Editor’s Introduction
For all that Joseph Schwab criticized the role that professional theoreticians played in developing curricula, he certainly valued the contribution which theory can make to practice. The uniqueness of his position lay in his perspective on the relationship between theory and practice. While people generally assume that theory leads to practice, Schwab saw practice itself as a “mode of inquiry” which should lead to new decisions about curriculum.
This idea suggests the importance of a methodology oft-neglected in our schools – “action research”. In the following article, Eric Golombeck introduces us to the concept of “action research”, and presents a model of that methodology as it was applied in his school. As he indicates, use of this method brought about change in the way, prayer services in the school were structured, changes that were rethought and reexamined following observation, reflection and evaluation.
As Golombek points out, the term “action research was coined by Kurt Lewin in the 1940’s, but it was the faculty at Teachers College of Columbia University who applied it to the world of education, explaining that it was “the process through which practitioners study their own practice to solve their personal practical problems” . See Corey, Stephen (1953) Action research to improve school practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
In presenting this study, I hope that others will be encouraged to examine their own practice using these methodologies and share their findings with others. For a collection of papers on the subject of “action research” you can go to http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc/act_res.html
Shalom
Background: The Dilemma
A recent posting on “roshnet,” the listserv for administrators at Solomon Schechter schools, asked participants to share their school’s approach to tefilla. What followed was a flurry of responses. Some respondents proposed ideas but the large majority reflected the pervasive frustration experienced by tefilla leaders, particularly in middle school. Simply stated, getting middle students to participate and enjoy tefillot is a struggle. The task of learning to “do tefillot” and understand their meaning does not sufficiently interest maturing students. Music, such a critical element of tefilla in the younger grades, no longer holds the same attraction in middle school. Participation in tefilla is often considered “uncool” and there is peer pressure not to be involved. The combination of these factors creates a formidable challenge for conducting a meaningful and enjoyable tefilla experience for middle school students.
When I took over as Head of Jewish Studies in September 2000 at Community Day School / Solomon Schechter in Pittsburgh, middle school tefillot in the school were as problematic as in other schools. Most students resented being forced to attend tefilla; they resented teachers who acted as “police” but did not involve themselves in tefilla; and they rejected all attempts to force them into a relationship with God. They felt that tefilla was not meaningful or relevant to them and they often refused to participate in services.
I began by introducing different formats of tefillot in the middle school. I experimented with the keva-kavanah continuum, with tefilla resembling a typical morning minyan at a local Conservative synagogue and sometimes I attempted to create a tefilla experience more in the Jewish renewal style. I varied the roles of the teachers, as well as the expectations I had of the students. Some of the changes I made did, in fact, help to improve tefillot. Others were effective in the short term, but not in the long-term. And others instigated even more resentment against tefillot. I struggled to find a solution to the middle school tefilla dilemma.
Following discussions with Dr. Saul Wachs, a consultant of Gratz College, who visited and observed our school, we decided to empower middle school students and give them a say in their tefillot. Dr. Wachs suggested involving the students in more iyun tefilla activities, and less hesber tefilla activities. In other words, he suggested that we should engage students in higher level thinking activities related to the various tefillot rather than having them simply understand the pshat of the prayers. Students were polled regarding the kind of tefilla experiences they found spiritually meaningful and regarding the kind they considered generated negative experiences. With this knowledge, we attempted to create services that reflected the needs and wishes of the students rather than our own conceptions of what a “good service” entailed.
We decided to implement the above recommendation and study its effectiveness using the framework of “action research” (see below). The term “action research” was coined by the father of social psychology, Kurt Lewin. He was among the first to argue that the process of discovering and learning about behavior necessitates the application of hypotheses with real people in real situations (Lewin, 1948).
As an administrator, I was eager to find an efficient way of encouraging the professional growth of my experienced teachers. With the assistance of a DEA grant from the Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (PEJE), I was able to hire a consultant to coach my teachers to carry out action research projects of their own. This approach to professional development was relatively well received by the teachers and had the positive dimension of being on-going versus a one-time workshop or seminar.
As a member of the teaching staff, I was also involved in our school’s action research initiative. This paper reports on the action research we carried out in order to create a more successful approach to tefilla in middle school.
Methodology
Middle school students were asked to fill out a survey regarding tefilla in the school. They were also asked to describe what they considered was the most “spiritually effective” service. Interestingly, we received a wide range of responses to the survey questions. There were students who felt that the most meaningful kind of service was one that involved little singing and had a traditional format, while others felt that their ideal service comprised lots of singing. Some students desired more discussion, some less.
The results of the survey led to a reorientation of the tefillot (not including days on which Torah was read). Based on the survey results, we created four different “styles” of minyan, and gave the students the opportunity to choose the minyan of their choice. In the first term, the following choices were offered:
- The Singing Minyan: This service was designed for students who enjoyed singing. New melodies were introduced for the prayers and inspirational Jewish songs, which were not part of the usual service, were added regularly. Students were also given the opportunity of creating their own tunes for lines of tefillot they particularly liked.
- The Learning Minyan: This service was designed for students who approached prayer intellectually. These were students who did not like to pray if they did not know what the prayers meant. A significant part of this service, therefore, involved discussion of the meaning and history of the prayers.
- The Creative Minyan: This service was created for students who said they did not want to recite someone else’s words. In this minyan, students explored the themes of the prayers and their construction. They then wrote their own prayers, which were incorporated into the morning tefilla.
- The Traditional Minyan: This service was for students who said they desired keva in their minyan. This service paralleled as closely as possible the minyan of a typical Conservative synagogue. This service aimed at completing as much of the tefilla as possible in the time allotted, with a minimum of singing and explanation.
Each term, students were asked for feedback and, on the basis of this, a new selection of services was created. For example, in the second term, the “creative minyan” was dropped in favor of an “activity minyan.” And each term, students were given the opportunity of choosing the minyan style of their choice.
Overall, the change in our approach had a significant impact on the students. They found themselves in unusual situations, davening with students from other grades or involved in completely different kinds of activities during davening. We took care to create a positive atmosphere for the students in respect to the changes. The reasons for each change were carefully and openly explained to them and we stressed that the overall objective for the changes was to improve the spiritual experience of each individual. We told the students that we wanted to make the services as meaningful and relevant to them as possible.
Observations and Reflections
We measured the success of the new approach in three ways: personal reflection, interviews with teachers who attended the services, and student surveys.
Overall, the changes that were made were considered a significant improvement. Students seemed to appreciate the attempt to make tefillot more meaningful to them, and this was reflected in a more positive attitude on their part to tefilla. Fewer complaints were voiced by students about being forced to pray or about teachers acting as police. There was a sense that more students were connecting spiritually with the prayers.
Teacher feedback paralleled my observations. Teachers observed that students were happier during tefillot. They noticed a significant increase in the participation level and a significant decrease in behavioral problems. This change was especially striking in the services other than the “traditional minyan.” Interestingly, the teachers observed that the “traditional minyan” attracted those students who, if given a choice, would have chosen no minyan at all. Overall, teachers felt strongly that the changes had brought about a noticeable improvement and were in favor of continuing the new format.
Based on student survey results, the changes in format appealed to the students. Students reported that the services were more meaningful and they liked the idea of choosing their own minyan style. Many students noted that changing styles from term to term made the services more interesting for them. When asked if they preferred the new format, 80% of students who responded did so in the affirmative, 13% were neutral, and 8% thought the new system was worse.
Is this enough? Is “customer satisfaction,” i.e. satisfaction of the teachers, students, and parents enough to validate the decision to change tefilla formats? It should be noted that, in the case of educational decisions, i.e. use of a particular textbook, we would not carry out student surveys to assess the value of such decisions.
Answering the above questions demands consideration of the objective of middle school tefillot. If the primary objective of tefilla is to teach students to recite the prayers, then we should offer only the “traditional minyan.” If the primary objective of tefilla is to teach the meaning of the tefillot, then we should offer only the “learning minyan”. While both these goals are important, I would argue that the primary objective of middle school tefilla is to encourage children to “connect” with tefilla, and to value it as an important element in their lives.
What I have learnt is that different people have different “spiritual styles.” Some people connect spiritually through intellectual wrestling with the content of prayers, while others connect in more affective ways, such as through music. Some people have a spiritual preference for tefillot that are active and creative, while others prefer services with a high level of decorum and predictability.
These differences were apparent in the original student surveys, when students described their ideals of tefilla, and were proved by the fact that students were attracted to different forms of minyan. These differences are, incidentally, also apparent in the adult world of tefilla. The range of adult prayer experiences which has emerged in recent years – including Carlebach style tefillot and tefilla meditation retreats – reflects the diversity in spiritual needs that exists among all worshippers.
A clearer awareness of the need for a range of learning styles has emerged in the last thirty years. No one would deny today that teachers need to use a variety of techniques reflecting the diversity in student needs. Our tefilla program suggests that, in order for students to connect to prayers in a way that is personally meaningful, it is important to take into consideration their spiritual styles and needs.
Kurt Lewin (1948) created a process for “action research” that includes the following steps:
- Identifying a problem or need: this step involves examining a real situation and identifying an area that needs correcting or improvement
- Fact finding: in this step, the researcher (ex. the teacher) investigates the problem in as many ways as possible: by examining current practices, peer discussions and/or observations, discussions with experts and/or research of literature
- Developing an action plan: after clearly defining the problem and carrying out fact-finding, the researcher creates an action plan and, equally important, a plan for observing and evaluating the success of the changes
- Carry out action plan and observe: the researcher carries out the action plan in a real world context and carefully observes the results in as non-judgmental a way as possible.
- Reflect and evaluate: in this important step, the researcher critically reflects on the success or failure of the action plan using data collected through observations.
- Amend plan: the process of implementing change is an on-going one. Based on the researchers’ reflections, the practitioner returns to steps 2 or 3 and the process continues.
References
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts; Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. Gertrude W. Lewin (ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1948.
This research was funded in part by a grant from the Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (PEJE). I would like to thank Avi Baron-Munro for her help during this project and for reviewing this article.