The Tri-C Theory of Instruction:

Community, Classroom, Content

Freddie Bowles

University of Arkansas

The Tri-C Theory of Instruction: Community, Classroom, Content

Educators enjoy inventing acronyms and catchy phrases to capture the essence of a new idea or concept. Why should I pretend to sing a different song? As I reflect on what I have learned this semester as a student and teacher, I create my title in the playful spirit of consonance, the repetition of consonant sounds. The three C’s just happen to coincide with how I conceive the combination of critical cohorts in a learning environment. My theory congeals in the crucible of experience. What emerges is the Tri-C Theory of Instruction and its three components: Community, Classroom, and Content. Community involves most everyone connected to the school: students, teachers, staff, administrators, parents, and other members of the community. It is the pedagogy of place, the environment that connects all participants to the learning experience. The Classroom is the center of learning, the locus, where students and teachers come together to participate in and construct knowledge. It is the pedagogy of experience—the values, norms, language, and culture that unite its citizens. The Content is the instruction, a vortex around which all participants revolve. It is the pedagogy of voice, where experience and knowledge combine to create a transformative experience for the learners.

At the beginning appears a concentric circle, whose outermost ring is the Community. As Vygotsky might say, “It takes a culture to raise a child.” I would add that it takes a culture to raise a community. The ideal community exists as a manageable size focused on the pedagogy of place (Giroux, 1993). The ideal size creates a place where everyone knows everyone else. The ideal school centers the community. Every child wants to go to our school. The ideal school represents a democracy. Everyone in our school nurtures the minds, bodies, and spirits of our students. Self-actualized teachers guide the pupils to become self-actualized citizens. Schooling is liberating (hooks, 1994). So who goes to the ideal school? Everyone. Our school contains a diverse population. Everyone is a learner. The school culture is the community culture. Children attend. Families attend. Community leaders, volunteers, and citizens attend. Teachers, staff, and administrators attend. Everyone is involved in the school because the school is the community and the community is place. It is our identity. It is a place where we want to be.

Where is the ideal school? Our school centers the community. Everyone can easily reach the school. It is not hidden in a suburb or in a ghetto. It is not hidden behind a wall. It is not lost in the vastness of sterile concrete parking lots. It rises in a prominent place because we are proud of our school. It is well manicured, surrounded by green spaces where earth, wind, and sky meet in places of repose and peace. Gardens planted by our community embrace outdoor classrooms. Playgrounds invite laughter and carefree communion with the vastness of possibility and hope. Our school welcomes the community. The doors remain open. Our school is a vibrant, active place where the community ebbs and flows, day and night. Everyone belongs. It is a “quality world,” a place where Glasser’s five basic needs are met: survival, fun, belonging/love, power, and freedom (Rose, 2003). Learning is constant, ubiquitous, and universal. The school is the nexus for learning.

The community contributes to the governance of the school because the concerns of the community relate to the education of the children, who in turn participate in the affairs of the community. The leaders of our school welcome input by the community. Decisions are made by consensus. Compliance with state and federal regulations are mediated through the local council. Professional development of teachers, administrators, and staff is supported and encouraged by the community so that the children, the primary recipients and participants in the school climate, benefit from current research in the science of learning (Bransford, 2002).

The school is responsive to the needs of the community. If students are unable to participate in extra-curricular activities because they have to baby-sit at night while their parents work, the school provides child-care so that these students can be involved. Social participation helps retention (Nieto, 2002).

The second “C” of the Tri-C Theory of Instruction composes the second ring of the concentric circle—the Classroom. It is a microcosm of the school and of the community. Students bring their experiences from the community into the classroom. Knowledge is shared among the many participants, primarily the pupils and the teacher—but experts from the community are welcome, too. Knowledge is co-constructed with the teacher as the facilitator, who is attuned to the interaction between the learner and the environment, i.e. the classroom and the community. The teacher understands that each pupil is unique and that “intelligence is active, dynamic, and changing” (Gredler, 2002, p. 267). The teacher recognizes that cognitive development goes hand-in-hand with knowledge acquisition. She also recognizes that each student learns in different ways at different rates. She understands that students bring their own cultural capital into the classroom and views this as additive, not deficit (García, 2002). The teacher responds to the diversity in her class by creating a framework where community culture and school culture interact rather than conflict. Rules and procedures are established with consequences clearly defined and enforced. Class meetings are held to celebrate successes and sort out difficulties (Rose, 2003, p. 55). These meetings fulfill Glasser’s five needs. Survival needs are met because difficulties are resolved. Students can generate a playful attitude of fun in groups because they belong and care about each other. They have power in these groups to resolve issues and the freedom to create solutions. The classroom is a place for everyone, and everyone wants to be there.

Classrooms are spacious, warm, and light-filled with windows that open to let in fresh air and sound. Classrooms are connected to place. We smell the changing seasons and hear the rain kiss the earth. The commerce of our community crosses the green spaces surrounding our school. The community of learners co-creates the living spaces of our classrooms. Everyone contributes the signs and symbols of our culture (Gredler, 2005, p. 309). Everyone contributes to the knowledge that we co-create through our connection to place, our community. Our classroom reflects who we are. Our classroom sets the stage for the learning environment. Public and private places co-exist in our classroom. We can learn cooperatively and individually. Learners gather in the center to participate in whole-class activities. Quiet corners offer places of repose for reflection and thinking. Respect, responsibility, and resourcefulness unite our community of learners.

The last concentric ring of the Tri-C Theory of Instruction is Content. It is the heart of the circle, the crux, the central point, where students and teachers engage place and experience to construct knowledge. Content is the core that allows students to discover and develop their voices. Content gives students the freedom to learn. Content is the medium in which language is honored as the soul of expression. This is learner-centered instruction (Bransford, 2002).

The teacher promotes two goals for the learners: deep understanding of the content and ability to transfer knowledge. How is this achieved? First, he understands that learning is active, not static. It is, according to Gagné, “both complex and diverse” (Gredler, 2002, p. 161). It is participatory, engaging, and social. The teacher knows that the art of teaching requires flexibility and creativity while the science of teaching requires a foundation of theories and principles about cognition and learning. Teaching for deep understanding demands instruction that is built on prior knowledge, scaffolded so that the learner can acquire competency at each level of instruction, and frequently assessed to determine if the learner has met the objectives. The teacher also assists his students in learning how to learn so that they may use these principals across domains and subjects, that is, to transfer knowledge from the classroom to the community and from content to content.

Second, the teacher knows his students. He explores their identities to help them establish who they are and what they already know and to build bonds of trust and respect. The teacher creates a schema for each student (Gredler, 2005). Within the individual schemas, he explores the students’ ways of acquiring knowledge. He ponders Gardner to ask what intelligences they draw upon to creatively solve problems. He considers Piaget’s stages of cognitive development to determine which one affects their reasoning (Gredler, 2002). He recalls Vygotsky’s premise that a child’s way of thinking is “directly fostered and developed by his or her particular culture” (Gredler, p. 324). He explores Gagné’s internal and external conditions of learning.

The next step is to determine how he will present the material to the students. He has already established the outlines of their prior knowledge, so he activates that knowledge to concretize the groundwork in order to scaffold the next level of instruction. His choice of delivery depends on the goal for that lesson. Does he want to use an inductive approach or deductive approach? Top down, or bottom up? How deeply should he guide the learners?

Let me digress for a moment to illustrate a sequence I used for teaching process writing to an intermediate group of English languages learners at the post-secondary level. I had already determined that the most effective way to engage students in writing in a second language and to allay their fears about writing was to give them topics based on their own experiences. We started with the topic of childhood games. They had already read a unit about games in their reading text, so they had some working vocabulary such as “a die, a token, my turn, you lose, whose turn, forfeit,” and so on. I first asked them if they had ever played hopscotch. They didn’t know the word, so I demonstrated the game and mimed the actions. It was a universal game, so all students immediately recognized it. I briefly explained how I had played hopscotch as a child. Then we discussed any differences of how it was played in their cultures. At that point, I reviewed the terminology for playing games and asked them to think of their favorite childhood game. Their assignment was to explain their favorite game to the class after the next lesson. We then read an example of a process paper and analyzed it in small groups for organization and cohesion. As a whole group, we discussed how process writing differed from the previous two rhetorical styles they had learned. I showed a graphic organizer on the overhead of a process paper to confirm or point out what they had discovered in their small groups. As a reading assignment for the next day, I gave them a copy of my paper to read on how to play hopscotch. For homework, they had to identify the elements we had talked about in class such as the connecting words and imperative verbs. I also asked them to wear comfortable clothes and shoes for the next class because we were going to play the game.

The following day we went outside to a large concrete area where I divided them into groups, gave them colored chalk, and asked them to find a token (there were stones all around). They had to use my paper to draw the hopscotch pattern and to play the game. I was available to answer questions and declare foul or fair as needed. Once we had winners, we retired—physically tired but mentally invigorated—to the classroom and reviewed the elements for process writing. Their assignment for the next day was to describe their favorite childhood game to their classmates. (One semester, I had them teach the games to us, and that was even more effective. The action of playing the game led to increased verbal exchanges, which reinforced the vocabulary for game playing. The kinesthetic aspect also added to retention of vocabulary and organizational patterns needed for process writing; thus, it was more meaningful.) In retrospect, I would say that at this point the students had moved beyond declarative and procedural knowledge to conditional knowledge because they had to apply a process approach to explain the rules of the games so that everyone could successfully play.

Once the oral activity was accomplished, we moved on to the writing part. First, the students had to write the introduction. Depending on the class, I would either have each student read it to me in small conferences, have them read it to each other in small groups, or read it myself. The next step involved revision. Each student had to revise the introduction before writing the body of the paper. The same process was repeated with the body and conclusion. When the paper was complete, I read the first draft and made suggestions for organizational problems. They revised again. Each revision step required a metacognitive approach for the writing because I had previously taught them several questions to ask themselves about the revision process before handing the paper in to me. For the second draft, I used a rubric and gave them a grade. They had the option of revising it a third time for a higher grade before adding it to their portfolio. This option gave them the choice as a learner to improve their performance, which relates to Glasser’s five needs, that of power.

My hopscotch lesson would fit nicely into Gagné’s five varieties of learning. The lesson addressed verbal information through activating specialized vocabulary and for describing their favorite games. Students were required to employ their intellectual skills to decipher the written directions in my paper in order to play the game. They employed cognitive skills to write their own papers. The process of playing hopscotch involved motor skills, and interacting with their classmates from different cultures in a competitive but enjoyable activity challenged their attitudes.

An engaged teacher, however, realizes that not every lesson will neatly follow a prescribed plan. A teacher must show “withitness” throughout the day (Woolfolk, 2004). In other words, a teacher must be intuitive, flexible, and attuned to the many demands and needs of the students for the moment at hand.

Finally, a teacher must decide how she will assess her students. She will use a combination of assessments including observations, discussions, writing, and testing. Formative assessment, or assessing “ongoing work to monitor and improve progress,” is frequent and informative (Black, 1998, p. 9). Students are given clear, constructive feedback so that they can improve subsequent work. Because the classroom is a place of trust, students willingly ask for help. Cooperative learning proves effective in this setting. Because the classroom is a place of respect, students ask questions to improve their learning. Self-assessment and reflection prove effective in this setting. Because students see their improvement, their belief in themselves (self-efficacy) increases. In other words, formative assessment is positive and continuous. All activities can be assessed to see what the students are learning and what the teacher needs to do to modify her teaching and learning activities.

Summative assessment, or measuring “what students have learned at the end of some set of learning activities,” is necessary for external review of progress by parents and administrators and to meet state and federal requirements (Bransford, 2002, p. 140). However, the teacher has designed her summative assessment to align with her formative methods so that students are prepared for standardized tests.

Assessment entails rewards, most notably by a grade, so the teacher will consider effective ways to reward her students for positive academic behavior. According to Christopher Skinner (2004), educators should consider using interdependent group contingencies as one method because it has three advantages. First, individuals are not singled out if their performance does not meet the standard. Second, the whole class has access to the reward, so negative emotions are minimized. Third, the selection of rewards can be maximized. This system of reinforcement builds self-esteem for all learners because success is achievable for everyone.

Because the teacher considers herself to be a learner, too, she continues to participate in constructing her own knowledge regarding content and pedagogy. She accepts the community as an integral part of the Tri-C Theory of Instruction; likewise, the community accepts her. She is supported financially and professionally. Administrators organize schedules so that teachers may work together to improve the learning environment for all students. Substitutes are available so that teachers may attend conferences and other opportunities for professional development. The community and the school provide funds for travel, tuition, classroom supplies and equipment. Everyone is committed to an equitable education for all learners.

The Tri-C Theory of Instruction centers the learner and the instructor on the Content, then spirals upward from the Classroom into the Community. The teacher facilitates the learning process, the students co-participate in constructing knowledge, and the community supports and enhances instruction. Learning is infinite, inclusive, engaging, and rewarding.

References

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Retrieved October 17, 2004, from ProQuest database.

García, E. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge

(3^rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10^th ed.).

New York: BasicBooks.

Giroux, H. A. (1993). Living dangerously: Multiculturalism and the politics of difference.

New York: Peter Lang.

Gredler, M. E. (2005). Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (5^th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New

York: Routledge.

National Research Council. (2002). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school (Expanded ed.). Washington, D.C., National Academy Press: Bransford,

J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R.

Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural

education (4^th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Rose, S.W. (2003). The relationship between Glasser’s Quality School concept and brain-

based theory. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 22(2), 52-56.

Rushton, S.P., Eitelgeorge, J. & Zickafoose, R. (2003). Connecting Brian Cambournes’

Conditions of Learning theory to brain/mind principles: Implications for early

childhood educators. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(1), 11-21.

Skinner, C. H., Williams, R. L., & Neddenriep, C. E. (2004). Using interdependent

group-oriented reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general

education classrooms. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 384-397.

Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational psychology (9^th ed.). Boston: Pearson.