Implementation
Before it came time to conduct my group conferences, I informed my students that I would be taking two days out of instruction in order to perform research for my university project. I explained to them my expectations of their performance in the class while my cooperating teacher was in charge, which in this case was to work on the current physical geography project and work towards refining their online portfolios. I also made it clear that whether or not a student was selected to participate in a group conference was not reflective of my perceptions of their abilities or performance in the class. That is, I did not want any students to feel like they were being singled out, especially for reasons of behavior.
The first conference indicated to me that the discussions I wanted to carry on with my students would not flow as smoothly as I originally anticipated. We were already delayed as it was due to the fact that another class was already using the room I had planned on using for the conferences. The group setting of six students quickly proved to be more of a microcosm of the difficulties I was having with the class as a whole. Two of the students (Student 1 and Student 5) I included as a part of this conference were known to exhibit problem behaviors in the classroom and the behaviors persisted within the conference setting. Student 1 made several comments that seemed to get a rise out of the other students almost by design, while Student 5 acted as a sort of ad-lib emcee, directing who should speak and offering commentary whenever she pleased. However, it was interesting to note that these students were some of the most outspoken against disruptive behavior in the classroom. Student 1 explained, "A lot of people goof off and I don't think people should be goofing off." (I contest that this comment from Student 1 was not genuine given the past characteristics of his in-class behavior, but I will elaborate more on this in the "Findings" section of Phase I.) The rest of the students were quick to explain all of the things they enjoy about the class, including but not limited to the use of technology, creative lesson plans, and utilization of group work. Students were also not afraid to share what they believed were appropriate disciplinary measures for handling problem behaviors in the classroom. Student 3 proposed a "timeout" system, and Student 3 felt that threatening students with detentions could be an effective measure against problem behaviors. (Click here to see my notes from Conference I.)
I was immediately disappointed by the limited time I had to converse with the students, but I wanted to ensure I was able to speak with as many students as possible over the course of two days. I asked the students from Conference I to retrieve a new set of students, and I was disappointed to learn that one of the students I had planned to speak with during the second session of the day was absent from school. Still, I pressed on with a group of five, figuring that at least I could control errant behaviors within the group setting more easily than I could with the last group. Again, one of the students (Student 10) took the role of emcee, which I did not necessarily have a problem with, because I wanted our conference to feel like an open forum rather than a mandated conversation. The absence of one student did make a difference, as this conference was notably calmer than the first. The students offered a similar taste in what they enjoyed about the class and did not believe anything needed to be changed in order to ensure classroom success. Student 10 did voice some concerns, however, about how he felt that we were not doing real "geography" in the class. Along with Student 7, Student 10 was a source of problem behavior in the classroom, so I was glad that he was so vocal about his opinions about the class. When it came time to discuss behavior within the conversation, these two students, along with the rest of the group, were not shy to call out specific students. Student 7 called out both Students 13 and 15 (discussed in Conference III) for their constant classroom disruptions, and Students 8 and 10 were not afraid to explain their tensions as it related to day-to-day activities in the classroom. Student 7 and 9, who both frequently disrupt the class with side conversation, surprisingly were the most offended by distracting behavior in the classroom. Having less students as a part of this discussion allowed for our conversation to grow deeper than the first, which gave the students ample opportunity to voice any and all concerns they had, which brought us to the end of the class period that day. (Click here to see my notes from Conference II.)
As I went home that day, I was already thinking of ways to structure the conferences the following day in order to ensure I was collecting enough qualitative data to build upon what I had collected over the previous hour. As soon as class started the next day, I called out the names of the students I wanted to speak with first, and we briskly walked into the room I was subjugated to the previous day. I was looking forward to this conference the most, because two of the students who collectively cause the most disruptive behavior in my class were participating (Student 13 and Student 15). There were two other students, Student 17 and Student 18, who were known to cause distractions in the classroom as well, but not at the frequency of the former pair of students. The conversation started off much like the first two: the students were quick to applaud the use of technology in the classroom and enjoyed the use of media and group exercises that had been conducted in the classroom up to that point. Student 13 deviated from the previous flow of conversations by explaining that this class was his personal favorite out of all of his classes. Student 18 was quick to reinforce that statement by explaining I am "one of the chillest teachers he has ever had." The group was at a consensus that there was nothing inherently wrong with the class. In fact, they all enjoyed it immensely from what I could tell. There were minimal suggestions made as to how to handle problem behaviors in the classroom beyond separating those students who are known to perpetuate said behaviors. The flattery was stretched towards a majority of the classroom conversation, and while it was certainly nice to hear from my own students, I did not want it to distract me from my original goal of the conversation. Unfortunately, we did not dive as deep into problem behavior as the first two conferences had done, but I clearly expressed my concerns well enough with what little time I had. (Click here to see my notes from Conference III.)
The fourth group conference turned out to be the calmest, which was not entirely surprising considering that none of the students selected to participate in this conference were known to cause major classroom distractions. The responses to my guiding questions were largely consistent with the first three conferences. I was frankly alarmed to hear that one of my students had twice attempted to switch out of my class because she was annoyed by distracting behavior, but elected to remain due to my personal teaching pedagogy. There was a small discussion concerning student social groups in the classroom that eluded the previous conferences. Student 22 (the more I call my students by a number, the more insensitive I feel; however, this is the most efficient way for me to keep track of who's who in my class without revealing their identities) explained that the class is noticeably divided into social "cliques," and that if these different groups got along, there would not likely be any problems. Student 11, who jumped into this group conference due to the fact that he was absent the previous day, elaborated on this idea by admitting that there were too many social groups present in the classroom in order for everyone to act as one. He went on to state that he believed the reason why students may disrupt the class is because they are simply disinterested in the curriculum. As I paused to reflect at the end of each day, my thoughts and reflections of the first part of my implementation were summed up in my reflection as follows:
"Certainly, each group had their similarities. There was a greater call for engaging, meaningful tasks, the result of which would be a decrease in problem behaviors across the board. Students also applauded the use of technology as an integral part of their initial interest in the class. Most students also acknowledged that this was their favorite class and that I was their favorite teacher. It was noted that the students that cause the most frequent number of disruptions were the ones making the most comments in the group conference, perhaps to make it appear as though they were not one of the main distracters in the class." (Click here to see my notes from Conference IV.)
What happened over the course of the following week, which is when I had planned to carry out my observations in the classroom, was something I had not anticipated. The district experienced a citywide break-in to the network and Internet activity became extremely limited. During this week, the network would be functioning (slowly) for the first four or five periods of school, but by the time my classes came in after lunch, the network had crashed for the day. This resulted in a lot of improvising on my part with the help of my cooperating teacher.
On top of that, one of my days of observation was cut abnormally short due to a minimum day, which did not provide me with time to conduct a proper lesson with which I could collect data on student behavior. Nevertheless, I decided to make the most of these network difficulties by improvising some lesson plans in accordance with what my students suggested in our group conferences: more agency and cooperative work. I designed a two-day lesson, which required students to carry out investigations. However, rather than dictating the instructions to them, the lesson was built on a system of student leadership and choice. I communicated exclusively “team leaders,” who in turn were expected to disseminate my instructions to their respective group members. I elaborate on the results of this lesson further in my reflection:
“What was the result of this activity? Well for starters, distracting behavior decreased significantly. Granted, this was only after I pressured the team leaders with the display of the timer, but they were immediately able to come together and work productively on the assignment. While I did not get as far as I wanted to in the lesson, I am confident that when I pick it back up tomorrow, the leaders will be just as enthusiastic. In addition, I did not make a single widespread address to the whole class. I solely communicated with team leaders, giving each leader a sense of duty to complete something, just like a department head is responsible for responding to the principal of a school.”
When we did meet the following day, some of the old habits began to show again, despite the progress made the day before. However, it was comparably less distracting to behavior before this week of technological dysfunction began. What was even more interesting is that my group conferences seemed to have a positive effect on some of the students who participated. In my observation notes, you will only see notes on problem behavior, but it is worth noting that several students made improvements to their behavior after the group conferences had concluded, and as a result improved their work ethics in class and their academic performance. Beyond individual performance, the class as a whole seemed to really enjoy this form of instruction. To help students monitor their own behavior, I gave time limits for each section of the assignment and displayed the clock on the projection screen in class for all of the students to see. The students responded to their team leaders and the clock by maintaining a relative focus on their assignment. A select few students still struggled to refrain from exhibiting problem behaviors, which is something I believe I will need to address in a future phase of action research.
On the final day of formal observation, my suspicions about behavior in the classroom were confirmed. Problem behaviors were restricted to a select few students. While the rest of the students were working to complete their unit reflections, these specific students continued to exhibit the same distracting behavior that I characterized prior to holding group conferences. For the most part, most of these students are failing the class. These behaviors are preventing those students from staying on task and completing assignments, which have resulted in a great number of “zero” grades on multiple assignments. After the week had ended, I was relieved to have a break for Thanksgiving, but I was left pondering how to approach these behaviors when classes reconvene. (Click here to see the notes on my observations following the group conferences.)
The first conference indicated to me that the discussions I wanted to carry on with my students would not flow as smoothly as I originally anticipated. We were already delayed as it was due to the fact that another class was already using the room I had planned on using for the conferences. The group setting of six students quickly proved to be more of a microcosm of the difficulties I was having with the class as a whole. Two of the students (Student 1 and Student 5) I included as a part of this conference were known to exhibit problem behaviors in the classroom and the behaviors persisted within the conference setting. Student 1 made several comments that seemed to get a rise out of the other students almost by design, while Student 5 acted as a sort of ad-lib emcee, directing who should speak and offering commentary whenever she pleased. However, it was interesting to note that these students were some of the most outspoken against disruptive behavior in the classroom. Student 1 explained, "A lot of people goof off and I don't think people should be goofing off." (I contest that this comment from Student 1 was not genuine given the past characteristics of his in-class behavior, but I will elaborate more on this in the "Findings" section of Phase I.) The rest of the students were quick to explain all of the things they enjoy about the class, including but not limited to the use of technology, creative lesson plans, and utilization of group work. Students were also not afraid to share what they believed were appropriate disciplinary measures for handling problem behaviors in the classroom. Student 3 proposed a "timeout" system, and Student 3 felt that threatening students with detentions could be an effective measure against problem behaviors. (Click here to see my notes from Conference I.)
I was immediately disappointed by the limited time I had to converse with the students, but I wanted to ensure I was able to speak with as many students as possible over the course of two days. I asked the students from Conference I to retrieve a new set of students, and I was disappointed to learn that one of the students I had planned to speak with during the second session of the day was absent from school. Still, I pressed on with a group of five, figuring that at least I could control errant behaviors within the group setting more easily than I could with the last group. Again, one of the students (Student 10) took the role of emcee, which I did not necessarily have a problem with, because I wanted our conference to feel like an open forum rather than a mandated conversation. The absence of one student did make a difference, as this conference was notably calmer than the first. The students offered a similar taste in what they enjoyed about the class and did not believe anything needed to be changed in order to ensure classroom success. Student 10 did voice some concerns, however, about how he felt that we were not doing real "geography" in the class. Along with Student 7, Student 10 was a source of problem behavior in the classroom, so I was glad that he was so vocal about his opinions about the class. When it came time to discuss behavior within the conversation, these two students, along with the rest of the group, were not shy to call out specific students. Student 7 called out both Students 13 and 15 (discussed in Conference III) for their constant classroom disruptions, and Students 8 and 10 were not afraid to explain their tensions as it related to day-to-day activities in the classroom. Student 7 and 9, who both frequently disrupt the class with side conversation, surprisingly were the most offended by distracting behavior in the classroom. Having less students as a part of this discussion allowed for our conversation to grow deeper than the first, which gave the students ample opportunity to voice any and all concerns they had, which brought us to the end of the class period that day. (Click here to see my notes from Conference II.)
As I went home that day, I was already thinking of ways to structure the conferences the following day in order to ensure I was collecting enough qualitative data to build upon what I had collected over the previous hour. As soon as class started the next day, I called out the names of the students I wanted to speak with first, and we briskly walked into the room I was subjugated to the previous day. I was looking forward to this conference the most, because two of the students who collectively cause the most disruptive behavior in my class were participating (Student 13 and Student 15). There were two other students, Student 17 and Student 18, who were known to cause distractions in the classroom as well, but not at the frequency of the former pair of students. The conversation started off much like the first two: the students were quick to applaud the use of technology in the classroom and enjoyed the use of media and group exercises that had been conducted in the classroom up to that point. Student 13 deviated from the previous flow of conversations by explaining that this class was his personal favorite out of all of his classes. Student 18 was quick to reinforce that statement by explaining I am "one of the chillest teachers he has ever had." The group was at a consensus that there was nothing inherently wrong with the class. In fact, they all enjoyed it immensely from what I could tell. There were minimal suggestions made as to how to handle problem behaviors in the classroom beyond separating those students who are known to perpetuate said behaviors. The flattery was stretched towards a majority of the classroom conversation, and while it was certainly nice to hear from my own students, I did not want it to distract me from my original goal of the conversation. Unfortunately, we did not dive as deep into problem behavior as the first two conferences had done, but I clearly expressed my concerns well enough with what little time I had. (Click here to see my notes from Conference III.)
The fourth group conference turned out to be the calmest, which was not entirely surprising considering that none of the students selected to participate in this conference were known to cause major classroom distractions. The responses to my guiding questions were largely consistent with the first three conferences. I was frankly alarmed to hear that one of my students had twice attempted to switch out of my class because she was annoyed by distracting behavior, but elected to remain due to my personal teaching pedagogy. There was a small discussion concerning student social groups in the classroom that eluded the previous conferences. Student 22 (the more I call my students by a number, the more insensitive I feel; however, this is the most efficient way for me to keep track of who's who in my class without revealing their identities) explained that the class is noticeably divided into social "cliques," and that if these different groups got along, there would not likely be any problems. Student 11, who jumped into this group conference due to the fact that he was absent the previous day, elaborated on this idea by admitting that there were too many social groups present in the classroom in order for everyone to act as one. He went on to state that he believed the reason why students may disrupt the class is because they are simply disinterested in the curriculum. As I paused to reflect at the end of each day, my thoughts and reflections of the first part of my implementation were summed up in my reflection as follows:
"Certainly, each group had their similarities. There was a greater call for engaging, meaningful tasks, the result of which would be a decrease in problem behaviors across the board. Students also applauded the use of technology as an integral part of their initial interest in the class. Most students also acknowledged that this was their favorite class and that I was their favorite teacher. It was noted that the students that cause the most frequent number of disruptions were the ones making the most comments in the group conference, perhaps to make it appear as though they were not one of the main distracters in the class." (Click here to see my notes from Conference IV.)
What happened over the course of the following week, which is when I had planned to carry out my observations in the classroom, was something I had not anticipated. The district experienced a citywide break-in to the network and Internet activity became extremely limited. During this week, the network would be functioning (slowly) for the first four or five periods of school, but by the time my classes came in after lunch, the network had crashed for the day. This resulted in a lot of improvising on my part with the help of my cooperating teacher.
On top of that, one of my days of observation was cut abnormally short due to a minimum day, which did not provide me with time to conduct a proper lesson with which I could collect data on student behavior. Nevertheless, I decided to make the most of these network difficulties by improvising some lesson plans in accordance with what my students suggested in our group conferences: more agency and cooperative work. I designed a two-day lesson, which required students to carry out investigations. However, rather than dictating the instructions to them, the lesson was built on a system of student leadership and choice. I communicated exclusively “team leaders,” who in turn were expected to disseminate my instructions to their respective group members. I elaborate on the results of this lesson further in my reflection:
“What was the result of this activity? Well for starters, distracting behavior decreased significantly. Granted, this was only after I pressured the team leaders with the display of the timer, but they were immediately able to come together and work productively on the assignment. While I did not get as far as I wanted to in the lesson, I am confident that when I pick it back up tomorrow, the leaders will be just as enthusiastic. In addition, I did not make a single widespread address to the whole class. I solely communicated with team leaders, giving each leader a sense of duty to complete something, just like a department head is responsible for responding to the principal of a school.”
When we did meet the following day, some of the old habits began to show again, despite the progress made the day before. However, it was comparably less distracting to behavior before this week of technological dysfunction began. What was even more interesting is that my group conferences seemed to have a positive effect on some of the students who participated. In my observation notes, you will only see notes on problem behavior, but it is worth noting that several students made improvements to their behavior after the group conferences had concluded, and as a result improved their work ethics in class and their academic performance. Beyond individual performance, the class as a whole seemed to really enjoy this form of instruction. To help students monitor their own behavior, I gave time limits for each section of the assignment and displayed the clock on the projection screen in class for all of the students to see. The students responded to their team leaders and the clock by maintaining a relative focus on their assignment. A select few students still struggled to refrain from exhibiting problem behaviors, which is something I believe I will need to address in a future phase of action research.
On the final day of formal observation, my suspicions about behavior in the classroom were confirmed. Problem behaviors were restricted to a select few students. While the rest of the students were working to complete their unit reflections, these specific students continued to exhibit the same distracting behavior that I characterized prior to holding group conferences. For the most part, most of these students are failing the class. These behaviors are preventing those students from staying on task and completing assignments, which have resulted in a great number of “zero” grades on multiple assignments. After the week had ended, I was relieved to have a break for Thanksgiving, but I was left pondering how to approach these behaviors when classes reconvene. (Click here to see the notes on my observations following the group conferences.)
Findings
Once I had collected all of my data, I began looking for trends with certain students. I knew that if I could find any consistencies, then I could make an appropriate shift towards Phase II of my action research. Which students continued to display problem behaviors even after participating in conferences? What was the perception of the group conference format? By siphoning through my collection of data and observations from Phase I of my action research, I discovered the following four themes regarding my students, their behavior, and the development of a positive learning community.
My students enjoy my class. This might be considered less of a “finding” and more of an observation, but in fact, it helps alleviate several concerns amateur teachers, including myself, may harbor. Most teachers understand the importance of creating a safe, caring environment for students and developing strong rapports with them in order to make the students feel welcomed in the classroom. I initially perceived my students’ negative behavior as a sign that they did not feel included, or felt inhibited by the classroom environment. However, the group conferences indicated to me that the students in fact enjoy my class and enjoy my style of “chill” teaching. Knowing this, I can shift my focus of teaching pedagogy towards course content rather than my personal interactions with students.
Students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors are self-aware of their actions in the classroom. Without any prompting from myself, most students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors in the classroom were quick to confess to said behaviors. Accompanied with these admittances, there was a sense of guilt amongst the students. Those who claimed to perpetuate distracting behavior sounded sorrowful in their responses in the group discussion. However, the behavior persisted after the conferences had taken place. Even so, some students were not as quick to admit to distracting behavior in the group conferences. In fact, some felt emboldened to exhibit these behaviors more so than usual. Yet after I simply asked them to focus on the conversation, they revealed a look of regret. After careful guiding of the conversation, the students were able to settle down respond within the conference appropriately. These observations and notes of student behavior and reflection show me that my students know when they are exhibiting problem behaviors, but for some of these students, the behaviors continue to persist. Appropriately, this was one of the driving questions behind the development of Phase II of my action research. Why were select students continually demonstrating problem behaviors in the classroom, and what could be done to help decrease said behaviors?
Opportunities for problem behaviors are significantly reduced when students are engaged in a meaningful learning activity. I found that even when I created a lesson on the fly that incorporated student leadership, individual accountability, and the opportunity to work together in groups, problem behaviors were reduced significantly. Even students that were not quick to embark on the activity soon were pressed by their student leaders to complete their ends of the assignment. The success of the groups hinged on the productivity of all members because the work was jig-sawed. Therefore, once I gave instruction to the team leaders, there was an increased desire to complete the assignment across the board. Even more importantly, the students appeared to enjoy the learning in what would otherwise be considered a less-than-engaging content area: global vegetation zones. Rather than giving direct instruction about the various vegetation zones found on the planet, I had the group leaders assign their group members a specific zone to research with the ultimate goal being to teach other students in the class about the zone they researched. Essentially, at the end of the lesson, the students had taught each other. As student involvement and engagement in the learning activity increased, problem behaviors decreased.
There is a strong correlation between negative behavior and poor academic performance. After a majority of my observations had been made, I decided to research the academic output of those students who revealed a consistent tendency to exhibit distracting behavior, not just in my class—across their whole school schedule. I would have to admit that I was a bit unsurprised to find that most of the students, whom I already knew were failing my class, were failing other classes as well, with English (five students) and Math (four students) representing consistent areas of struggle. The data collected in my Phase I supports this theory, if not through a detailed look at their collected work (or lack thereof), through a simple observation of their classroom behavior. The students that have shown consistent exhibition of problem behaviors in the classroom are frequently taken away from their work. They partake in erroneous conversation and only seem to “get on task” when I walk within close proximity. Even when I ask students to get work accomplished, participation is wary at best with these select students.
My students enjoy my class. This might be considered less of a “finding” and more of an observation, but in fact, it helps alleviate several concerns amateur teachers, including myself, may harbor. Most teachers understand the importance of creating a safe, caring environment for students and developing strong rapports with them in order to make the students feel welcomed in the classroom. I initially perceived my students’ negative behavior as a sign that they did not feel included, or felt inhibited by the classroom environment. However, the group conferences indicated to me that the students in fact enjoy my class and enjoy my style of “chill” teaching. Knowing this, I can shift my focus of teaching pedagogy towards course content rather than my personal interactions with students.
Students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors are self-aware of their actions in the classroom. Without any prompting from myself, most students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors in the classroom were quick to confess to said behaviors. Accompanied with these admittances, there was a sense of guilt amongst the students. Those who claimed to perpetuate distracting behavior sounded sorrowful in their responses in the group discussion. However, the behavior persisted after the conferences had taken place. Even so, some students were not as quick to admit to distracting behavior in the group conferences. In fact, some felt emboldened to exhibit these behaviors more so than usual. Yet after I simply asked them to focus on the conversation, they revealed a look of regret. After careful guiding of the conversation, the students were able to settle down respond within the conference appropriately. These observations and notes of student behavior and reflection show me that my students know when they are exhibiting problem behaviors, but for some of these students, the behaviors continue to persist. Appropriately, this was one of the driving questions behind the development of Phase II of my action research. Why were select students continually demonstrating problem behaviors in the classroom, and what could be done to help decrease said behaviors?
Opportunities for problem behaviors are significantly reduced when students are engaged in a meaningful learning activity. I found that even when I created a lesson on the fly that incorporated student leadership, individual accountability, and the opportunity to work together in groups, problem behaviors were reduced significantly. Even students that were not quick to embark on the activity soon were pressed by their student leaders to complete their ends of the assignment. The success of the groups hinged on the productivity of all members because the work was jig-sawed. Therefore, once I gave instruction to the team leaders, there was an increased desire to complete the assignment across the board. Even more importantly, the students appeared to enjoy the learning in what would otherwise be considered a less-than-engaging content area: global vegetation zones. Rather than giving direct instruction about the various vegetation zones found on the planet, I had the group leaders assign their group members a specific zone to research with the ultimate goal being to teach other students in the class about the zone they researched. Essentially, at the end of the lesson, the students had taught each other. As student involvement and engagement in the learning activity increased, problem behaviors decreased.
There is a strong correlation between negative behavior and poor academic performance. After a majority of my observations had been made, I decided to research the academic output of those students who revealed a consistent tendency to exhibit distracting behavior, not just in my class—across their whole school schedule. I would have to admit that I was a bit unsurprised to find that most of the students, whom I already knew were failing my class, were failing other classes as well, with English (five students) and Math (four students) representing consistent areas of struggle. The data collected in my Phase I supports this theory, if not through a detailed look at their collected work (or lack thereof), through a simple observation of their classroom behavior. The students that have shown consistent exhibition of problem behaviors in the classroom are frequently taken away from their work. They partake in erroneous conversation and only seem to “get on task” when I walk within close proximity. Even when I ask students to get work accomplished, participation is wary at best with these select students.
Reflection
The data and feedback I received from my cooperating teacher was much more qualitative than it was quantitative, and while it may deserve to be read within my findings, I believe they provide the perfect lead-in to my reflection. As many teachers do in the professional sphere, my cooperating teacher and I have carried on many conversations over the course of the semester so far concerning my classroom environment. I have asked him about the students that consistently exhibit disruptive behavior in my class and he has revealed a consistent concern. He has noted that in his 17 years of teaching at my placement school, he has never seen such a lack of self-discipline, not just in my class, but in his classes as well. He has explained that one of his personal beliefs of teaching is to reach out to students who are restricted in one form or another from succeeding in the classroom. He admits that there will always be students to seem to struggle getting and remaining focused or on-task in the classroom. Statistically, not every student will graduate from public high school, and often times these students are indicative of that statistic. However, I have adopted my cooperating teacher’s beliefs about education into my own academic and teaching ideals. I feel that I can reach these students, and in turn, reduce the so-called “statistics.”
Easier said than done. Sometimes I am simply baffled by the low level of productivity amongst some of my students. Despite my pleas with these students, remarking about everything from behavior to grades, nothing seems to drive them towards developing a stronger work ethic in my classroom. They appear content to let their grades deteriorate day in and day out. Now, I think that this is partially due to the fact that some of the students may feel that the activities in class simply are not engaging enough. I will admit, it is difficult to maintain the same level of engagement for all of my lessons on a daily basis, and as my data has proven, more engaging lessons do lead to an increase in student activity and engagement. However, even during these activities, there is still a noticeable resistance to completing work along with the rest of the class, which leads me to believe that the problem lies beyond simple engagement in a lesson.
One of the questions I am left to face, then, is whether or not I am too cordial with my students. Nearly all of my students admitted in the group conferences in some form another that they enjoy my class, some claiming that I was their favorite teacher. As flattering as this may seem, I fear that by connecting with students on such a unique level as I have may make my students feel we are more like friends than we are learners in a positive learning community. They may feel that they do not need to perform due to my “chill” personality and relaxed style of teaching. I certainly do not want reverse efficacy with the students by becoming stricter in the classroom, because this clearly does not affect other students the same way it may be affecting those students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors.
This also appears to harmonize with my goal of helping my students become upstanding, global citizens. My goal is to refrain from evolving into a kind of authoritarian teacher, but rather giving students the chance for self-advocacy, which could be what my students described as “chill.” The question, then, becomes whether or not a teacher can encourage students to consistently demonstrate positive behavior while also allowing for general student agency. My observations indicate that students do not feel inclined to perform when I am “chill,” so is there room for autonomy when I want my students to accomplish a goal or task? I was not expecting to face this problem as a result of the incursions of my action research project. The struggle between maintaining a professional self-image while being perceived as “chill” was an interesting challenge. Ultimately, I wanted my students to feel comfortable with me in the classroom. If that implied that students might take advantage of my chillness in order to get away with behaviors they could not get away with in other classes, then I needed to figure out a subsequent action plan to solve the issues of behavior in my classroom.
All of this is speculation, perhaps stemming from my novice perspective on the teaching profession. Comments and conversation from my cooperating teacher have helped to dispel some common myths about students and what I can expect from the group as a whole as their first high school semester wears on, but now I look towards the future of my students in this class in the hopes of helping them improve their learning in my class by further attempting to reduce problem behaviors and building up a positive learning community.
Easier said than done. Sometimes I am simply baffled by the low level of productivity amongst some of my students. Despite my pleas with these students, remarking about everything from behavior to grades, nothing seems to drive them towards developing a stronger work ethic in my classroom. They appear content to let their grades deteriorate day in and day out. Now, I think that this is partially due to the fact that some of the students may feel that the activities in class simply are not engaging enough. I will admit, it is difficult to maintain the same level of engagement for all of my lessons on a daily basis, and as my data has proven, more engaging lessons do lead to an increase in student activity and engagement. However, even during these activities, there is still a noticeable resistance to completing work along with the rest of the class, which leads me to believe that the problem lies beyond simple engagement in a lesson.
One of the questions I am left to face, then, is whether or not I am too cordial with my students. Nearly all of my students admitted in the group conferences in some form another that they enjoy my class, some claiming that I was their favorite teacher. As flattering as this may seem, I fear that by connecting with students on such a unique level as I have may make my students feel we are more like friends than we are learners in a positive learning community. They may feel that they do not need to perform due to my “chill” personality and relaxed style of teaching. I certainly do not want reverse efficacy with the students by becoming stricter in the classroom, because this clearly does not affect other students the same way it may be affecting those students who regularly exhibit problem behaviors.
This also appears to harmonize with my goal of helping my students become upstanding, global citizens. My goal is to refrain from evolving into a kind of authoritarian teacher, but rather giving students the chance for self-advocacy, which could be what my students described as “chill.” The question, then, becomes whether or not a teacher can encourage students to consistently demonstrate positive behavior while also allowing for general student agency. My observations indicate that students do not feel inclined to perform when I am “chill,” so is there room for autonomy when I want my students to accomplish a goal or task? I was not expecting to face this problem as a result of the incursions of my action research project. The struggle between maintaining a professional self-image while being perceived as “chill” was an interesting challenge. Ultimately, I wanted my students to feel comfortable with me in the classroom. If that implied that students might take advantage of my chillness in order to get away with behaviors they could not get away with in other classes, then I needed to figure out a subsequent action plan to solve the issues of behavior in my classroom.
All of this is speculation, perhaps stemming from my novice perspective on the teaching profession. Comments and conversation from my cooperating teacher have helped to dispel some common myths about students and what I can expect from the group as a whole as their first high school semester wears on, but now I look towards the future of my students in this class in the hopes of helping them improve their learning in my class by further attempting to reduce problem behaviors and building up a positive learning community.
Next Steps for Instruction
As I begin to describe in Phase II of my action research, I believe it will be necessary to host individual interviews with my students in order to attain a personalized approach to each student’s behavior in the classroom. I will create some form of an agreement between myself and each of my students, which will hopefully work to improve their academic performance and reduce their noted distracting behavior. This represents a shift in my approach to behavior in the classroom. In many respects, the group conferences felt more like a dictation of how I defined problem behaviors in the classroom. Rather than talking at students to improve their behavior, I will be talking with students to develop a concise plan for improving their performance. By creating a plan alongside each student, I will be effectively placing their academic outcomes in their own hands. My hope is that with my help, we can all work together to achieve success.