Empowerment versus Enabling in Academia - Essay Example

Empowerment versus enabling Introduction Our world changes and the approach to education must also change. In the modern world it is necessary to be flexible and independent, to understand the real life and not just the sentences written in the textbooks. Today, the main goal of every instructor is to help students learn to think “independently”, to have their own point of view, to make decisions and held responsibility for them. (Soodak, 2002). Notwithstanding that every teacher understands this, he or she frequently oversteps the borders and starts enabling students instead of empowering them. As a result, students are deprived of the possibility to be responsible for their decisions, to make their own conclusions about their goals in education and consequences of their mistakes. They can’t imagine their knowledge applied in the real life. If the accountability is taken away, a student can’t realize the mission he gets choosing this or that profession. He can’t understand that one day he will have to make decisions himself and the teacher will not be there to help. The issue is worth-discussing, therefore the given paper will discuss the empowering versus enabling in education. The work will prove that empowering really has many advantages over enabling and it is this approach that is the most applicable in the modern world. Different approaches to education The traditional approach to education applies old techniques, which are founded on the statement that there is a certain piece of knowledge that must be transferred to learners during a certain period of time. The material is presented in established sequence without any changes (Short, 1994). The main goal of the teacher is to present all the material on time without delays. If this purpose is reached a teacher can be sure that he implemented his main task. The students usually represent passive receivers of the material. A teacher usually simply does not have time to give them an opportunity to express their own ideas about the material they learn. The main goal is to make students successfully repeat the sentences they read in their textbooks (Short, 1993). In contrast to traditional approach to education, the contemporary approach implies empowering, classroom participation, and application of new technology. In our modern world students must learn to communicate (Mettetal, Gwynn, and Dé Bryant, 1996). The main task of the teacher is not to just give some material to students, but to create a professional identity. Information became the main resource of power and now the students try to get the necessary knowledge about how to get this information, define the most important pieces and use it in the decision-making process. The new information society every day creates many new principles, which generate the alterations in workplace regulation, teaching, learning and diversity (Shor, 1992). The advantages of empowering education are clearly presented in the article by Karen Espeland and Linda Shanta (2001) titled Empowering versus enabling in academia. The given work discusses the advantages of empowering nurses. The authors defined four constituents, which compose a model applied in order to evaluate empowerment and enabling. They are collegiality, communication, responsibility, and self-rule (Espeland and Shanta, 2001). The article represents a great value, because it provides nurse instructors with the necessary knowledge about the methods that can disrupt the empowerment of learners. Approaches created to help develop the empowering techniques are presented as well. Ira Shor in her writing titled Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change gives a clear definition of empowering education: Empowering education…is a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and social change. It is a student-centered program for multicultural democracy in school and society. It approaches individual growth as an active, cooperative, and social process, because the self and society create each other. Human beings do not invent themselves in a vacuum, and society cannot be made unless people create it together. The goals of this pedagogy are to relate personal growth to public life, by developing strong skills, academic knowledge, habits of inquiry, and critical curiosity about society, power, inequality, and change (Shor, 1992, p 15). The advantages of empowering education On the one hand empowering implies free decisions made by the students, on the other hand it implies teacher’s assistance and advice, when it is needed. Here it is very important to understand, when the assistance is needed in order not to enable students instead of empower them. To understand the distinctions it is essential to consider the following: Enabling implies: making decisions instead of the learner; considering learner to be unable to solve his problems; providing learner with all the necessary material not leaving any space for own ideas; no opportunity to discover. Empowering implies: providing learners with the opportunity to make decisions themselves; making learners feel responsible for their decisions and possible mistakes; providing the opportunity to discover; giving the assistance, but not making the decisions instead of the learner; developing the ability to communicate and create relationships in order to get the information; advising how to use this information; application of the new technology. The main task of empowering is to make students eager to learn and discover. In an enabling model if the students are not satisfied, their instructors are not satisfied too (Espeland and Shanta, 2001). Empowering model implies students’ understanding that their task is to make steps that will make them respected by their tutors. They are not given knowledge, they are just given an opportunity to get knowledge if they want. Conclusion As our world is changing rapidly, the educational approach also undergoes significant alterations. In the modern world it is necessary to be flexible and independent, otherwise it will be impossible to reach success. Today, the main goal of every instructor is to help students learn to think “independently”, to have their own point of view, to understand the concept of responsibility in the modern world. If the accountability is taken away, a student can’t realize the mission he gets choosing this or that profession. He can’t understand that one day he will have to make decisions himself and the teacher will not be there to help. The traditional approach to education applies old methods, which are founded on the statement that there is a certain piece of knowledge that must be transferred to learners during a certain period of time. The main goal of the teacher is to present all the material on time without delays. In contrast to traditional approach to education, the contemporary approach implies empowering, classroom participation, and application of new technology. In our modern world students must learn to communicate. The main task of the teacher is not to just give some material to students but to create a professional identity. Information became the main resource of power and now the students try to get the necessary knowledge about how to get this information, define the most important pieces and use it in the decision-making process. The main task of empowering is to stimulate learners’ desire to learn and discover. Empowering model implies students’ understanding that their task is to make steps that will make them respected by their tutors. They are not given knowledge, they are just given an opportunity to get knowledge if they want. Empowering education really has many advantages over enabling and it is this approach that is the most applicable in the modern world. WORKS CITED Espeland, Karen, Shanta, Linda.2001. Empowering versus Enabling in Academia. Journal of Nursing Education 40 Mettetal, Gwynn, and Dé Bryant. 1996. Service Learning Research Projects: Empowerment in Students, Faculty, and Communities. College Teaching 44, no. 1: 24-28 Klecker, Beverly J., and William E. Loadman. 1998. Defining and Measuring the Dimensions of Teacher Empowerment in Restructuring Public Schools.Education 118, no. 3: 358+. Nordgren, R. D. 2002. WORLD VIEW: Globalization and Education What Students Will Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the Global Village. Phi Delta Kappan 84, no. 4: 318. Shor, Ira. 1992. Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Shor, Ira. 1992. Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Reviewed by Scott Marratto, Toronto, Ontario Short, Paula M., and Patsy E. Johnson. 1994. Exploring the Links among Teacher Empowerment, Leader Power and Conflict. Education 114, no. 4: 581+. Short, Paula M., and James S. Rinehart. 1993. Teacher Empowerment and School Climate. Education 113, no. 4: 592+ Soodak, Leslie C., Elizabeth J. Erwin, Pam Winton, Mary Jane Brotherson, Ann P. Turnbull, Marci J. Hanson, and Linda M.J. Brault. 2002. Implementing Inclusive Early Childhood Education: A Call for Professional Empowerment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 22, no. 2: 91+.     Service Learning Research Projects Empowerment in Students, Faculty, and Communities Gwynn Mettetal and Dé Bryant Most faculty members are well aware of the tension between teaching, research, and service. Boyer ( 1990 ) has been the most vocal advocate of a change in the definition of scholarship, arguing that we need to move beyond our current narrow definition, which is limited to discovery (research), to include service activities that are directly related to one's academic expertise (scholarship of application). We will describe a model of service learning research that can serve simultaneously as a vehicle for teaching, full scale research, and community service (see figure 1). We will present the examples of two service learning research projects. The first, the Parent Project, provided parent education to young families while researching the effectiveness of temperament education. The second, the Social Action Project, used an inter-generational program with adolescents and the elderly to determine whether community theater can enhance self-esteem and life satisfaction. We will conclude with recommendations for conducting service learning research. Service learning projects are a means to teach new professionals and at the Gwynn Mettetal is an assistant professor in the Division of Education, and Dé Bryant is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at Indiana University, South Bend. same time to address relevant social concerns. The service component involves some form of meaningful community activity, ranging from tutoring underprivileged children to cleaning up dump sites. The learning component involves applying knowledge from the classroom to the service activities and reflecting on how the two fit (See Kendall 1990 a, 1990b, for a full discussion of the principles of effective service learning.) Both these aspects are important to students' development. These programs vary widely. Morton ( 1993 ) categorized service learning models into four "understandings" of service and citizenship. The Liberal Democracy model looks at the relationship between individuals and the state, focusing on the tension between rights and obligations. In Participatory Democracy, students learn about power and problem-solving from the bottom up. The focus is on empowering citizens to solve their own problems. Social Justice looks at social injustices through the lens of distributive justice. Finally, Service as Citizenship emphasizes the importance of lifelong community service as a crucial aspect of being a citizen. Both the Parent Project and the Social Action project are in the tradition of participatory democracy, with a focus on empowering the community (teens, elders, or parents). The goal is to provide participants with enough knowledge and skills to enable them to solve their own problems. Beyond its obvious impact on community, service learning has a positive effect on the students who participate. Williams ( 1990 ) concluded that service learning resulted in enhanced personal development such as higher self-esteem, less depression, and increased social competence. Likona ( 1991 ) recommends ser vice to others as a means of promoting moral development in school children, and Seligman ( 1991 ) suggests "moral jogging," or doing good things for others, as a way to enhance learned optimism. Participation in service learning has academic benefits as well. In general, the hands-on nature of service learning should give concrete examples for abstract concepts and also help students to apply recently learned principles to new situations ( Woolfolk 1995 ). Williams's review ( 1990 ) found that academic achievement was not hampered by time spent in service learning and may actually increase. Conrad and Hedin ( 1991 ) argued that many of the quantitative studies used inappropriate tests of general knowledge as their outcome measure; qualitative studies focusing on problem-solving and critical thinking have been more favorable to service learning. Although the service component of such projects is relatively straightforward, some care must be taken in choosing a project. First, the service must relate -24- Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com  Publication Information: Article Title: Service Learning Research Projects: Empowerment in Students, Faculty, and Communities. Contributors: Gwynn Mettetal - author, Dé Bryant - author. Journal Title: College Teaching. Volume: 44. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 1996. Page Number: 24. Defining and measuring the dimensions of teacher empowerment in restructuring public schools. by Beverly J. Klecker , William E. Loadman The focus of the Venture Capital Schools in Ohio is on restructuring education with the local school building as the unit of analysis. Advocates of this new focus of school reform (e.g., Comer 1988; Elmore 1990; Griffin, 1991; The Holmes Group, 1986, 1990; Levin 1986, 1991; Liberman & Miller, 1990; Sizer, 1992) noted that such restructuring will not improve schools if undertaken solely from an administrative or management point of view. Sarason (1992) stated: ..there must be change in the power structure. Teachers must be an integral part of the decision making if changes are to be truly effective, since it is up to the teachers to be the main implementors of change in our schools (p. 4). Fullan (1.993) emphasized "Teachers as change agents are the sine qua non (italics in the original) of getting anywhere" (p. 18). Further, the building level is the smallest unit where meaningful and lasting changes occur and have consistent impact upon a large group of students. With this philosophical base, the Ohio State Legislature created a context for school restructuring by offering Venture Capital Grants of $25,000 per school per year to individual schools to spark internal restructuring. Local school districts were asked to nominate schools for the Venture Capital Grants. Following the district's nomination, proposals were submitted by the individual schools. Eight planning elements were identified by the Ohio State Department of Education (July, 1993) as being essential to continuous school improvement and were used as evaluative criteria for the proposals. These elements were extracted from the literature on educational change and were generated as a synthesis of key planning elements necessary to achieve and sustain significant educational improvement. These elements were: 1. Evidence of community readiness and willingness to develop and implement new school improvement ideas and to anticipate change and reshape thinking and behavior. 2. School improvement strategies collaboratively designed by the community and integrated into the school's structure demonstrating that all children can learn. 3. Planned changes that are systematic and wide-ranging. 4. Evidence that community agencies and groups are thoughtfully and purposefully involved. 5. School improvement strategies that focus on learning. 6. Evidence that teachers are given expanded roles in planning and implementing change. 7. Policies and practices that contribute to the success of all students. 8. School improvement plans that leverage existing dollars and resources and identify new monies and resources for the support of improvement efforts (p. 10) Using these elements to evaluate the proposals from individual schools selected by their districts, 307 Venture School were funded in Autumn 1994 and Winter 1995. The Venture Schools were chosen in part because a minimum of 80% of the school staff, principal, and district superintendent committed to supporting the initiative (The Venture Capital Assessment Team, October, 1994). (The 307 schools comprise approximately 10% of all schools in the state). Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify theoretical dimensions of teacher empowerment (often defined in the literature in terms of "new roles" for classroom teachers) and to measure them in the population of classroom teachers working in the 307 Venture Capital Schools. The study was planned to return the collected data (aggregated at the building level) to the individual school planning teams to be used to help them define and facilitate teacher empowerment within their schools. Further, the study was designed to explore dimensional measures of teacher empowerment in schools designing their own restructuring initiatives; no similar studies were identified in the literature. Review of Literature Rappaport (1987) described the construct of empowerment as "a joining of personal competencies and abilities to environments that provide opportunities for choice and autonomy in demonstrating those competencies" (1987, p. 122). Dunst (cited in Short & Rinehart, 1992a, p. 952) "...suggested that empowerment consists of two issues: (a) enabling experiences, provided within an organization that fosters autonomy, choice, control, and responsibility, which (b) allow the individual to display existing competencies as well as learn new competencies that support and strengthen functioning." The Venture Capital School initiative was envisioned to provide the enabling experiences; the necessary personal competencies and abilities identified from a review of literature were: (a) accountability, (b) authority/leadership, (c) curriculum planning/design, (d) collegiality/collaboration, (e) decision-making, (f) impact/causal importance, (g) professional growth, (h) professional knowledge, (i) responsibility, (j) self-efficacy, (k) self-esteem, (l) status, and (m) mentoring (e.g., Bredeson, 1989; Lichenstein, McLaughlin & Knudsen, 1991; Lieberman & Miller, 1990; Lightfoot, 1986; Rappaport, 1987; Short, 1992; Sizer, 1992; White, 1992; Zeichner, 1991). Objectives of the Study The objectives of the study were to examine and describe teacher empowerment in the 307 Venture Capital Schools funded in Autumn 1994 and Winter 1995 by the state. This study was designed to determine the perceived degree of teacher empowerment at the start of the state-wide initiative. Questions that guided this descriptive study were: 1. What are the demographic characteristics, educational and professional backgrounds of teachers participating in the restructuring Venture Capital School projects with regard to the following variables: gender, age, race academic degrees, years of teaching experience in K-12 schools, years of teaching experience in current position and teaching level (i.e., elementary, middle school, secondary)? 2. What are the relationships between these demographic characteristics and teacher empowerment? Method Population and Sample The population for the study was 10,544 classroom teachers working in the 307 Venture Capital Schools funded by the state in Autumn 1994 and Winter 1995. As the goal of the Venture Capital Schools was to involve all of the classroom teachers in school restructuring, a census survey, including the total population, was chosen for the study. Instruments Teacher empowerment. The School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) (Short & Rinehart, 1992b) is an untimed instrument which purportedly measures teacher empowerment on six dimensions: (a) decision-making, (b) professional growth, (c) status, (d) self-efficacy, (e) autonomy, and (f) impact. The SPES used a five-point Likert-type rating scale for each of the 38 items (1-strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Cronbach's coefficient alpha reliabilities for the subscales and total scale as reported by Short & Rinehart (1992a) (N=211 high school teachers) were: decision-making, .89; professional-growth, .83; status, .86; self-efficacy, .84; autonomy, .81; impact, .82; overall scale, .94. Short (1992) defined these dimensions as: Decision-making relates to the participation of teachers in critical decisions that directly affect their work. In many cases, this means participation in decisions involving budgets, teacher selection, scheduling, curriculum, and other programmatic areas... Professional Growth refers to teachers' perceptions that the school in which they work provides them with opportunities to grow and develop as professionals, to learn continuously, and to expand one's own knowledge and skills through the work life of the school... Status refers to teachers' perceptions that they have professional respect and admiration from colleagues. Teachers feel that others respect their knowledge and expertise... Self-Efficacy refers to teachers' perceptions that they have the skills and ability to help students learn, are competent in building effective programs for students, and can effect changes in student learning... Autonomy refers to the teachers' sense of freedom to make certain decisions that control certain aspects of their work life. These aspects may be scheduling, curriculum, textbooks, and instructional planning... Impact refers to the teachers' sense that they have an effect and influence on school life. They feel that what they are doing is worthwhile, they are doing it in a competent manner, and they are recognized for their accomplishments... (pp. 9-14). Demographic Data Teacher demographic data were collected through self-report. Data Collection A packet containing a cover letter explaining the study, a questionnaire for each classroom teacher in the school, and a self-addressed postage-paid return envelope was mailed to a contact person in each Venture Capital School. The number of teachers in the 307 schools ranged from 7 to 128. The cover letter emphasized that the purpose of the survey was to "picture" the participation of each teacher as the schools began their restructuring efforts. An envelope was attached to each questionnaire with instructions to the teachers to complete the questionnaire, seal it in the envelope, and return it to the contact person. A summary of the study and the data for the individual school (aggregated for confidentiality) was promised to each school. Returns were received in February and March, 1995. Return rates. The overall return rate for classroom teachers (N=4,084) was 39% within 180 schools (58.6%). Characteristics of the teachers and schools in the returning sample were compared with those in schools not returning data and with the overall profile of teachers and schools in the state on selected variables. In general, the return sample was found to be representative of the teachers and Venture Schools as well as the teachers and school buildings across the state. Analysis The subscales identified by Short & Rinehart (1992b) were found to be unstable with the large dataset of this study. New subscales were developed through factor analysis and the content validity of the newly-created subscales was established (Klecker & Loadman, 1996). Cronbach's coefficient alpha reliabilities for the newly-created subscales with the data of this study were: Status.84; Professional Growth .70; Self-Efficacy .89; Decision Making .80; Impact .83; and Autonomy in Scheduling .83. Date from the large sample of classroom teachers were compared with the national population of teachers (Snyder & Hoffman, 1994) on six demographic variables: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) race, (d) academic degrees held, (e) years of teaching experience, and (f) level of teaching (i.e., elementary, middle school, high school). These comparisons were made using ANOVA or Chi Square tests of Goodness of Fit, as appropriate. Differences in subscale and total scale scores of the School Participant Empowerment Scale by teacher demographics were explored with one- and two-way ANOVAs. A Scheffe procedure was used to follow-up significant omnibus F tests. As the N of the study was large, an additional criterion of effect size (epsilon squared) of at least .01 was added. Results Demographics Characteristics of the Teachers Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the 4,084 classroom teachers working within the 180 Venture Capital Schools. Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Classroom Teachers in the Sample   Variable Frequency(*) Percentage Gender Female 2936 72.4 Male 1117 27.6 Age 22-29 582 15.6 30-39 882 23.7 40-49 1605 43.1 50-59 605 43.1 60 and Over 53 1.4 Race African-American 253 6.3 Asian 23 0.6 Caucasian 3694 91.8 Other 50 1.2 Academic Degrees Bachelors Degree 1973 49.3 Masters Degree 1997 49.9 Doctoral Degree 33 0.8 Years of Teaching Experience Under 5 years 739 18.3 6-10 years 615 15.2 11-15 years 582 14.4 16-20 years 792 19.6 21-25 years 795 19.6 Beyond 26 years 523 12.9 Years of Experience in Current Position Under 5 years 1591 39.2 6-10 years 919 22.7 11-15 years 518 12.8 16-20 years 455 11.2 21-25 years 361 8.9 Beyond 26 years 211 5.2 Teaching Level Elementary 1729 42.3 Middle School/Jr. High School 827 20.2 High School 1376 33.7 "Other" Schools 152 3.7 N=4084   (*) Note: Frequencies may not sum to total N because of missing responses Seventy-two percent of the teachers responding were female, 28% were male (Table 1). The modal age of the sample of teachers was 40-49 (43.1%). Ninety-two percent of the responding teachers were Caucasian, 6% were African-American, fewer than 1% were Asian, and 1% responded to the "other" category of the item. Forty-nine percent of the teachers had Bachelors Degrees, 50% had Masters Degrees, and 1% had Doctoral Degrees. The distribution for "Years of Teaching Experience" was relatively flat; twenty percent had been teaching 16-20 years and 20% had been teaching 21-25 years. Eighteen percent of the teachers had been teaching fewer than five years, 15% had 6-10 years of teaching experience, 14% had taught 11-15 years, and 12% had been teaching longer than 26 years. Most of the teachers had been working in their current position for 5 years or fewer (39%). Twenty three percent had held their current position 6-10 years, 13% responded to the 11-15 years category, 9% had held their current position 21-25 years and 5% had been teaching in their current position for more than 26 years. Most of the teachers were teaching in elementary schools (42%); twenty percent were middle school/jr. high school teachers; thirty-four percent were high school teachers, and 4% were teaching in "other" schools, that is, vocational and magnet schools. Demographic profile of teachers similar to national and state. The demographic characteristics of teachers in the Ohio Venture Capital School sample fit the state and national profiles (Snyder & Hoffman, 1994) of teachers with only two exceptions: (a) the percentage of Caucasian teachers in the Venture Capital School sample (92%) was slightly higher than the national proportion (87%), and (b) the sample median for years of teaching experience was 17 years; the national median was 15 years. This profile of Venture School staff respondents also paralleled the profile of teachers in the state of Ohio. Measures of Teacher Empowerment The overall means and standard deviations of the responses of the 4,084 teachers on the six subscales and the total scale are presented in Table 2. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Classroom Teachers' Responses to the School Participant Empowerment Scale   Prof. Self Decision Status Growth Efficacy Making N 6 Items 4 Items 12 Items 8 Items 4084 4.07 4.19 4.12 3.43 0.61 0.63 0.51 0.69 Autonomy in Overall Impact Scheduling Scale N 5 Items 3 Items 38 Items 4084 3.57 3.08 3.82 0.78 1.07 0.51   Note: Scale range = 1-5 1 = strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree Top number in cell = mean bottom number in cell = std. dev. Discussion and Conclusions Mean responses for each of the six subscales and the total subscale score were all above the scale's "neutral" midpoint (Table 2). The means and standard deviations appeared to reflect reasonable values of central tendency and variability. Relationships of Demographics to Teacher Empowerment Table 3 presents the dimensions of the School Participant Empowerment Scale on which there were demographic differences measured by an effect size (epsilon squared) difference of .01 or greater. (There were no differences with effect sizes of .01 or greater on either the Decision Making or the Self-Efficacy subscales.) On the Status Subscale there was a statistically significant (p[is less than].001) difference by school level with an effect size of .01 Elementary teachers in the Venture Capital Schools rated their empowerment (4.19) higher than did high school teachers (3.94). On the Professional Growth Subscale, female teachers had higher ratings (4.25) than did male teachers (4.04). This difference by gender was statistically significant (p[is less than].001) with an effect size of . 10. There was a statistically significant (p[is less than].001) difference with an effect size of .01 by school level on the Impact subscale. The mean for elementary school teachers (3.71) was higher than the mean for high school teachers (3.41). Table 3 Differences on the Subscales of the School Participant Empowerment Scale with Respect to Teacher Demographics   School Participant Demographic Difference by Demographic Empowerment Subscales Characteristic Characteristic (p Read More