The Internal Coherence Framework: Creating the Conditions for Continuous Improvement in Schools
The Internal Coherence Framework: Creating the Conditions for Continuous Improvement in Schools
复制标题
内部一致性框架：为学校持续改进创造条件
DOI：
10.1080/15582159.2018.1454026
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Angela R. Watson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Angela R. Watson
内部一致性框架以哈佛大学的理查德·埃尔莫尔的前言开头，思考“学习环境”的可能性，该“学习环境”具有“清晰而连贯的学习理论”，同时也允许“对个体差异进行必要的适应”（第ix页）。这很好地概括了本书的目标。作者寻求一种可无限微分的最佳方法。他们更进一步，提出了一个“具体”框架，读者可以在他们的“学习组织”中轻松应用和修改（第1页）。我认为他们的理论是有缺陷的，而且具体的内容也很薄弱。第一章是对内部连贯性的冗长论证，对上述概念的定义，并声称我们应该相信所提出的理论，因为作者总共有 50 年的学校经验（好的或坏的经验，他们没有说）。在本章和本书中都没有任何经验证据证明该理论或框架的有效性（通过任何学生的成绩来衡量）。第 7 章中有一张图表显示，反复参加同一考试的孩子通过考试的可能性更大，尽管有些学生尝试了多达 3 次（第 149 页）。这一结果可能是由于多次参加相同的测试、一段时间内学习的增加或组织内部一致性提高的结果。不幸的是，没有人知道，因为没有进行系统测试。读者必须自行判断作者逻辑的有效性，即使他们心里知道在学校里很少能达到逻辑目的。对于“可操作的”和“基本实践”等术语有很多讨论。一句话讨论了“学习型组织”中的“组织学习”（第40页）。必须费力地翻阅大量、混乱的教育学校词典才能明白要点。我相信，重点是，在学校工作的人们如果志同道合、朝着相同的目标努力，就会取得成功。这看起来当然是显而易见的，但显然这并不是美国“学习环境”（学校）中发生的情况。更明显的是，作者呼吁内部一致性努力（学校里的人们朝着同一目标努力）需要关注“教学核心”，即教师、学生和内容（第 7 页）。这让我想知道之前做了什么。学校当然应该关注学生、内容和教师，如果这不是目前的重点，那么重点就应该转移了。然而，几十年来严厉的问责措施强加给学校的合规心态是无法消除的。这不是一个容易解决的问题，简单化的解决方案除了带来新的挫败感之外，几乎没有什么希望。作者提出了两个主要的“临床工具”，用于构建这个内部连贯性框架：内部连贯性调查和内部连贯性发展评分标准（第 31、114 页）。这是之前承诺的具体内容。该调查衡量了受访者的心理安全水平、教师参与教学决策以及校长对团队的支持。然后，该标题告诉领导者，他们的组织在学习领导力、教学领导力、组织战略、教师团队和集体效能的衡量标准上处于从“开始”到“典范”的范围内。作者建议学校领导使用这项调查
The Internal Coherence Framework begins with a foreword by Harvard’s Richard Elmore pondering the possibility of a “learning environment” with a “clear and coherent theory of learning” that would also allow for “necessary adaptations to individual differences”(p. ix). That nicely sums the goal of this book. The authors seek a one-best-way that is also infinitely differentiable. They go even farther, and propose a “concrete” framework that readers can easily apply and modify in their “learning organization”(p. 1). I argue that their theory is flawed and the concrete thin. The first chapter is a lengthy argument for internal coherence, a definition of said concept, and claims that we should believe the theory presented because the authors have a combined 50 years of experience in schools (good or bad experience, they do not say). Neither in this chapter, nor in this book is there any empirical evidence of the effectiveness (as measured by any student outcomes) of this theory or framework. There is one chart in Chapter 7 showing that kids who repeatedly took the same test were more likely to pass, although it took some students as many as three attempts (p. 149). This outcome could result from taking the same test multiple times, increased learning over the time period, or as a result of improved internal coherence within the organization. Unfortunately, no one knows because no systematic testing occurred. The reader is left to decide the validity of the authors’ logic, even while knowing in their hearts that little comes to logical ends in schools.There is much discussion of terms like “actionable” and “essential practices.” One sentence discusses the “organizational learning” in “learning organizations”(p. 40). Vast and muddy ed school lexicon must be trudged through to get to the point. And the point is, I believe, that people working in schools who are on the same page and working toward the same goals will succeed. This certainly seems obvious, but apparently this is not what is happening in America’s “learning environments”(schools). Even more obvious is the authors’ call that internal coherence efforts (people in schools working toward the same goals) need to focus on the “instructional core,” that is the teacher, the students, and the content (p. 7). This leaves me wondering what was being done before. Schools certainly SHOULD focus on the students, content, and the teachers, and if that is not where the focus currently lies then a shift in focus is due. However, decades of compliance mentality forced on schools by severe accountability measures cannot be talked away. This is no easy fix, and simplistic solutions offer little hope of anything but new frustrations. The authors propose two main “clinical tools” for use in constructing this internally coherent frame: The Internal Coherence Survey, and the Internal Coherence Developmental Rubric (pp. 31, 114). This is the concrete earlier promised. The survey measures respondents’ levels of psychological safety, teacher’s involvement in instructional decisions, and principal’s support for teams. The rubric then tells leaders where their organization falls along a spectrum from “beginning” to “exemplary” on measures of leadership for learning, instructional leadership, organizational strategy, teacher teams, and collective efficacy. Authors recommend that school leaders use the survey