Cultures of Teaching

This paper explores some of the hidden regularities of classroom practices in adult education and examines possible explanations towards developing a clearer understanding of the social practice of teaching. Discussions of teaching in adult education often downplay the influence of situational, political, and social contexts even though these factors can strongly influence both teachers and their practices. Yet teachers’ approaches and strategies are not established alone but built up and defined through regular interaction with others (Hargreaves, 1995). In other words, teaching is a socially-embedded practice. Unlike the multiple descriptions of teaching which conceptualize it as though teachers have complete and undisputed control and autonomy, daily classroom practices and behaviours, when looked at over time, are strikingly repetitive and limited in ways teachers do not always choose. It is these repeated classroom patterns that are here referred to as “cultures.” Defining culture in this way thus includes not only teachers’ and students’ material experiences but also the societal influences that help shape them. This paper examines some aspects of the cultures of teaching towards developing a clearer understanding of teaching as a social practice (Darder, 1991; Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986; Pratt & Nesbit, in press). Analytic Framework Linking the minutiae of teaching situations and activities with larger social processes and structures is necessary for a broad understanding of teaching. Studying what happens in classrooms from a “cultures” perspective allows educators to discern the social character of teaching and the relationships between educational sites and society at large. It can also highlight certain cultural and political issues such as the supposed impartiality of curricula or how different forms of education might embody struggles over ways that authority, knowledge, and regulation are legitimated and transmitted. Situating teaching within larger social structures and processes is, of course, complex. It is crucial to be aware, first, of how teachers’ ideas and beliefs are themselves shaped over time. As Feiman-Nemser and Floden claim “teaching cultures are embodied in the work-related beliefs and knowledge that teachers share—beliefs about appropriate ways of acting on the job and rewarding aspects of teaching, and knowledge that enables teachers to do their work” (1986, p. 508). Whether or not teachers overtly identify a particular belief about the nature of that which they teach, they must hold preferences, beliefs and values with respect to what to teach and how to teach it. Clearly, these ideas and beliefs are part of what manifests in classroom regularities. However, teachers do not always act autonomously, and their teaching is substantially circumscribed by social conditions. As such, analyses of the cultures of teaching must embed teaching practices and settings within these wider structural influences. Engeström (1998) suggests that between the formal structure of educational systems and the content and methods of teaching lies a middle level of relatively inconspicuous, recurrent, and takenfor-granted aspects of classroom life. Here lie a whole raft of issues: the patterning and punctuation of time, the bounding and use of the physical space, patterns of discipline and control, grading and testing practices, uses of textbooks, connection to the outside world, and interactions between teachers. One approach – frame factor theory – explains how teaching processes are developed, enabled, and constrained by certain frames, themselves the product of larger social structures (Lundgren, 1981; Torper, 1994). Because any society, and the educational system it promotes, are inextricably linked, the political, economic, and social structures of society have effects on educational processes and can be regarded as frames. A frame can be “anything that limits the teaching process and is . . .outside the control of the teacher” (Lundgren, 1981, p. 36). Because frame factor theory seeks to explore how regularities are reproduced both educationally and socially, it is useful for studying the social relations of educational processes in terms of both structure and agency (Torper, 1994). For example, it suggests that social structures do not directly cause classroom interactions but act more as influences through mediating variables, even to the level of the minutiae of teaching situations and activities. To understand how such “frames” operate resulting in such distinct cultures, it will be useful here to turn to three earlier empirical studies (Dawson & Nesbit, 1999; Nesbit, 1993, 1996) which provided in-depth descriptions of common teaching situations, episodes, and behaviors, and the meanings that these had for participants. In each of these studies, researchers had observed the teaching in several classes over a lengthy period (at least one, and often two, semesters) and collected data in such a way as to portray teaching processes in dynamic rather than static terms. This data has now been reexamined to identify common patterns of behaviour and ways that the persistence and repetition of these patterns might be linked to wider supra-classroom structures and processes. Three Settings The data comes from studies of teaching in three separate Adult Basic Education (ABE) settings: an urban community college math program, a rural community-based adult education program, and a workplace-based literacy program. The three programs covered broadly similar curricular content and each involved some collaboration with their local community college systems. College Math Program The first study concerns a Canadian urban community college providing a broad variety of ABE courses for adults. The college offered a range of semester-length introductory mathematics courses for adults during both daytime and evening, corresponding broadly to grade levels 9 12. The study focused on the three sections of their most basic course which offered “a review of basic math skills and introductory algebra and geometry.” It was deliberately designed to reflect a balance between the formal and practical mathematical needs of adult learners, especially those who have “never studied academic mathematics before or . . . lack a strong foundation in basic skills.” Each course section consisted of two 2-hour sessions a week – 30 sessions in all – and was taught by a different instructor. Each section recruited about 15 students. Here the teaching followed what might be regarded as a “traditional schooling” approach: the desks were set out in rows all facing the teacher’s desk; the teachers either read directly from the textbook or worked out problems on the chalkboard. Teaching appeared to be based upon the textbook’s model of show–drill–test. Without exception, each class was structured into the same pattern: the first 30-45 minutes on difficulties from the previous homework, 10-20 minutes presentation of new material, and then 45-70 minutes of in-class exercises (to be completed for homework).The dominant pattern of discourse was invariably that the teacher asked questions to which the students responded; students were discouraged from talking to each other. Decisions about classroom activities were made, almost without exception, by the teachers; the learners’ influence was minimal. Teachers made all the choices about course planning, the pattern and pacing of classroom activities, homework, and assessment with little consideration for the needs and interests of their learners. The overall goal for most teachers was to “cover the assigned material” without losing too many students along the way. “There’s a lot of pressure here to get through the material,” agreed another teacher, “You can’t always do what might be best for the student.” Further, the range of choices that teachers could make was limited. Most of the decisions about the structure and content of each course were already made before the course began. The overall curriculum followed provincial standards; within them, the form and content of each course and individual le ssons replicated the structure and content of the textbook: a cyclic pattern of presentation, practice, and assessment. Community-based Program The second setting was an adult education program in a sawmill town in rural British Columbia. Based in a specially-designed training centre, the program was a joint initiative between several local employers and provincial government bodies. Local forestry employers were interested in developing “foundational educational skills” courses for their employees and saw the program as an efficient way to deliver this content. Courses in the program fell into 3 distinct categories: computer skills training, academic upgrading, and career exploration. Within each category were a structured variety of courses that covered such topics as learning different word processing and data management computer programs, using the Internet, writing skills, GED preparation, personal development workshops, and group research projects. In general, these courses were free to all students (and their families) who worked in the forest industry. Non-forestry workers paid a small instructional fee, although this also entitled them to use the Centre at any other time. Courses were offered in a flexible format that was designed to both accommodate the needs of working adults and ensure that the Centre was available for use as much as possible during its opening hours. For example, each course was offered at several different days and times each week to accommodate those students who worked shifts or who had other commitments. Each of the courses ran in 7-week modules, reflecting the program’s concern to meet students’ needs. Temporary work in the area is seasonal and hence a 7-week course allows students to better plan their education around their patterns of work in a way that more tradi