PAC3atJALT
2001
Conference
Proceedings
MENU
Text Version
Help & FAQ

International
ConferenceCentreKitakyushu
JAPANNovember
22-25, 2001

Fractals of Educational Change:
Open communication and risk taking
Tim Murphey
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Kazuyoshi Sato
Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, Japan
Hsin-Hwa Chen
Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Gregory Bateson’s advice was to look for “the patterns
that connect.” He implored us to notice the one-universeBuddhist-like connections between disparate things.
One of system theory’s useful analogs to this idea is the“fractal.” A fractal is a trait or structure that replicatesitself from elementary level units to higher order units oforganization. The typical example is the leaf of a tree:
its structure is similar to the structure of a branch, tothe whole tree, and, in some cases, to whole forests.
Recently, “the patterns that connect” in the authors’
minds come from looking at how students and teachers
communicate and take risks and form innovativeeducational institutions. We contend that the openness andresponsiveness of communication among the stakeholders,the encouragement to innovate and take risks, and theacceptance of mistakes as part of the process are all crucial
characteristics of educational change at each level.
Gregory Batesonのアドバイスによれば、物と物を結びつけるパターンを捜しだすことが重要である。さらに、彼は、様々な異質の物の中において、仏教的な一つの概念を見いだせMURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKINGと説いている。こうした考え方を具現化する理論の一つとして有効なのが“fractal”である。Fractalは、下部組織から上部組織を通して、同じ構造をもつという特性がある。具体的な例としては、木の葉が上げられる。木の葉の組織は、枝から木、そして、森全体の構造と類似している。
本稿では、この“結合”パターンの概念を教育の分野に応用し、学生と教師がコミュニケーションをはかり、新たな試みをする中で、どのようにして学校改革を進めることができるのかを明らかにする。結論として、教育改革には、教室活動、教科教員集団、学校のそれぞれのレベルにおいて、自由かっ達なコミュニケーションを促し、試行錯誤を成功への過程と捉えて支えあうことが不可欠であると主張する。

The Learner and Learner Group
The term “individual learner” is somewhat a misnomerin that students are rarely alone and are unavoidably
influenced greatly by other students and particularly
friends. Cognitive psychologists have traditionallytried to locate learning processes and progress within
individuals’ own brains/minds. However, there isundeniable interaction with co-learners that can greatly
affect the outcome of each individual’s learning. Withina Vygotskian perspective, all learning starts out between
minds (intermentally) and only gradually is internalized
so that we can use the tools intramentally (Lantolf,2000). Murphey (2001a), for example, showed in detail
how one student flexibly used the tools of shadowing
and summarizing to extend conversations and learn
more from her partners while another student who
PAC3 at JALT2001

simply followed instructions did not.
While individuals may have certain qualities thatlead them to communicate openly and take risks,these are normally the result of modeling within in thegroups that we have belonged to. These qualities thatlead to open communication and risk-taking might beconsidered as part of one’s personality, attitude, beliefs,habits, or abilities. However, again these are mostoften formed intermentally (Vygotsky 1962) in social
situations in which we see and hear others performing insuch ways.
Classrooms present wonderful opportunities formodeling and learning open communication andappropriate risk-taking. While some students may comewith a tendency toward these, others will come with theopposite—a learned fear of openly communicating andtaking any kind of risks. Thus, the structures that theteacher sets up to facilitate these can be very importantto learning.
Several structures that can allow students to learn tointeract more easily are described in Murphey (2001b:
shadowing, summarizing, action logs and newsletters).
Shadowing (Murphey, 2000) is simply repeating allor parts of a speaker’s phrases as in active listening.
Summarizing after receiving a certain amount of
information also confirms comprehension and improvesshort-term memory. Action logs ask students to recall
what they did in their last class and to comment on the20Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

effectiveness of each activity as to its helpfulness, ease,and interest. Teachers can read these and respond to eachstudent individually. Students can also be asked to readeach other’s action logs occasionally so they see what
other students are thinking. Newsletters are collected
comments from the action logs that are printed on ahandout or sent via email (without students’ names)
for the group members to read. The class newslettersreveal to all members openly what individuals arethinking. They allow the teacher to use students’voices openly to direct attention toward the benefitsof appropriate risk-taking and open communication.
Such structures teach learners how to increase both theamount of participation and the quality of participation
through facilitating openness and risk-taking in a safeenvironment. The above tools also promote near peerrole modeling (NPRM; Murphey, 1998), the ideathat people who are closer to the participants in age,
ethnicity, interests, social status, etc., are usually easierfor them to model and “be like” than more different
models.

Groups of teachers
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Japan has
been emphasized since a new syllabus was introduced
into high schools in 1994. However, little is known as
to how in-service teachers perceive English language
teaching, how they actually teach, how they interact
PAC3 at JALT2001

with colleagues, and how they continue to learn toteach. Using multiple data sources including interviews,
observations, surveys of teachers and documentsfrom an English department, Sato (2000; see alsoforthcoming) conducted a yearlong study. 19 teachers(15 native Japanese speakers, 4 native English speakers)
participated. He revealed that these EFL teachers
lacked many learning opportunities in their context.
In particular, individual teacher learning in classrooms
resulted in complacency without developing theteaching culture in the department and the school.
Comprehensive data analysis identified at least threerules for this particular teaching culture: 1) Managing
students and task assignments took precedence overteaching; 2) Communication and collaboration centeredon keeping pace with other teachers and getting throughthe day, rather than solving teaching issues; 3) It wasparticularly important to teach the same way for thecommon test and to maintain classroom management.
Teachers thought they would be evaluated by otherteachers according to how well they managed students,
kept pace, and directed their teaching toward thecommon test. For example, a department head relayedthat the school had an atmosphere that regarded
good teachers as those who emphasized homeroom
management. Evaluations centered on teacher capacity
for managing students, keeping order, and getting things
done, as opposed to actual teaching. As the department

21

Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

head observed, “this is the school atmosphere, to which
everyone was expected to conform.”Among the busy EFL teachers in this school context
there was agreement to keep pace with others and getthings done. They discussed the progression of teachingaccording to the textbook and shared handouts, butthey did not seem to have enough time to talk about
instructional issues. A young teacher wished he could
talk more.
With other teachers of English, I want to talk alittle bit more about goals and objectives. But wemainly talk about what to do next, which lesson
we will cover before the exam, who will make asupplementary handout, or which section we havefinished so far. I wish I could talk more about otherimportant things.
Although the majority of teachers replied that theylearned how to teach by watching other teachers, there
were only a few peer-observations throughout theyearlong study. Experienced teachers were reluctant tohave their classes observed and critiqued, while youngteachers socialized themselves to the norm of teachingas the older teachers did. The few peer-observations
only helped the young teachers master routine practices.
In addition, experienced teachers reported that they
had been teaching the same way based on their second
language (L2) learning and initial teaching experiences.
PAC3 at JALT2001

As long as they taught the same way according to theexisting curriculum, they did not seem to need any newideas. For example, one experienced teacher reported
that he learned about English language teaching throughcollaboration with Brad (pseudonym). He beganteaching oral communication classes with anxiety.
I was lucky to be in charge of a small course with
Brad and was influenced a lot by him about English
language teaching. While working and talking with
Brad, we came to the conclusion that we didn’t
have always to use the same materials…Anotherthing is that we came to share our problems
with each other, and I began to warm to him…
Anyway, I have learned a lot through teaching oral
communication classes this year.
As he began to express his doubts, he became more“certain,” in Kleinsasser’s (1993) use of the term, about
English language teaching. Paradoxically, the more we
openly communicate our anxieties and confusions toothers, the more we are apt to develop a certainty about
what we are doing and be unrestricted by our routines.
He insisted that teachers should extend their “definitionof English language teaching” so that they could havea “broad image.” However, his teaching experienceswith Brad were little reported or shared, and innovation
remained marginalized in this school and department
context.
22Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

In conclusion, the study described a teaching culturethat lacked open communication and risk taking. At
the classroom level, only a handful of teachers took risks
and tried out new ideas primarily in special classes. This
study calls into question teacher-research that relies
mainly (in some instances solely) on teachers’ views andbeliefs in developing and promoting sound educational
and learning enriched environments. Collaborative
teacher-learning contexts need to be created, studied,and modeled. Teacher development entails bothclassroom and school improvement (see Lieberman &Miller, 1990).

Institution Level
Innovation in Taiwanese colleges and universities
based on the result of a recent research project showthat higher education is strongly linked to the external
environment in Taiwan. National policies authorize
formal connections between Taiwanese higher educationand economic development (Chen, 1997). Pressuresfor continuous institutional change and innovation
are often intense. This part looks at faculty members’
perceptions of institutional climate in terms of support
for innovation and the relationships between perceivedorganizational variables.
Innovations are defined as the adoption of a new
behavior or process into the organization (Damanpour& Evan, 1984). Most innovations are externally
PAC3 at JALT2001

induced; that is, forces external to the organizationcompel it to adopt new ideas in order to remaincompetitive or maintain institutional legitimacy andsupport in complex, turbulent environments (Marcus,1988). Innovations in higher education may be induced
by external governing boards, changes in public policy,
demographic shifts among student populations,
economic factors, or legal decisions. Alternatively,
innovations may be preemptive (Damanpour, 1996).
Organizations may seek to influence their environments
and convert potential threats into opportunities.
Several factors, however, may constrain the adoptionof innovations in higher education institutions. Lowlevel interdependence among employees, the absenceof clear performance indicators, norms favoring
the status quo, and internal competition for scarce
resources may deter efforts to initiate and implement
new ideas (Levine, 1980). Such circumstances suggest
the need to improve understandings of factors that
contribute to successful innovation in higher education(open communication among stakeholders and theencouragement of risk taking).
Innovative organizations maintain climates supportiveof creative functioning among members. Here, members
perceive that there is a good chance that their new ideas
will be adopted by the organization because they arelistened to and taken seriously. Support for individuals
may be the most critical element in the innovation
23

Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

process (Wagner, 1994).
In Chen, Dee, and Henkin’s research (1999) 22 ofthe 78 four-year colleges and universities in Taiwan
were randomly selected for inclusion in their study.
The institutional sample was stratified on the basisof mission (general university, technology institute,teachers’ college) and funding source (public or private).
A random sample of 10% of the faculty (N=670) in theselected institutions was invited to complete the Siegel
Scale of Support for Innovation (SSSI), a 61-item, selfreport instrument that has demonstrated appropriate
reliability and validity in previous studies. Analyses arebased on responses from 42.5% (N=285) of the invited
sample.
Findings suggest that female faculty members feel
excluded from decision-making processes. Significant,positive associations were found between support
for innovation and three perceptual measures oforganizational climate--perceptions of communication,autonomy, and formalization.
Institutions that 1) encourage open communication
among faculty, 2) provide opportunities for faculty todetermine their own work processes, and 3) establish
clear roles and responsibilities for members appear tofoster environments conductive to innovation. The
strongest relationship found in this study was theassociation between open communication and support
PAC3 at JALT2001

for innovation. Where communication processes
are relatively unrestricted, faculty members tend toperceive higher levels of support for taking risks andimplementing new ideas. Open communication may
facilitate the exchange of ideas, and on-going discussion
may improve decision-making, as the positive andnegative qualities of problem-solving alternatives areopen to debate (Hirokawa, 1988).
Taiwan’s institutions of higher education have served
as catalysts for educational reform. Pressure from faculty,
staff, and students resulted in substantial reforms foundin the government’s University Act of 1994. Institutional
leaders bear responsibility for support of organizational
climates where creativity and innovation are encouraged
and the impetus for reform is maintained. To maximize
effectiveness and national productivity, Taiwan’s
higher education institutions will want to prepare
not only skilled researchers and engineers and address
the constant need for workforce retraining, but also
instill in themselves and their students a willingness to
openly communicate, take risks, and accept occasional
failures—the cost of greater success.

24Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

References
Chen, S. (1997). Taiwan. In G. Postiglione & G. Mak (Eds.), Asian higher education: An international handbook andreference guide (pp. 345-358). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Chen, H. H., Dee, J. R. & Henkin, A. B. (1999). Innovation in Taiwanese higher education: Faculty perspectives
and perceptions, International Education 28 (2), 54-70.
Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiplecontingency
models. Management Science, 42, 693-716.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizationallag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.
Hirokawa, R. (1988). Group communication and decision-making performance: A continued test of thefunctional perspective. Human Communication Research, 14, 487-515.
Kleinsasser, R.C. (1993). A tale of two technical cultures: Foreign language teaching. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 9 (4), 373-383.
Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levine, A. (1980). Why innovation fails. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1990). Teacher development in professional practice schools. Teacher College Record, 92(1), 105-122.
Marcus, A. (1988). Responses to externally induced innovation: Their effects on organizational performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 9, 387-402.
Murphey, T. (1998). Motivating with near peer role models. In B. Vigatis (Ed.), On JALT97: Trends & Transitions,(pp. 201-205). Tokyo: JALT.
Murphey, T. (2000). Shadowing and summarizing (NFLRC video #11). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

PAC3 at JALT2001

25Conference Proceedings

MURPHEY, SATO, & CHEN: FRACTALS OF EDUCATIONAL CHANGE: OPEN COMMUNICATION AND RISK TAKING

Murphey, T. (2001a). Exploring conversational shadowing. Language Teaching Research, 5 (2) 128-155.
Murphey, T. (2001b). Tools of recursion, intermental zones of proximal development, and critical collaborativeautonomy. JALT Journal 23 (1) 130-150.
Sato, K. (2000). EFL teachers in context: Beliefs, practices, and interactions. Unpublished PhD thesis, Centre forLanguage Teaching and Research, University of Queensland, Australia.
Sato, K. (2002). Practical understandings of CLT and teacher development. In S. J. Savignon (Ed.), Interpreting
communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wagner, P. (1994). Adjunct faculty, innovation, and the writing curriculum in two rural community colleges.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

PAC3 at JALT2001

26

Conference Proceedings