Framing the Complexity of a Participatory Democracy in a Public Primary
Classroom
Steve
Collins, Ph.D.
Faculty
Advisor
Teacher
Education
Curriculum
Studies
V4K
4J4
(604)
940-0208
Framing the Complexity of a Participatory
Democracy in a Public Primary Classroom
Abstract: Democracy in
a primary classroom is explored. The popular notion of democracy as a
mechanical decision making tool is replaced by the idea of ongoing active
participation of all community members in the development of that community.
Patterns of interaction are the focus rather than resolutions.
A description of events from an
Action Research project illustrate how Complexity Theory can be used to
understand a participatory democratic community as an adaptive system. I
recount the nature of class meetings, class generated problem solving
strategies, and a project based approach. Complexity Theory also influences the
methodology of the research itself.
“Framing” is a strategy for
understanding the tensions between autonomy and responsibility, individual and
public curricula, and chaos and order.
Framing the Complexity of a Participatory Democracy in a
Public Primary Classroom
The Significance of
Responsibility and Autonomy in the Primary Classroom
Many
educational documents call for the development of responsibility and autonomy
in students.
The popular
conception of democracy tends to focus on the technical aspects, such as
voting, representation, and government bureaucracy, which seems to breed apathy
and cynicism. This paper instead advocates a participatory democracy which
focuses on the unpredictable, changing human aspects of democracy. A
participatory democracy, in addition to decision making and resolution,
addresses the process of active inclusion of all members in the ongoing
development of the community.
The value of
this research lies in its effort to bridge the gap between the learning ideals
of a social learning community and the authoritative effects of the
hierarchical public education system. The following discussion explores
possibilities for autonomous student learning within the constraints of social
responsibility. An outcome of this study is that teachers may be able to
maximize student participation in decisions about learning; they may provide
direct experience in learning how to live democratically; and they may allow
students more ownership of their learning due to their perception of relevance
within a meaningful learning community.
Complexity Theory
In a participatory democracy, students simultaneously have
individual autonomy and responsibility to the community. These often competing
concepts can be unified when existing in a caring, respectful environment where
there is a strong desire on the part of individuals to develop and strengthen their own community. This
social classroom focus promotes learning in an active, practical, and relevant
context. The community is in a continual state of renewal as its members grow
within its influence, but also influence the community’s growth.
However,
this is a somewhat vague model that features continual change, lacks clear
solutions, requires more than simple products for evaluation, and,
comparatively, devalues closure. Indeed, it is contradictory to the prevalent
reductionist approach to public education where school life has been simplified
into isolated subjects, a prescriptive curriculum, and standards of behavior
and assessment. A participatory democracy admittedly seems more difficult to
implement. It requires constant adjustment to new events, tolerance for a
multiplicity of ideas and opinions, and patience with the uncertainty of correct
procedures for all eventualities. It is much easier and efficient for a teacher
to exercise absolute authority.
But for
those teachers who suspect that the long term benefits for students living and
directly experiencing democracy outweigh the short term benefits of rigid
order, a philosophy that allows some stability without authoritarianism, and
some freedom without the fear of chaos, would indeed be helpful. Thankfully,
most classrooms, however teacher directed, are not strictly authoritarian. Most
teachers understand the value of student ownership and intrinsic motivation in
learning. Most classrooms acknowledge uncertainty and unpredictability in the
learning process. It seems that successful teaching necessitates an
appreciation of complexity. I argue that a participatory democratic classroom,
that embraces both autonomy and responsibility, must learn the lessons of
complexity, since it lies on the edge between chaos and order.
It is a
complex world. Specialists from many disciplines are discovering that
segregating their subject areas has had limited success in promoting thorough
understanding (e.g. Waldrop, 1992). They are beginning to recognize the need to
integrate disciplines and look upon understanding of the world and life from a
holistic point of view. In their efforts to integrate their disciplines, these
specialists are discovering many common conceptions in understanding complex
phenomena.
Since
educational structures are complex, Complexity Theory is useful for
understanding and creating democratic classrooms. Fritjof Capra (1983, 1996,
2002) wrote ground breaking books on the subject of complexity and the nature
of life. I have collected seven of the major terms from Capra’s general
overview of complexity theory from The
Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture to frame a
discussion of complexity as applied to the participatory democratic classroom.
Disequilibrium
The simple act of walking requires us to be off balance to
move forward. In our classrooms, we do not ever want our students to complete
their learning. It is a continuing “walk”, marked by celebrations and
milestones, but always in disequilibrium so that learning and development
progress. Students are constantly adapting to changes in their setting which,
in turn, promote new changes. As such, learning is enacted in a fluid, often
turbulent, social setting. Multiple and constant interactions continually
reshape that body of learning. It is this activity, this enacting of shared
experiences and knowledge that constitute creative learning. There are
products, markers, successes, and various measures and accounting of knowledge
and achievements, but these are parts of the continuous evolution of learning
rather than endings.
Order and Chaos
Adaptive
systems, such as a classroom, are said to exist at the edge of chaos, neither
dissolving into disorder nor found in static balance. One can see in
disequilibrium the tensions among extremes that, unconstrained by each other,
would break these adaptive systems apart, resulting in chaos. On the other
hand, too much rigid constraint would destroy the dynamic aspects that allow
for growth and evolution. This would result in stagnant order. If a
participatory democratic classroom is seen as being at the edge of chaos, then
neither autonomy nor responsibility dominate. Rather there is constant
interplay between the two. Students are developing their independence and
skills at making reasonable decisions but autonomy cannot dominate. Clearly, if
every student made self centered choices, the community would descend into
chaos. Students are also developing their sense of community and care for the
common interests of the group but a sense of extrinsic responsibility cannot
dominate either. If the will of the community, manifested in stifling majority
or authoritarian rule, is imposed in standardized ways, ownership, creativity,
and the “life” of the community is lost. That inflexible order denies the
unique and varied contributions of individuals. The edge of chaos is in
disequilibrium but it is stable.
Self-Organization
In a
democratic setting, we are interested in the interplay of autonomy and
responsibility that is not in balance, not static, but evolving. In simple
terms, students discover that responsibility allows more autonomy, which when
exercised in a community oriented setting requires more responsibility. This
self-organizing process continues in much the same way as a complex organic
life form does, evolving in unpredictable ways, adapting, and continuing to
make creative interactions with its environment. The cycle repeats and
re-organizes, hence the turbulence.
Self-organizing
complex structures are in disequilibrium. Their stability comes not from the
juxtaposition of their parts as in machinery, but rather, in the quality of
links among the parts. Relationships are the important factors as opposed to
individuals. Patterns and rhythms define the structures. In the classroom, it
is the patterns of interaction that define it and make it unique. In a
democratic classroom, interactions are enhanced. Individuals have the potential
to influence the structure of the class, just as the good of the class guides
individual choice. A democratic classroom is, at least to some degree, a
self-organizing classroom.
Ecology
Davis,
Sumara, and Kieren (1996) describe how learning is enacted. It is not separate
from the environment or from others. It is not necessarily expressed in formal
ways and may be tacit rather than formalized. “...an understanding of the self
is not abstracted from the world which contains it but, rather, is the world.
Knowing, being, and doing are not three things. They are one” (p. 154).
Students in a participatory democracy learn not just about democracy but,
rather, enact democracy. The knowing cannot be separated from the doing or just
being immersed in the actions of democracy. They are all aspects of the same
thing. Like Davis’s eight year old math students engaged in an open ended
search for understanding of fractions in which they create their own
personalized conceptions, “These students [are] participating in the creating
or unfolding of the world, while at the same time effecting their own
structures. In a phrase, they and their world [are] co-emerging” (p. 155).
Relationships
and interactions mediate the ecology of the classroom. What affects a single
member affects the entire class. There is also a symbiotic exchange between the
whole classroom and its environment. That environment includes the physical
structure of the school, the administration, the character of the school
community, parental involvement, and the influence of the community at large.
Individual students are interdependent with their classmates while all are
interdependent with their environment.
Evolution
Capra (1983)
claims that systems theory (complexity theory) can make it possible to
understand “biological, social, cultural, and cosmic evolution in terms of the
same pattern of systems dynamics, even though the different kinds of evolution
involve very different mechanisms” (p. 286). If this claim is true then
complexity theory is a suitable metaphor for the classroom as a cultural
entity. Evolution expresses itself in learning and development. It is creative
and adaptive but it exists in a stable state that is far from equilibrium. It
fluctuates, flows, and is always ready to transform itself, that is to evolve.
But the environment in which the classroom exists is also a living dynamic
system. We can not merely regard the evolution of the classroom or the
individual in isolation as would a Darwinian metaphor of evolution. Rather, the
classroom plus its environment co-evolve in a connected, continually changing
process. The kind of classroom that is well suited to recognize this kind of
complexity is one that embraces creativity and adaptation. It exists at the
edge of chaos and order, and values both autonomy and a responsible regard for
the whole.
Emergent Properties
A
fascinating aspect of these self-organizing, adaptive systems is the concept of
emergent properties. The whole has characteristics or abilities that are not
present in any of its individual parts. For example, individual notes contain
no music but when combined with others in a timed sequence, then harmony,
melody, and emotional expression are possible. There are infinite possibilities
for emergent properties in a classroom community which would reflect the kinds
of interactions that take place within the group. One would expect that a
participatory democratic classroom would develop an overarching enactment of
respect, inclusion, tolerance, and critical thinking.
Shared Consciousness
The mind is
not contained in the brain but, rather, includes the entire body. It is the
pattern of organization or the set of dynamic relationships that results in
awareness. But Capra (2002) extends the concept of mind beyond the human
individual by noting that collectives of human minds are embedded ecologically
in social systems.
So in a
social entity such as a classroom, shared consciousness is comprised of those
common values that define a community. Shared consciousness is the community
culture which continually evolves through coordinated behavior, most commonly,
language. To participate in the discourse of a classroom is to share in the
construction of its consciousness or culture. If diversity and autonomy are
valued within the desire to construct a community with responsible regard for
all its members, then inclusion of all community members in the classroom
discourse must be facilitated.
Methodology
I undertook
research to explore and describe the development of a participatory democratic
primary classroom. The method chosen was Action Research in which the
collaboration was to be maximized among all of the participants, including the
students themselves.
In keeping
with the spirit of complexity theory and an ecological approach to social
systems, I developed an ideal model of participatory collaborative action
research that addressed issues of organic collaboration, authentic
participation, power differential, language, and ethics.
Organic Collaboration
The organic
collaboration identifies issues that are jointly owned. Each party can
independently provide parts of the solution to a goal. One party by itself is
unable to achieve the goal. It is this ecology of collaboration which is
necessary for effective action research. It is termed “boundary-spanning” since
both parties have a vested interest in the outcome and require each other’s
assistance to achieve their goals. It seems that most topics of research in the
classroom impact on students and therefore would be of interest to them, even
if that interest is for self-defense. The discovery of boundary-spanning issues
is dependent on finding a common language and in facilitating participation. Regardless
of the choice of research topic, in an organic collaboration, all partners
achieve a consensus on choosing a topic that is both of personal interest and
of mutual benefit (Whitford, Schlechty, and Shelor, 1987). The issue chosen for
research that includes students need not be of general school reform or
classroom wide restructuring (Chisholm, 1992). Rather, important issues of
limited scope and high familiarity may be an acceptable place to start.
Eventually, these limited research endeavors could become very significant and
sophisticated. McTaggart (1991) recommends that research start small to allow a
basis for collaboration to evolve.
Authentic Participation
McTaggart
also states that participation is problematic in research situations where people
have different power, status, influence, and language facility. Each of these
concerns presents a challenge to the authentic participation of students. As
previously claimed, there are no global standards that can be applied as a
solution to specific cases. Rather, a collaborative research team must address
these concerns on an ongoing and specific basis. If we recognize the presence
of disequilibrium in the classroom, it is essential that students have an
active role and an equal voice in this continuing discourse so that
self-organization takes place. I suggest, for example, that the use of class
meetings that share governance could serve as the forum in which these issues
are pursued, along with reflection and planning for the research content.
Power Differential
The issue of
power is indeed problematic in proposing a partnership in research with
students, particularly young children. On one hand, there seems to be a logical
and ethical argument for the inclusion of students, but on the other hand there
are enormous methodological barriers due to the status of children in western
society. Lynne Chisholm (1992) talks about the wide endorsement of symmetrical,
or democratic, relations in research, especially for action research. However,
there is a gap in the literature when it comes to symmetry and research with
young people (p. 254). Although, I do not anticipate a classroom revolution
where students dominate the teacher and control without reason, there is an
opportunity in action research for students to assume some negotiated autonomy
with regard to their own learning in the current research. There is also the
potential for students to acquire an intimate knowledge of social activism and
experience the possibilities for social change. This is a chance for students
to learn about both self-organization and leadership. As always, in action
research, the focus is not only on an end product but is also on the process
and the discovery of new questions. If this proposed research community is
committed to the continuing process of renewing participation, addressing power
differentials, and developing discourse, then the focus of this research is as
much on the power arrangements as on the subject of research.
Language
As McTaggart
(1991) states, language and discourse are a central aspect of the culture of a
group (p. 173). In the case of university and school based researchers, each
group brings with it unique patterns of language that are formed within the
group to enhance communication, thereby creating the culture (and shared
consciousness) of the group as well as individual identities. But when two
unique cultures come together, language can be an obstacle between the two
groups.
Teachers and children generally participate in language
development as a normal course of events. Collaborating in research, with an
emphasis on discourse, will accentuate the challenge and the enjoyment of this
process. Of particular interest is the language of reporting. Rather than
relying on university journals as the primary source of publishing results,
teachers may wish to publish papers for their peers and to provide workshop
presentations. Students can present their new
understandings through a range of media, such as posters, stories, poetry,
plays, multimedia, or dance. The emergence of commonly valued means of
presentation could provide alternate and enriching facets of discourse. These
expressions could well be highlighted in the university journal report and the
teachers’ reports. If they are a central focus of reporting, or perhaps a
source of data, then there is a likelihood that students will understand some
of the content and intent of the reports of the other research partners.
Additionally, more interest could be generated in the research by expanding the
audience beyond the university community to include other teachers,
administrators, parents, classmates, and members of the community at large.
Ethics
Whether
or not we invite students to be our research partners, they are involved in our
research. It is ultimately about them that we are researching. As Flinders
(1992) points out, researchers must move beyond the limited ethical
perspectives of an ethical review board, to a more ecological view. A simple
promise by researchers not to harm cannot be guaranteed when we recognize the
unpredictable nature of a classroom in disequilibrium. Especially when
involving children, who are both cherished and dependent, we must consider the
subtle interconnectivity of a classroom community. What affects one member of
this community, in some way, affects all.
In
traditional research, we are minimally bound ethically by having to obtain
informed consent. But often, consent for student involvement is given on their
behalf. So although they are central to the research, they are generally silent
in influencing their own involvement in the research. If cultural sensitivity
is sought, rather than mere consent, students must be recognized as part of the
ecological whole of the research team. They must have full, authentic participation.
To avoid detachment, rather than merely protecting them from harm, they must
become part of the ongoing discourse to resolve power differentials (which may
be enormous) and to make real contributions to the determination of research
goals and plans.
If
responsive communication is needed, rather than just confidentiality, this
implies that students will share the language of the research and contribute to
the reporting. This does not mean that students have an unreasonable burden of
learning a difficult new language or have to report in a highly academic sense.
Rather, it means that the language of children gains acceptance in the research
environment and that the variety of ways that children express ideas is
included as an aspect of reporting.
Including
children in research does not compromise their role as students or coerce them
into an adult agenda. Their role is still that of learners and much of their
school routine remains unchanged. However, the metacognitive activity of
reflection and discussion may be increased for students and teachers alike.
This requires an adjustment in attitude and self-perception in a community of
inquiry. Students begin to gain more control and ownership of their learning
and are self-reflective.
Implementation in Our Classroom
I was very
fortunate to form a partnership with a dedicated and talented teacher, who I
will refer to as Donna Klause. She had developed an interest in taking a more
democratic approach in her classroom for her own professional development. This
followed a year in which she taught an extremely difficult class to which she
felt she had responded in a fairly direct way. Most of the important themes
that arose from this research came from engaging discussions regarding her
reflections of our classroom experiences.
Her
class was a grade one and two combined class of twenty-two children with a
diverse range of abilities, cultures, languages, ages, and personalities.
Several children had been identified as having special needs so a classroom
assistant was assigned. We sought the approval of the children (and, of course,
their parents). This involved a full explanation, including the purpose of the
research, each person’s role, how it might change the daily routines, and what
responsibilities were involved.
The
class meeting was an ideal place to begin the research and to center further
interactions. Initial approval and negotiations took place in the first class
meeting. When all (teacher, university, students, parents, and administration)
approved of the research, we selected a limited topic, a classroom issue, with
which to begin.
We
planned to hold class meetings once each week. At this time, students and
teachers would reflect on the week’s activities pertaining to the chosen
research topic, critically discuss our practice, plan enhancements to our
practice, and expand our inquiry to related areas. This expansion included
explanations for the students of the curriculum, invitations to critically
discuss it, possible activities for addressing the curriculum, and student
generated learning goals. Additionally, I would meet with the teacher for a
half hour each week regarding professional practice. I would interview each
child for 10 to 20 minutes each week regarding the quality of their learning
and their reactions to the learning environment. I would regularly observe and
take part in classroom activities and take notes. All participants would keep
research journals. Clearly, in the case of the children, the scope of these
journals was smaller and they used an alternate means of recording information,
such as drawings, scripting, or role play. All interviews, meetings, and
observations were recorded on audio tape.
Classroom
activities were determined from ongoing practices, individual and group needs,
teaching skills, and resources at hand. Suitability, timing, sequence, and
degree of change were the objects of careful discussion and analysis. The
outcomes of this research would consist of a rich account of a specific setting
in which autonomy and responsibility was examined. It was anticipated that both
a conceptual and practical model of autonomy and responsibility might emerge
within this specific setting.
However, the
orderly and systematic plan that we had outlined at the start of the project,
consisting of observation schedules, meeting times, and planned activities,
quickly gave way to scrambling to find time to talk during the hectic activity
typical of elementary school. We found ourselves continually replanning and
rescheduling in response to problems, student and adult suggestions, and new
ideas. This is the normal procedure in action research, but the pace of change
was rapid, complex, and sometimes confusing. Unexpected events, typical in a
primary classroom, were common place and these both challenged and enriched the
research.
All data was
qualitative and collected over eight months from audio taped interviews and
conversations, my observations notes, the childrens’ research journals, Donna’s
journal of reflections, and e-mail correspondence.
Donna and I
sometimes reflected together in the relative calm, but not free from
interruptions, of the classroom after school. More frequently, these
discussions took place “on the fly” as we escorted the children to the library or
gym, or sometimes a quick word as activities changed. A small graduate research
grant allowed us to free Donna for three afternoons during the study where we
could speak extensively about the project and in depth regarding the emerging
themes. There were other eclectic and changing sources of data. Donna kept a
journal at the start of the project. I took notes in my Palm Pilot. We made
erratic attempts at e-mail. I interviewed the children individually and they
learned to interview each other. Students wrote and drew in their journals
regularly.
The
attention span of most students meant that my interviews with them were much
briefer than originally planned, in the order of two to five minutes. But the
children generally participated in this activity with enthusiasm and provided
unique insight into the changes that were developing in the classroom.
Eventually, the children began to interview each other, often by themselves.
Appropriate interviewing behavior became part of the learning process for all
of us. Critical thinking, as to what kinds of information were important and
what kinds of sounds were worth recording, was developed, as were creative
lines of questioning and interesting verbal styles. Not all of the data from
this effort was useful but some was and it was a tangible way for students to
be involved in collecting data.
The
students wrote and drew in their journals weekly. I did not set standards at
the start for this activity, fearing the demand for the format would overwhelm
the quality and quantity of the content. This was in contrast to a fairly high
standard of neatness and quantity that Donna had established for other writing
activities. The result was that there was a mix of useful and uninformative
data. Certain children, reluctant to write, produced very little and what they
did produce was often of low quality. Many children chose not to draw while
others only drew pictures. On the other hand, some children responded with
rich, descriptive writing and drawings of high quality, requiring several pages
per session. Clearly, these children were the ones who preferred this medium of
expression and whose language skills suited the exercise. Conversely, a few
children with very limited verbal or written language skills were able to use
this activity to express themselves through drawing and through dictation to
the teacher.
The
class meeting was the starting point where the topic of research and
definitions were first presented. But the format, length, frequency, and style
of these meetings changed continuously and were often the subject of discussion
themselves. We moved from once per week for twenty minutes to three times per
week for shorter times to, eventually, every day. The meetings changed from
adult chaired to student chaired. The class meeting format began with students
discussing problems that we all had placed on the agenda. We added a time for compliments and a time for successes. Students began to use the
meeting time to plan events. We added partner and small group sessions. We added
alternate methods of expression, including role play, posters, and class
projects. Although the meetings were the focus of data collection, their format
changed dramatically and extended into all aspects of classroom activity. While
they worked on their regular school work, children were interviewed about
school work and issues related to both learning and the classroom structure. As
is summarized later, behavioral issues were addressed inside and outside of the
classroom and learning activities emerged through a project based approach.
All
of these various interactions (meetings, interviews, performances,
conversations during activities) were recorded on audio tape. However, this was
not as reliable as one would have expected. Low batteries contributed to loss
of data on a couple of occasions, as did general fumbling with tapes. Certain
settings contained interfering background noise that made deciphering of the
data sometimes difficult and sometimes impossible. Other technical difficulties
included a temporary lack of access to e-mail and a hard drive crash that
resulted in some data loss.
The primary
classroom is a complex and unpredictable place. This characteristic is a major
part of the description of the setting and interactions. Clearly, it is also
reflected in the research methods and in the data itself. Our action research
was cyclic and collaborative but it was not tidy.
Results
As we
explored participatory democracy, many emergent properties of our classroom
community could be identified. I will describe three of them. As mentioned, we
began with (1) the Class Meeting. These meetings explored solutions to ongoing
problems with behavior in the classroom and on the playground. The class
reached its first apparent consensus (though this could be disputed) in
constructing (2) Seven Strategies to Deal with Problems. The class meetings
became more proactive and students participated in the planning and
implementation of (3) Various Projects carried out in groups, with partners, or
individually. Alternate means of expression were a constant need for many
students due to English being a second language or having weaker verbal
abilities. In the language of complexity
theory, these three developments were among the emergent properties of our
particular participatory democracy.
These
activities were significant in that they prompted an awareness of the ecology
of this learning community. They suggested a teaching strategy that bounded our
activities in that active and creative space between order and chaos. We called
this strategy framing.
Class Meetings
Class
meetings served as an entry point for the research project. At the first
meeting, I was introduced and given the opportunity to address the class and to
invite them to participate with Donna and myself in research. Being a primary
class, they were already experienced with the word research and with some of
its activities. I described to them what I was interested in researching and
explained the concepts of autonomy, responsibility, democracy, and community.
It was interesting to see how they readily linked these ideas to interactions
with friends and it was clear how important friends were to them. This
importance extended beyond just friendliness to power and politics within the
classroom and on the playground. It was the basic way in which these children
understood community.
We
collectively began to define the parameters of the class meeting. Initially, it
was explained as a time to discuss issues that affected the class. It was
essentially time for problem solving and planning, although, until near the end
of the study, problem solving dominated. The idea of an agenda was introduced
to them. Donna placed the first item on the agenda which was concerned with an
actual, contentious problem in the grade one-two combined classroom involving
some of the older children manipulating and excluding some of the younger
children. She couched this issue in a discussion of respect for one another.
The idea of the agenda, as a tool to reserve time during the class meeting to
discuss issues, quickly caught on. It became a device for airing grievances,
such as how to handle a situation when people make mean faces. Soon the agenda
became much too long to effectively address issues in a timely fashion,
especially with meetings scheduled only once per week. We added two more weekly
meetings and eventually incorporated class meetings as a daily routine, with
extra meetings for special events, activities, or plans. Indeed, the time of
day and the length of meetings became a contested issue in itself, never fully
realizing resolution. However, almost all students enthusiastically
participated in presenting issues for the class and in brainstorming solutions
and strategies. The leadership of the meetings moved from being teacher chaired
to student chaired, beginning with those students who had demonstrated good
leadership skills. At the recommendation of the students, adults provided
reminders regarding proper listening behavior and refocused the attention of
class members during the meetings. Some students clearly enjoyed the status of
chairing the meetings. Some students showed amazing leadership skills and
insight into the interactive process of the meetings. Some students enjoyed
being the center of attention and focused more on ego-centric activities, such
as talking extensively and repetitively about their issues, and refusing to
accept suggestions. Some students did not participate at all initially due to
limited language skills or an aversion to drawing attention to themselves.
However, even these students eventually began to participate both in leading
the meetings (often with partners) and in contributing to the discussions.
Donna and I also began to divide the class into small groups or partners to
discuss issues after they were presented and to share their resulting ideas
with the whole class later. Journals were used by the students after the class
meetings to record their summaries of the issues or to suggest new ideas
through writing and drawing. We also, as mentioned, maximized participation
through various alternate activities such as the creation of posters and the
use of role play to explore recurring social themes.
During
the course of the research, Donna and I noticed an increase in language skills
in all of the children who initially had limited verbal functioning. For
example Roy, who initially avoided speaking, limiting his responses to one word
utterances, eventually would lead the class meeting with minimal assistance. We
cannot claim that the increased interaction during the meetings caused this
improvement but this increase was noticeable both during the meetings and at
other times. The verbal orientation of the meeting, supported with alternate
means of expression, seemed to enhance verbal language development. We also
noticed, in regard to language development that in the early class meetings,
students tended to use a teacher approved
type of language in offering contributions to discussions. In other words,
students used language that they had heard adults use to encourage appropriate
classroom behavior. For example, at one early class meeting, Adam complimented
his teacher. “I like the way Ms. Klause is our teacher and when we get over
control, then she comes in and gives us a gentle reminder.” Clearly he was
trying to imitate (“over control”) and used phrases that he normally would not
(“gentle reminder”). As the process continued, and as the issues became more
relevant to them, students used natural, purposeful language, rather than
language that imitated adults. In one instance, Ellen’s description of how she
tried to solve a problem illustrated an authentic use of six-year-old language.
“Like and I said and Jenny was going to chase them but I said just ignore them
because they’re just being mean to you.” Grammar improves with practice but
this revealed a natural tone that was embedded in efforts to express original
ideas. Students also began to use the language of responsibility, autonomy, and
community, although they seldom used those actual words. Rather, they would
describe thoughts that were oriented toward a concern for others and their own
roles in the classroom, such as who could best help a classmate lead a meeting.
The
underlying principles of the Participatory Democracy, full participation and
inclusion, led me to advocate consensus, complete agreement by class members,
in decision-making. This proved challenging and forced us to adopt a realistic
perspective toward consensus building in a diversified and schedule-driven
school. It was also in conflict with the entrenched method of group
decision-making: voting. Voting, while considered (even among most adults) to
be a cornerstone of the democratic process, quickly showed itself to be a
disruptive influence on the creation of a sense of community. When used near
the start of the research project, it divided the class into winners and
losers, favoring the popular and marginalizing those with less political
influence. It was interesting to see the competition involved in voting
overwhelm the issues it was intended to resolve.
Seven Problem Solving Strategies
In the initial class meetings, the
class spent several sessions on the general topic of how to solve problems
among class members. The brainstorming of problem solving strategies was recorded
on chart paper. I took these chart papers home and condensed the ideas into
eight general categories which I presented at the next class meeting. Among
these eight problem solving strategies was revenge.
This was our first authentic contentious issue. Strong personalities spoke on
both sides of the issue of whether or not revenge was an appropriate way to
solve problems. The language was emotional and showed deep personal commitment,
rather than being imitated adult discourse. The debate raged for several days
with both sides making well thought out points. Eventually, those who were
against the concept of revenge were able to explain clearly to the others what
they thought revenge meant and to convince them that it was not as effective a
strategy as they had initially thought. These student explanations, rather than
any adult influence, enabled us to reach a consensus on a very difficult topic.
The remaining seven categories were (1) show respect, (2) talk it out, (3) be
assertive, (4) tell an adult, (5) ignore, (6) include everyone, and (7) change
the subject. These became a reference for students when future problems were
discussed. Students often drew upon this resource in offering suggestions to
social problems raised at class meetings.
Projects
Although students made many
innovations in problem solving techniques, they were not taking ownership of
other classroom activities, curriculum, or assessment. In response, Donna
instituted a project-based approach to some of the curricular activities. She
consulted the government mandated Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) and
considered her students’ interests in setting fairly broad topics, such as The
Solar System. Rather than everyone doing the same activity and producing the
same product, she offered several possible approaches to creating a project of
interest to each student. Some worked in partners or groups, some individually.
Some created books, some built models, some designed posters, but it was open
to individual innovations. All were accountable for their research by making a
presentation to the class and by writing an explanation (with varying levels of
assistance). In this way, the mandated curriculum was addressed but each
student was also able to pursue particular interests according to a preferred
method. Most notable about this approach was not the quality of the products
presented but rather, the change in the quality of the process in project-based
activities compared to other activities. Each student was engaged in his or her
project. The presentations of their projects were a celebration rather than a
fearful, self-conscious evaluation. It is difficult to determine if there was a
relative quantitative increase in learning, but clearly, each child was a
confident ‘expert’ in the knowledge that they had personally gathered. They
also learned a great deal from each other as the ensuing discussions revealed.
It was doubtful that anything was lost in terms of learning but much was gained
in terms of attitude, motivation, and quality with regard to the process of
learning. Also significant was that the discourse, with which the students
created their learning community, was extended beyond the class meeting into
their daily learning activities. All participated enthusiastically in projects
with few problems regarding the nature of their interactions, although these
interactions were often intense. Verbal discourse was the main method of
interacting but, rather than all students demonstrating their learning in the
same way, each chose their own presentation method. It could be verbal,
written, artistic, demonstrative, musical, kinesthetic, or even a Lego
construction. It was an activity that best suited their needs and preferences,
and yet shared a personal understanding with the rest of their learning community.
The way behavioral expectations and learning activities were negotiated, or
framed, is an interesting subject.
Frames
The project
approach that was initiated during our research in this class allowed
self-organization and framed the limits between chaos and order. This is an
example of liberating structures discussed by
The idea of
framing is itself interesting and complex. In a participatory democracy, the
frames may not be as fixed as it might otherwise be assumed. The frames must be
clear for all concerned or insecurity will result in a search for the limits of
behavior. But frames vary from activity to activity, from day to day, and from
setting to setting. A teacher may wish to have a very narrow framework with
limited freedoms for a new activity and gradually broaden the frame as students
demonstrate their responsibility. Different teachers will have varying levels of
comfort with frames. Framing responds to disequilibrium and as such is a
constant focus for the reflection of teachers within a democratic setting. It
is ultimately part of the teacher’s responsibility and authority to establish
the framework for learning, but a democratic teacher seeks the input of
students and clarifies the framework to explain the purpose and the limits for
behavior. In discussing the topic of framing and interpreting the curriculum
for very young children, Donna said
They don’t know what they should know. They don’t know what
the possibilities are. But we can explore it first and maybe say we’re going to
use as many ideas as we can. If they come up with five and they’re relevant and
on topic, then we’ll use them. But [I] have veto power if it doesn’t address
the things we’re supposed to be covering....But to actually present the IRPs
[public curriculum], I’ll have to interpret because of the language (In
conversation, February, 2000).
She finds an IRP goal that states “Describe the basic
structure of the various organs involved in speech and hearing.” Realizing our
students will never understand that language, we interpret: “What we’re
supposed to do here is figure out how our body helps us talk and hear.” Then
students engaged in their increasingly familiar brainstorming and categorizing
for activities to research the topic. One kind of brainstorming activity was
“What we Know/What we Wonder” in which we listed first everything that was
already known about the topic and what we wondered about became the areas that
we were going to research. We called this process “guided participation”
because it was open ended within limits or frames.
The
curriculum was used as a general guide or frame setting tool rather than a
prescription. It was opened for students to understand and to question. It was
used much like a checklist to see what we had learned and what else we still
needed to cover. In a sense, the class was guiding the curriculum rather than
the curriculum setting the course of study. It was very much a co-evolution.
Still we met much of the curriculum, as much as most teachers do, but we also
addressed other important issues along the way. The difference from a
traditional approach to curriculum was in the degree of ownership and the internalization
of learning and of those structures that supported learning.
The use of
frames, or liberating structures, help to provide order at the edge of chaos.
They define the limits of activity and behavior but allow freedom,
individuality, and creativity. In a participatory democracy frames are
clarified, explained, and often negotiated.
There
clearly is an awareness of ecology within the described community. But there
must be an awareness of the ecology among this community and its larger
environment as well. Just as individuals must be responsible to the good of the
whole class, the class must be responsible to the collective wishes of the
public. Using frames and an open approach to curriculum identifies individual
needs, strengths, and styles, while respecting the public will. Curriculum is
explained, criticized, and adapted, but allows the inclusion of individual
learning pursuits. Curriculum is regarded as a resource rather than a
prescription.
Complexity
As
previously discussed, Complexity Theory provides a helpful way of thinking in
attempting to understand a community. It is particularly useful within the
concept of a participatory democracy, as developed here, with its complex
intertwining of autonomy, responsibility, and authority. The language and
concepts of Complexity Theory both emerged from our classroom experiences and
also helped to frame our understanding of those experiences. Indeed, the
importance of accepting complexity in a democratic classroom was an outcome of
the research itself. A community is not built
from a collection of parts, such as programs, methods, curricula, or
administrative directives. Rather, it evolves from small beginnings and
develops gradually through the interactions of individual members with a regard
for the whole, and is significantly greater than the sum of its parts. This, no
doubt, will be disappointing to those immersed in the prevalent mindset of
solutions, quick cures, concrete methods, formulas, ready-made techniques, and
transferable programs - “Something practical that I can use on Monday morning.”
Further, every community is unique. Our story, hopefully, may be enlightening
but it is not a prescription for building a universal participatory democratic
community.
Considerations for Practice
I
now offer the following reflections prompted by the preceding experiences in an
emergent participatory democracy in a grade one-two public classroom:
1. A community is not built from
discrete parts nor assembled according to a standard blueprint. Rather it must
be allowed to emerge from the interaction of its members, allowing for change
and unpredictability.
2. In a participatory democratic
community, there is constant tension between autonomy and responsibility,
diversity and inclusion, and chaos and order. Therefore participants must
embrace complexity.
3. Products that represent learning
are part of a process that continually moves in a state of stable
disequilibrium based on the evolution of the community.
4. Ongoing reflection is essential to
assess the past and plan the next steps. A teacher can benefit from the
discourse available through partnerships with other educators in a collegial
professional environment.
5. Constant self-organization
provides the stability within the disequilibrium of a developing community. In
a participatory democracy, students participate in that self-organization.
6. We must be aware of the ecology of
the classroom. All participants co-evolve with the developing community and the
environment. The teacher forms strong relationships with students and focuses
on the relationships and patterns in the class.
7. Equality, participation,
inclusion, and agreement are ideals to guide us but not practical achievements.
8. It is useful to reflect on the
emergent properties of a community, its developing shared values, and its
shared consciousness. This knowledge provides enlightenment regarding the next
steps on the path ahead.
9. Autonomy, responsibility, and
other democratic elements make sense only in the understanding and commitment
that participants have for their community. An exploration of the ways that a
sense of community, or a shared consciousness, can be developed is of critical
importance.
10. We must further discuss how to
navigate the tensions caused by personal and public curriculum, individual and
standard assessments of learning, student autonomy and responsibility,
diversity and inclusion, and many other matters that swirl at the edge of
chaos.
References
Capra, F. (1983). The turning point: science, society and the rising
culture.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life.
Capra, F. (2002). The hidden connections: Integrating the
biological, cognitive, and social dimensions of life into a science of
sustainability.
Chisholm, L, (1992). Action research: Some
methodological and political considerations. British Educational Research Journal, 16, 249-257.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., and Kieren, T. (1996). Cognition, co-emergence, curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies 28, 151-169.
Flinders, D.J. (1992). In search of ethic
guidance: Constructing a basis for dialog. Qualitative
Studies in Education, 5, 101-115.
L’École Bilingue
(1996).
McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for
participatory action research. Adult
Education Quarterly, 41, 168-187.
Ministry of
Education, Skills and Training, Government of
Waldrop, M.M.
(1992). Complexity: The emerging science
at the edge of chaos.
Whitford, B.L., Schlechty, P.C., and Shelor,
L.G. (1987). Sustaining action research through collaboration: Inquiries for
invention.