
- Classroom management problems- teacher is vulnerable to students who do not find the work intrinsically rewarding
- Adds more ambiguity to the classroom
- Students respond by negotiating with the teacher to lower the risk, which may reduce critical thinking
- May lead to slower paced instruction

The Meaning-Oriented Curriculum
- Sacrifice breadth for increased depth
- This becomes problematic because of the accountability pressures from the community and politicians
- Increased management demands because it is not teacher centered
- In order for more radical initiatives to take place in our schools- then we need to engage in frame factor analysis and identify school reform measures
- Some things that were identifies were: time factors, environmental factors, poor working conditions, lack of respect for the craft of teaching.

Frame Factors: A Multicultural View
- Students from different social, economic and cultural backgrounds learn best when teachers use strategies compatible with their backgrounds
- Relationships with teachers determine how students will learn
- Hale (1982) black students are accustomed to frequent personal interaction at home learn best when there is a consistent interaction between teacher and student
- Women learn best in an environment of acceptance and encouragement (Belenky)
- Class has a factor- parents who are more affluent and familiar with the system are more apt to advocate for their children than less affluent families
- Physical arrangements of schools can impact learning; making the learning environment more like “home” will help to facilitate learning

Technology and Frame Factors
- Online and distance learning can erase time frame factors
- Technology can help to replace parent expertise for those who do not have “expert” parents


Making Some Personal Reflections
I was a little disturbed by this reading. I was bothered by the quote, “To try and implement an experiential, structure-of-the-disciplines or constructivist curriculum while coping with the temporal, organizational and personal facts that frame the task of teaching is likely to result in disappointment or even disaster” I completely disagree.
As a teacher, my most successful lessons are those based on constructivist or experiential approaches. Classroom management is stated as a huge problem in these models throughout this reading, but I do not follow this belief. I have more trouble with classroom management when I am using a traditional structure. When students are not responsible, and inactive and passive, this is when behavioural problems come to the surface. In contrast, when I use learning style surveys, and find out what students know in advance of the lesson, and plan accordingly- things are always more exciting, engaging and smooth.
Again, I did enjoy the commentary on multicultural perspectives. These ideas are aligned nicely with the constructivist framework. If we provide students with conditions and experiences that they are already familiar with and build from there, it makes sense that we will meet with successful outcomes.
In addition, it is true that technology can help to erase many frame-factor barriers. I had the opportunity to work as an e-learning teacher last year, and taught many at-risk students. Having the time to think about responses and post to discussion boards led to greater participation and engagement in many circumstances. Likewise, I am much more "participative" myself on a blog/discussion board setting than I am in class.


Questions:
1. What changes have you wanted to make, but have been restricted by frame factors?
2. The author states that the traditional approach does not work in elementary classrooms, but does not explain why this is the case. What are your thoughts?
3. Why is there ambiguity issues in the constructivist model? The lessons are based on the student's background knowledge and skills; would this not pave the way for less ambiguity?