










































Publication Draft – SSCH – 2004


Building Walls: Limiting Innovation through Self-Imposed Boundaries  
Lynn M. Burlbaw 

Texas A&M University 
 

Abstract:  This paper explores the behavior of teachers 
when faced with an open-ended assignment in which 
they are to prepare something given minimal 
instructions and materials. The purpose of the 
assignment was to heighten teachers’ awareness to the 
limits they place on their own actions.  Teachers are 
reluctant to step very far from their perceptions of 
“what is wanted” and, as a result, narrow their options 
for action. 
 

I laughed and thought, so this is what it’s 
like in the more liberal-arts environment! 
Being from an engineering background 
where most things are cut and dried, I was 
initially happy to be involved in a creative 
assignment. And then I immediately 
panicked because I wasn’t used to having 
complete freedom. 

 
How do people respond when they are 

given what appears to be complete freedom to 
structure a task? The above statement was made by a 
student enrolled in a master’s level course when asked 
to reflect upon an open-ended assignment given on the 
first day of class. This paper explores student (most of 
whom were public school teachers) reflections on a 
non-structured open-ended assignment. The purpose 
of the assignment was to assist teachers in beginning 
to think about the limits they and others place upon 
their classroom activities as they design curriculum 
for their students. 

What is taught in schools, in spite of 
literature about the influence of textbooks, is to some 
degree limited by outside influences (e.g., special 
interest groups, federal and state government, etc.) 
including community mores and values. 

 
State and federal agencies, local school 
boards, and individual schools often set 
broad educational goals applicable to all 
courses and toward which all teachers are 
expected to direct their instruction. ... 
Subject matter content is increasingly 
dominated by the standards movement. 
Although it is still possible in some subject 
areas on in some locales for the teacher to 
make major decisions regarding the subject 
matter to be taught, testing programs aligned 
with national, state, and local standards 
make it imperative to teach to the tests. 
(Gunter, Estes and Schwab, 2003). 

 
Dale (1998) suggests that teachers are limited 

by social conditions surrounding their teaching, 
“conscious deliberation, that is, the teacher’s 

awareness when he or she chooses what to do in the 
classroom, is superficial. The decisions teachers make 
when performing, in the act of teaching, have their 
background in the rationale of teaching, the 
underlying cultural code of teaching”(255). Dale 
continues, addressing what guides teachers, writing 

 
The national curriculum provides guidelines 
which the teachers, together with their 
colleagues, have to interpret and analyze, 
and then construct the aims for their own 
specific teaching based on these 
interpretations and analyses. The have also 
to choose the concrete content for the actual 
teaching and organize the content in 
adequate learning sequences/episodes. 
(1998, 257) 

 
 In  1980, Klein, in summarizing the findings 
of her study of perceived sources of influence on the 
curriculum, wrote, “There are two sources which all 
teacher in our sample consistently reported as having 
high influence across all subject areas: ‘teachers’ own 
backgrounds, interests and experiences’ and “student 
interests and abilities” (Klein, 1980, 5). 

Ben-Peretz (1990) suggests that teachers 
might not, or should not, be automatons that blindly 
“install” or “administer” curriculum teaching 
suggestions found in textbooks and teacher guides. 
McCutcheon (1988) wrote that 

 
Teachers adopting a deliberationist attitude 
are mature and secure enough with their 
roles as teacher to have abandoned a starry-
eyed, romantic love of teaching and 
progressed to seeing teaching as 
challenging, difficult, enjoyable work where 
problems exist that are murky but can be 
resolved. . . . This further implies the 
development of curriculum materials that 
engage teacher in deliberation rather than 
materials that assume teachers are a direct 
pipeline from the expert developers to 
students’ minds. (202) 

 
 Ben-Peretz (1990) later argues for teachers 
who see the “curriculum potential” in materials and 
exploit that potential for the benefit of students. While 
this is an admirable goal or exhortation, one has to 
question the basis from which teachers will make 
decisions to go beyond the prescribed curriculum and 
wonder how teachers see themselves as they “break 
the mold” in teaching beyond the text. However, 
teachers do not have complete freedom in choosing 
how to implement or interpret national standards or 
local curriculum. 



 

 2 

 
Schools are free to introduce new practices 
in their classrooms as long as they don’t 
violate parents’ mental models about what 
should go on in “good” schools and 
classrooms. ... Because school boards and 
educators are acutely aware of what 
classroom practices fall within these 
influential parents’ zones of tolerance and 
which practices will raise questions, they 
have in many cases self-censored their 
willingness to introduce practices which 
push against parents’ expectations (Konzal, 
1997, 5-6). 

 
Additionally, parents have challenged the 

use of various school guidance materials (Peterson 
and Poppen, 1992). Teachers then must be aware of 
external forces directing and preventing them from 
making certain curriculum decisions. However, do 
teachers, and if they do, are they aware that they limit 
their own latitude when they select curricular 
materials and activities for use in their classroom? 
This paper reports on a study that looked at what 
limitations teachers place on themselves as they 
attempt to complete a task. 

In an effort to identify and address teacher 
self-censorship as curriculum work, a beginning of 
course exercise was devised to be completed by 
teachers enrolled in a master’s level course in 
curriculum development. The course is a required 
course for all master’s level students and is used as a 
foundational leveling course for doctoral students who 
have not completed a course in curriculum 
development in their master’s program. The data for 
this report was collected over three summers during 
which the students attended class five days a week for 
five weeks. 

Some of the students (six) in the study group 
were familiar with the instructor’s teaching style and 
philosophy (they had either completed another 
graduate course or undergraduate course with the 
instructor). Some of the responses reflect this prior 
experience and will be noted in the analysis. 

At the end of the first day’s class, the 
students were given an assignment consisting of a 
brown manila envelope with the following message on 
the outside 

 
The complete directions (i.e., all that you 
will be given) for your first assignment are 
in this envelope. The assignment will be due 
at the beginning of class tomorrow. 

 
Inside the envelope the students found a single sheet 
of white typing paper (8.5 x 11 inches) and the 
following statement taped to the inside of the 
envelope’s flap: 
 

Without consulting any of your classmates, 
use the sheet of paper in this envelope to 
prepare something and bring it to class 
tomorrow. 

 
The instructions were designed to give students as 
little hint as possible regarding the type of 
“something” they were supposed to prepare.” The 
words “something” and “prepare” were carefully 
chosen so students would not think the task was to be 
creative (e.g., the verb “create” might suggest that 
students were expected to do something creative or 
out of the ordinary) or limited to something related to 
the course, either by title or by reading the course 
texts. The assignment also did not ask for connections 
to writing or preparing curriculum because I did not 
want to suggest that they should have a body of 
knowledge they should draw on to complete the 
assignment. 

At the beginning of the second day’s class, 
students were given 15 to 20 minutes to respond to a 
five-item Assignment Analysis questionnaire (See 
Appendix A) relating to the product and the process 
involved in completing the assignment. After 
completing the questionnaires, which were collected 
by the instructor, students were asked to share their 
“somethings” with their colleagues by standing at the 
front of the classroom and describing or 
demonstrating their assignment. Some students 
volunteered the reasoning they used to complete the 
assignment. The second, third and fourth questions are 
the focus of this paper, those questions dealing with 
perceived expectations and limitations and self -
limitations. In order to give context for student 
responses, a brief summary is given here of the types 
of “somethings” prepared in response to the 
directions. 
 
Products Made 
 
 The products made have been divided into 
two categories with a number of sub-categories. The 
two categories are 1) used the paper as a presentation 
medium and 2) modified or manipulated the shape of 
the paper. In the first category, 25 students1 used the 
paper to present a written message. Of the 25, ten 
prepared messages that were self-contained (e.g., a 
computer print out of a tiger with a poem, a quote by 
Mark Twain, recipes for favorite food, and a dance 
team routine). The remaining fifteen products were in 
some way related to the course. Nine others, 
responding to a thought that the product ought to be 
useful in completing a course requirement, made items 
such as a scope and sequence, a curriculum document 
cover, a table of contents, etc. Six of the students 
included concept maps related to curriculum, both the 
idea of curriculum and the course for which they 
expected to write curriculum. 
 



 

 3

 Many of the students modified the shape of 
the paper by cutting, folding, or crumpling. One 
student described her project, saying, “I made an 
origami bird by cutting a square out of the paper and 
making various folds - I thought about a poem I had 
learned as a child and looked it up in the library” (2-
16). Other examples of cut or folded products are a 
snowflake, a folded paper helicopter, several paper 
airplanes, a hat, a boat, and a drinking cup. One 
student cut the paper in a spiral pattern and made a 
quarter-inch strip of paper 47 feet long. Another 
student, a doctoral student in language arts, cut the 
paper to make a “little book” in which she wrote 
“important things.” A master’s level student, citing 
illness from the evening before, submitted a blank 
piece of paper with the explanation 
 

The assignment was done to prove a 
point and was an analogy for something. 
Then I tried to psyche out what the analogy 
might be. I also thought about my 9th grade 
English (sic) class and a similar situation. 
We were supposed to draw a pic (sic) from 
Huck Finn - someone turned in a blank page 
and it was Huck and Jim going down the 
river through the fog - they got an A. (1-17) 

 
Another student (a doctoral level science teacher) also 
submitted a blank paper but stated that he would use 
the paper to demonstrate the differences in air 
resistance when dropping a sheet of paper and the 
same sheet when crumpled into a ball. 
 
Analysis Procedure 
 
 The questionnaires collected from the 
students were numbered for ease of record keeping. 
Student responses to the questions were read and key 
words or phrases were typed into a table that was 
printed for analysis. Categories of responses were 
developed by reading the responses and clustering like 
responses. Each response of a particular type was 
highlighted with a different colored marker. After all 
responses had been highlighted, the categories were 
summarized. Some responses fit into more than one 
category; these responses are discussed as a sub-set of 
a category. Text of particular interest was highlighted 
and typed into the table with the responses. Direct 
quotes are identified by the coded questionnaire 
number rather than student name. 
 
Question Two: Expectations about Assignment 
 
 The second question asked students to write 
about what they thought was the purpose of the 
assignment. Twenty-six students said that the 
assignment seemed to either be something for the 
course related to curriculum development or to benefit 
public school students. Eight thought it was designed 

to measure or foster creativity, seven thought it was an 
icebreaker to be used as show and tell for the next 
day’s class. Five thought it was to be used to gain 
insights into the personalities of the students enrolled 
in the course. Several thought it was just “something 
to do until the students had read the text.” One 
student, a former student of the instructor, approached 
the task in this manner. 
 

I felt relaxed because I know the 
expectations of Dr. -------. I knew I could do 
anything I desired and that, being the fair 
man you are, my grade would probably be 
determined on if I completed it. (3-6) 
 

There is only a slight degree of correlation between 
the responses given to this question and the products 
made or the responses made to questions three and 
four. 
 
Question Three: Limitations Placed by 
Instructions 
 
Responses. Three broad categories developed as the 
responses to this question were analyzed and the 
majority of the responses fell into these categories: 
none, the paper, and inability to talk to classmates. 

 
Twenty-three students responded with a variation 
of “none’ or “nothing” with two adding the 
phrases “but couldn’t be too simple” (2-13) and 
“but creativity” (3-19) 
 
Fifteen referred to the single page of paper, with 
additional comments relating to its “whiteness” or 
its size. Two students did not feel compelled to 
use only the single sheet provided but added other 
sheets of white paper to the project. 
 
Eleven students cited the inability to talk to peers 
as a limitation given by the instructions. 

 
 These three limitations are reasonable in that 
the instructions were designed to give neither 
direction nor limitation, required the use of a single 
sheet of paper, and admonished students to not talk to 
their peers. Two other responses appeared several 
times, time (5 times) and variations on the theme of 
vagueness or ambiguity. One student wrote “You call 
“prepare something” instructions?! 1 think knowing 
what you expected would have helped. Also knowing 
a reason for the assignment” (2-12). 
 From the responses, I have concluded that the 
instructions contain the proper degree of direction and 
vagueness so as to not guide the student into preparing 
a specific “thing” to complete the assignment. Only 
two students read more into the instructions by 
thinking that the instructions were directing them to 
do something related to the class. This response 



 

 4 

(something related to curriculum or the class) appears 
numerous times in the section on self-imposed 
limitations (See below) 
 
Question Four: Limitations Placed Upon Self 
 
 After reading through the limitations placed 
upon self responses, six categories became evident: 1) 
the product was to relate to the course, 2) the utility or 
appropriateness of the product was measured against 
the maker would think were others’ values or 
expectations, 3) it was to be made solely with the 
single sheet of paper, 4) creativity was required, 5) it 
would be completed with current skills and 
knowledge, and 6) a miscellaneous category with 
mentions of time and resources and the need for the 
product to have meaning for the creator. Of these six, 
the first two accounted for over half of the responses. 
 Nineteen students said they felt that they 
should make something related to the course, either 
curriculum specifically or the course in general. 
Statements such as “something to stimulate thinking 
about curriculum” (2-3), “limited to aspect of 
curriculum development” (1-5) or relevant to class 
(e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 2-9, 2-11), and “limiting to teaching 
and interesting to classmates” (2-5) illustrate this 
category. One student who outlined a lesson on 
“ladybugs” wrote, “I took this assignment to be a 
“lesson” simply because it is an education course -1 
guess it could have been almost anything” (1-14). 
 Two types of external measures were used 
when determining what should be made in response to 
the assignment. A number of students thought about 
things that would be of interest to their classmates. 
Others were worried about what others would think of 
their work, either the instructor or their classmates. 
Some of their comments were 
 

“Worrying about what other people would 
think about my ‘something.’ I worried about 
that more than what you would think.” (2-
12, emphasis in original) 

 
and 

 
“I didn’t think I could be totally free and 
make something simple or you’d think I was 
lazy.” (2-13) 

 
and 

 
“I was afraid that I would do something 
totally different from anyone else but I  
guess that is okay, I tried not to read too 
much into the instructions and go with what 
I felt that I should do.” (2-1) 

 
and 
 

I didn’t want to do anything too “off the 
wall” “I would come up with an idea, but 
then I would think, no, that’s not what he 
wants. So I tried to stay conservative.” (3-
19) 
 

and finally, 
 

“[C]ould this be what he was looking for?” I    
wonder if this is right?” (3-13) 
 

 
From these responses, one can see that perceptions of 
instructor and peer expectations were a factor in the 
decision making process for many of the students. 
How the students interpreted “correctness” or 
“appropriateness” does not follow a pattern. Products 
from these students were, in the order listed above, a 
small, important things book, a concept map, a cut 
snowflake, a page of tessellations, a rolled paper 
straw, and a poem (3-15). If anything characterizes 
most of these products, they were more elaborate and 
required more physical work than did some of the 
other products such as those related to course content 
which could be characterized as text on the paper. 

Several students wrote that the product was 
to be made solely with the single sheet of paper. These 
products were both constructed and text-based. 
Several thought the paper had to be used as it was, i.e., 
one could not add to it, either ink, pencil, or coloring, 
and therefore folded the paper. One student made a 
paper airplane and wrote “I was thinking about 
coloring my airplane but I decided I should limit 
myself to just using what was provided in the 
envelope” (2-6). As stated earlier, one of the most 
interesting was a 5-foot strip of paper made from the 
sheet by cutting a ¼” strip beginning on the outside 
and spiraling into the center. This student justified her 
activity, saying, “None (referring to limitations). 
When instructions are open to interpretation, you can 
only move in a direction you think is okay!” (1-4; 
emphasis in original) 

Other students thought that creativity was 
required (test of creativity (3-9); “writing or drawing 
was not creative enough so altered the paper with 
cutting” (snowflake) (1-6). One student combined the 
notion of external approval and creativity in writing, 

 
“The item made had to have a use or 
purpose. I kept trying to think what the trick 
was, which at first limited me. It had to be 
unique and not something one would 
normally think of.” (1-7) 

 
This product was a crumpled paper ball used to break 
the ice in a large group by tossing the ball to 
individuals. One student this way expressed the lack 
of personal creativity related to class assignments. 

 



 

 5

Well, I avoided it as long as I could because 
I really didn’t know what I was going to do . 
. . . Relief - It wasn’t at all what I expected, 
but also a little anxious because the 
instructions were so general. I kept telling 
myself that it was supposed to be fun and 
just to relax about the whole thing but I 
couldn’t help wondering about what I was 
going to do.... I am so used to getting very 
specific instructions that I didn’t know 
where to begin to respond to such open-
ended instructions. 
 

Ultimately, this student chose to copy a poem that she 
liked (Molder of Dreams) from a book to share with 
the class. 

Several students thought they had to 
complete the assignment with current skills and 
knowledge. One of the most interesting rationales for 
the product (using the paper to demonstrate 
differences in air resistance between a flat sheet of 
paper and a sheet of paper wadded into a ball) came 
from a science teacher. 

 
Most of my time was spent thinking about 
what could be done with a blank sheet of 
paper. My first thought was to create some 
sort of origami figure, but my attempts were 
unsuccessful, so I decided Ito] use the paper 
to illustrate gravity and the effect of air 
resistance. 

 
I chose to limit myself to areas and skills 
that I felt competent in. I could have painted 
a watercolor on the paper, but since I have 
no experience in that area, I would have 
been embarrassed to share it with others. (3 - 
10) 

 
This student’s first thoughts about the 

assignment were “I thought that this sort of 
ambiguous, creative assignment is the type that I most 
dread.” (3 -10) 

Ten students wrote that the amount of time 
allowed for the assignment or the amount of time they 
chose to devote to the task were limiting factors or 
that the product had to be meaningful or beneficial to 
either themselves (3- 1) or to the class (1 - 16). The 
type of product made with these rationales ranged 
from copied poems to elaborate concept maps of 
courses and curriculum development. 

Some of the students responded that they 
put no limitations on their activity. Their products 
tended to be reprints of extant works (i.e., poems 
copied from books (1-24, 2-15), and a problem 
solving activity taken from a school file (2-4)). Maybe 
for these students, the vagueness of the instructions 
did not convey a sense of value to the assignment. 

 

I wrote a brief scope and sequence of a 
possible reading lesson. I felt elaboration 
was not necessary. I assumed this from the 
un-elaborate instructions given me. (1-18) 

 
This might have been the whole rationale for this 
student response but the student’s work for the whole 
course could be described as bordering in 
“minimalist.”  
 
Discussion 

Some of the responses and products could 
be considered predictable. One should not be surprised 
by the focus on curriculum or course related products; 
after all, the students were enrolled in a curriculum 
development course. This could be attributed to task-
centeredness on the part of the students but lack of 
time for thinking and gathering materials probably is 
more explanatory. 

Also, a function of the nature of the course 
students were enrolled in, a five-week summer course 
meeting every day, makes responses related to time 
understandable. Students had less than 24-hours to 
complete the assignment, a time frame not conducive 
to learning new skills or gathering materials from 
home or the store. 

Additionally, many of the students who 
enrolled in the course were also enrolled in one or two 
additional courses. Six or nine hours of course work in 
a five week summer session puts a strain on both time 
and creativity. This is not to say that students who 
were the most creative had the lightest summer 
schedule. 
 The vagueness of the assignment could 
explain some of the student products although for 
other students it was not a problem. The lack of 
creative response and uneasiness with the ambiguous 
nature of the assignment can be explained when one 
understands that the majority of academic tasks given 
students, whether at public school, undergraduate, or 
graduate levels, are intended to lead students to a 
particular solution. Students who had previous 
experience with the instructor were less inhibited in 
their responses; but their products (2-15, 3-6) were no 
more elaborate than those made by students who were 
encountering the instructor for the first time. Maybe 
they were not compelled to do anything because they 
knew the instructor did not have a particular product 
in mind. 

The significant finding for this author is the 
large number of students, 35 out of 62, who, when 
given what appeared to be total freedom with certain 
materials, chose to base their decisions either on 
previous content and knowledge or made decisions 
based on what others, either the instructor or peers, 
would think about them or their product. Only six 
students cited practicality or personal meaningfulness 
as limiting filters placed on their preparation activity. 
Only one student used the assignment as a forum to 



 

 6 

                                                

present information on something of great personal 
interest. 

 
I thought that I might create a lesson plan - 
as this is a course in curriculum 
development - but there were no instructions 
to that effect, so I decided to get on my 
soapbox and try to enlist the classes help in 
alerting the community regarding the 
appalling state of education in Texas. ... I 
decided to use my page as a soapbox 
instead. The audience was too tempting! (1-
2) 
 

This student created an information flyer on the state 
of adult literacy in Texas and, after reading it, 
distributed it to the class. 

Subsequent class discussions about the 
patterns found in the limitations caused some 
discomfort for the students. Many were uncomfortable 
with their self-limiting decisions but could rationalize 
the situation. Variations on the themes of “no real free 
will in schools” and “you do what you have to do to 
keep your job” indicate that many teachers readily 
accept what they perceive as societal limits on their 
decision making process, even if they do not like the 
situation. 

If curriculum and school reformers wish to 
see initiative and innovation on the part of teachers, 
additional study of teacher self-limitation should be 
conducted. The interpretations of the results of this 
study are hampered by the nature of the data 
collection (limited time, pen and pencil self-report) 
and could be enriched through interviews conducted 
after written response. Additional information could 
be learned by examining teacher thinking about limits 
if the product preparation was not limited by a 24-
hour preparation period. 

 
Summary 

This paper reports results of a class activity 
given to teachers to explore limits they place on 
themselves as they prepare a product given non-
directive instructions. Several types of limitations 
were perceived by the teachers, some in the 
instructions and some in their own interpretation of 
the task. The majority of the teachers chose, even 
while admitting that the instructions were non-
limiting, to make products related to the course or in 
response to what they thought someone else would 
think if their product. Very few students used 
usefulness to self as the limiting criterion. These 
findings may add support to the knowledge of why 
many teachers rely heavily on textbooks and teacher 
lore when making decisions about curricular choices 
in the classroom. 

 
NOTE:  1 Information was collected from 60 students. 
Percentages of students making particular responses 

were not calculated in that some students gave more 
than one response to a question. 
 

REFERENCES 
 
Ben-Peretz, Miriam. (1990) The teacher-curriculum 

encounter: freeing teachers from the tyranny of 
texts. Albany: State University of New York 
Press. 

Dale, Erling Lam. (1998). The Essence of Teaching, 
pp. 255-264. In Gundem, Bjorg B. and Stefan 
Hopmann., Eds. Didaaktik and/or Curriculum. 
New York: Peter Lang. 

Gunter, Mary Alice, Estes, Thomas H. and Jan 
Schwab. (2003). Instruction A Model Approach 
4th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Klein, M. Frances. (1980). Teacher Perceived 
Sources of Influence on What is Taught in 
Subject Areas: A Study of Schooling in the 
United States. Technical Report Series No. 15. 
University of California, Los Angeles. ERIC 
Document Reproduction Service ED 214885. 

Konzal, Jean L.  (1997). What is the  Likely Impact 
of Parental Beliefs, Attitudes, and Knowledge on 
Changing Instructional Practices in the Secondary 
School.” Paper presented at annual meeting of 
American Educational Research Association, 
Chicago, IL: March 1997. 

McCutcheon, Gail. (1988). Curriculum and the Work 
of Teachers, pp. 191-203. In Beyer, Landon E., 
and Michael W. Apple, Eds. The Curriculum 
Problems, Politics, and Possibilities. Albany, 
NY: State University of New York Press. 

Peterson, Maria, and William Poppen. (1992). 
Challenges to and Censorship of School Guidance 
Materials. ERIC Digest. Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC 
Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel 
Services. ED 347479. 

 
 


