Dr. Scott's Education Corner: January 2017

Translating Theory into Practice

Scott Smith Ed. D.

Theory within instruction is an important part of curriculum and teaching today. The last part of the paper is focused on the constructivist theory, a program that was designed around it, and how the constructivist theory impacts the program’s implementation.

Theory is a framework design with a plan of steps that need to take place for a task or study to be completed (Willingham & Price, 2009). It is a systematic design providing a step-by-step guide from beginning to end that a practitioner may follow to complete a task. The framework is comprised of hypotheses, concepts and principles able to explain a given set of events, the theory’s explanations of the constructs based upon study, and their findings (Cobb & ScKallus, 2011). Its primary purpose is to inform practice. It provides a way for people to describe, explain, predict and understand an idea (Willingham & Price, 2009). A good theory is concise and provides sufficient concepts but is simple enough to be remembered and applied correctly. Finding its roots in history as far back as Greek philosophers, theories today impact pedagogies, curriculum, instruction, education policies, organization, and leadership (Cobb & ScKallus, 2011).

Elements of the framework start with the subject to be studied and then the process moves to identifying the object(s) whose characteristics or behaviors are to be studied (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009. Next, the variables must be distinguished and how they will be addressed throughout the study. An example of a variable for a person might be experience or age which may or may not have an impact on the study but should be addressed must be determined and noted (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008). Two types of variables are independent and dependent variables (Hawken et al., 2008). The dependent variable is the outcome, or the variable that has been given a prediction (Hawken et al., 2008). Whereas independent variables are factors that the researchers think explain variations in the dependent variables. These are variations that often have impact on the predicted outcome.

Theory in education can be normative or prescriptive as found in philosophy, or descriptive as in science (Ajayi, 2008). Normative or prescriptive theories provide goals or standards found in education (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Within the sciences in education there are hypotheses that are verified through studies and then validated through additional research. Theories help guide concrete data collection in research which validates or demonstrate its impact on education. Theories do not provide simple answers or tell how to practice, but provide a guide or road map to provide a possible solution to a question (Cobb & ScKallus, 2011).

New theories are evolving and are often established from existing theories. A good theory needs to be appropriate to the life events it is designed around (Ajayi, 2008). Some of the theorists that have had an impact on curriculum and teaching over the years are Watson, Freud, Bruner, Erikson, Dewey, Skinner, Pavlov, Vygostsky, and Piaget (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Each of their theories have impacted instruction in classrooms. New theories often take a current theory another step beyond the explanation of the current practice (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009).

Researchers examining or working on possible new theories address the study of theories differently than practitioners address or view theories (Willingham & Price, 2009). Using the framework of a theory a practitioner (teacher) may then design their instruction based upon the criteria of the theory. When followed the practitioner should be able to experience results that are similar to what the theorist found in the development of the theory (Ajayi, 2008). Best results happen when the practitioner understands the elements of the theory and how they are implemented before starting instruction (Menzies, et al., 2008).

An example of a theory being used as a guide was in the study conducted by Willingham and Price (2011) to increase vocabulary acquisition using the schema theory. The schema theory requires the reader to use context clues to understand unfamiliar words within a reading. Using indirect instruction the learners used information from what they read to determine the meaning of unknown words. Guiding the learners the authors of the study were able to teach the students to gain understanding of vocabulary words from the information they read in a paragraph or section through context clues and drawing on their understanding of other key words (Wilson et al, 2011).

Translating theory into practice requires an array of factors and steps. When evaluating a theory’s suitability there are a number of factors that need to be considered. They are (but are not limited to) validity, value, and applicability (Willingham & Price, 2009). Moving from theory into practice should be simple but often there are obstacles when they are placed into practice in classrooms (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Theory provides the design or framework for the practitioners (teachers) to employ instruction. But in many cases they are not simple to implement and problems often arise as the theory is moved into practice in schools and classrooms. Many schools experience this as they adopt new curriculum that may be founded on a different theory than what had been previously used (Tsai, 2011). Teachers, not understanding, often find the new curriculum confusing and try to make the new curriculum fit the way they had instructed using the old curriculum (Menzies et al., 2008).

A contrast between theorists and practitioners is that theorists study and understand the elements of the theory where practitioners put the theory into action in their instruction (Willingham & Price, 2009). Often practitioners only glance over a theory before moving into instruction with possibly little to no understanding of all the elements of the theory (Roehrig, Duggar, Moats, Glover, & Mincey, 2008). This often sets practitioners up for frustration or failure in their implementation of a theory. Practitioners also bring different views about theories and implementation than the theorist intended and have caused programs that were based on strong theoretical design to seem unsuccessful (Tsai, 2011).

For practitioners to implement a theory completely it must revolve around communication and understanding (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). The theorist must present the framework of the theory in a way that practitioners are able to follow and understand. Just as important is that the practitioners have an understanding of the elements of the theory and why they are important to be able to implement the theory as designed (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). This makes communication very important as the theory moves from theorist to practitioner. Whether the participant is a researcher, theorist, or practitioner there are fundamental elements that can be implemented to limit any breakdown when moving from theory into practice (Marzano, 2010). Communication is very important and participants must not assume anything about the theory’s elements or design. All those involved in the implementation need to be committed and stay informed. Everyone needs to be a team player and remain flexible while putting in his or her best quality of service (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Keeping these elements in place will allow implementation to move from theory into practice with higher success.

Theorists most often are thinkers, strategic, academic, scientific, planners and see the world as it should be (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Whereas practitioners are doers, pragmatic, service-oriented, real, responders, and see the world as it is (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Often practitioners do not completely understand the elements of each theory and form modifications for the convenience of their situation (Ajayi, 2008). Therefore if they do not have a complete understanding of the theory it becomes confusing and difficult. Since practitioners are most often people who like to get things done and have already determined the outcome, they often implement elements from other theories that cause them to alter key elements to the theory they are trying to implement (Wasburn-Moses & Frager, 2009). This ‘cherry-picking’ can often cause confusion and may inhibit the ability to render accurate results with the use of a particular theory, totally upsetting the theorist (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009).

The majority of teachers are practitioners rather than theorists (Willingham & Price, 2009). When they enter the classroom they are often not faced with one theory but a countless list of theories offered by different subjects and personal philosophies (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Many teachers enter the profession due to a passion in a particular area but find themselves having to instruct in areas they may know little to nothing about (Menzie et al., 2008). Often rather than researching an instructional theory that works well for a particular area, adaptations to instructional theories the teacher does understand are adapted, sometimes happening with success and sometimes causing disaster (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). Marzano (2010) has indicated that teachers who are faced with students needing to pass a test will often resort to attempting to instruct to the test rather than provide guided instruction that would give the student the understanding and processing ability to complete the test. Teachers who choose to teach to the skills of a test are more likely to be practitioners rather than theorists (Tsai, 2011). This does not mean that practitioners cannot understand and follow a theory but rather that they must become aware of the differences and as a practitioner follow the laid out theory to achieve the expected results. Until the theory moves to a metacognitive state practitioners can have difficulty implementing a theory completely (Marcell, DeCleene, & Juettner, 2010). This however can often be achieved through professional development and teacher support (Ajayi, 2008). New programs that are based around a theory that teachers may or may not be familiar with have a great chance of having a positive impact on students when professional development is provided to the practitioner. Teachers who are not provided adequate professional development often try to make the new program and its underlying theory work according to their understanding rather than taking adequate time to completely understand the next expectations laid out in the theory (Ajayi, 2008). This leads to frustration for not only the teacher but also for their students who are in jeopardy of missing important skills.

When examining reading instruction in the primary grades the constructivist learning theory provides a framework for a teacher to instruct reading (Roehrig et al., 2008). According to this theory, instruction is based on the skills that students have acquired and then builds to the next level (Hawken et al., 2008). An example of that would be students starting with phonemic awareness and once mastering phonemic awareness moving to the next skill level of alphabetical principle. Within alphabetical principle there are benchmarks of mastery for the students to achieve. As easy as that seems there are classrooms where the teacher may wish to implement this theory but feel challenged because of different outside factors which produce the high possibility of students struggling (Mahdavi & Beebe-Frankenber, 2009). Outside influences might be as simple as parents and administration not understanding the importance of the sequence and pressuring the teacher to move to more advanced skills that the students are not capable of mastering yet or are not yet ready to address (Yeh, 2009).

Communication is important as theory is moved into practice (Marzano, 2010). It is just as important that the practitioner take time to study the theory and fully understand it before implementation. The theorist needs to make sure the framework of the theory is explained well enough so it can be understood by others who may be unfamiliar with a particular theory (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009). The element of communication can offer success or failure when it comes to a theory being implemented into practice (Marzano, 2010). Practitioners need to have understanding of the elements of the theory and how they are to be implemented and that they cannot omit or adjust elements as they desire (Tsai, 2011). Theorists too have to be aware that when their theories are placed into classrooms, classroom teachers may not have a complete understanding of the theory. Theorists therefore, need to provide guidance and support so the theory can be implemented into practice correctly and participants can gain the expected results (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2009).

There have been many implementations of the constructivist learning theory through Response to Intervention (RTI). RTI is based on the constructivist learning theory by assisting students who are struggling and who need additional support to achieve grade level (Brozo, 2010).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has made theories of teaching reading more relevant to many teachers over the past decade. One theory that has emerged in the area of reading instruction has been the constructivist learning theory. Bruner was an early researcher on the constructivist learning theory (Cobb & ScKallus, 2011). The constructivist learning theory addresses four major areas: (a) predisposition towards learning, (b) effective sequences through which information is presented, (c) the way knowledge can be structured so that it can be most easily understood by the student, and (d) and pacing toward success (Cobb & SkKallus, 2011). Students are the major focus of the constructivist learning theory and three elements found in the framework of the constructivist learning theory are: (a) The instructor must be aware of the experiences and contexts of materials the student brings to the lesson to make them willing and able to learn; (b) Instruction must be structured so that the student can easily grasp the new information; and (c) Instruction should be designed so that extrapolation of information or subjects, along with filling in the gaps for students occurs (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Piaget also has made an impact on the constructivist learning theory in education and education reform (Cobb & ScKallus, 2011). Piaget showed that children come with a schema of understanding as part of their development and that through guiding them with additional information they are able to expand their knowledge. Research on the constructivist learning theory has had mixed results with some researchers supporting it and others contradicting those results Cobb & ScKallus, 2011).

Recently, the constructivist learning theory has been woven into the NCLB implementation (Foreman-Peck & Winch, 2010). Through the use of assessment students’ strengths and weaknesses are identified and then instruction is planned around the area that best meets the students’ needs. The RTI format has emerged which uses the constructivist learning theory as the major theory that it is designed around (Marcell, et al., 2010). Through using data from student assessments and screenings, screening adjustments are made to instruction based on students’ current levels of understanding or skill, which are key in the constructivist learning theory (Brozo, 2010).

RTI supports the constructivist learning theory also through the process of assessing students’ levels of knowledge or understanding (Mahdavi & Beeb-Frankenber, 2009). The teacher is then expected to design instruction that brings students to the next level of understanding or mastery. This is accomplished through targeted instruction and monitoring of learning (Roehrig, et al., 2008). As students gain understanding instruction advances to meet students’ new needs.

As RTI was introduced into the schools, teachers were challenged (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Teachers who had been engaged in using other instructional theories through their career that were working for them found themselves being presented with this program for which they may or may not have been provided professional development, and so were less willing to embrace the program (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). The program also faced, in many cases, being administrator directed without explanation of the theory or how the framework would impact instruction. In some instances teachers were given a directive that the program was to be implemented and used (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). This appeared to caused confrontation and stress among school staff (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Staff development in many cases was done through the trickle down method of key people being trained and then being expected to train other staff members (Orosco & Klingner, 2010). Therefore classroom teachers were left with a program they did not fully understand that needed to be implemented. As teachers constructed their own understanding and implementation they found frustration and misunderstanding because they were unaware of the whole process and all pieces of the program. Teachers are often known for doing what they feel works and for teaching from their gut rather than remaining within the restrictions of a theory or framework (Washburn-Moses & Frager, 2009). The implementation of RTI in some schools faced oppositions as teachers challenged the program mainly due to the fact that by the time the correct information reached classroom teachers they had already adapted only the parts they deemed to be important and that fit well with their style of teaching (Roehrig et al., 2008).

The RTI program is theoretically based and provides a strong framework for the implementation of the constructivist learning theory (Mahdavi & Beeb-Franknber, 2009). From a theorists’ point of view it meets the requirements of being designed around a hypothesis, concepts, principles, and explains a set of events along with being based upon the study and findings of the constructivist learning theory (Marcell, et al., 2010). The RTI program using this theory has been replicated in studies providing consistent results. The program meets the constructivist learning theory design through its strong reliance on assessment and then adjustment to instruction as indicated through the assessment (Hawken et al., 2008) . The program uses a continuum of instruction that builds upon skills and as the students master skills they advance to the next skill level (Brozo, 2010).

The struggle with the implementation of the RTI program is not the program or the theory upon which it was built but the classroom teacher’s understanding of the constructivist learning theory (Brozo, 2010). One part of the RTI program is direct instruction to the learners. Just the words direct instruction can cause some teachers to turn away from the program. Yet direct instruction is an important part of the constructivist learning theory. Providing students with instruction at their level may be done in different formats and direct instruction is one format that may be used by teachers (Mahdavi & Beebe-Frankenber, 2009). If a classroom teacher is being asked to implement a program, and they do not fully understand the theory the program is designed around, the process of implementation is going to be difficult (Brozo, 2010). The framework provides the elements that are needed for the theory to be successful but if the classroom teacher has a difficult time understanding why assessment needs to be completed or how to use assessment the constructivist learning theory will not be implemented properly.

Menziez, Mahdavi, & Lewis (2008) noted that even when they made sure that all the teachers in their study were qualified and trained, the teachers did not carry through with areas of the framework that were needed in order to produce success. Teachers left out monitoring and adjusting instruction along with providing small group instruction when using the RTI program (Menzie, et al., 2008). Counteracting resistance to implementation of programs requires that someone in the building have a strong understanding and be able to guide and support the teachers as they implement changes within programs following instructional theories. In schools where RTI has shown great success the program was implemented with support. Even if the teachers did not fully understand the theory the program was designed around the support team oversaw the implementation and supported teachers as they presented the theory. As the teachers experienced success with their students from the use of RTI along with gaining a better understanding they showed more willingness to engage in the use of the theory (Menzies et al., 2008).

A framework for instruction is provided through a theory and for instruction to be fully successful communication and understanding in the teaching of the theory is just as important as the theory design itself. When a program is rolled out into a school it cannot be assumed that all teachers understand the theory the program is designed around and that professional development will be needed for the program to be a success. Through professional development the teachers can build an understanding of the program and its components as well as gain a better understanding of why and how the program was designed in the form it is presented to them. Teachers come from many different backgrounds and bring knowledge of different theories to their classrooms. When implementing a program it is important that teachers understand that there is a specific design and that pulling from the program parts they like that fit their theological thinking will put the program at jeopardy.

References

Ajayi, L. (2008). ESL theory-practice dynamics: The difficulty of integrating sociocultural perspectives into pedagogical practices. Foreign Language Annals, 41(4), 639-659.

Brozo, W. G. (2010). The role of content literacy in an effective RTI program. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 147-150.

Cobb, K., & Sc Kallus, K. (2011). Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States. 448 pp. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-13-702039-3

Foreman-Peck, L. & Winch, C. (2010). Using educational research to inform practice: A practical guide to practitioner research in universities and colleges. Routledge, New York, NY

Eversole, V. L. (2010). Response to intervention (RTI) model and reading achievement of elementary latino students. (Ed.D., Saint Mary's College of California). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, . (620249637).

Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 213-225.

Mahdavi, J. N., & Beebe-Frankenber, M. E. (2009). Pioneering RTI systems that work: Social validity, collaboration, and context. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(2), 64-72.

Marcell, B., DeCleene, J., & Juettner, M. R. (2010). Caution! hard hat area! comprehension under construction: Cementing a foundation of comprehension strategy usage that carries over to independent practice. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 687-691.

Marzano, R. J., Ed. (2010). On excellence in teaching. Teacher Librarian, 37(4), 74.

Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.

Orosco, M. J., & Klingner, J. (2010). One school"s implementation of RTI with english language learners: "referring into RTI". Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 269-88. doi: 10.1177/0022219409355474

Roehrig, A. D., Duggar, S. W., Moats, L., Glover, M., & Mincey, B. (2008). When teachers work to use progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 29(6), 364-382. doi: 10.1177/0741932507314021

Tsai, S. (2011). Courseware integration into task-based learning: A case study of multimedia courseware-supported oral presentations for non-english major students.ReCALL : The Journal of EUROCALL, 23(2), 117-134. doi: 10.1017/S0958344011000048

Wasburn-Moses, L., & Frager, A. M. (2009). Point-counterpoint: Can special education and general education get along? The Educational Forum, 73(3), 215-228.

Willingham, D., & Price, D. (2009). Theory to practice: Vocabulary instruction in community college developmental education reading classes: What the research tells us.Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(1), 92-105.

Wilson, S. L., Hess, S., & Clements, K. K. (2011). Continuity and the pendulum in reading and the literature for children and young adults. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 74-81,102.

Yeh, Y. (2009). Integrating e-learning into the direct-instruction model to enhance the effectiveness of critical-thinking instruction. Instructional Science, 37(2), 185-203. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9048-z

Student attempted enough words to meet benchmark and were 95% accurate.	Student didn’t attempt enough words to meet benchmark but were 95% accurate in what they read.	Student attempted enough words to meet the benchmark but were less than 95% accurate.	Student didn’t attempt enough words to meet the benchmark and were less than 95% accurate.

These students need to focus on vocabulary, comprehension retell, summarizing, and writing.	These students need fluency practice along with support in vocabulary and comprehension. They are accurate but reading has not moved to their medicognition. Practice is the key here.	Using their errors do an error analyses. Identify errors and re-teach to correct. You may also need to complete a diagnostic test to identify area in which they need additional instruction.	These students need a complete diagnostic phonics screening to identify the areas of instruction that are needed. Until the identified areas of need are addressed they will continue to struggle.

Dr. Scott's Education Corner

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Engaging Students During Teacher-Led Instruction

Friday, January 27, 2017

Translating Theory into Practice

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Putting Students into Instructional Groups

About Me