I've been thinking about engagement over the holiday break. Mostly focused on these two, big questions:
Why do students care?
Why do students NOT care?
I started thinking about this because I spend a lot of time looking at students' transcripts with them. I do this because when talking with students about their achievement, they often ground their sense of themselves, academically, in their momentary feelings, rather than in hard data. So what I like to do is try to find the data points that both support and also contradict their self-assessment, and have a discussion grounded in the evidence.
Let's say a student says "Mister, I'm just not good at English". "Ok," I think, "that's a bit of a generalization." So I ask the student if we can look at some data to prove this. They always agree, and I think this is because people like to be right, especially teenagers. "So what data should we look at?" I ask. And we end up delving into their past grades on essays - in all classes - their grades in previous English classes, their grades on standardized tests that require essay writing, and even their submission rate for essays (because maybe they think they are bad at English because they get low grades - but if those grades are due to a lack of assignments, rather than poorly written ones, then perhaps they are good but just don't know it). Inevitably, there is always data to support and refute the student's self-judgment. This is an opening for me to suggest that maybe they are actually good at English, but they don't always try hard consistently or have the best support from their teachers. Which leads me to ask them how I can support them better. These tend to be productive conversations, but they open up bigger questions about engagement.
After looking through so many transcripts, one thing I noticed is how inconsistent many students' grades are; they will have F's, D's, C's, B's, and A's all over their transcript, as if to say they are both intelligent and not, skilled and not, talented and not. How can this be?
In New York, we have a unique data set that many other states don't - subject specific standardized tests (called Regents Exams). So any teacher can see how many times a student took a standardized tests and what their scores were. We can compare a score on the Chemistry Regents to their grade in Chemistry class. Or their Chemistry Regents scores to their Earth Science, Physics, or Living Environment (biology) Regents scores. And these numbers are often wildly different, where someone is B student in physics, but fails the Physics Regents exam, or is an A student in chemistry, but an F student in Earth Science. Weird stuff.
I say this is weird, because you'd think that if a student was engaged enough to get an A in a class, they wouldn't really struggle so much in the same class, taught in different grades or by different teachers. Or if they were engaged enough to get a B in the class, their grade in the test would be similar. Hell, some students do BETTER on the standardized tests than in the class - what's up with that? Is engagement at the root of this? Is rigor also a part of it? Are the students' and teachers' personalities part of it?
I see three types of students. These types aren't fixed - some students are in one category for some subjects, hobbies, behaviors, and activities, but in a different category for others. Personally, if I had to take a class in football, I might not care enough to do better than a D. But a music class? Sign me up! So when breaking down the types of students we can be, I see these three categories of engagement:
1) Intrinsic Interest: these are the "teacher-proof" students, the ones that I don't need to worry about comprehending class material. They love the subject so much that they would learn well even with a shitty teacher who didn't try to make the work compelling or interesting. At best, they comprise 30-40% of my students. They earn A's and a few B's in almost all their subjects. When there are C's or consistent B's in a subject, they'll say "oh, I just hate math" or "that teacher and I didn't get along". They are willing to give teachers a chance, but they have such a passion for learning that they excel despite hurdles. You can tell this group because they retain the information from the class long after it ends.
2) Extrinsic Compliance: this group often LOOKS engaged because they follow directions, complete assignments, and are polite. They have extrinsic motivation(s) that compel them to succeed - the desire for good grades, supportive or punitive parents (where the support and punishments work), the goal of going to college, fear of being seen as a failure by peers or teachers, et. Al. And I would say around 30-50% of my students fall into this group. They do the work, they come to class, they seem pleasant, but, internally, they aren't excited about class. I often realize who's part of this group when, weeks or months after teaching them something, they've forgotten it. You can nail down being part of this group if you learn a subject well enough in the moment, but retain it poorly as time goes on, because your mind just doesn't prioritize or apply the information beyond the class assignments. These students often need to and will study hard to earn B's and A's on their standardized tests.
3) Resistant skepticism: these students present as apathetic, disdainful, or downright hateful about any or all of the following: school, teachers, peers, rules, reading, writing, math, science, social studies, foreign languages, activities, games, etc. They might roll their eyes, suck their teeth, come late, skip class, skip school, ignore directives, bend rules, break rules, not complete assignments, yell, interrupt, go to sleep in class, argue with teachers over the purpose of the work, and a variety of other off-task behaviors. I'm not saying the other 80% don't act these ways too, but it is less frequent, less public, and it doesn't disrupt their learning or those of others. The resistant group isn't trying to get to the learning, they have decided to avoid it. This isn't because they are always struggling learners - often these students learn a lot about other subjects like their peers and gossip/drama surrounding them, pop culture, video games, consumer goods, viral videos, memes, comedy, and other things we don't have classes about. Some of them hate academic material because it feels foreign, esoteric, and useless. Often the utility of this information is so specific and narrow that if you think logically about it, it becomes silly to learn it when there is so much else that matters more. This 10% of students has, at times, swelled to 20, 30, 40, or 50% for a lesson, unit, or even that particular year (where all the teachers for that grade have the same engagement problems). I have to say, I both love and hate teaching this group. I love their skepticism, cynicism, and desire to learn something meaningful, but I hate their indifference, lack of trust in their teachers, that they don't know what they want, and that my standardized test, state standards, or administrators don't afford me the time or wherewithal to help them see what they want. I had a former literacy coach who used to say that all students want to learn. I think I agree with that, but what I would add is this caveat "but not necessarily what they need to learn right now in this class".
So for students, I usually try to plan lessons for the second and third groups, knowing that if I can engage the most resistant, then what I've created will definitely work for the intrinsically engaged. But again, you can only be engaged if you can understand the material, so the literacy needs of students often gets in the way of my best laid plans - an engaging lesson on the causes of Trump's election victory, the health impacts of lead in public water sources, Toni Morrison's writing, or debunking 911 conspiracy theories are all well and good until a student cannot access all the vocabulary and abstract thinking needed to access these analyses.
But another part of engagement is from the teachers. We also fall into categories:
1) Optimists: these teachers are well meaning, and they try hard. They follow directives from their administrators, they teach the content of the test or standards, and they approach teaching with enthusiasm and positivity. But they often aren't seeing what isn't working, because they have a degree of optimism that motivates them to keep pushing through and hoping it will all work out. But when students resist, optimistic teachers have a harder time validating their concerns, since these concerns disprove blind optimism in a system full of flaws. You can tell if you're this type of teacher because when other teachers complain, you have a hard time joining in and feeling those complaints yourself. And these teachers have a valuable role - they are unconditonally encouraging, their students usually LOVE them, and their positive approach helps them have difficult conversations and get the attention of administrators, who would always rather deal with pleasant people. They often become administrators themselves, as they have bought into whatever the system is commanding, despite any contradictions and data that shows a lack of results. They usually change methods when told to by superiors or when the data overwhelmingly shows that a method isn't working.
2) Realists: these teachers work hard, despite the fact that they recognize flaws in what they are tasked to do. These teachers have to work hard, because that's the only way to demonstrate that the given directives have flaws (without giving a plan a solid attempt, how can you show it isn't working?). They also have to work at trying alternative plans to demonstrate their efficacy, such that they move the system in a different direction. hey can reach those hard-headed, resistant students because they can break from the positive, optimistic demeanor to validate students' cynicism, but also frame student effort in terms of both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. Students can see themselves in these teachers, and it helps them connect to them if they are also feeling the teen angst But being realists and working hard, they burn out faster than others. It's easy to start as a realist and suddenly find yourself part of the third group.
3) Pessimists: these teachers are the worst. They shit on ideas before trying them. They think things would be better if administrators would "just let them teach". They start sentences with "The thing about these kids is..." or just "These kids...". They often generalize their students without caveats, exceptions, or nuance. They don't like the job. They don't want to work any harder than they are. They don't seem passionate about the job. They don't take criticism well. They complain A LOT. They have contentious relationships with a large chunk, sometimes a majority, of their students. They love how teachers unions prevent them from working too hard. And they have a hard time reaching students who are extrinsically motivated or resistant.
I'm not married to these groupings, and I'm sure there are other, dominant patterns in behavior that can classify students and teachers. I'd love to know if other people see students and teachers through other patterns that I'm overlooking. Or if my own groups are a bit oversimplistic, but again, just as a student moves between their groups, teachers are also mobile and sometimes overlap groups. I can be a realistic teacher when dealing with grading, but an optimist when it comes to designing activities for class. Or a pessimist about standardized test material but an optimist about their own materials. We can inhibit one, two, or all of these qualities at the same time, but depending on who we teach, where we teach, what we teach, when we teach, and who our administrators are. I have seen teachers who are generally optimists become realists due to a punitive or ineffective principal. I have seen pessimists become realists or optimists due to a new roster of students. And in my own case, I can be these three types of teacher not only in different schools, but in different classes, during different months, and for different students. I am getting better at realizing when I fall into being a pessimist, and what usually helps bring me back to realism or temporary optimism. Sometimes it's making a lesson or unit that I want, without following the standardized curriculum. Sometimes it's giving students more choice. Sometimes it's making time for self-care. Sometimes it's venting. Sometimes, it's faking optimism until I make it. But I've been such a pessimist at times that I left two different schools because of it, and I saw that it was a bad fit for me to stay - I wasn't realistic or optimistic enough to be the best engager of my students. And as a consequence, they were resistant to engagement from me. So we parted ways, and I'm still on the journey to find the best fit of a school. Live and learn.
But back to engagement - if the teachers and students could all be self-aware enough to move between groups when it is advantageous to them, I think engagement would increase. All three characteristic groups are valuable at times (when cynicism, low expectations, and disdain are useful, we need to become pessimists). Schools, teachers, and students can control a lot to make everyone see things from the most useful perspective. But this takes time - meetings and professional development devoted to teachers ruminating and discussing big ideas, long class periods where students can talk about their ideas, their experiences, and reflect on their own behavior and emotions. The easier part is to choose the best content and logistics for learning (length of the class period, design of the classroom, size of the class, resources of the classroom, rosters of students etc). My hypothesis is first, that if teachers chose their content more to reflect the utility, relevance, and interests of students, engagement would increase. And second, if schools could strategically arrange teachers with subjects, classrooms, supplies, and rosters to maximize learning, engagement would also increase. Most teachers aren't "bad" at teaching (for lack of a better word), and most students aren't "bad" at learning, but the restraints put on both of them by logistics and content lead to inadequate results, because often those logistics and content inspire students to be more resistant and teachers to be more pessimistic, more of the time. I think schools should strive to figure out students' and teachers' wants and needs so they are the most engaged and productive as possible.
Why do students care?
Why do students NOT care?
I started thinking about this because I spend a lot of time looking at students' transcripts with them. I do this because when talking with students about their achievement, they often ground their sense of themselves, academically, in their momentary feelings, rather than in hard data. So what I like to do is try to find the data points that both support and also contradict their self-assessment, and have a discussion grounded in the evidence.
Let's say a student says "Mister, I'm just not good at English". "Ok," I think, "that's a bit of a generalization." So I ask the student if we can look at some data to prove this. They always agree, and I think this is because people like to be right, especially teenagers. "So what data should we look at?" I ask. And we end up delving into their past grades on essays - in all classes - their grades in previous English classes, their grades on standardized tests that require essay writing, and even their submission rate for essays (because maybe they think they are bad at English because they get low grades - but if those grades are due to a lack of assignments, rather than poorly written ones, then perhaps they are good but just don't know it). Inevitably, there is always data to support and refute the student's self-judgment. This is an opening for me to suggest that maybe they are actually good at English, but they don't always try hard consistently or have the best support from their teachers. Which leads me to ask them how I can support them better. These tend to be productive conversations, but they open up bigger questions about engagement.
After looking through so many transcripts, one thing I noticed is how inconsistent many students' grades are; they will have F's, D's, C's, B's, and A's all over their transcript, as if to say they are both intelligent and not, skilled and not, talented and not. How can this be?
In New York, we have a unique data set that many other states don't - subject specific standardized tests (called Regents Exams). So any teacher can see how many times a student took a standardized tests and what their scores were. We can compare a score on the Chemistry Regents to their grade in Chemistry class. Or their Chemistry Regents scores to their Earth Science, Physics, or Living Environment (biology) Regents scores. And these numbers are often wildly different, where someone is B student in physics, but fails the Physics Regents exam, or is an A student in chemistry, but an F student in Earth Science. Weird stuff.
I say this is weird, because you'd think that if a student was engaged enough to get an A in a class, they wouldn't really struggle so much in the same class, taught in different grades or by different teachers. Or if they were engaged enough to get a B in the class, their grade in the test would be similar. Hell, some students do BETTER on the standardized tests than in the class - what's up with that? Is engagement at the root of this? Is rigor also a part of it? Are the students' and teachers' personalities part of it?
I see three types of students. These types aren't fixed - some students are in one category for some subjects, hobbies, behaviors, and activities, but in a different category for others. Personally, if I had to take a class in football, I might not care enough to do better than a D. But a music class? Sign me up! So when breaking down the types of students we can be, I see these three categories of engagement:
1) Intrinsic Interest: these are the "teacher-proof" students, the ones that I don't need to worry about comprehending class material. They love the subject so much that they would learn well even with a shitty teacher who didn't try to make the work compelling or interesting. At best, they comprise 30-40% of my students. They earn A's and a few B's in almost all their subjects. When there are C's or consistent B's in a subject, they'll say "oh, I just hate math" or "that teacher and I didn't get along". They are willing to give teachers a chance, but they have such a passion for learning that they excel despite hurdles. You can tell this group because they retain the information from the class long after it ends.
2) Extrinsic Compliance: this group often LOOKS engaged because they follow directions, complete assignments, and are polite. They have extrinsic motivation(s) that compel them to succeed - the desire for good grades, supportive or punitive parents (where the support and punishments work), the goal of going to college, fear of being seen as a failure by peers or teachers, et. Al. And I would say around 30-50% of my students fall into this group. They do the work, they come to class, they seem pleasant, but, internally, they aren't excited about class. I often realize who's part of this group when, weeks or months after teaching them something, they've forgotten it. You can nail down being part of this group if you learn a subject well enough in the moment, but retain it poorly as time goes on, because your mind just doesn't prioritize or apply the information beyond the class assignments. These students often need to and will study hard to earn B's and A's on their standardized tests.
3) Resistant skepticism: these students present as apathetic, disdainful, or downright hateful about any or all of the following: school, teachers, peers, rules, reading, writing, math, science, social studies, foreign languages, activities, games, etc. They might roll their eyes, suck their teeth, come late, skip class, skip school, ignore directives, bend rules, break rules, not complete assignments, yell, interrupt, go to sleep in class, argue with teachers over the purpose of the work, and a variety of other off-task behaviors. I'm not saying the other 80% don't act these ways too, but it is less frequent, less public, and it doesn't disrupt their learning or those of others. The resistant group isn't trying to get to the learning, they have decided to avoid it. This isn't because they are always struggling learners - often these students learn a lot about other subjects like their peers and gossip/drama surrounding them, pop culture, video games, consumer goods, viral videos, memes, comedy, and other things we don't have classes about. Some of them hate academic material because it feels foreign, esoteric, and useless. Often the utility of this information is so specific and narrow that if you think logically about it, it becomes silly to learn it when there is so much else that matters more. This 10% of students has, at times, swelled to 20, 30, 40, or 50% for a lesson, unit, or even that particular year (where all the teachers for that grade have the same engagement problems). I have to say, I both love and hate teaching this group. I love their skepticism, cynicism, and desire to learn something meaningful, but I hate their indifference, lack of trust in their teachers, that they don't know what they want, and that my standardized test, state standards, or administrators don't afford me the time or wherewithal to help them see what they want. I had a former literacy coach who used to say that all students want to learn. I think I agree with that, but what I would add is this caveat "but not necessarily what they need to learn right now in this class".
So for students, I usually try to plan lessons for the second and third groups, knowing that if I can engage the most resistant, then what I've created will definitely work for the intrinsically engaged. But again, you can only be engaged if you can understand the material, so the literacy needs of students often gets in the way of my best laid plans - an engaging lesson on the causes of Trump's election victory, the health impacts of lead in public water sources, Toni Morrison's writing, or debunking 911 conspiracy theories are all well and good until a student cannot access all the vocabulary and abstract thinking needed to access these analyses.
But another part of engagement is from the teachers. We also fall into categories:
1) Optimists: these teachers are well meaning, and they try hard. They follow directives from their administrators, they teach the content of the test or standards, and they approach teaching with enthusiasm and positivity. But they often aren't seeing what isn't working, because they have a degree of optimism that motivates them to keep pushing through and hoping it will all work out. But when students resist, optimistic teachers have a harder time validating their concerns, since these concerns disprove blind optimism in a system full of flaws. You can tell if you're this type of teacher because when other teachers complain, you have a hard time joining in and feeling those complaints yourself. And these teachers have a valuable role - they are unconditonally encouraging, their students usually LOVE them, and their positive approach helps them have difficult conversations and get the attention of administrators, who would always rather deal with pleasant people. They often become administrators themselves, as they have bought into whatever the system is commanding, despite any contradictions and data that shows a lack of results. They usually change methods when told to by superiors or when the data overwhelmingly shows that a method isn't working.
2) Realists: these teachers work hard, despite the fact that they recognize flaws in what they are tasked to do. These teachers have to work hard, because that's the only way to demonstrate that the given directives have flaws (without giving a plan a solid attempt, how can you show it isn't working?). They also have to work at trying alternative plans to demonstrate their efficacy, such that they move the system in a different direction. hey can reach those hard-headed, resistant students because they can break from the positive, optimistic demeanor to validate students' cynicism, but also frame student effort in terms of both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. Students can see themselves in these teachers, and it helps them connect to them if they are also feeling the teen angst But being realists and working hard, they burn out faster than others. It's easy to start as a realist and suddenly find yourself part of the third group.
3) Pessimists: these teachers are the worst. They shit on ideas before trying them. They think things would be better if administrators would "just let them teach". They start sentences with "The thing about these kids is..." or just "These kids...". They often generalize their students without caveats, exceptions, or nuance. They don't like the job. They don't want to work any harder than they are. They don't seem passionate about the job. They don't take criticism well. They complain A LOT. They have contentious relationships with a large chunk, sometimes a majority, of their students. They love how teachers unions prevent them from working too hard. And they have a hard time reaching students who are extrinsically motivated or resistant.
I'm not married to these groupings, and I'm sure there are other, dominant patterns in behavior that can classify students and teachers. I'd love to know if other people see students and teachers through other patterns that I'm overlooking. Or if my own groups are a bit oversimplistic, but again, just as a student moves between their groups, teachers are also mobile and sometimes overlap groups. I can be a realistic teacher when dealing with grading, but an optimist when it comes to designing activities for class. Or a pessimist about standardized test material but an optimist about their own materials. We can inhibit one, two, or all of these qualities at the same time, but depending on who we teach, where we teach, what we teach, when we teach, and who our administrators are. I have seen teachers who are generally optimists become realists due to a punitive or ineffective principal. I have seen pessimists become realists or optimists due to a new roster of students. And in my own case, I can be these three types of teacher not only in different schools, but in different classes, during different months, and for different students. I am getting better at realizing when I fall into being a pessimist, and what usually helps bring me back to realism or temporary optimism. Sometimes it's making a lesson or unit that I want, without following the standardized curriculum. Sometimes it's giving students more choice. Sometimes it's making time for self-care. Sometimes it's venting. Sometimes, it's faking optimism until I make it. But I've been such a pessimist at times that I left two different schools because of it, and I saw that it was a bad fit for me to stay - I wasn't realistic or optimistic enough to be the best engager of my students. And as a consequence, they were resistant to engagement from me. So we parted ways, and I'm still on the journey to find the best fit of a school. Live and learn.
But back to engagement - if the teachers and students could all be self-aware enough to move between groups when it is advantageous to them, I think engagement would increase. All three characteristic groups are valuable at times (when cynicism, low expectations, and disdain are useful, we need to become pessimists). Schools, teachers, and students can control a lot to make everyone see things from the most useful perspective. But this takes time - meetings and professional development devoted to teachers ruminating and discussing big ideas, long class periods where students can talk about their ideas, their experiences, and reflect on their own behavior and emotions. The easier part is to choose the best content and logistics for learning (length of the class period, design of the classroom, size of the class, resources of the classroom, rosters of students etc). My hypothesis is first, that if teachers chose their content more to reflect the utility, relevance, and interests of students, engagement would increase. And second, if schools could strategically arrange teachers with subjects, classrooms, supplies, and rosters to maximize learning, engagement would also increase. Most teachers aren't "bad" at teaching (for lack of a better word), and most students aren't "bad" at learning, but the restraints put on both of them by logistics and content lead to inadequate results, because often those logistics and content inspire students to be more resistant and teachers to be more pessimistic, more of the time. I think schools should strive to figure out students' and teachers' wants and needs so they are the most engaged and productive as possible.