Mental Models in Contemporary American Education

Introduction: Two Dominant Mental Models

The two most common and pervasive mental models in contemporary American education correspond to the Industrial Age, or "factory," model and the Knowledge Age, or "learner-centered," model (Duffy, 2009). Briefly, the former emphasizes the provision of education to learners in relatively large groups and relies on a general curriculum that is substantially identical for all students. The latter emphasizes the provision of education to smaller groups of students and attends to the differences in interest and ability among individual learners (Duffy, 2009). Understanding how these two models developed — and why one has proven so resistant to replacement — is essential to any serious discussion of educational reform.

The genesis of the primary mental model in contemporary American education is preserved in the historical record of the growth and evolution of public education over the last two centuries. Generally, the first American public schools adhered to the one-room schoolhouse model, in which students from all twelve primary and secondary grades occupied the same classroom. During the nineteenth century, the one-room model gave way to the traditional model based on individual grade-specific classes and curricula. Throughout most of that era, the educational curriculum centered on the so-called "3 Rs" — reading, writing, and arithmetic — supplemented by social studies and the sciences.

Historical Origins of Educational Mental Models

Despite many significant changes and developments in educational approaches, methods, and materials, contemporary American education still adheres substantially to the original model first introduced more than two centuries ago. As research on organizational behavior demonstrates, once people come to conceptualize a system according to learned expectations, it can be difficult to overcome those ingrained assumptions. The persistence of the factory model in American schooling is a clear illustration of this phenomenon.

The origins of learner-centered models in contemporary education are similarly traceable. To a great degree, their roots lie in the work pioneered by Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education in connection with his Multiple Intelligences conceptual framework of human intelligence and learning. In principle, that framework rejects the narrow focus on linguistic and mathematical intelligence — that is, reading, writing, and arithmetic — as the primary measures of human intellectual capacity.

The other fundamental difference between the traditional model and the Knowledge Age model pertains to the actual learning environment and the modalities most beneficial to individual learners. The learner-centered model rejects the assumptions that all students learn optimally in the same ways and that curricula should be substantially uniform for all learners. Instead, it calls for flexible instructional approaches that account for the full spectrum of human cognitive strengths, as outlined in Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences.

The Learner-Centered Model and Multiple Intelligences

In practice, educators are more open to recognizing the value of incorporating some types of multiple intelligences into the learning model than others. For example, it is one thing to tell educators that some substantive lessons should emphasize musical or interpersonal aptitude, but quite another to receive the same level of support for the proposition that bodily-kinesthetic abilities are equally important. Many educators are willing to acknowledge that different cognitive strengths exist; fewer are willing to restructure their classrooms and assessments accordingly.

Likewise, many more educators are open to changes that incorporate cognitive and behavioral considerations into the design of teaching and study spaces than are open to suggestions such as allowing some students to substitute video documentaries for reading assignments based on personal learning preferences. This uneven receptiveness suggests that resistance to change is not monolithic but is instead shaped by the degree to which a proposed reform challenges deeply held assumptions about what legitimate academic work looks like.