“The teacher’s craft, then, is marked by the absence of concrete models for emulation, unclear lines of influence, multiple and controversial criteria, ambiguity about assessment timing, and instability in the product” (Lortie, 1975, p. 136). In 2008, this statement may seem outdated; however, Lortie (1975) and Shulman (1983) both agree there is a lack of definition in the core technology of instruction. There seem to be a number of effective modes and methods of instruction in American education, yet there is little common language, explanation, or basis for usage. The core technology of instruction is nebulous, but why? Many stakeholders have positions incompatible to the development of instruction’s core technology. Each group could argue about the history of limited resources and staying power, the need for a definition of instructional technology, the type of knowledge necessary, the goal of teaching, and the source of knowledge. Both sides in these arguments could be factually based and construct a reasonable, moral argument. Therefore, given the complicated nature of the stakeholders and their arguments, should there be a definition of the core technology of instruction?

Teachers observed many changes in education structure and policy over the last twenty years, most of them with major defects. Most reforms do not last because of the structural insufficiencies. Many of those changes featured broad objectives and limited funding. Though few teachers post the familiar maxim, many believe it, “this too shall pass.” The definition of instructional core technology could be another wave of reform.

Lortie (1975) reinforces this teacher ephemeral perspective of reform and defines the “live in the moment” philosophy as “presentism” (p. 101), especially in relation to what teachers perceive as their rewards. This also is reinforced by their rejection of new or newly defined ideas models.

However, Lortie (1975) also claims teachers may feel stronger in their profession if they accepted more definition and certainty into their core activities. They may subject their feelings about the passing nature of school reform to a more secure professional future. Additionally, expectations of teachers could become more transparent and clear to all members of the school community. With proper structure and function, this definition could be a permanent and worthwhile advance. Teachers’ mixed beliefs trickle down to constituents. Resources and structure are essential for effective implementation.

The lack of staying power leads into the question of need. If international schools and foreign countries recruit and highly rank the teachers from the United States, why is there a need to define the core technology of teaching? American teachers have rigorous standards and routinely are chosen before their international counterparts. They know and articulate enough about instruction to be hired first.

On the other hand, the United States is falling behind other countries in academic achievement. The teacher preparation process, though the structure and rigor may be better than other countries, is not strong enough for teachers to improve the performance of their students. American teachers were so under-prepared, the federal government was forced to mandate every American teacher must be “highly qualified.” If Americans are so well prepared, why did the American government have to get involved?

It is unclear if there needs to be a definition of instructional core technology. If it can be proven that an American teacher already understands the core technology of teaching, then it is a waste of resources and energy attempting to define it. Both sides of the debate have evidence: American teachers are recruited all over the world, yet American teachers fail to get results of the achievement from their students. This debate is intensified by the fact much of American teacher preparation is focused on pedagogy.

Throughout the teacher education world, there is another debate about what is more important: knowing the subject matter or knowing how to teach the subject matter. A definition of instruction would emphasize how to teach, which conforms to current American teacher preparation programs. Undergraduate and graduate programs require more classes in pedagogy than in content knowledge. Therefore, teachers are not subject experts, leading to simple or overly complicated techniques (Kennedy, 2005).

If a basic definition for instruction is developed, one could ask the question, what is the goal of teaching? The goal of instruction would be a key area of disagreement, as the rhetoric from national or state levels is different than what Kennedy defines as teachers’ goals in her study (2005). Kennedy (2005) identifies several different aims of teachers. One of the largest aims is tranquility. More than engaging students, covering content, and preparing students for their future, the goal is classroom peace and momentum. In terms of teaching and learning, the execution of learning activities is how to actualize a calm classroom. Mastery learning, according to Kennedy (2005) rarely is the aim of teachers.

Further, Lortie’s exploration of rewards (1975) correlate teacher satisfaction to “reaching students” (p. 99). The way to reach students, according to Kennedy? By the students’ compliant behavior during lessons, the completion of what is planned for the day, and acting in accordance with a quiet classroom. A definition of the technical core of teaching, based on student achievement and learning, would present a different set of goals and objectives for teachers. Kennedy’s recent work (2005) presents robust evidence that teachers want tranquility and subservience more than in-depth learning.

It seems evident that many stakeholders, at least publicly, would like to move the basic measure and rewards of teaching to student achievement. Currently, those goals mostly are articulated in sound bites. Teachers, it is known from Kennedy, hold different goals than they may publicly profess. The goals, rewards, and assessment of education would have to be defined for an effective definition of the core technology to develop.

A competing set of arguments around the definition of instructional technology must be who would define instruction and how would that definition be developed? One side could advocate for the bottom up approach to defining instruction, while another, with equal passion, could argue for the top down scientific model for developing knowledge. Teachers could argue effective instruction techniques and definitions already exist in American classrooms. Researchers just need to come into the classrooms and define the best practices around “differentiated instruction,” “response to intervention,” or “engaged instruction,” Then, the aggregate of what is found could be spread throughout the country, thereby supplying definition and working best practices that would improve instruction.

Another side could advocate a scientific study of instruction. Proponents of educational research as a science could support this strategy. A literature review, methods section, and sampling all would be designed for universal definitions of instructional core technology. A believer in this line would say that what has happened may have worked well enough, but a randomized study would best define instruction.

Resources for policy, need for knowledge, type of knowledge needed, goal of teaching, and source of knowledge all have competing goods; both sides seem to be right. Stakeholders in education hold various values and goods about each of the aforementioned areas. Their conflicting stances are detailed in the following section.

The stakeholders addressed in this paper include five main groups: K-12 teachers, K-12 administrators, college professors, educational policymakers, and parents/students/community groups. There is conflict between and within these stakeholders. The positions will be explained with a review of the competing goods.

The issue of resources and staying power would be raised by teachers and administrators first. Throughout the history of educational reform in America, hundreds of examples of lack of planning and resource destroyed good ideas. It is easier to argue the policymakers cannot afford it than it is to argue the definition is not necessary. There are more examples of financially failed policy than any other fault. Parents and community members could argue the schools already use enough resources; thus, educators should redefine instruction based on the funding they already have.

Teachers certainly could point to the sheen given to American teachers abroad, as would college professors responsible for training teachers. Policymakers and administrators may be in agreement about the lack of understanding in either content or pedagogy of beginning teachers. Policymakers see teacher preparation as an area easier to effect because teachers mostly are trained in state and federally funded institutions, and administrators spend a lot of time re-meditating beginning teachers’ lack of knowledge.

Teachers are a mixed group. Some will see the clarification and common language as a better way for themselves and their colleagues to perform and collaborate. Other teachers will see this advancement of a core technology as interference with what they see as their goal: getting students to like them, moving students through a carefully planned schedule, and maintaining tranquility in the classroom.

A teacher could argue the American system does not need definition at all. Rather, the systemic American style of individualism and autonomy provides the best prepared and sought after teachers in the world. International schools want American trained teachers the most. A teacher might ask, so, why should this change happen at all?

Teachers also could argue for more content knowledge, as it would be a chance for teachers to learn more about their favorite subject. They could also say the lack of content knowledge is the defining problem in American education, not lack of pedagogical definition. They might say American teachers barely know more than students. More content knowledge could be argued as superior to more pedagogical definition.

The goal of teaching is questionable, below the surface of public statements and policy briefs. The rhetoric says student achievement is important, but the most important instrument for reform is the teacher (Shulman, 1983), who believes tranquility and moving students through lessons is essential (Kennedy, 2005). Administrators may claim student achievement is paramount; but, in reality, they may emphasize momentum and classroom control, as do parents/community members. A good school is a quiet school, not necessarily a high achieving one.

College professors and educational policymakers, would argue about the source of the core knowledge. Views would run the spectrum from bottom up and quantities studies to qualitative and scientific reports. Teachers likely would support the bottom up method, while parents and administrators would follow their backgrounds or the prevailing political power in this debate.

Overall, this is a very complex question, with many competing goods. How much could be gained? Given the financial constraints, how should we even embark? How broad is this definition? It is difficult to summarize the stakeholders because their opinions seem to vary so much with other stakeholders or even within their own group. With all of these different opinions, it is hard to say definitively the core technology of instruction should be defined and disseminated more effectively.

As one thinks about the endemic challenges and goods related to defining instruction, a question could be: Is policy the best way to even address this issue? The question itself is broad and deep, and it lacks concrete information. In fact, without policy, it could be argued a developed sense of what works in American classrooms, so a policy regarding defining instructional technology could also be a waste of time.

References

Kennedy, Mary. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lortie, Dan C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Shulman, Lee S. (1983). Autonomy and obligation. In L. Shulman and G. Sykes (Eds.).

Handbook of Teaching and Policy (pp. 484-504).

by Kevin Guidinger, thinker, writer, traveler, and artist.