Why Schools Sometimes
Waste their Time and (Staff) Resources on Fads with Poor Research and
Unrealistic Results
Dear Colleagues,
It is amazing to me that some schools and
districts claim that they do not have the money, professional development time,
or staff wherewithal to implement needed and effective evidence-based programs
- -
And yet, they “turn-around” and find the
money, time, and resources to implement media- and marketing-driven fads that
have no or poor research efficacy, and that will provide limited or no real or
lasting student-focused results.
Include in this statement (relative to
today’s topic) are schools in some of our largest or most challenged
cities: such as New York City, Los
Angeles, Baltimore, and Louisville.
_ _ _ _ _
In this message (Part I today; Part II in
two weeks), I will review and critically analyze the research and
practice of four “mind-related” programs that are currently “in
vogue” on our most-popular educational websites, list-servs, social media
platforms, and media outlets. These
program are often confused, and rarely are they critically analyzed by
educators across the country.
They are:
1.
Dr. Ellen Langer’s Mindful Learning (Today’s Blog, Part I)
2.
Dr. John Hattie’s Mind Frames (Today’s Blog, Part I)
3.
Dr. Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset (Next Blog, Part II)
4.
Dr. John Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness (Next Blog, Part II)
The research underlying these programs
ranges from poor or questionable at best to promising but needing
more diverse, field-based testing.
And
yet, schools- - for example- - in New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and
Louisville are beginning large-scale implementations of some of these programs-
- in what is more a sociological experiment than a science-based
implementation.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Introduction
Over my 30-year career as an educator and
school psychologist, I have been fortunate to work in every state in the
country- - helping schools and districts to implement evidence-based (a) school
improvement, effective instruction, school discipline, and classroom management
approaches for all students; along with (b) academic strategies for struggling
students, and social, emotional, and behavioral strategies for challenging
students.
Because of this evidence-based work (as
designated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and cited by numerous
other national agencies and groups), I was asked to lead the Arkansas
Department of Education’s federally-funded State Improvement and State
Personnel Development Grants for 13 years- - where we implemented these same approaches
and strategies as part of a statewide initiative.
And so, as a practitioner, consultant, and thought
leader, I know how challenging it is for schools to:
* Complete practical and accurate needs
assessments and strategic plans- - that especially address the needs of
students who are academically struggling and/or presenting with behavioral
challenges
* Figure out what instructional or
intervention strategies and programs actually work with these students-
- especially given the almost-monthly unveiling of new approaches, and the lack
of time to read and truly evaluate their research and impact
* Train the staff, and disseminate and
evaluate the efficacy of the specific instructional or intervention strategies selected
for students across the multi-tiered continuum
* Maintain and sustain the fidelity or
integrity of the entire implementation process- - for students, staff, and
schools
_ _ _ _ _
And yet, largely due to the first two of these
challenges, I know that some schools and districts invest their precious time,
funds, and professional development calendars in programs or approaches that
they assume are based on good research and practice- - but that truly are not.
Critically, this happens because some
schools and districts trust, believe, or assume that certain national, state,
or local “experts” are correct in their advocacy or promotion of certain
programs or approaches.
Among the “experts” that educational
practitioners need to question and independently validate (given their past
“track records” of recommending approaches that they have not comprehensively
field-tested and validated) are:
* The U.S. Department of Education and their
funded national Technical Assistance or Dissemination Centers, and many state departments
of education
* Different national professional
associations, national “experts,” and politically-motivated think tanks or
foundations
* Different national print, TV/cable, internet,
or social media outlets that either naively publish “feel good” stories, or deliberately
publish stories that fit their “agenda”
* Companies, consultants, or publishers that
either are well-intended, but research-weak; or are less-well-intended and
profit-motivated
* Regional or local leaders who provide “personal
testimony,” but no objectively-collected data
And while I understand the time and
resources needed to locally and independently conduct a data- and
evidence-based “vet” of a specific program or approach. . .
and while I understand
our desire to trust and depend on the groups and individuals above. . .
given the past history
of educational fads, frenzies, and fanatics...
why would a school or
district not do its own due diligence rather than make a leap of
faith in an unknown program or approach that we know- - prior to
implementation- - will not result in the desired outcomes, and could
actually be counterproductive or even damaging to students?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We are NOT All of Like “Minds”
In the competitive world of new educational programs
and aggressive social marketing, it seems that including the word “mind” in
the by-line of a psychoeducational school or student program is currently
in vogue.
Currently, four notable programs that
include the word mind are being highlighted both in the professional and
popular press. [Moreover. . . there are numerous
other programs, consultants, and companies that are invoking the word mind
either to be “in vogue” and to “cash in” on this “mindless” commercial trend.]
While some of these programs date back to at
least the mid-1990s, let’s differentiate and discuss the first two of these four
different mind-related programs or approaches (again- - the latter two
are discussed in Part II of this Blog):
1.
Dr. Ellen Langer’s Mindful Learning
2.
Dr. John Hattie’s Mind Frames
3.
Dr. Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset
4.
Dr. John Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mindful Learning
Dr.
Ellen Langer’s Mindful Learning (The Power of Mindful Learning,
1998) actually provides some of the functional and historical foundation to Mindfulness-
- and yet, her research and practice does stand on its own.
Working out of Harvard University and her
own consulting group, Dr. Langer states that:
“Mindfulness is the process of actively
noticing new things. When you do that, it puts you in the present. It makes you
more sensitive to context and perspective. It’s the essence of engagement. And
it’s energy-begetting, not energy-consuming.
The mistake most people make is to assume
it’s stressful and exhausting—all this thinking. But what’s stressful is all
the mindless negative evaluations we make and the worry that we’ll find
problems and not be able to solve them.”
_ _ _ _ _
Langer’s work has primarily focused on health,
aging, and the workplace. Among her
ultimate goals? Reducing stress,
unlocking creativity, and boosting work performance. “Much of the time,” she says, “our behavior
is mindless.”
“Remember, too,” she continues, “that stress
is not a function of events; it’s a function of the view you take of events.
You think a particular thing is going to happen and that when it does, it’s
going to be awful. But prediction is an illusion.
While “Mindfulness” (see below) partially
uses the teachings of Buddhism and meditative states, Langer’s Mindful Learning
version is strictly non-meditative. She
recommends that people keep their minds open to possibilities, relinquishing
preconceived mindsets, and then acting on the new observations.
My research on Langer suggests that she
has not directly applied or recommended her work for use in the schools. At the same time, she is reinforcing the
notion that our cognitive beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and attributions do
(at times) affect our emotions and behaviors.
If we can control pre-conceived negative or overly-convergent thoughts,
we can approach situations more objectively, positively, and productively.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mind Frames
Dr.
John Hattie (Visible Learning for Teachers, 2011) has spent over 20
years conducting over 800 meta-analyses of over 50,000 studies involving over
200 million students examining the factors that influence achievement in
school-aged students. Using effect
sizes, he has rank-ordered more than 150 psychoeducational actions or
activities on their contributions to student achievement.
Over time, through this research, Hattie has
synthesized his work into ten “Mind Frames”- - teacher or teaching
perspectives that should lead to high(er) levels of student achievement.
With some adaptation for clarity and
functionality, Hattie’s 10 Mind Frames include the following (written
from a teacher’s perspective):
1. The fundamental reason for evaluation is
to determine the effect of my teaching on students’ learning and achievement.
2. I am a change agent responsible for the
success and failure of my students’ learning.
3. It is more important to talk about
learning than teaching.
4. Assessment
is about my impact on student progress, and how I need to change or maintain my
instructional approaches.
5. I
teach through dialogue not monologue. I
listen to my students and facilitate their discussion- - rather than simply
lecturing.
6. I challenge students to learn and
struggle to learn- - through their successes and through their mistakes.
7. It is my role to develop positive
relationships with students and staff.
8. I focus on creating a language and
discussion about learning with my students and colleagues.
9. I see learning as a process, and not just
an outcome.
10. I see collaboration as a key ingredient of
learning.
_ _ _ _ _
Based on methodologically-sound studies
whose results were pooled into effect sizes, Hattie’s work provides an
effective, empirically-based roadmap relative to effective school and schooling
processes.
However, to make Hattie’s work most
meaningful, his results must be fit into a school or district’s organizational
and situational contexts. Moreover, the
approaches that he identifies still need to be implemented through specific,
effective and field-tested step-by-step strategies to make them work.
_ _ _ _ _
At the present time, Hattie’s ten Mind
Frames are best used to initiate staff discussions on how to conceptualize
and prioritize their instructional goals in the context of student assessment
and teacher evaluation. Like
Langer’s work, these Mind Frames predominantly focus on teachers’ attitudes,
beliefs, expectations, and attributions; and how these underlying processes
create a context for developing curricula, teaching content, and implementing
other effective school and schooling processes.
As such, Hattie has made an exceptional
contribution through his research. And
indeed, this is one of the “mind areas” that all educators should attend to.
But, methodologically, Hattie’s Mind Frames still
need to be operationalized into actions.
And, for different practitioners, the jump from the conceptual Mind
Frames to functional Instructional Behaviors will probably result in different
approaches, actions, and interactions.
Given this, the implementation integrity
or fidelity of Hattie’s work- - as applied in the classroom- - is still in
question. Beyond summarizing others’
research and recommendations, at some point, the Mind Frames will need to be
operationalized into specific actions and validated on their own merit.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
In order to fully evaluate any of the
mind-related programs, we really need to revisit what the ultimate outcomes are
for virtually all schools across this country and how these programs will
contribute to these outcomes.
In essence, I believe that most educators
want students- - at their specific age and developmental levels- - to learn,
master, and be able to independently apply:
* Academic information, knowledge, and
skills (at least, in literacy, math, and oral and written expression); and
* Interpersonal, social problem-solving,
conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills and behaviors.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to Langer, she really never
intended to use her work in the schools.
At the same time, as you will see in Part II of this Blog message, some
of her work has been used by some of the Mindfulness proponents.
Relative to Hattie, his Mind Frames are
useful in thinking about the teacher and/or teaching mindsets that relate to
student achievement. But- - as noted and
regardless of their empirical foundations- - his constructs and generalizations
still need to be implemented through specific, effective, and field-tested
step-by-step strategies.
Critically, some of these strategies have
been identified through Hattie’s meta-analytic research. Indeed, the “David Letterman Top” approaches,
identified by Hattie, that most relate to student achievement (depending on
which of his lists you choose) are:
* Student Expectations
* Teacher Credibility (in the eyes of the
students)
* Providing Formative Evaluation to Teachers
* Feedback
* Reciprocal Teaching
* Teacher-Student Relationships
* Metacognitive Strategy Programs
* Acceleration (for brighter students)
* Vocabulary Programs
* Comprehension Programs
* Concept Mapping
* Direct Instruction
* Peer Tutoring
* Classroom Management
* Parental Involvement
But even here, you have to go back to the
original research that Hattie has pooled together in order to begin to discern
the step-by-step strategies that teachers should replicate in their classrooms.
And so, the jury is still out- - more so for
Langer’s work, and less so for Hattie’s work.
_ _ _ _ _
As
noted in the Introduction to this message, I fully understand how challenging
it is for districts and schools to multi-task- - often with limited time and
more limited resources. Indeed, as
schools strategically plan for the future while simultaneously addressing the
academic and behavioral needs of a range of diverse learners. . . it is
challenging at best to evaluate the efficacy of a new curriculum, program, or
intervention.
And I understand that districts and schools should
be able to trust the “national experts”- - from their national associations, their
departments of education, and their published journals- - in this regard.
But, we need to careful.
Districts and schools need to selectively
do their own due diligence. . .or at least consult with professionals who can
provide objective, independent evaluations of the curriculum, program, or
intervention being considered.
This is because testimonials do not qualify
as research, and some “research” is published without an impartial evaluation.
In the end, schools and districts should not
invest time, money, professional development, supervision, or other resources
in programs that have not been fully validated for use with their students and/or
staff.
Such investments are not fair to anyone- - especially
when they do not result in the desired outcomes, and they create staff
resistance to “the next program” which may actually be the “right” program.
_ _ _ _ _
I hope that the analyses of Langer and
Hattie’s work is useful to you- - along with my recommendation that we review a
new program’s research, before moving to large-scale implementation.
In my next message, I will review and
critically analyze the research and practice related to:
* Dr. Carol Dweck’s Growth Mindset
* Dr. John Kabat-Zinn’s Mindfulness
I look forward to your feedback. Please let me know if you have any questions,
or if I can help you as you begin planning for the next school year.
Best,
Howie
No comments:
Post a Comment