By Dr Ragnar Purje
Cathleen Stasz, presenting a paper titled “Classrooms That Work: Teaching and Learning Generic Skills” in Centerfocus, looked at “eight vocational and academic classrooms, taught by four different teachers in three comprehensive high schools.” Stasz noted that the “schools were in both urban and suburban communities, with students from a variety of socioeconomic and ethnic groups.” There were classes in English, interior design, architectural drafting, electronics, and manufacturing; two classes of chemistry; and there was a landscape and horticulture class.
The point of the study was to examine what made these classrooms successful teaching and learning environments. The information and results of this study were based on the observations made by Stasz, as well as the invited observations and perspectives of the students. To enable meaningful, evidence-based discussion to take place, Stasz developed an “instructional model,” that had four sections: (1) instructional goals, (2) classroom design, (3) teaching techniques, and (4) school context.
Stasz noted that even though each of the above points were discussed and examined separately, these four sections were, according to Stasz, educationally linked and considered as being an integrated single study. It was this integrated information that Stasz used to discover what a teacher was doing to successfully impart positive attitudes, generic skills, and knowledge to the students, with the aim of establishing a classroom of students who were (a) respectful and responsible, (b) who were achieving their academic requirements and (3) were also considered as being socially mature and sensible.
In this study, Stasz found that when it came to work-related attitudes, the classrooms in which effective learning took place and positive attitudes were present (along with motivated academic achievement) were the classrooms in which the teachers “stressed the importance of students taking responsibility for their own learning.”
In working toward this goal, the teachers informed the students that requests “to answer questions or give opinions when they knew students were capable of forming their own opinions” would generally be turned down. Therefore, the students had to work out their own answers and also derive their clarifications, results, and solutions in consultation with their classmates, a process referred to as knowledge sharing.
The knowledge sharing approach was being used so that student peer-directed mentoring and support would take place. This collective classroom sharing of knowledge (in the opinion of the teachers and their unnamed supporting literature), would lead to advancements in comprehension, deeper understanding and associated knowledge for all students, beyond what they would have achieved if the students worked entirely on their own.
The keys to achievement
When it came to motivation and co-operation, Stasz found that “[i]n the … classrooms, [where the] teachers emphasized intrinsic [goals] (e.g., challenge, interest) rather than extrinsic [rewards] (e.g., grades, praise) [as the] motivational factors,” it was these intrinsically driven classes which were the most successful, in terms of individual and social behaviour, as well as academic engagement.
Stasz also found that the “[m]ost successful groups were [the] self-managing [groups]” who did not rely on their teachers for their achievement and success. The self-directed actions of motivation, self-reliance, and self-responsibility were the keys to their achievements.
However, What About Students Who refuse to engage? What then?
William Glasser points out that it is a student’s intrinsic motivation and personal attitude that has the most influence over what the student will do, say and achieve. By examining and reporting on student behaviour and student attitudes in relation to their learning outcomes, Glasser found that unless a student was personally motivated to behave and learn, there was very little anyone else could do except continue to support, encourage and offer ongoing advice. Glasser acknowledges that “[w]e can force…students to stay in school…but we can no more make those students work than we can make the proverbial horse drink even though we tether him to the water trough.”
There are no easy answers here; there are only possibilities
From a Responsibility Theory perspective, if a student continues to refuse to engage, try to avoid pursuing the issue. Trying to force a response will usually lead to a confrontation and a power struggle, which, of course, is never easy. Instead of telling a student to “stop what they are doing,” one consideration is to refer to the behaviour immediately: “I can see what you are doing.”
Responsibility Theory
In the 10 years I have been formally applying Responsibility Theory (which includes mainstream schools and remote Indigenous schools), I have found that this statement immediately stops the behaviour that is taking place. As soon as the behaviour stops, the issue is over. In this situation, the student may also be in what could be described as a “negative frame of mind.” Therefore, to continue with any other instructions beyond this (“I can see what you are doing” statement) has the potential to lead to an unnecessary confrontation. Once the “negative” behaviour has stopped. The issue for me is over. I then continue with the lesson. The ten years of formal empirical evidence have informed me that the student in question will return to their learning. Nothing more is said.
Students at risk
If, however, the negative behaviour does not change through the ongoing use of Responsibility Theory, inform the student that, as a result of what he or she is doing, the parents (guardian, significant other) and the school’s administration will need to be informed. One way to explain this might be to say, “I can see what you are doing, and I don’t understand what you are doing.” “Would you like me to let your parents and the school principal know what you are doing?” This also tends to stop any further continuation of the behaviour in question.
However, if the presentation of negative behaviours develops into what could be considered ‘regular’ or even chronic, this could indicate the student is at risk. Additional support and advice from the school’s administration, support staff, and the student’s family must now become the ongoing priority to advise, counsel and help the student in question.
Dr Ragnar Purje is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the School of Education at CQUniversity, and the author of Responsibility Theory®. With the support of Professor Ken Purnell (Head of Neuroscience at CQU), Dr Purje presents lectures to preservice graduate teachers about Responsibility Theory®.