Functional adventures in the deep end: The evolution of a pragmatic 48-month undergraduate curriculum By C. Harold McManus, Ph.D. ? 2010 Excerpt 5of5

How to develop

A Decentralized Classroom

“Centralized structures are crumbling all across America. But our society is not falling apart. Far from it.  The people of this country are rebuilding America from the ground up into a stronger, more balanced, more diverse society. The decentralization of America has transformed politics, business, our very culture” (Naisbitt, 1984. p 103).

According to Merriam-Webster Online (2009), the term “nomothetic” refers to general or universal statements of law. It involves an appeal to the group and is based on the assumption that people have similar characteristics that allow them to be compared with each other. The typical nomothetic environment tends to demean the many to praise a few. In a classic nomothetic environment, one would expect 2% to 3% of participants to score at the outermost positive end of the curve. In this environment, one would expect 16% of the students to score in the above-average range. This scenario creates an environment where 2% of the students are going to be exalted, 18% are going to be above average, and the rest, about 80%, are going to be average or below average. Why is this the case? 

In a true nomothetic environment, the variables of interest will form a mound-shaped frequency distribution that approximates what is called the Normal Curve (Ott & Longnecker, 2001). In the best-case scenario, only 2.0% of students will score at the outermost positive range (grade of “A”) of the curve (2.2% to be precise). Since the curve is symmetrical, 2.0% will also score at the extreme negative range (grade of “F”) of the curve. Next, 14% should score in the above-average range of the curve (grade of B), with a corresponding 14% scoring at the below-average range (grade of D). The vast majority of the distribution, nearly 68% of the sample, should score in the average range (1 standard deviation above and below the mean) on the normal curve (Cherulnik, 2001). Why is this important for testing and teaching? Contextualists believed that societies transform themselves and their environment using tools and labor and that the mode of economic production (capitalism, feudalism, or socialism, for example) determines working conditions and social interactions (Harris, 1997).  In this vein, the combination of capitalism and nomothetic assessment approaches makes education in the United States very similar to a competitive sports conference. 

       In the National Football League (NFL), for example, there are 32 teams and they play 16 games against each other. Roughly half will experience success, and the other half will experience failure. That is, half the teams will win eight or more games and half will not. In an even more disheartening scenario, only 12 of the 32 teams (37.5%) will make the playoffs while only four of the teams (12.5%) will make it to a conference championship game, and only two teams (6.25%) will make it to the Super Bowl (https://www.nfl.com/standings, 2009).

       At the end of a grueling, five-month schedule, in addition to the two months of training camp and the preseason contests, the success of winning the big game will only be experienced by one (3.25%) of the NFL’s 32 teams. Nearly 97% of the league’s teams must experience success in some other less tangible way. This “big game/winner takes all” mentality works well for competitive sports teams, where conquest and domination are the ultimate goals—there can be only one champion! Unfortunately, when this “winner takes all mentality” invades educational settings, it can have a detrimental effect on development and successful outcomes.

       Similar to the NFL example, about 3.3% of a given sample should score at the 95th percentile. For the rest, they must be content with labels such as “above average,” “average,” “below average,” or “other.” The potential of the last two groups is limited, and their fate is often sealed by the third or fourth grade in public school. For the sake of those whose test scores seem to always populate the wrong end of the normal curve, an idiographic approach to teaching would provide opportunities for real learning and more exposure to pragmatic success. Unlike sports contests, learning should be understood in terms of interpersonal and environmental contexts. A number of researchers believe that contextual variances are important aspects of learning.

       The developing person’s overall belief system is linked to how much he or she can learn and to his or her willingness to learn. Are stated goals long-term or short-term? Do they know right from wrong, and can they delay gratification needs? What is their locus of control orientation, or where do they place the locus of responsibility for learning outcomes? If assessments are not done early and often to ascertain the student’s academic profile, one has no idea how to answer these questions. If one does not answer these questions in an ongoing manner (worldview and goal orientations are moving targets), it is impossible to really know why students leave a university early or stay to get a degree. If one does not answer these questions in an ongoing manner, it becomes very difficult to establish a shared learning environment.  Vygotsky’s description of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Harris, 2002) describes a communal view of learning and development that respects the individuality of each student and also uses the power of the collective intelligentsia to promote positive student learning outcomes. The ZPD is the antithesis of the competitive nomothetic testing approach described earlier in this chapter.    

       The Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1960) describes the Contextualists’ view of shared tools. In their view, tools were cognitively based, and by sharing these tools, those who “got it” could assist those who did not. In the ZPD, a developing person who is unable to grasp a concept alone can gain insight from others who have a firm grasp of the topic. By sharing his or her understanding, the proficient student can help facilitate growth in a challenged student and, at the same time, grow stronger in his or her understanding of the subject matter. Instead of a competitive and insular approach to learning, the ZPD provides supportive learning where both groups (The Haves and Have-Nots) are able to experience positive learning outcomes and the development of knowledge. Testing in this scenario becomes formative in nature and works to support the educational development of all students—not just those who score high on examinations.  

       Telling challenged students that they are at the 25th percentile on this measure or 50th percentile on that measure and stopping there only serves to benefit those who are at the 85th or 95th percentile. If there is no follow-up to move the low performing student in the right direction, what real purpose does the assessment serve? At its inception, testing was formative as opposed to summative. In other words, it was used to help individuals perform better and not label them. In 1905, two French psychologists, Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon, developed a 30-item scale of intelligence to ensure that no child could be denied instruction in the Paris school system without a formal examination (Schnitzer, 2005). 

       Their sample of 50 Parisian children for the 1905 test and 300 Parisian children for the 1908 test were homogenous samples. The contemporary French identity in 1905 was rooted in the ancient world, chiefly in Celtic and Roman civilizations (Kaiser, 2005). There was a common French culture based on identifiable traditions. When working with a heterogeneous population, however, one must address the many technical and ethical issues inherent in this approach. Comparing the performance of one group based on the norms of another is technically unsound and scientifically disingenuous. A shift to an authentic idiographic/nomothetic hybrid approach to education and testing is both practical and necessary. 

One-on-one instruction and face-to-face tutoring sessions are time intensive exercises. A case studies approach to assess the masses is also impractical unless the proper methods and technologies are utilized. Inquiry-Based Learning, Formative Assessment, collaborative web-based support groups, as well as nomothetic approaches, when used properly, can facilitate developmental milestones in young adults and non-traditional college students.

 Summary of Chapter Three

1.  While some countries have school systems that are financed and regulated on a national level, in the United States individual states and local districts regulate public education.

2.  There has been a continuing shift toward more decentralized, team-based work structures in an effort to improve quality and productivity.

3.  The educational wave of the future is now and it must emphasize decentralized groups and comprehensive collaborative projects. It is important that students have educational experiences that prepare them for independent decision making in wide-ranging collaborative networks.

4.  Administrators, teachers, and students must understand the psychology of control and responsibility if a decentralized classroom is to work.

5.  A construct known as locus of control (Rotter, 1966, 1973) may provide insight to parents, teachers, and researchers on the nature of academic underachievement and personality.

6.  Based on research conducted in our laboratory, an internal locus of control is beneficial in a decentralized classroom.

7.   Passive and externally oriented students are the banes of a decentralized classroom while active students find success and begin to grow toward expert status in such an environment.

8.  In the college classroom, perceptions of control and responsibility are a salient part of the day-to-day interaction between instructor and learner.

9.  Teaching and learning must be viewed as dynamic states because, in the twenty-first century, the discovery of ideas and solutions through inquiry is more important than facilities and schedules.

10.  Lev Semionovich Vygotsky, a Soviet psychologist, developed theories on how this sharing of cognitive resources can benefit students who are at different levels of development.

References

Cherulnik, P. D. (2001). Methods for behavioral research: A systematic

approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Harris, P. (2002). Theories of Developmental Psychology (4th Ed.). New

York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Harris, P. (1997). Theories of Developmental Psychology (3rd Ed.). New

York: W. H.  Freeman and Company.

Kaiser, T. E. (2005). History of France. Microsoft ? Encarta ? Encyclopedia

2005 ? 1993-2004, Microsoft Corporation.

Merriam-Webster Online (2009). Retrieved August, 04, 2009 from

https://www.m-w.com/cgi- bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Nomothetic&x=18&y=20

copyright 2009 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Naisbitt, J. (1984). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming our lives.

New York: Warner Books.

https://www.nfl.com/standings (2009). Retrieved August 04, 2009.

Ott, R. L. & Longnecker, M. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods

and data analysis (5th Ed.). (pp. 157-164). Pacific Grove, CA.:

Wadsworth Group.

Schnitzer, P. K. (2005). Psychological Testing. Microsoft ? Encarta ?

Encyclopedia 2005 ? 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights

reserved.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1960). Development of higher psychical functions. Moscow:

APN.

Step-by-Step decentralized classroom from an upper-level Psychological Testing Course syllabus

THIS IS A PAPER FREE CLASS. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE DIGITAL!

COURSE OBJECTIVES:

• Write and speak on the origin and importance of psychological testing
• Write and speak on the nature and use of psychological tests
• Write and speak on the early uses and abuses of testing in America
• Write and speak on norms and standardization of test instruments
• Write and speak on the concept of test reliability
• Write and speak on the concept of test validity
• Write, speak and actively engage in principles of test construction
• Write, speak and actively engage in the development of a complex research paper
• Write and speak on the concept of measured intelligence and IQ
• Write and speak on the concept of test bias
• Write and speak on the concept of vocational testing
• Learn to give and receive feedback via a Web-Based discussion board
• Learn to develop and maintain a Web-Based testing site
• Use SPSS 11.0 and Blackboard to develop class artifacts

COURSE GOALS:

·       Accurate critique of established standardized test instruments

·       Accurate critique of standardized test manuals and journal articles

·       Use reliability and validity data to assess the usefulness of a test instrument

·       Construct a 25-item forced-choice testing instrument on the Web

·       Perform “p” and “D” analysis on each test item and clearly explain findings

·       Administer and then establish reliability and validity coefficients for the test

·       Develop, write and defend a 15 to 20-page paper describing the test construction

·       Use appropriate APA formatting throughout the paper with at least 30 citations

·       Develop and maintain a Blackboard site named DSS43301—XX.

• Use SPSS Version 11.0 for all analysis (Pearson Correlation, one-way, t-test & Chi-Square)

METHODS OF INSTRUCTION

·       This is not primarily a lecture course; the Socratic method is employed daily

·       There are compulsory class discussions daily…be prepared

·       Students will make individual presentations throughout the semester

·       Students will make group presentations and engage in group debates

·       Students will participate in group and course-related Web-based discussion boards via Blackboard.

·       High performing students will be asked to teach certain topics for course credit

·       YOUR GRADES FROM ON-LINE ASSESSMENTS ARE TENTATIVE UNTIL CONFIRMED IN CLASS. DO NOT CHEAT ON THESE ASSIGNMENTS.

THIS IS A PAPER FREE CLASS. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE DIGITAL!

Instructional Approach continued (Inquiry-Based-Learning)

Inquiry-based learning encourages students to grasp significant principles and concepts, develop important meta-cognitive skill and cultivate the ability to develop knowledge with others and transfer the knowledge to a wide audience. Inquiry-based learning promotes the development of lifelong learning skills, creative problem solving, self-directed learning, and knowledge creation. It is based on the following five basic principles:

The driving question--investigation of original questions and problems that facilitate activities and the organization of principles and concepts.

Investigation-- engaging in research to study the driving question.

Development of artifacts or products--represent tangible products that result from inquiries and reflect a personification of the acquired knowledge. 

Development of learning communities--organized workgroups involving collaboration among students, teachers, and individuals outside the classroom to investigate the driving question.

Cognitive tools--help students to represent their mastery of key points and share ideas with others.

 Psychological Testing is a “student-centered” course. The professor is not the central figure—you are. The driving question this term focuses on the extent to which persons of African descent understand their history. We are going to develop the Africana Knowledge and Astuteness of History Test [AKAHT]. What does it mean to be an intelligent person of African descent? It means knowing historical, contemporary and future trends germane to African Americans. You will spend this term investigating this question. You will create artifacts to investigate this question individually and you will develop a project while working with your assigned Learning Enhancement Community. SPSS-PC, your BB.Com Web site, the campus network, and the World Wide Web will act as your cognitive tools. Creativity and diligence will be the fuels that will drive you towards expert status in this class.   

GRADING PROCEDURES: Progress in this course is evaluated based on a points system. Points will be awarded as follows:

1.     Three examinations                    100 points each                       300 Points

2.     One mid-term examination          100 points                              100 Points

3.     Four Quizzes                                25 points each                        100 Points

4.     One Research paper                     50 points                                 50 Points

5.     One Paper defense                        50 points                                 50 Points

6.     Test specimen development        100 points                               100 Points

7.     Functioning BB.com Web-site    050 points                              050 Points

8.     Bulletin board participation         050 points                             050 Points

9.     Five vocabulary assessment         020 points                              100 Points

10. Four oral presentations               025 Points                              100 Points

    TOTAL:                                                   1000 Points

11.  A comprehensive final exam will count 10% of your final grade. Any student with at least 360 examination points and 878 points overall will be exempt from the final examination.

 ·       Consistent with the College policy, (grades) are awarded as follows:

Proficient (A)                          900 to 1000 points (90%)

Adequate  (B)                         800 to 899  points (80%)

Average    (C)                         700 to 799  points (70%)

Below Expectation (D)           600 to 699 

 Inadequate Understanding (F)  < Below 600

Coming next time:

A hybrid nomothetic/idiographic approach to positive student learning outcomes: Linking learning and assessment

 Civilization degrades the many to exalt the few.

Amos Bronson Alcott, Table Talk (1877)

(The Quotations Page, 2008).

We used the term "student learning outcomes) [SLOs] for the first time in 1993. "Should" and "Must" were still the talk of the town in "Self-Studies" and no one discussed what students Knew, how the were Thinking, and what they could Do [KTD] at the time.