In a blog entry last summer I had asked Doug Stone to comment on the idea of change to new ways of teaching, or change in any field. His response is repeated here:
Hi Ben,
So the idea for the model for resistance to change came from my experience with acculturation which began not long after moving to Peru. At the time I had no formal knowledge of the process of acculturation. I’d heard the word, but didn’t know what it was about, or what I was up against. [Later, while in graduate school I would learn that there are a number of models out there which outline the process in different ways. Although differing a bit in perspective, all the models I came across recognize it as a process which can vary in intensity from person-to-person depending on a number of variables including how deep the immersion in the adopted culture is, how far the individual is distanced from the home culture (distance can be in terms of cultural differences, not necessarily physical distance) and the psychological makeup of the individual. The more rigid the individual’s psychic makeup, or the more strongly identified the individual is with key values of the home culture which conflict with those of the adopted culture, the more strongly the acculturation process is likely to be experienced. (I came to call this phenomenon “Value Shock” to emphasize that acculturation is a personal process.) What I outline below is summarized from my master’s thesis, in which I propose a bit different and more prescriptive model for acculturation.]
Not having any formal understanding of acculturation, I looked to the subjects I had studied in undergraduate school for understanding and found answers in part in the ideas of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. (In others, I found tools for coping/integration.) I’m not going to go into her ideas in depth, but if you are not familiar with her work, “On Death and Dying,” I highly recommend it. It is a useful guide for anyone who is faced with a terminal illness, or experiences the loss of a loved one (experiences any significant loss for that matter). I also think it helps understand what our older teenage and adult students who have immigrated to this country are experiencing in our classrooms. Anyway, Kubler-Ross, in working with terminally ill patients and their families, recognized some basic stages people go through when facing death and in the process of grief. I don’t have my copy in front of me, so someone correct me if I am not right in the wording, but it looks basically like this: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. What is important is that this is not a linear model and it can be a fairly rocky emotional ride. People don’t necessarily experience all the stages in this order, or even experience all the stages. Like the acculturation process, some get stuck in certain stages. As well, it doesn’t tend to have a clean, well defined beginning and end—the process is a multi-layered.
In those first years, I recognized in my acculturation process the process of significant loss and grieving which Kubler-Ross describes. Just recognizing it was helpful. Probably more significant, at the same time, I also knew that I was involved in a deep level process of understanding. (Understanding means learning which takes place at a deep level.). The deeper I got into the acculturation process, the deeper the level on which I found myself challenged — eventually reaching core values and beliefs — “Value Shock.” That these two accompanied each other struck me as relevant: loss/understanding. It seemed that they were two sides of the same coin — change. So it seemed apparent to me that acculturation, and the loss of a significant other (or any significant loss), are not just processes of loss, but processes of deep-seated learning: For those of us who have experienced the loss of a significant other, we know that we are also faced with learning to live (or survive!) without that person — learning to fill in the gaps they leav — gaining understanding of some profound truths about relationships, life, death, etc. Anyway, seeing it this way, change as loss and understanding helped me to understand the dynamics that I and some of my colleagues go through when faced with change in general.
The connection between this two-sided process and resistance to change in other areas came about while working at an institution which had recently adopted a new book with a newly prescribed methodology. The new method required significant changes, both in technique and theory, for some teachers. Needless to say, there was quite a lot of resistance to this change. Although there were many reasons for rejecting the change, some quite legitimate (people at the end of their careers, or who had been around long enough to know that books don’t deliver what they preach), there were a number of people for whom this change seemed to represent a threat. From conversation, I sensed a rigid adherence to a way of thinking and doing things which was in direct opposition to those proposed by the new method, and it seemed in many cases that the adherence connected at a deeper level to their concept of self (and self-esteem). I could see that change under these circumstances would be accompanied by the process of learning/loss I described above, with its accompanying emotional content (albeit on a much lesser scale than loss of a significant other or acculturation). There is nothing comfortable, nor desirable, about going through change accompanied by emotional content, even more so when the underlying process of change isn’t understood and no tools are available for coping with it. In this model I feel that I’ve gained an insight into why at least some people resist change even when the change is for the better. On the up side, I also feel that if people have a framework for what they are experiencing which makes sense, and have some effective tools for coping with the negative emotions which come up (which in its most basic form involves simple reality checks on the thoughts behind the emotions), they are more likely to stick it out, and are more likely to gain the understanding which integrates opposing values — the motive for my presentation at NTPRS. So in a nutshell, that’s my thinking about resistance to change and teaching. I didn’t think I could summarize my thesis in four paragraphs. Phew!