Читать книгу Launching and Consolidating Unstoppable Learning - Alexander McNeece - Страница 9

Introduction

How do educators help all students learn at high levels? By engaging them. I want to help you develop practices that help your students engage meaningfully with what they are learning, so they feel positive about school, are motivated, and can self-regulate. I offer prompts and anecdotes to encourage you, teachers and administrators for grades preK–12 (especially those newer to the profession), to consider what engaging classroom instruction looks like for students with different mindsets and different needs. I deconstruct student engagement’s complexity and offer strategies for reaching these students, because engagement is more than just student compliance and attentiveness. Educators can influence and, most importantly, grow a student’s engagement.

In the introduction, I will explain this book’s underpinning, which is Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey’s (2015) Unstoppable Learning model. I then drill down into the model’s concepts of launching and consolidating learning, which is about growing student engagement through transforming what we do in the classroom. I explain what I think are the most common student engagement mindsets, the student engagement mindset continuum, and how educators can best apply what I offer about them. I also warn readers how not to apply that information. Finally, before diving into the substantial content, I overview what’s in the book.

This Book’s Underpinning

Fisher and Frey have been instrumental in helping educators around the world gain the skills to be great teachers. In their book Unstoppable Learning: Seven Essential Elements to Unleash Student Potential, Fisher and Frey (2015) describe seven elements of teaching and learning: (1) planning, (2) launching, (3) consolidating, (4) assessing, (5) adapting, (6) managing, and (7) leading. You can see how they relate in figure I.1 (page 2). All these elements are critical parts of the whole. In this book, I assume you have read Fisher and Frey’s (2015) Unstoppable Learning and dive deeper, describing launching and consolidating in more depth; other books in this series dive into the remaining Unstoppable Learning elements (Hierck & Freese, 2018; Sammons & Smith, 2017; Stinson, 2017; Zapata & Brooks, 2017).

Source: Adapted from Fisher & Frey, 2015.

Figure I.1: Unstoppable Learning systems thinking model.

An important component of this model is a systems thinking approach. That approach to teaching and learning is what Launching and Consolidating Unstoppable Learning is built on. In a systems thinking approach, all the elements influence the whole concept of Unstoppable Learning. Four overlaying principles bind a systems thinking classroom: (1) relationships, (2) communication, (3) responsiveness, and (4) sustainability.

Relationship building between a teacher and students, and students with each other, is critical. In fact, a close, trusting relationship with a teacher, paired with high-quality instruction from that teacher, improves students’ academic and social development (Rimm-Kaufman & Sandilos, n.d.). Learning the proper verbal and nonverbal communication is the next critical principle for all learning’s participants, including, of course, teacher and students. Students report that their engagement fluctuates in accordance, partially, with whether teachers communicate with them (Cothran & Ennis, 2000).

Teachers who reflect on students’ changing needs are responsive. Educator and author Stephen D. Brookfield (2006) insists that responsiveness is crucial to building trust, which of course, loops back to relationship building. The strategies for each mindset demonstrate responsiveness, since you are responding to each kind of student’s particular needs, and that can occur only after you have established a relationship and have communicated with your students. The book’s last chapter addresses how to make this engaging instruction sustainable.

The final principle, sustainability, is collaboration. Without the support of a team, classrooms can, through a teacher’s hard work, make extraordinary academic gains. The problem with that is that when teachers move on, students lose those academic gains. Additionally, those successes are isolated to those particular classrooms without the ability to share ideas and practices to help all teachers grow.

Fisher and Frey (2015) propose driving questions that help keep educators focused on employing systems thinking. Systems-thinking questions for launching include:

• “What mental models do I use?

• What patterns and changes over time am I noticing?

• What assumptions of my own do I need to challenge?” (p. 174)

Systems-thinking questions for consolidating include:

• “What are the causes and effects of classroom issues I have identified?

• What is the impact of time on these issues?” (p. 175)

I cannot express enough the importance of teachers using the driving questions Fisher and Frey (2015) guide us with. They are the key to reflection and are critical to you when reading this book. Later in the book, I will provide a different mental model for student engagement based on the behaviors that I witnessed as a teacher and principal, and that you can read about in research. The driving questions are there to challenge your assumptions about students and their level of engagement in your classroom. They are there to help you launch the learning in your classroom. Furthermore, the questions for consolidating learning exist to help you critically reflect on what you are doing while you teach. John Hattie (2012) reminds us to “know thy impact.” What you do in your classroom is what matters the most. You have the biggest impact on student engagement. Use those systems-thinking questions and the content in this book to help make a great impact.

What It Means to Launch and Consolidate Learning

Launching and consolidating learning are elements of classroom instruction and, when done well, increase student engagement. You can think of both as a dinner metaphor. Launching learning is about preparing for a great meal. Think of when you create a feast for people. How do you invite your guests? What attentive touches do you create? What preparations have you made? Consolidating learning is the meal itself—the thing that guests bite into.

Fisher and Frey’s (2015) model separates launching from a lesson’s instruction. This is an essential takeaway from the systems thinking model. You cannot succeed without planning for both launching and consolidating, and both exist to engage students in their own distinctive ways. Launching is the context you create for the learning, and consolidating is the work you structure with which students will learn.

Fisher and Frey (2015) open the launching section of their book with a story of student anxiety about school. Let me be clear—the anxiety is about school, not learning. A low-engagement class or school format and structure—not learning itself—create anxiety. I have some personal experience with this as a parent. My daughter experienced severe anxiety in seventh grade. She had an advanced mathematics teacher that she, despite trying to, couldn’t connect with. Her feelings manifested into severe physical symptoms around the tests in that class. Even though she had a near perfect grade, the anxiety overwhelmed her. We had never experienced this and didn’t know the cause. She missed two months of school while we visited all the best doctors in the area. In the end, two things re-engaged her in school: the volleyball team and a different mathematics teacher. If switching teachers isn’t possible, supporting that teacher so he or she can learn how to positively engage students is critical.

What Does It Mean to Launch Learning?

Launching learning is how teachers introduce content in the classroom. It “marks [students’] entry point” (Fisher & Frey, 2015, p. 8). Urgently scrutinizing our education practices (Holmes, 2012) helps us better reach students. Fisher and Frey’s (2015) driving questions about this aspect of instruction promote that scrutiny: “What are my instructional goals for students? Where are opportunities to make learning relevant? What misconceptions and errors do I anticipate? How can I invite students into learning? What expert thinking do my students need to witness?” (p. 174).

Use these questions when you are planning to launch the learning in your classroom. You’ll see in each chapter that I paid special attention to each of these questions in the teacher A and teacher B scenarios.

What Does It Mean to Consolidate Learning?

If launching learning is like setting the table, consolidating learning is the meal itself. Not every guest will eat every part of the meal, but each guest has a favorite. Consolidating learning is about what teachers do with their instructional time. The Unstoppable Learning model compels teachers to ask themselves the following driving questions about this aspect of instruction (Fisher & Frey, 2015): “How can I structure learning tasks to ensure complexity? How can I structure learning tasks to facilitate interaction? How can I design learning tasks to foster independence?” (p. 175).

These questions are the crux of developing lessons that will help students build competence through thinking through complex concepts, support each other through collaborative classroom activities, and find a level of independence in their learning. Each of the chapters on the student engagement mindsets takes these questions into account when looking at the instructional strategies. Finally, I wrote this book assuming you have read Fisher and Frey’s (2015) Unstoppable Learning. The mindsets are the frame around launching and consolidating learning. If you launch and consolidate in your classroom, using the student engagement mindsets to complement this work, you can engage students with different needs.

Student Engagement Mindsets

There are five mindsets. You may be tempted to silently label students instead of identifying mindsets and using them to guide your instruction. Reframe your thoughts if you catch yourself thinking, “That student is an agitator” or something similar. This contributes to bias, which can negatively affect students who are struggling (Friedrich, Flunger, Nagengast, Jonkmann, & Trautwein, 2015). Watch for and work against bias in yourself.

• Agitator mindset: Students with this mindset are at the far-left end of the engagement continuum (see figure I.2 on page 8). They are less engaged than their classmates. Students with the agitator mindset actively work against the teacher, are overtly disruptive, and chronically underperform.

• Retreater mindset: Students with this mindset are withdrawn. They don’t attempt work, but they do not disrupt others. They also chronically underperform.

• Probationer mindset: Students with this mindset do their work only when outside forces compel them. They never complete high-quality work. They work to avoid punishment.

• Aficionado mindset: These high-achieving students think of school as a game, and they play it well. They do exceptionally well. Extrinsic motivators (like earning high grades, making a positive impression, and winning awards) drive them to complete work and achieve accolades. Most educators identify with this mindset, so pay attention to whether you’re seeing through that lens as you read.

• Academician mindset: Students with this mindset sometimes have enough knowledge to teach content. They have an internal drive for learning in that content area, and it shows in their behaviors. They fully engage in learning and sometimes move beyond extrinsic motivators like grades or awards. Learning is their primary interest.

These are the roles our students play based on their engagement. Each mindset benefits from specific tactics to increase or keep motivation. Using those tactics can help you move students up the student engagement mindset continuum.

How Not to Apply the Mindsets

Many teachers think they see students with the aficionado and academician mindsets in honors classes; they think they see students with probationer and retreater mindsets in remedial classes; they think they see those with agitator mindsets in detention or suspension. This thinking is an oversimplification. Thinking this way gives educators results like spotty engagement and inconsistent student success. Let us recognize that our current approach might be creating or reinforcing the harmful student engagement mindsets.

Furthermore, separating students into different classes (tracking) or classroom groups (ability grouping) based on their engagement mindsets is not the best option.

• Separating and grouping students threatens to increase bias: A Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings (Loveless, 2013) report warns that “grouping students by ability, no matter how it is done, will inevitably separate students by characteristics that are correlated statistically with measures of ability, including race, ethnicity, native language, and class” (page 15). Groups like these already struggle in the classroom under the weight of bias (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2002).

• Tracking and grouping have negligible, and sometimes detrimental, effects: Research shows (Betts & Shkolnik, 2000; Lleras & Rangel, 2009), for instance, those “lower grouped for reading instruction learn substantially less, and higher-grouped students learn slightly more over the first few years of school, compared to students who are in classrooms that do not practice grouping” (Lleras & Rangel, 2009, p. 279).

Remember: the mindsets exist to guide instruction—not to pigeonhole students or enable misperceptions about their abilities. Some kids are in crisis, but it’s up to teachers to engage them.

The Student Engagement Mindset Continuum

Student engagement is a continuum from disengaged to highly engaged. Students can move either direction on that continuum depending on what they experience and choose. It can vary from subject to subject and teacher to teacher (Darr, 2012). There are common threads in the research on student engagement. For example, psychology professors’ Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci’s (2000a, 2000b) self-determination theory shows how students move from unmotivated to intrinsic motivation. Education researcher Phil Schlechty’s (2001) engagement framework highlights the behavioral manifestations of engagement, moving from rebellious to authentic. Finally, education professors Sitwad Saeed and David Zyngier’s (2012) complex model blends Ryan and Deci’s (2000a, 2000b) motivation work and Schlechty’s (2001) engagement framework to explain student engagement behavior and the motivation underneath. I have combined all this research with my own teaching experiences to develop specific engagement mindsets and put them into a continuum of disengaged to engaged.

As I begin describing student mindsets, it is important to remember three points.

1. These mindsets evolved from the existing body of social scientific research (Saeed & Zyngier, 2012; Schlechty, 2001). They are rooted in hard work researchers have done and published. Without their hard work, the student engagement mindsets would not exist.

2. My experiences as a student, teacher, principal, and parent drove my thinking when developing these mindsets.

3. The mindsets are only that. They are not actual students, and they are not labels for students. Students change behavior from class to class and day to day. I don’t condone labeling students. We are labeling behavior to identify positive and negative consequences. This student engagement model exists only to assist educators to help students grow.

Figure I.2 (page 8) shows the student engagement mindset continuum. Let me first explain it; then I will call attention to how important it is to address students with the agitator mindset and the retreater mindset. You can see, from left to right, the mindsets that are least to most engaged. The zone of critical need highlights those mindsets of students who need immediate attention—agitator and retreater. You can also see which possess the fixed and growth mindsets, which I’ll discuss further throughout the book and specifically in chapter 2 (page 27).

Figure I.2: Student engagement mindset continuum.

Special Attention for Agitator and Retreater Mindsets

The continuum points out the zone of critical need. Those with the agitator and retreater mindsets need immediate attention. These students are at the highest risk of dropout or academic failure in your school, the dangers of which are highlighted in chapter 2 (page 27). Note that students who underperform are capable of more than they’re accomplishing. The continuum indicates mindsets only—not potential. Sadly, these students in the zone of critical need will experience disciplinary problems, attendance issues, and social issues with other students and teachers (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Unfortunately, the education system has few solutions for these students. Many times, they are suspended or fail out of school. Some districts have created alternative schools or programs. In the best cases, these placements offer alternative methods, like those in the How to Reach Them sections of this book. These students needn’t be trapped in their current mindsets in a class that is intentionally less rigorous without complex work that exhibits their competency.

When devising ways to help students with the agitator or retreater mindset, educators must consider multiple factors. First, students need academic challenge. Sometimes rigor is swapped for compliance (Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin, & Cusick, 1986, as cited in Schussler, 2009). Districts cannot put the least experienced or least capable teachers with our most challenging populations. Alternative programs for students with the agitator and retreater mindsets need the best teachers.

Next, lack of academic challenge in the classroom communicates disrespect to a young mind. Research shows that students actually want academic challenges (Sizer & Sizer, 1999). Students with the agitator and retreater mindsets perceive short-term gains when they avoid work. They ultimately feel that the teachers don’t care enough to try. When a student has a bargain-making teacher, one who barters away school rules or learning norms for behavioral compliance, that student gets a crushing blow to engagement (Schussler, 2009). Alternative program teachers who work with students who underperform must scaffold instruction and make it more complex gradually. These students need missions (highly complex and highly engaging activities) more than students with any other mindset.

My wife was an alternative high school teacher in Michigan. Her school has helped many students succeed with its intense level of care and instructional expertise. Imagine being a disengaged student who transfers to a place where all the adults communicate and work to make sure you succeed. It creates a relatedness and a positive affective bond. My wife’s former students still seek her out and thank her. When the instruction matches the student-teacher bond, the student is more likely to take risks and leave the retreater or agitator mindset behind (Parsons, Nuland, & Parsons, 2014).

It is important to recognize that not all students begin with an agitator or retreater mindset and then move forward on the continuum; some come to us already with the probationer, aficionado, and academician mindsets. In this book, I focus on ways to help students move forward on the continuum from wherever they are and help academician mindsets maintain the highest level of engagement.

What’s in This Book

Chapter 1 will define student engagement in regard to the five mindsets on student engagement, link it to Ryan and Deci’s (2009) self-determination theory (SDT; which asserts that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are crucial to engagement), and further clarify its importance. This chapter will also take into consideration student perception in order to understand how students perceive assigned tasks. You’ll see terms like chores, games, burdens, and missions throughout to that end.

Chapters 2 through 6 will cover each of the five mindsets on the student engagement mindset continuum: (1) agitator, (2) retreater, (3) probationer, (4) aficionado, and (5) academician. No matter what a student’s grade level, all learners need to feel a high level of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Each chapter will tie those concepts together and explain how a teacher can use them to engage students. For each, I identify those students’ motivations. These chapters open with a description of an actual student I taught or coached who had the specific mindset, and I describe the mindset in detail. Then, the launching and consolidating sections are balanced. The launching sections present classroom scenarios that highlight strong hooks, and the consolidating sections present a critical concept or multiple research-validated strategies when engaging students with that mindset. Chapter 7 offers guidelines to help you, preK–12 teachers and administrators, create a culture of engagement throughout your school, increasing sustainability.

What you read in the coming chapters helps you build the systems thinking instructional principles—(1) relationships, (2) communication, (3) responsiveness, and (4) sustainability—you need to engage students. Let’s dive in.