| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| writing:paideia_math_instruction [2017/05/16 00:41] – oemb1905 | writing:paideia_math_instruction [2019/08/14 17:32] (current) – removed oemb1905 |
|---|
| This is a brief exploration of the possibilities of integrating paideia into mathematics instruction, including the limitations or areas in which further study is needed. Overall, I am drawn to paideia because of the pushback it received after initial gains nationwide. The pushback, according to the research I have seen, is largely due to the program growing so quickly that its rate expansion due to initial gains exceeded its rate of training teachers adequately in the fundamentals of maieutic instruction. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:290178_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| This paper will analyze three studies by proponents of Adler’s concept of paideia, and use those studies as a basis to determine whether educators should consider maieutic instruction, and specifically the approach of seminar and the technique of dialogue in the mathematics classroom. Furthermore, the paper will assess the efficacy of paideia, maieutic instruction, seminar, and dialogue as a whole-class instructional shelter for students who are still learning oral and written Standard English (hereafter ELL students). The paper will also attempt to intertwine the paideia-based studies of Robinson, Herman, and Mangrum with findings from two ELL student researchers, Echevarria and Herrera. The interconnections discussed will not only be between content and strategy, but between school culture and buy-in. Lastly, the author will provide personal analysis of the ensuing findings as they pertain to the author's own classroom. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:290519_original.png?600 |}} | |
| |
| Context and Background of the Shelter. | |
| |
| Etymology and philology; semantics and pedantry. Paideia, a term concocted by Mortimer Adler (1982) in The Paideia Proposal, is coined from the Greek paidos, which etymologically denotes the ‘upbringing of a child.’ In modern parlance, Adler defines the term paideia as “the equivalent of the Latin humanitas (from which ‘the humanities’), signifying the general learning that should be the possession of all human beings” (Adler, 1983, p. v). Adler (1982) noted that paideia was “related to pedagogy,” but nevertheless determined that it was necessary to develop “an educational manifesto” in which he would distinguish paideia from both of its relatives, namely, humanities and pedagogy. One of the auxiliary goals of this study, therefore, will be to explore the semantic purport behind distinguishing the concept of paideia from humanities and pedagogy. Furthermore, within paideia, there are instructional methods and approaches to which Adler pays particular attention, namely, maieutic instruction and the seminar approach, the latter of which uses the technique of dialogue, i.e., the paramount of communication. Maieutic is a term drawn directly Plato’s canon of work that etymologically means ‘midwife,’ but was used by the character Socrates more broadly to refer to the process teaching by facilitating. Didactic teaching, on the other hand, would consist of “teaching by telling” (Adler, 1982, p. 24). Adler argues that maieutic and didactic teaching, together with developmental teaching, form the three “fundamental branches of learning [or teaching]” (Adler, 1982, p. 24). | |
| |
| {{ :writing:290790_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Academy bias and problem-posing instruction. | |
| |
| Bearing in mind the three branches of learning portrayed above, one must realize that before assessing the efficacy of padieia with respect to mathematics education or to ELL students per se, one must define one’s terms in order to understand how Adler intended to distinguish his proposal from others, and likewise one’s preferred method of instruction from another. To be clear, Mortimer Adler specifically discarded terms such as humanities and pedagogical in his development of his proposal and yet both terms were commonplace, with humanities referring to the same ‘general learning’ as paideia, and with pedagogy referring to the methods used by the instructors themselves. The ensuing question that educators shall feel compelled to ask thereby is “Why did he use the word paideia in distinction to other known terms?” | |
| |
| {{ :writing:290988_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Rejecting pedagogy. | |
| |
| Pedagogy, it should be noted, is defined by the Oxford American Dictionary (2001) as the “method and practice of teaching” and at a cursory glance seems to resemble its root-word counterpart, paideia. After all, both words share the Ancient Greek etymological root, pais, which means child. In distinction, however, the word pedagogy also contains the etymological root agogon, which means leader or ruler. Thus, whereas the word paideia exclusively emphasizes the rearing process of knowledge, pedagogy refers to the leadership of children, or the leadership over the process of knowledge. Historically speaking, the word pedagogy), as it was used by Ancient Greek writers, referred to an actual person, the pedagogue, who was the ‘boy ruler,’ or the person (often a slave) who led students to educational settings, i.e., academies of learning. It is not surprising therefore that the word came to refer to all educators and education itself, i.e., the method and practice of teaching was named after the person designated to escort children to school. The word has an innate pejorative aspect to it, however, since it explicitly binds learning and leader together. That is, its etymology suggests a hierarchy to knowledge and learning, an architectonics as it were, in which the educator is superior to the educated. It is unlikely that every educator is aware of these etymological and historical significances, and even more unlikely that they intend to offend against learners, or upon the academic community. Nevertheless, keeping such a loaded term as the basis for a manifesto would be, in modern parlance, tantamount to the notion that all teaching should be didactic in nature, instead of balanced with developmental and maieutic teaching. Using the language of Paolo Freire, one might describe this inequity as the “structure of domination” (Freire, 1970, p. 47). Often overlooked, Adler explicitly supports breaking down the structure that Freire outlined a decade earlier, when, in the preface to the readers of The Paideia Proposal, Adler addresses the work to (amongst others) “minority groups angered by widening gulfs between the better educated and the poorly educated, and between the employed and the unemployed … to improve the opportunities of our youth … in Lincoln’s words, of the people, by the people, and for the people” (Adler, 1982, p. xii). Thus, it seems fair to surmise that Adler chose paideia, or the nurturing of ideas, from pedagogy, the method of learning via domination dynamics. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:291272_original.jpg?600 | | |
| |
| <b>Rejecting humanities.</b> Understanding why Adler rej}}ected the use of the word of humanities, or the title The Humanities Proposal, is more likely based on the scope of the meaning of the word, rather than on pejorative underpinnings. That is, when educators refer to the humanities, they are explicitly referring to the body of knowledge itself, and it does not signify or wed that knowledge with the acquisition process. Etymologically defined, the word humanities stems from the Latin word humanus, and it was coined to describe bodies of work and knowledge that humanize individuals, i.e., educate individuals. Paideia, in distinction, refers to the rearing of a child, which by necessity must refer to both the recipient of the rearing and the rearing itself. It is for this reason that Adler likely coined the term paideia in distinction to humanities, namely, because it includes the agent and the recipient in the discussion about the body of knowledge, instead of the merely referring to the body of knowledge and its humanizing effect. And when one properly considers why Adler entitled his proposal paideia, it can be seen that he envisioned this proposal as a method whereby educators could subvert the “abominable discrimination” of the “multitrack system of public schooling” prevalent in education through the current epoch and institute “the same objectives [of learning] for all without exception” (Adler, 1982, p. 15). | |
| |
| {{ :writing:291550_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Assessing the follow through. | |
| |
| Now that paideia - italics removed hereafter for all terms - has been defined as an education proposal and distinguished from its relatives, humanities and pedagogy (or pedagogical), it is imperative that one considers the body of research surrounding the proposal and, for the purposes of this paper, narrow in on the efficacy of it as an instructional method in mathematics and for ELL students per se. A good place for educators to start is Robinson (2008), Evaluation of Academic Achievement at Nine Paideia Schools. Robinson writes “there are four reform areas that this model [paideia] attempts to effect; 1) student motivation, 2) teacher development, 3) student achievement, and 4) school culture. The purpose of this evaluation is to evaluate the effectiveness of student achievement” (Robinson, 2008, p. 3). The data Robinson harvested were from a “data-warehouse created by each state’s educational agency” and the “instruments consisted of academic achievement tests created by each state specifically to evaluate academic growth in the subject areas of reading, mathematics, and language” (Robinson, 2008, p. 4). Numerous data were compiled for this study, but of all of those data the most paramount was the discrimination between the paideia schools and the district at large in end of course mathematics assessments. Robinson concluded that of the nine schools evaluated, “two of the nine schools … fit the category ‘positive impact’ … [and] performed as well of better than proficiency in mathematics when compared to their local district and state peers … [which] led to significantly higher percentage of their students performing well when compared to the local district and state” (Robinson, 2008, p. 61). Specifically, for the schools rated at this level, the mathematics scores were often 5-10% higher than the district average. Additionally, there were two schools which “best fit the category of ‘exceptional’ … [and were] consistently above their peers in the local districts and state … [and] often 25 to 30 percent higher than their local district and state peers” (Robinson, 2008, p. 60). It should be noted that there were five schools whose gains fluctuated and were considered “variable,” nevertheless the overall merit of the “Paideia Model in the nine schools was remarkable.” Additionally, with regards to ELL learners, the data for Asheville Middle School show that “L.E.P” (limited English proficient, i.e., ELL) students were 58.3% proficient in math, as opposed to 51.3 % proficient for the district, and 38.3% proficient for the state (Robinson, 2008, p. 5). Not enough of the studies properly discriminated between ELL students and the general population, and one study’s data which did discriminate was not reported for statistical reasons, however, the evidence that was reported is striking and suggests that further research should be conducted to confirm the efficacy of this approach for ELL students. In short, any school that demonstrates a nearly 20% higher rate of competency in mathematics for ELL students is worth of further attention and consideration. Again, all of these schools are certified paideia schools and employ maieutic teaching, seminar, and dialogue. Moreover, maieutic teaching is only one of the three branches of learning according to Adler and thereby is a small but essential percentage of instructional time. This is consistent with what Echevarria (2013) states about whole group shelters, “Whole-class groups [e.g., seminar] are beneficial for introducing new information and concepts, modeling processes, and review.” As one can see, the data from this study warrant a deeper analysis of the use of paideia in the math classroom and are consistent with sheltered instruction for ELL students in particular. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:291830_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Those data those data. | |
| |
| Another study that merits discussion is Herman (1995) Ten Promising Programs for Educating Disadvantaged Students: Evidence of Impact. Although less current than the Robinson study listed above, the Herman study deserves attention because it argued for paideia to be considered alongside other programs as a means of impacting disadvantaged students. This seminal study helped catapult paideia out of the classically liberal canon in which it was previously clothed and helped align it with Adler’s original intent. Due to the negative “structure domination” that Freire (1970) so eloquently leveled against the Academy, the paideia instructional method had to emerge from both an internal stigma by philosophers trained in its methodologies negatively, and from an external stigma in which paideia was conflated with the out of date learning of the hegemonic elite. To reiterate, however, Adler helped remove those stigma through development of The Paideia Proposal, which explicitly targeted its manifesto to “minority groups” which were “angered by widening gulfs” between the hegemonic elite and their constituents. The Herman (1995) study thereby represents just over a decade of paideia implementation and demonstrates the viability of the instructional method itself, which is a pre-requisite for any model that purports to teach mathematics more effectively, or to reach ELL students more effectively (although this latter ELL connection would only be explicitly proven worthy of further research by later thinkers such as Robinson). | |
| |
| Subtle connections between paideia, sheltered instruction, and disadvantaged groups | |
| |
| Accordingly, Hermann (1995) reported to the educational community the truths about paideia, namely, that it “focuses on improving the quality of education for all students, regardless of background.” Furthermore, “high academic achievement is expected of all students” (Herman, 1995, p. 22). Specifically, Herman (1995) cites the usages of “small-group seminars … [and the] Socratic method of questioning [i.e., maieutic instruction]” which are both shelters consistent with best ELL practice. Echevarria (2013) explains, “small groups promote the development of multiple perspectives and encourage collaboration.” Bear in mind that this particular evaluation focused on small group seminar, but that both small and large group seminar are practiced within paideia, and both are consistent with sheltered instruction for ELL students. The key, Echevarria (2013) explains is that there are a “variety of grouping configurations.” Herman (1995) points out that the paideia model supports “three instruction approaches, known as ‘columns’ … didactic instruction … coaching [i.e., developmental] … small-group seminars.” This description is Herman’s interpretation and evaluation of Adler’s three pillars of learning as presented in The Paideia Proposal. As already argued above by this paper and by Adler himself, Herman correctly notes the three different approaches and does concede, “schoolwide restructuring is necessary to fully implement all three instructional approaches” (Herman, 1995, p. 22). It is profound that these instructional approaches of the paideia model all foster “acquisition of knowledge [and] development of intellectual skills” in different manners, very similar to Echevarria’s call for “balancing linguistic turn taking between the teacher and students, and among students” (Echevarria, 2013, p. 149). Chomsky (1965) argued that the “the nature of language seems to me to show quite convincingly that language is not a habit structure, but that it has a kind of creative property and is based on abstract and formal principles and operations of a complex kind.” It is imperative that educators consider the connection between Chomsky’s conception of language acquisition with the sheltered instruction methodology, and that methodology, with paideia. The ramifications of teasing out those connections and solidifying the common ground will only strengthen the education of so-called disadvantaged students, minority groups, etc. Hermann (1995) was the first thinker to target this subtle connection, and found that | |
| |
| {{ :writing:292124_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| |
| Paideia students had higher average daily attendance (84 and 91 percent versus 78 and 85 percent). On the Tests of Achievement and Proficiency, 33 to 66 percent of non-Paideia students in Paideia schools scored in the bottom quartile in reading comprehension, math problem-solving, and science compared to 11 percent of Paideia students. Citywide, Paideia elementary students had lower failure rates in English, math, or science (3.6 percent versus 4.3 percent). Finally, students in the Paideia program seemed to express and support their ideas better than comparison students, based on scored writing samples. (p. 22) | |
| |
| {{ :writing:292519_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Thus, the methodology of paideia helped reach 5,000 students in grades K-12 in 23 schools [in Chicago]” (Hermann, 1995, p. 22). Furthermore, Herman (1995) specifically found that the three instructional strategies, seminars were the most widely implemented” and that “teachers adopted many of the questioning strategies [maieutic dialogue] for regular classes.” Unfortunately, the given study did not discriminate between ELL students and general population students, however census data from 1995 suggests that there were large segments within the 5,000 students that were ELL students. Although more research is needed to support any explicit conclusion about ELL students and paideia for this particular case study, this framework suggests that there was a strong implicit correlation between student achievement for disadvantaged youth in the early days of paideia instructional implementation. Perhaps the most appealing element of this study was student buy-in, however, as Herman (1995) found that “Appreciation of school” and “respect for teachers,” reached 70 and 69 percent, respectively, which were unheard of high rates for this epoch in Chicago public schools. Perhaps the maieutic teaching of the classics, which Adler argues contain lessons for every student, are consistent with what Echevarria (2013) describes as “building background” and how “new information must be integrated with what students have previously learned.” Could the classics of Eastern and Western traditions be the ‘pedagogical’ equalizer, or fundamental shelter, for disadvantaged students? | |
| |
| {{ :writing:293306_original.gif?600 |}} | |
| |
| Faculty buy in; school vibe and removing the cycle of complaint. | |
| |
| As this paper comes to a close, one must concur that the present paper has demonstrated a possible connection between the three branches of learning of paideia and the core principles of sheltered instructional models. Furthermore, as these ideas have been intertwined, one must likewise recognize that there are recent compelling studies that suggest there is a need for further research confirming or denying the efficacy of paideia in math instruction and as an effective instructional approach for ELL students. What is equally important, however, is the consideration and usage of paideia as a means of faculty buy-in. It was seen above how paideia caused inner city schools in Chicago to have higher student buy in and greater student appreciation of the teachers. What if that same level of enthusiasm could be replicated within the faculty? Fortunately, Mangrum (2004), in The Evolution of a Professional Learning Community: The Role of Dialogue Initiated Through Faculty Paideia Seminars, has already devoted considerable attention to this topic. She found that when teachers discussed common educational publications through seminar that the maieutic instructional method “allowed all the teachers to share concerns about themselves, their students and the school community” (Mangrum, 2004, p. 32). Furthermore, it was precisely the difference between paideia and general discussion that forced teachers to remain neutral and optimistic, or as Mangrum (2004) described, it “required teachers to remain focused on the text and apply it to their situations and the facilitator would not let it digress into a griping session.” Mangrum (2004) ultimately concludes that paideia and seminar, in particular, allow for “meaningful reflection and dialogue, which in turn nurtures and stimulates the development of a professional learning community.” | |
| |
| {{ :writing:303450_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Departments versus PLCs. | |
| |
| This is an intriguing possibility for schools to consider in developing effective Professional Learning Communities (hereafter PLCs) or Departments. The qualitative and quantitative research throughout this comprehensive study strongly suggest that paideia, similar to what was argued above, is not only effective for students but for teachers; not only for general population students but for ELL students, etc. That is, there is something similar within paideia to what Chomsky noticed within language acquisition. Just as language acquisition underwent a fundamental shift in accepted delivery of instruction, perhaps student instruction, or even instruction at large, needs to undergo a maieutic makeover. In what was a largely African-American district with a new Caucasian Principal in a district rife with reform, one teacher simply said of infusing paideia into the PLC framework, “I think it is working” (Mangrum, 2004, p. 20). Yet another said, “I feel more comfortable coming up and asking [coworkers] for help or for advice or to answer a question” (Mangrum, 2004, p. 20). Earlier a connection was drawn between paideia and language acquisition by pointing out the strong correlations between paideia and math assessment and between paideia and L.E.P. students. It is clear that there is also a potential connection between paideia and communication, in general, at least when viewed in light of the findings of Mangrum (2004). Just as with the above fabric, this connection must be rigorously explored further and tested for its value, but its promise is profound. | |
| |
| The allegory of the educators. | |
| |
| The common theme being presented in this study is that maieutic teaching and learning (or, education) has been neglected in the modern U.S. society and possibly more broadly than just within the States. A case could also be made that what Adler refers to as developmental (i.e., guided practice) education has also been neglected although significantly less so than maieutic. Maieutic teaching and learning, conducted largely through the approach of seminar and the technique of dialogue was nearly forgotten until Adler revived the concept. He was perhaps most effective in reviving the concept for two reasons, first that he developed a neo-Grecian moniker for it, namely, paideia, and secondly, that the U.S. was receptive to his message at this stage in its development. One need not be reminded that it was during 1983, only a year after Adler completed this work, that A Nation At Risk (1983) was completed by the Reagan administration. Thus, Adler, who until then had largely escaped educational zeitgeist, found himself thrust into the national spotlight with a handful of secondary schools and colleges who favored this method of instruction. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:303723_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Clarity and vision. | |
| |
| It remains unclear if any instructional method can be utilized for every learner, however, if ever there was a method that could achieve this end, it would probably be paideia. Indeed, in most writings that purport to have found the fix or elixir of education, the veteran educator often condescendingly casts the work aside as flawed from the outset. It is not so the case with paideia, and the reason behind this is that Adler attempted to narrow in on the basis of the learning and teaching itself. He carefully constructed a set of terms based on ancient wisdom and expertise, and then formulated those terms and principles into a method called paideia, and then filled the method with a set of three branches of learning, and then gave that message to everyone. Adler opened the halls of the Academy up to every student, and notably to minority and underprivileged learners, which as Freire noted a decade earlier had continually shut its doors to the under privileged. To be sure, there are differences between Freire’s commentary on education and Adler’s, but the essential take-aways are identical. Specifically, Freire was arguing that problem-posing education needed to usurp the banking method of education. Likewise, Adler argued that didactic teaching was only one part of education and that maieutic teaching and developmental teaching needed to form a balance with didactic instruction. The difference is that Adler boldly asserted the need for didactic instruction to some extent while Freire came very near supporting a fully maieutic model. What Freire refers to as the student-teacher equality is akin to the relationship between the seminar guide and the seminar participants that Adler presents. The paramount connection between these two thinkers is that what Adler refers to as didactic teaching is the same as what Freire refers to as the banking method. More importantly, they both concur that this is only a small part of education. | |
| |
| One size fits all. | |
| |
| It is important to return to this idea that Adler’s notion of paideia is a candidate for learning for everyone (likewise Freire’s concept of problem-posing education). Adler, perhaps more completely than his counterparts, constructed not just a methodology of instructional practice, but a body of work of western and eastern classics upon which to build his program. This is perhaps where Adler differs most from his contemporaries, that is, where many contemporaries like Freire, Vygotsky, Piaget, etc. in different manners argued for constructivist spectrum methods of instruction which bear resemblance to maieutic teachings, they differ in that they held no ideological bias upon which the methods were founded. More explicitly, Adler was a absolutist, and he believed in a creator, natural rights, and certain absolute truths too difficult and exhaustive to detail in this short analysis. But it is precisely this pedagogical difference, which distinguishes Adler’s revolutionary ideas about instruction from his contemporaries with similar notions. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:292019_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| Connections and a possible panacea. | |
| |
| The intriguing notion that was briefly presented above, however, is that the relatively modern concept of multiculturalism and of contextualizing instruction, or building background for ELL learners is perhaps solved within the Adler framework. If one concurs Adler’s premise that there are ‘great works’ of Western and Eastern society and essential truths within them, then there is a way in which dedicating a program to the reading of those classics is inherently contextualized by design. Furthermore, if the instructional model upon which analysis of those texts hinges is itself based on a framework of learning that is in line with research on language acquisition and knowledge acquisition, then the learner will only be able to acquire wisdom with even more facility. Nevertheless, as of the present time, these remain as questions. Is Adler’s concept of the three branches of learning in line with modern research on language and knowledge acquisition? Are there Eastern and Western classics and essential or absolute truths that are inherently contextualized for all learners, ELLs to boot? Or, finally, is the commonly held notion that there is no one size fits all method of instruction a fallacy? And, building off of that study, could there be some fundamental arrangement of the architectonics of learning that is inherently flexible enough and yet sturdy enough in its edifice that it supports every learner? Has the quest for such been forgotten specifically because society has neglected maieutic teaching for so long? Have educators and society forgotten the lessons of their ancestors? Perhaps. | |
| |
| {{ :writing:289987_original.jpg?600 |}} | |
| |
| A fabric of educators. | |
| |
| In light of this intriguing fabric, I find myself more invigorated than ever to approach the upcoming school year. I recently submitted a proposal to receive training from the Paideia Institute and was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Mangrum whose powerful work was featured in my analysis above. I look forward to fusing my renewed appreciation of the sheltered instruction model (whether SIOP or others) together with my pedagogical pursuits to solve abstract quandaries in education. I dream of putting these ideas into practice in the STEM Academy at SFHS next year and I find myself only wishing I had more time and energy to develop them fully. I find these days that every author I read, every lecture or presentation I attend, carefully dovetails with another one of my pursuits or findings and intricately weaves itself into my passion for educating children. It is with great excitement that I sit down to read the works of Sowell, Bloom, Freire, Adler, and Duncan-Andrade and with even greater motivation that I collectivize their commonalities into my own instructional practice. Not only do I intend to fuse sheltered instruction and paideia together within my STEM Academy this upcoming school year, I plan to do so in what is already an Expeditionary Learning Academy employing Blended Learning. One might wonder if there is a danger here of employing so many methodologies that none get employed well, but as a retort I am reminded of the advise of Freeman & Freeman who, and I paraphrase here, argued that educators must conceive of a philosophy and then develop a practice that supports and is consistent with that philosophy. I believe the connections I present above are examples of that process and that there is no danger in utilizing too many approaches precisely because these methods are consistent in vision and approach. I end this evaluation of my thoughts and experiences for the upcoming school year with a simple admonition to my self, to be willing to change and to be humble in dialogue, and yet to be bold and courageous in vision. To be one with maieutic instruction. | |
| |
| References | |
| |
| * Adler, Mortimer J. (1982). The Paideia Proposal, An Educational Manifesto. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. | |
| |
| * Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., Short, D. (2013). Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners, The SIOP Model. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. | |
| |
| * Freire, P. (1970). The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic | |
| |
| * Herman, R., Stringfield, S. (1995). Ten Promising Programs for Educating Disadvantaged Students: Evidence of Impact. San Francisco, CA: John Hopkins University | |
| |
| * Herrera, S., Murry, K. (2011). <i>Mastering ESL and Bilingual Methods, Differentiated Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. | |
| |
| * Mangrum, J. (2004). The Evolution of a Professional Learning Community: The Role of Dialogue Initiated Through Faculty Paideia Seminars. Retrieved from: http://www.paideia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Evolution-of-a-Professional-Learning-Community.pdf | |
| |
| * Orellana, P. (2008). Maieutic Frame Presence and Quantity and Quality Argumentation in a Paideia Seminar. Retrieved from: http://www.paideia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PelusaOrellana-dissertation-final.pdf | |
| |
| * Robinson, E. (2008), Evaluation of Academic Achievement at Nine Paideia Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.paideia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/08_baylor_report.pdf | |
