Reflective Discourse
_
When
I walked across the Assumption College stage in May 2007 to receive my bachelor’s
degree, I felt completely prepared to teach the high school students that would
be sitting in front of me that fall. I had visions of in-depth, analytical
discussions of literature and persuasive research papers so beautifully written
that it would make my stoic mentor—my former English teacher—weep. It took only
a few hours in my new classroom for me to realize that I still had so much to
learn about motivation, classroom management, and other best teaching
practices. Through the guidance of my mentors and many mistakes, I began to
improve as an educator. It took a move to the middle school level and the
advent of SRBI (Connecticut’s version of RTI) to convince me that I needed more
coursework to really become the expert educator my students need me to be,
especially in terms of literacy and motivation So, I left the Creative Writing
MFA program I had been enrolled in and signed up for the MSEd in Literacy
Program at the University of New England.
Each of my courses at the University of New England—from the readings and discussions to the case studies and clinic reports—has taught me so much about my students, their families, my colleagues and administrators, and myself as a person and educator. For me, the case studies have been the most eye-opening because they require me to look at my school, my students, and how they relate to current educational theory.
As an educator, one of the most heartbreaking and difficult situations to deal with when obviously gifted students are not motivated and are allowing their grades to limit their self-confidence and future opportunities. So often these students are also struggling with mental or emotional illness, undiagnosed medical conditions, or tough family conditions. After taking UNE’s Motivational Theory and Classroom Management class, I now realize that in addition to specific interventions from the social worker/ school psychologist to address mental health issues and to help these students have positive connections with adults, a strategy suggested by Kelley et al. (2010), in extreme cases, I feel that outside counseling, including cognitive group therapy, should be recommended. According to Tiuraniemi and Korhola (2009), “Cognitive-behavioral therapy resulted in a significant improvement in perceived stress, depressive symptoms, reduced use of avoidance coping strategies, and more use of approach coping strategies among university students (p. 133-134). However, schools are wary of such recommendations since they would then be liable for the associated costs.
It is also important that teachers make connections to these students. According to Hall (2008), citing Radcliffe (2007), “For teachers, negotiating the bridge between ‘school reading’ and texts that middle school students want to read is a complicated one that involves caring about the students’ lives, valuing the students’ literacies, and helping students work to reconsider their ‘literacy identities’” (p. 73). However, as noted in the case study for Proposition 1, students with particular conditions or disorder require that teachers must take additional or different steps when attempting to establish beneficial student- teacher relationships with them.
These amotivated or disengaged students would also benefit from a RTI/SRBI or special education intervention plan that is based on goal orientation theory; students are given mastery, not performance goals, and given rewards, not punishments. E.M. Anderman & L.H. Anderman (2010) cite the research of Turner and her colleagues, and claim that “when classrooms are perceived as being focused on mastery, students are unlikely to feel threatened and thus, may not need to use avoidance strategies” (p. 168). For these students, I believe it is also important to address their feelings of self-efficacy. I have found that ‘high intelligence, low performing students” often have low self-efficacy beliefs, which cause them to engage in self-handicapping behaviors “to avoid looking dumb or incompetent” (E.M. Anderman & L.H. Anderman, 2010, p. 168). In other words, a student, believing that he would fail at certain academic tasks, would choose to not do the assignments and take the failing grade rather than trying the assignment and perhaps failing, which would then show him that he was as “stupid” as his low self-efficacy was leading him to believe.
According to Ford, Alber, and Heward (1998), though “poor motivation among gifted students seems paradoxical, because intrinsic motivation is considered a distinguishing characteristic of gifted students…National estimates are that 20-50% of gifted students underachieve academically.” For these students, the researchers recommend a motivational strategy called a “motivation trap.” This is an adaptation of interest-based learning, which is “student centered and increases the likelihood of students being active participants in the learning process” (Ford, Alber, & Heward, 1998). This five-step process involves identifying the students that need help, discovering their interests, and then finding the resources and activities to address those interests. Step four of Ford, Alber, and Heward’s motivation trap reminds teachers that “A motivation trap cannot work unless the student gets ‘caught.’ Make it easy for the students to enter the trap; one a small, easy-to-perform response should be required. Once inside the trap, the student must use and extend target skills in order to maintain and increase contact with his or her favorite topic” and provide “students opportunities to participate in activities based on task completion, rather than time schedules.” The researchers maintain that since “some students underachieve for social and emotional reasons; they want to be accepted, they want attention, they feel isolated, and so forth,” such a motivation trap, that makes them look competent and puts them at the center of the curriculum which help students achieve.
My understanding of literacy and literacy assessments has also improved as a result of this program. Prior to this class, as a secondary school educator, I had no experience reading or using reading assessments. The assessment data given by the specialist department is not readily available for teachers to use and prior to the implementation of SRBI, the reading interventionist did not work with students in grades 7 & 8. In UNE’s Literacy Assessments class, I was able to have practical experience proctoring and interpreting a variety of literacy assessments. One of the things that I’ve learned about is that you cannot rely on one “magic bullet” test to diagnose your student or determine their strengths and weaknesses. Each test contributes a piece to the whole and needs to be used thoughtfully. For example, in the clinic report used for Proposition 3, the GSRT and TOSCRF indicated the need for a more comprehensive reading comprehension battery. Since other testing indicated that the student had high indicators for ADHD, inattentive type, I rationalized that I should test his reading comprehension on both a teacher-directed and independent test in order to get the most accurate representation of his abilities.
In a few short months, after completing my Action Research Project—the next and final step in my journey at UNE—I will again walk across the stage in a cap and gown to receive a diploma. With the wisdom gained from the last five years of my teaching career and my classes at UNE, I will take my diploma knowing that while I have come so far, I still have so much left to learn. This program has instilled in me that teaching is more than just about teaching students the curriculum and standards, teaching is about looking each and every child holistically—as a student, a daughter or son, a friend, a peer, a citizen, and as a soul. I know the lessons I’ve learned about literacy assessments, reading interventions, differentiation, and classroom management will help me educate the whole person. Most importantly, I’ve come to realize it takes a village to raise a child and a teacher. Being a part of the professional learning community at the UNE has helped me to realize that the only way teachers are going to meet the needs of our students—needs that have changed dramatically in the last decade—is to work together. As I begin my new teaching position in a newly incorporated school, I want to lead the way towards instilling a sense of professional community where teachers share constructive feedback and research so that we can all support each other in our professional growth, as UNE has supported me.
Each of my courses at the University of New England—from the readings and discussions to the case studies and clinic reports—has taught me so much about my students, their families, my colleagues and administrators, and myself as a person and educator. For me, the case studies have been the most eye-opening because they require me to look at my school, my students, and how they relate to current educational theory.
As an educator, one of the most heartbreaking and difficult situations to deal with when obviously gifted students are not motivated and are allowing their grades to limit their self-confidence and future opportunities. So often these students are also struggling with mental or emotional illness, undiagnosed medical conditions, or tough family conditions. After taking UNE’s Motivational Theory and Classroom Management class, I now realize that in addition to specific interventions from the social worker/ school psychologist to address mental health issues and to help these students have positive connections with adults, a strategy suggested by Kelley et al. (2010), in extreme cases, I feel that outside counseling, including cognitive group therapy, should be recommended. According to Tiuraniemi and Korhola (2009), “Cognitive-behavioral therapy resulted in a significant improvement in perceived stress, depressive symptoms, reduced use of avoidance coping strategies, and more use of approach coping strategies among university students (p. 133-134). However, schools are wary of such recommendations since they would then be liable for the associated costs.
It is also important that teachers make connections to these students. According to Hall (2008), citing Radcliffe (2007), “For teachers, negotiating the bridge between ‘school reading’ and texts that middle school students want to read is a complicated one that involves caring about the students’ lives, valuing the students’ literacies, and helping students work to reconsider their ‘literacy identities’” (p. 73). However, as noted in the case study for Proposition 1, students with particular conditions or disorder require that teachers must take additional or different steps when attempting to establish beneficial student- teacher relationships with them.
These amotivated or disengaged students would also benefit from a RTI/SRBI or special education intervention plan that is based on goal orientation theory; students are given mastery, not performance goals, and given rewards, not punishments. E.M. Anderman & L.H. Anderman (2010) cite the research of Turner and her colleagues, and claim that “when classrooms are perceived as being focused on mastery, students are unlikely to feel threatened and thus, may not need to use avoidance strategies” (p. 168). For these students, I believe it is also important to address their feelings of self-efficacy. I have found that ‘high intelligence, low performing students” often have low self-efficacy beliefs, which cause them to engage in self-handicapping behaviors “to avoid looking dumb or incompetent” (E.M. Anderman & L.H. Anderman, 2010, p. 168). In other words, a student, believing that he would fail at certain academic tasks, would choose to not do the assignments and take the failing grade rather than trying the assignment and perhaps failing, which would then show him that he was as “stupid” as his low self-efficacy was leading him to believe.
According to Ford, Alber, and Heward (1998), though “poor motivation among gifted students seems paradoxical, because intrinsic motivation is considered a distinguishing characteristic of gifted students…National estimates are that 20-50% of gifted students underachieve academically.” For these students, the researchers recommend a motivational strategy called a “motivation trap.” This is an adaptation of interest-based learning, which is “student centered and increases the likelihood of students being active participants in the learning process” (Ford, Alber, & Heward, 1998). This five-step process involves identifying the students that need help, discovering their interests, and then finding the resources and activities to address those interests. Step four of Ford, Alber, and Heward’s motivation trap reminds teachers that “A motivation trap cannot work unless the student gets ‘caught.’ Make it easy for the students to enter the trap; one a small, easy-to-perform response should be required. Once inside the trap, the student must use and extend target skills in order to maintain and increase contact with his or her favorite topic” and provide “students opportunities to participate in activities based on task completion, rather than time schedules.” The researchers maintain that since “some students underachieve for social and emotional reasons; they want to be accepted, they want attention, they feel isolated, and so forth,” such a motivation trap, that makes them look competent and puts them at the center of the curriculum which help students achieve.
My understanding of literacy and literacy assessments has also improved as a result of this program. Prior to this class, as a secondary school educator, I had no experience reading or using reading assessments. The assessment data given by the specialist department is not readily available for teachers to use and prior to the implementation of SRBI, the reading interventionist did not work with students in grades 7 & 8. In UNE’s Literacy Assessments class, I was able to have practical experience proctoring and interpreting a variety of literacy assessments. One of the things that I’ve learned about is that you cannot rely on one “magic bullet” test to diagnose your student or determine their strengths and weaknesses. Each test contributes a piece to the whole and needs to be used thoughtfully. For example, in the clinic report used for Proposition 3, the GSRT and TOSCRF indicated the need for a more comprehensive reading comprehension battery. Since other testing indicated that the student had high indicators for ADHD, inattentive type, I rationalized that I should test his reading comprehension on both a teacher-directed and independent test in order to get the most accurate representation of his abilities.
In a few short months, after completing my Action Research Project—the next and final step in my journey at UNE—I will again walk across the stage in a cap and gown to receive a diploma. With the wisdom gained from the last five years of my teaching career and my classes at UNE, I will take my diploma knowing that while I have come so far, I still have so much left to learn. This program has instilled in me that teaching is more than just about teaching students the curriculum and standards, teaching is about looking each and every child holistically—as a student, a daughter or son, a friend, a peer, a citizen, and as a soul. I know the lessons I’ve learned about literacy assessments, reading interventions, differentiation, and classroom management will help me educate the whole person. Most importantly, I’ve come to realize it takes a village to raise a child and a teacher. Being a part of the professional learning community at the UNE has helped me to realize that the only way teachers are going to meet the needs of our students—needs that have changed dramatically in the last decade—is to work together. As I begin my new teaching position in a newly incorporated school, I want to lead the way towards instilling a sense of professional community where teachers share constructive feedback and research so that we can all support each other in our professional growth, as UNE has supported me.