Measuring and Modifying Behavior of Special Education Teachers.

This article discusses certain of our convic­ tions relative to the preparation of teachers and the relationship between that preparation and their teaching practices. Specif­ ically. we concern ourselves with the measurement of teacher behavior and one methodology designed to modify that be­ havior. Based on our observations of special class teachers in training and in a variety of pedagogical settings, recommenda­ tions are made that may aid in the more effective and direct measurement of teacher behavior and analysis of teacher suc­ cess. Further, a seminar is described that is designed to more recognizably and effectively than heretofore modify the be­ havior of students preparing to work with children having special learning problems. or a number of years, my col­ leagues and I have concerned ourselves with teachers, their prepara­ tion, and the relationship between their preparation and their pedagogy. This concern led us to conclude that teacher preparation is—at least to an extent—an unstudied problem (Blatt, 1959; Sarason, Davidson & Blatt, 1962; Blatt, 1964). This is not to imply that educators have denied the existence of the problem; nor does it mean that a great deal has not been written and done about it. Finally, it is not our intention to deal harshly with their work. For, as a matter of plain fact, we too share responsibility for the state of teacher education and the lack of clarity sur­ rounding it. As we have stated elsewhere, teach­ er preparation is an unstudied prob­ lem because our efforts to study it have centered about one or another position; we have attempted to examThis article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Kansas City, Missouri on May 8, 1964. F ine teacher preparation in the light of our biases and insights rather than in the ways these programs constitute a relevant and adequate preparation for those activities a teacher engages in and those problems he encounters. We have lacked the kinds of detailed descriptions of "live" teaching by means of which we gain a better understanding of what may be con­ sidered proper or improper ap­ proaches to agreed on goals. We have lacked detailed descriptions of how teachers are actually prepared. We have had an abundance of attractive course descriptions, unassailable state­ ments of aims and hopes, and vague generalizations of what the future teacher is experiencing and learning in the course of preparation. What we need to know is not only to what the student in training is ex­ posed but the specifics of how it is structured, who structures it, and the role of that student. Without detailed descriptions of what actually goes on between student and college teacher and between student and the master teacher to whom he is assigned, it is REPRINTED FROM THE DECEMBER, 1964 M.R. JOURNAL impossible to judge whether the the­ ory (if there is one and too frequently there is not) giving rise to prepara­ tion practices is actually being re­ flected in how these practices are being implemented. What is so dis­ tressing is not only that the theory and practices of preparation fre­ quently bear little relation to each other but that neither bear a strong relationship to the everyday tasks of the teacher. Assumptions ond Beliefs It is the purpose of this paper to mention and discuss briefly two as­ pects central to any confrontation with the problems of teacher prepara­ tion: the measurement and modifica­ tion of the behavior of teachers. We assume that the prime task of the teacher—any teacher, including the teacher-educator—is to measure the behavior of his pupil and to influence its modification. This is but another way of saying the teacher concerns himself with learning, its measure­ ment. and the interventions designed to promote increments in learning. about the author . . . B u r t o n B l a t t , E d . D . , i s t h e chairman of the Special Education D e p a r t m e n t of Boston Univer­ s i t y , A f o r m e r t e a c h e r o f t h e mentally retarded in New York City. D r . B l a t t h a s served in a vari­ ety of appointed and consultatory posts. In 1959, Governor Ribicoff ap­ pointed him to the Connecticut State Advisory Council on Mental Retarda­ tion. He also served, at the request of Governor John Volpe, on a state coun­ cil on problems related to mental Ill­ ness and health in Massachusetts, Presently, he chairs the Education Committee of the Massachusetts Asso­ ciation for Retarded Children and is co-chairman of the state's Task Force on Mental Retardation. It is our belief that the theme most consistently recurring in the broad field of education and, in partictdar. in the area of special education is that the kind and quality of the intervention (or program of modifica­ tion) is trivial to the fact of interven­ tion, Stated another way, we have some rather formidable evidence that the specific ways we modify behavior —i.e. our methods—bear little causal relationship to the changes we en­ counter in behavior and, further, these changes can be expected be­ cause of the presence of an interven­ tion in and of itself. The power of our methods seems to lie in the fact that we take an interest and become involved with another human being and this interaction is of sufficient importance to flood out the effects of the system we employ when inter­ vening. The importance of the particular method of intervening lies in how we feel about it; if we believe that it will provide for a substantal differ­ ence, if we are comfortable with it, and if we are skilled in implement­ ing it, we have more success with this method than with competing ones designed to accomplish the same aim. Hence, for example, the continuing controversy and conflicting data re­ volving about the teaching of reading and the efficacy of each of the several dozen methods we have available to promote this skill. Hence, our in­ ability, after more than a half a century of experimentation, to state with conviction (and data) either that we have meaningful methods in special education or that, whatever we do, special education provides children with a curriculum experience that guarantees a more suitable edu­ cation than does placement in regular classes. From our observation, we can only conclude that special education is special because certain people are concerned with it as a different or special problem and have identified with a particular group of children in a special way, not with a special pedagogy. By this we mean, we have not noticed unique pedagogies uti­ lized in special classes but we have observed an integrity among certain of these classes that we consider "special" and this integrity centers about the special attention and in­ volvement the teachers bring to the class setting. It is true that our observations refer to classes for the mentally retarded that we have been involved with, and one might state that other special class programs—for the blind, for the deaf, for the aphasic—employ ver)' specific methodologies to reduce or circumvent learning disorders. How­ ever, we believe, in principle, that the aforementioned observation has sub­ stance even with these groups. Witness the long standing debate concerning the relative merits of the oral and manual methods for teaching lan­ guage to the deaf or the different and competing special methodologies cur­ rendy advocated for the aphasic child, To continue, from our experiences evaluating special programs in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and— currently — Massachusetts, we must speculate that differences between competent and incompetent special class teachers, i.e. between those whose pupils are learning and those whose pupils are not, are not particu­ larly due to differences of teaching methods or formal teacher prepara­ tion but, rather, appear to be related to how one group views children in this regard. Inferred from all of the above is the belief that our curricu­ lum and methods in special educa­ tion and our over-all strategy or design of teacher preparation in spe­ cial education have importance to the degree that the process of curriculum emergence—not the curriculum—pro­ vides for the modifiability of be­ havior. In principle, one curriculum design is as good as another and, regardless of how well a curriculum is con­ ceived and implemented, it is far less important than the interest it gen­ erates among teachers and pupils, the degree of involvement people share in the process of its preparation, and the commitment they feel toward it. It does seem clear that some curri­ cula organizations have, in the past, better served to stimulate learning than have others. However, we could develop some fruitful hypotheses to study why these same designs failed utterly in different settings. Our belief is but another expression of the diver­ gent ways we feel all people seek to find their places in a society and the infinite varieties of occurrences pro­ duced from any one formal organiza­ tion. We have developed certain con­ victions relative to the preparation of special class teachers. These, we hope, are reflected in our objectives for teacher education, how we aim to achieve them, and our struggles to measure the consequences of our in­ terventions. Very briefly, we believe the dominant preparation in teacher education is concerned with the de­ velopment of the humanist. Most teachers enter training pro­ grams with strong humanist convic­ tions, i.e. man, his interests, and his development are strong preoccupa­ tions of university students preparing as teachers. The teacher is first a humanist; for whatever reasons, his essential concern must be with people. Secondly, the process of teaching re­ quires pedagogical artistry and the teacher is an artist as well as a scien­ tist, applied psychologist and tech­ nician. The teacher, especially concerned with the process of learn­ ing and change, must struggle with an understanding of himself as a learner. He must evolve his own—not an imitative—style; he must work at his own means to comprehend and control his skills and to express his art. Our third objective in teacher education is to assist the teacher in his development as a scientist. It has been said that those qualities that make the human being a great crea­ tive force, an artist, make him a ver)' poor measuring instrument. Artistry characterizes teaching; science meas­ ures our effectiveness and gives us principles and tools to improve our skills. Teachers must be trained to observe, to discover that what they observe and what they infer must be held separate or an already com­ plex task becomes unmanageable. The processes of observation and in­ ference are strongly affected by the prejudices a teacher brings to the observational task. A means toward preparing the teacher as a scientist—the clinical ex­ perience—concerns itself with helping the teacher understand his prejudices so he may deal with them more ef­ fectively. Quite obviously, the student of education who is not a trained and astute observer cannot function as a scientist. Nor can he so func­ tion without a preparation requiring sustained intellectual discipline, in­ cluding a process of continuous selfevaluation. Measuring Teacher Behavior As was just stated, we, as human beings, are poor measuring instru­ ments. The physiological limitations of man to adequately record behavior when added to his need to make true that which he wishes to be true provoke some serious problems in the assessment of our teacher education programs. At this time, all we can do is offer to share whatever think­ ing and suggestions we have for com­ ing to grips with the measurement problem. Most people, in measuring the be­ havior of teachers, tend to analyze the most complex interactions in the classroom. Another strategy, possibly more profitable, is to measure the simplest interaction. The axiom here is that the more you control the en­ vironment the more accurate your measurement will be. For example, may we learn more about a teacher's behavior and its modifiability by care­ fully recording his interaction with one child under different and clearly identifiable treatment conditions than his behavior with many children in a generalized setting? Secondly, our measurement of teachers' interactions with children should be concerned more with their "doing" behavior than with their "in­ ternal" behavior. As we cannot meas­ ure what a teacher is feeling or thinking, we must concern ourselves with his performance. Intentions are important to the degree that they give rise to behavior. In the last analysis, it is the behavior of teachers with children that are the only meaningful interactions we have to record. Thirdly, our nomenclature is inti­ mately related to the ways in which we analyze the behavior we record. Whether a child is or is not retarded, was or was not cured, whether a teacher is or is not effective, does or does not make progress, are be­ havioral phenomena that may only be assessed in relation to how we conceptualize mental retardation and its reversability or prevention and how we define pedagogical mastery and modifiability. Next, in whatever ways we measure the behavior of teachers, our data are not only a reflection of the teach­ er's ability but of the methods and conditions around which the teacher was prepared to manifest his be­ havior. For example, when we meas­ ure a student's readiness to teach we are, in addition, measuring the effec­ tiveness of our programs to prepare him for teaching. The axiom here is that method is a function of readi­ ness for modifying one's behavior and, although as we stated before, our methodologies appear incidental to our interventions, no two methods can produce the same effect under iden­ tical circumstances. When we expli­ cate a particular set of conditions deemed requisite criteria for readiness to learn words or numbers or readi­ ness to teach, we are merely saying that, given this specific methodology, these prerequisites are required before the methodology may be usefully ap­ plied. With other methodologies, we are confronted with other prerequisites, some more demanding, others less. All things being equal, to the degree that a methodology is a reflection of a genuine involvement, commitment, and interaction of teachers and stu­ dents toward the realization of a powerful teacher education experi­ ence there will be higher or lower readiness for teaching. Lastly, we may more directly measure the effective­ ness of teacher behavior by measuring the effectiveness of pupil behavior. If one is interested in analyzing teacher effectiveness, it is relatively less im­ portant to center one's concern on the teacher than on the learner. The former strategy may produce very misleading data while the latter seem­ ingly indirect approach must come to grips with the purpose of the meas­ urement problem. Modifying Teacher Behavior Several years ago, we developed a seminar for teachers preparing to work with children having special learning problems (Sarason, David­ son & Blatt, 1962). It was our hope that this seminar, added to our formal more traditional coursework, clinical and practice teaching opportunities, would more recognizably and effec­ tively modify the behavior of our students in the direction of our ob­ jectives. Quite succinctly, we provide students with opportunities to observe children—and each other—over a long period of time for the purpose of developing their skills in observ­ ing human behavior and formulating relative inferences. Each week a group of 15 to 20 students convene around a seminar table and. eventually, enter an ob­ servation room having one-way vision and monitoring sound connections to a classroom. Each year our initial remarks to them are, more or less, the following: As you know, each time we meet, you may have the opportunity to observe a class of young children. It isn't pos­ sible to observe a class or any social gathering for even a few minutes with­ out questions popping into your mind or without coming to some sort of con­ clusion or opinion. The one obligation which you have is to bring into the open reactions to any observation. To the extent that you can feel free to articulate your reactions, you and the rest of us will learn from each other. One of the things you must guard against is keeping your ideas, ques­ tions and opinions to yourself because you do not know whether they are right or wrong. If you do remain silent, you, of course, increase the chances that you will be unable to evaluate your reac­ tions other than in a subjective, pri­ vate manner. This is an opportunity to learn, by which we mean an opportu­ nity to change your ways of thinking and acting. There may be times when we do not wish to observe children. You will soon realize that , you share in both the substance and the physical management of this seminar. It is your responsibility as well as ours to pro­ vide a direction for this seminar. At this time, I will not dwell upon findings previously reported by us in the literature and which the reader may examine at his leisure. It seems more appropriate here to mention something of what we have learned since our original publication. First, there appears to be a characteristic pattern of student reactions within this seminar experience. During the first few meetings there is often con­ fusion, timidity and tension within the group. Students appear uncom­ fortable in other than roles subser­ vient to their instructors. In a way, they are almost begging to be told about mental retardation, to be rid of their ignorances; and they do not believe they possess ways to learn without the aid of instruction or text­ books. At some point, weeks later, students begin to understand that they will not be given answers to the problems they observe in the children's class­ room. They begin to see the re­ lationship between their developing observational skills and their powers to approach the solution of pedagogi­ cal problems. Later in the year, stu­ dents sometimes begin to take their newly acquired observational powers and insights seriously enough to de­ precate other worthwhile ways of investigation. They begin to make judgments about behavior, lacking all available evidence; and they begin to make new types of mistakes, i.e. errors associated with rashness and, to some degree, over-confidence in one's powers to perceive and diag­ nose. Usually, the students eventually see the place of observation and in­ ference as a way of scientific investi­ gation and as a skill correlative to others developed during related phases of the teacher education pro­ gram. We have learned that our observa­ tional seminar is cumulative in ac­ complishment. Any one meeting with students may not be of particular significance or have particular power. However, 25 or 30 meetings, all de­ voted to the observation of a single class of children and all centering about the sharpening of observational skills appear to have an uncommon influence on our students and appear to affect them deeply. We have learned that, from the in­ structor's viewpoint, the observation­ al seminar is a difficult assignment. Especially during the early weeks, one is tempted to provide answers, reduce tensions, and prevent pain; for, dur­ ing the early weeks, tension and pain accompany this struggle of student and instructor to deal with observed behavior and to derive some mean­ ing of value. To paraphrase Maeter­ linck, instructors and students do not know each other well enough to be silent together and, yet, if the students are not ready to speak about the be­ havior they observe, it is the responsi­ bility of the instructors to cope with their own anxieties and need for comfort and to wait until the students are ready to ask substantive ques­ tions or raise issues of consequence. Our observational seminar is one method we found important in mod­ ifying the behavior of teachers. There is little doubt that our faith in this method has had something to do with both the way we have felt suc­ cess with it and the way our students have regarded it as an important ex­ perience in their lives. On the other hand, it could be said that our faith is the progenitor of our reality.