Suzanne_Lettrick_Good Thinking- Teachers and Their Teenage Students Co-Creating the Environment of Thinking to Help Students Push Through Emotional, Cognitive, Or Negative Mindset

8/3/2019 Suzanne_Lettrick_Good Thinking- Teachers and Their Teenage Students Co-Creating the Environment of Thinking to

1/42

1

Good Thinking: Teachers and their Teenage Students CoCreating the

Environment of Thinking to Help Students Push through Emotional, Cognitive, or

Negative Mindset Barriers

Suzanne Lettrick

Harvard Graduate School of EducationH175 GoodWork in Education: When Excellence, Engagement, and Ethics Meet

Professor Howard Gardner

Teaching Fellow: Tiffanie Ting

December 10, 2010


2/42

2

Nothing is more wonderful or more to be celebrated, than something

that will unlock a persons capacities and allow him to think.Oliver Sacks

Abstract

Literature abounds with information regarding how students can become good

or ineffective thinkers, and how teachers can propel or hinder this process. However,

there is a gap in the research when it comes to showing if there is anything inherently

special in the space created by a student and his or her teacher that unlocks the thinking

process and allows the student to pass through emotional, cognitive, or negative

mindset barriers to thinking. I approach this issue by utilizing indepth interviews of

teenagers facing barriers to thinking as well as the teachers whom these students

identified as being helpful to them when they surmounted these barriers. I argue that a

unique environment for thinking is cocreated by a teacher and his or her students in the

classroom when barriers to thinking are removed or lessened. I create a model

describing the four core dimensions that 1) must exist concurrently in order for the best

thinkingthroughbarriers to take place, and 2) that are evident only when both teacher

and student/s with the barrier/s to thinking contribute equally to evince this space.

I conclude by revealing that the specificity and abstract quality of these four

components to good thinking actually creates a conflict for our current teachers and

students since it is not easy to achieve this space in the current school system given

predominance of large class sizes and the standardized learning and testing environment

which prohibits many, if not all, of the core components from manifesting. I argue, that


3/42

3

this conflict, if not addressed by revamping or reinventing our current school system,

results in the weakening of excellence, engagement, and ultimately ethics (Gardner,

Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon, 2001) on the part of students and their teachers when it

comes to getting students to push through their barriers to thinking.

Introduction

Seventy seven years after John Dewey proposed that education's main task was

to ensure that students "learn to think" (Halpern, 1996, p. 7), schools and society are

still debating how to get students to do such a thing, especially in light of the fact that

this skill is now something that students MUST know in order to succeed in the 21st

century. In this study, I examine two integral roles that of the student and that of the

teacher in the quest to comprehensively understand how to foster in students the

ability to think well, particularly when challenging circumstances act as barriers to this

endeavor. I believe the responsibility for promoting an environment of good thinking

when difficulties arise ultimately lies with both the teacher and the student.

Students as good thinkers

Understanding the parameters of what good actually is in terms of student's

thinking is important. The ability to solve novel problems is one form of thinking that

students must learn to employ in order to exhibit good work as thinkers in the school

setting, and ultimately in the real world as adults. According to Bransford and Stein

(1993) a problem occurs when there is an initial state and a goal state, and there is no

readymade solution for the problem solver (p. 7). In order to solve these problems

effectively, a student must be a critical thinker. Halpern (1996) explains that there are


4/42


5/42

5

to thinking and cannot, on his own, reach a solution given the innate skills he already

possesses.

Students who become ineffective thinkers when faced with challenging barriers to

thinking

Two of the primary barriers to thinking that could prohibit an individual from

moving independently toward a problem solution as revealed in the literature are

negative mindsets and emotional barriers.

Negative Mindset Barriers

Some students develop negative mindset barriers, which seem to override their

own perfectly fine cognitive abilities, making solving challenging problems on their own

difficult. Carol Dweck (1986) studied childrens motives for learning and discovered that

some children, for example, focus on performance goals rather than on mastery goals

(described earlier). When performance is a goal, a student will focus more on how she is

performing than on whether she is learning. When students try to solve problems with a

performance goal in mind, they actually tend to avoid thinking tasks that are

challenging, thereby avoiding the potential result of not being able to perform that task.

Ironically, then, an over concern with ability may lead children to shun the very tasks

that foster its growth (p. 1043). The very fact that effort might be required to solve a

particularly challenging problem calls into question, for the performanceoriented

student, her ability to solve the problem. This helpless (p. 1041) mindset tends to

evidence negative affect (such as anxiety) and negative selfcognitions when

[performanceoriented] students confront obstacles (p. 1041).


6/42

6

This study contrasts the earlier studies regarding good thinkers being able to

independently persevere in order to solve a problem. Here we see that not all students

can merely push through a problem independently, particularly when confronted with a

negative mindset barrier such as this, and find a solution. Since tackling challenging

problems on one's own seems to be difficult in this situation, another solution would

have to be utilized. This literature doesn't formulate suggestions, but it does leave one

wondering if something could potentially occur between a student and a teacher that

would effectively eradicate this "helpless" position taken by a performanceoriented

student.

Emotional Barriers

Another form of barrier to thinking is the emotional kind. Various researchers

(Pollak, S.D., Cicchetti, D., & Klorman, R., 1998) and (Ayoub, C.C., Rogosh, F., Toth, S.L.,

O'Connor, E., Cicchetti, D., & RappoltSchlictmann, G., 2006) have studied maltreated

children to better understand how emotions affect cognitive processes. Pollak, et al.,

(1998) confirmed that, emotions affect attentionand vice versa (p. 825). When a

student feels fear in a learning situation, for example, the nervous system is activated,

which causes the student to give attention to that which threatens, thereby limiting the

likelihood that attention is available to focus on the thinking or learning task at hand.

Though emotion does help people adapt (Pollak, et al., 1998), it also limits the amount

of attention that can be given to other events (Pollak, et al., 1998), such as problem

solving or thinking critically. Interestingly, Ayoub, et al. (2006) also discovered that

young maltreated children have a difficult time attending to tasks in a positive setting,


7/42

7

since these children tended to give attention to whatever was most threatening,

thereby letting their attention flag when the environment was safe. These studies do

not assume that all children will experience dramatic connections between emotion and

attention, or other cognitive processes, but they do suggest that a relationship does

exist. Therefore, students ability to critically think and problem solve, can be hindered

by their unique, socioemotional imprint. Here is another situation where evidence

shows that a student with an emotional barrier to thinking would in fact find it difficult

to independently think through a challenging problem. One is left to wonder, again, if

anything in the student/teacher connection could get a student to push through these

barriers to thinking, or if this is something that each student must wrestle through on

his or her own?

Teachers assisting students to be good thinkers

Vygotsky (1978), with his Zone of Proximal Development theory, was one of the

first theorists to underscore the fact that individuals do indeed each have a normal

range of abilities to think independently. What he suggested was that all individuals

(even those without barriers to thinking) exist at or between one these extreme levels

at various times: 1) The Actual Development Level is the state when individuals can

solve problems independently by utilizing tools and strategies that they have already

internalized, and 2) the Potential Developmental Level is the state when individuals are

only able to work through challenging, advancedlevel problems via supervision of a

more adept adult or teacher. Fischer and Bidell (2006) and their Dynamic Skill Theory

aligned with this idea by adding that there is a Functional Level, similar to Vygotsky's


8/42

8

Actual Development level. In this theory, the person's Functional Level shows the

highest skill level that can be achieved for an individual when operating independently.

The Optimal Level (similar to Vygotsky's Potential Developmental Level) is the highest

level that a student can reach with scaffolded support.

The literature seems somewhat divided regarding what constitutes a good

thinker. According to some, a good thinker is defined as someone who can persevere

and solve problems independently. Period. Other studies show that this is all fine and

good until challenging barriers to thinking occur, thereby prohibiting students with

normal cognitive abilities from proceeding independently. The solution for thinkers with

barriers does seem to have something to do, according to the final batch of studies, with

obtaining some form of more adept support.

Not all teacher support is effective, though

But here we run into another issue. According to some research, a teacher,

though adept at a certain concept, could actually impede a student's ability to do good

thinking. For example, teachers who discourage children, by act or by word, from

coming up with their own answers to questions posed in class, or from making mistakes,

create environments that can inhibit effective problem solving (Kamii and Randazzo,

1985), build in students a sense of hopelessness (Frydenberg and Lewis, 2009), and

teach students to distrust their own thinking (Kamii, 1982). Children who are thus

discouraged from thinking autonomously will construct less knowledge than those who

are mentally active and confident (Kamii, 1982, p. 80). It is clear, here, a teacher's


9/42

9

disconnect or misalignment with or unethical behavior towards his or her students can

yield negative consequences, too, in regards to getting students to be good thinkers.

So what's the best scenario for effective, barrierremoving, teacherstudent

collaboration?

Since it seems that the teacher as scaffolder is an important role to play when

helping a student push through a barrier to thinkingbut seeing here that not just any

adept teacher/student combination will dowhat then, IS the magical recipe that

actually does yield effective results when a teacher and student come together to affect

this goal, and what are the core components of this environment of thinking? I

endeavored to explore this topic by interviewing students and their teachers who

together have helped the students move through their barriersin order to ascertain

the ingredients that make such a collaboration effective. I have created a model, as a

result, composed of the four core components that emerged from these interviews and

which seemed to lay the foundation for success in all five groupings of teachers and

students. The information yielded in this model highlights the complex situation our

school systems face if really intent on getting all students to possess the 21st century

skill of being good thinkers; since as it now stands, the environment of thinking as

revealed in this study is not easy to create in the large classsize, standardized learning

and testing setting.

METHODS

Interviews

Interviewee makeup


10/42

10

I interviewed fourteen people for this study. Out of this total, six interviewees

were either high school (5) or middle school (1) teachers when they taught the students

in this study, and eight interviewees were either middle school students (three) or high

school students (five) when the teachers in this study taught them. The range of years

of experience of all teacher interviewees was between five and 34 years, with the

average number of years being 15.33 years. Most or all of these years were spent

teaching teenagers. At the time of this study, two teachers taught in a prestigious public

high school in Marin County, CA. One teacher was a resource teacher and one was a

history and psychology teacher. Another teacherthe one with the most years of

teachingcofounded a small, private middle school in Marin County, CA and taught

humanities. Another teacher taught AP literature and English at a private Jewish high

school in San Francisco, CA. Two other teachers taught at the same interdisciplinary,

semester school for high school juniors and seniors in Napa County, CA. One of these

teachers taught humanities; the other teacher (art) at this school was also the founder

and director of the school. Four teachers were female; two teachers were male.

The student interviews included students who at the time of their connection to

the interviewed teachers were in the following grades: eighth grade (three students),

tenth grade (one student), and eleventh grade (four students). Most of the students

were from a middle to upper class background. Two students were twins. All students

lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, with most students coming from Marin County, CA.

Four students were female; four students were male.

Interviewee selection protocol


11/42

11

These interviewees were selected as a result of my work as an academic coach

with the student and/or the teacher interviewed. In many cases (five), the interviewee

had been my student client that I had either witnessed or heard from regarding the

removal or lowering of his or her barrier to thinking in the school setting. When the

student named a teacher that had a role in helping him or her lower or remove the

barrier, I contacted that teacher to interview him or her as well. One student listed two

teachers who affected her learning experience in this manner, so both of these teachers

were interviewed. One teacher connected me with two more students (in addition to

our one shared student) whom she felt also moved through thinking barriers in her

eighth grade class. I interviewed both of these students as well, since I wanted to

understand their experience in removing barriers to thinking with this teacher. One

teacher, a colleague of mine for many years, had talked with me in the past about gains

her students had made in her writing classes, so I contacted her for an interview and

asked that she connect me with one or more of her students who had moved through

barriers to thinking in her class. She connected me with one student, whom I

interviewed. The professional relationship I shared with ten of these interviewees prior

to this study was key, as I was able to ascertain as a third party that a barrier to thinking

of a student had been lowered or removed. All student interviewees asserted that their

work with the aligned teachers had created the ingredients needed to help them move

through their barriers to thinking. This was an important connection to make in order to

be included in the study.

FIG. 1: Student and Teacher groupings


12/42

12

TEACHERS STUDENTS

GROUP ONE

Humanities teacher, semester private school, Napa County, CA 11th

grade student

Founder and art teacher, semester private school, Napa County, CA

GROUP TWO

Founder/middle school humanities teacher at private school, Marin

County, CA8

th

grade student

8th

grade student

8th

grade student

GROUP THREE

Resource Teacher, public high school, Marin County, CA 11th

grade student

GROUP FOUR

High school world history and psychology teacher, public high school,

Marin County, CA

11th

grade student

10th

grade student

GROUP FIVE

English and AP Literature teacher, private school, San Francisco, CA 11th

grade student

Interview process

Twelve of the fourteen interviews were conducted over the phone. Two of the

fourteen interviews were conducted in person. All interviews were recorded using an

Olympus Digital Voice Recorder DS3300. Throughout each interview, I also typed the


13/42

13

respondents answers. I used the voice recordings to confirm typed responses when

needed. Two teachers sent additional answers via email after their interview, since we

ran out of time during the phone interview. All interviews took between 4560 minutes.

The primary interview questions for the teachers were the same. The primary

interview questions for the students were the same. For both sets of interviews, I asked

secondary questions to have the interviewee clarify or go deeper with a response. The

two interview question sets (teachers and students) were slightly different.

Commonalities between the two sets of interview questions included the questions: 1)

what barriers to thinking have you experienced (for student) or have you witnessed (for

teacher)? 2) For what or for whom do you do good work? 3) What does good work look

like when you as a (teacher/student) remove a barrier to thinking? 4) What does good

work look like when your (teacher/student) does good work when removing a barrier to

thinking? 5) What strategies and/or ingredients have worked to help you remove

barriers to thinking? Several of these questions, particularly those revolving around the

theme of "good work" came from Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon's (2001) Good

Work interviews. It's important to note that interviewees came up with their own ideas

about what good work in removing thinking barriers felt and looked like to them... I only

pushed them to give me their own understanding of what this looks like when good

work in their eyes occurs, instead of giving them a preset definition (Gardner, et al.,

2001) or my own definition.

FINDINGS


14/42

14

Interview responses (data) were individually color coded by common themes

and then crossreferenced (individual student/s with responses of his or her teacher/s)

to determine thinking barrier/s and common factors that both parties felt linked to the

lowering or removal of individual barriers to thinking. Only the elements that both the

teacher and student/s in that grouping noticed and identified as factors were included

in this study in order to determine elements that could be integral to the cocreated

thinking environment. The barriers to thinking that were revealed were very much in

alignment with the literature, with emotional and negative mindset issues topping the

list.

Studentteachers group 1

SUBJECTS: 11th

grade interdisciplinary semester school student; founder/art teacher; and

humanities teacher

BARRIER TO THINKING identified by the student: fear of being vulnerable in the unique

problem solving process

Both teachers listed the top barrier to thinking of most students at their school:

perfectionist tendencies strong editors voices prompted by their worry about college

and feeling something lacking when comparing [self] to [a] neighbor. The art and

humanities teachers employed several seemingly intuitive strategies while working with

this student to help alleviate her fears, but the student had an equally important role in

that she fully immersed herself in the experience championed by her teachers.

Communication


15/42

15

The humanities teacher said that her main access [to students] is one of

listening; I plant a few questions. The student aligned with this teacher, saying that

this teacher was a great listener: When we checked in individually, she would ask me

about things. I would let her in on an anxiety that I was having. She also commented on

how her art advisors advice utilizing his deep knowledge of different art modalities was

integral to her ability to push through and be vulnerable in the process of her art

making. In alignment with the literature (Halpern, 1996) and (Frydenberg and Lewis,

2009), spending time each day reflecting on her process in her journal and in her

sketchbook (though not her forte), and speaking with these two teachers to gain

guidance, were the primary elements that she felt moved her through her barrier to

thinking.

Use of Time

The effective appropriation of time also helped this student break free of her

barrier to thinking. She felt that the school leaders designed a program that allowed her

to get a feel for everything and get comfortable. They progressively enhanced the

rigor. By the time she was ready to work on her own on her final project, her

confidence for doing process work had improved. She said that she was doing good

work when she found that she could produce something substantial even when she

started with no ideas two weeks before.

Feeling of Safety

The cofounder of the school and art advisor for this students project believed

strongly in creating an environment where students could be psychologically safe as a


16/42

16

way to promote dialogue and help students connect deeply with a project. This included

creating a place where students wouldnt be called out for egregious behavior and

where members practiced a certain civility in language. The environment was safe, to

the humanities teacher, when a democratic environment was cultivated a place where

the kids began to trust themselves when they began to trust others and their teachers.

The student shared this sentiment. She talked about how she felt safe and able to open

up, since her teachers spent so much time talking with her about her project and about

life in general.

Participants were truly present

The safe environment and many forms of give and take dialogue seemed to exist

in a space where the material and advisors were present and accessible to the student.

Whether the being there was physical, such as when the humanities teacher utilized

the strategy of sitting with the student as she worked on a difficult concept, to a more

subtle approach of being there in the journal responses to this student encouraging her

along and giving her new ideas. The founder/art advisor mentioned that the students

sheer persistence and diligence were the qualities he noticed that helped her push

through the barriers to being in the process. The student talked about this and how

being with the project allowed her to gain access to herself, even. She shared, I had

never just lived in the present. To make it worth it I had to penetrate this. Art helped me

melt away. For once in my life, my brain was quiet.


17/42

17

The student in this group pushed through her thinking barrier because she and

her teachers created a thinking environment where they felt comfortable using multiple

forms of dialogue, taking time to explore, and showing up as caring, dedicated people.

Studentsteacher group 2

SUBJECTS: Three eighth grade students in private middle school and the co

founder/humanities teacher

BARRIER TO THINKING identified by each student:

A. Difficulty articulating ideas in written format

B. Difficulty absorbing content in certain subjects

C. Difficulty focus on material due to being tired, hungry, or emotional

The three students listed different barriers to thinking that they each

experienced (see above). The teacher felt that students generally lacked experience

working hard to understand how to do something, which resulted in a lack of confidence

and focus, especially when concepts were difficult. She explained:

These kids were all bright kids that have been told forever youre really smart

by their parents. They began to think that something must be really wrong,

since they didnt get this material it created kids who doubted themselves

when they started to hit work that was difficult.

This description corroborates Carol Dweck's (1986) findings regarding students with

performance goals. Cross review of these interviews showed several elements that all

students and the teacher agreed helped in pushing students through their individual

barriers to thinking. Similar factors to group number one's successes emerged in group

number two's interviews: communication, time spent thinking through challenging

hurdles, presence with each other, and a safe space in which to engage authentically.


18/42

18

Extensive Dialogue

The primary element was extensive dialogue to connect the student to the

material, to himself, and to the teacher. Oneonone dialogue with the teacher occurred

once a week when, for twenty minutes, she would go over all of her edit suggestions

with each student.

Time to engage authentically

Student A remembered, She would give us time on every draft, however much

time we would need. That was what did it for me there were specific things she did,

but taking the time is what helped. Student B said, We would talk about it first. We

would talk about the problem. Why I am having the problem. The teacher said that the

decision to devote so much time to each student communicating about the writing

process or any other learning challenge was a deliberate choice. She felt it gave the

students the message that I know who you are, I care about your work, and Im in this

with you.

Safe space in which to be real

The teacher felt that authentic feedback was the most effective way to push her

students to do solid good work:

I grade with a view of how hard a student worked on it. But when I determine

that a bright student is not producing to quality, I start slamming the kid with

absolute true comments on the paper Please dont embarrass yourself by thissloppy work, please dont do third grade level work.

In time, students have come back to her and thanked her for her pushing them and for

not coddling them. One student told her a year or two after she graduated, The 'D' you


19/42

19

gave me was the best gift I was ever given. The teacher added that, they

overwhelmingly tell us thank you for calling our bluff.

This teacher and her students created a thinking environment that broke

through barriers via extensive dialogue in a safe, rigorous setting.

Studentteacher group 3

SUBJECTS: 11th

grade public high school student and the resource teacher

BARRIER TO THINKING identified by the student: emotional issues

The third student's barrier's confirm Pollak, et al., (1998) findings that, emotions

affect attentionand vice versa. This student and the teacher confirmed that the

student was able to perform most academic tasks when he was not distracted from his

task by emotional issues. The teacher noticed that this student would often check in

with her early in the day exhibiting a positive attitude, but by later in the day would

enter in a different state. He explained that a student or teachers comment to him

during the day could set him off.

Cross comparison of this teacher and students interview transcripts revealed

several effective elements that both deemed important toward getting the student to

lower his barrier to thinking. These elements did not occur as single agents in this task,

but seemed to be most effective when occurring together.

Welcoming environment

In order for the student to show up to work with this resource teacher each

week, he needed to feel that the environment was open and welcoming. Though he

often came into the class not wanting to do any work, he mentioned that he liked that


20/42

20

the space was relaxed, yet productive, which could help put him in the mood to work.

Similarly, this teacher recognized that there was something about the environment

being safe and kept at an even keel for the student to feel comfortable and claim

ownership of the space, which he did by leaving his bag there throughout the day.

Time to connect with self

Another element tied to creating an effective thinking environment here was in

giving the student time to take care of himself via a walk down the hall or a break in the

classroom. The student mentioned that when the teacher gives him time to settle

himself, he wants to respect this and return to her classroom.

Being present

A third element in removing barriers for this student is that both the teacher and

student showed up in this setting. The student observed that the teacher genuinely

cares. I can tell through body language. She sits down and asks what Ive got to do,

and she checks on you throughout the class. The teacher mentioned too that when

theyre working to get something done, she directs him to first do the easier work, since

something easy can get him back into the mode of working again. It can give him the

confidence of getting something rather than nothing done. She is present to help him

prioritize the work that will get him back on track.

Knowing the content that this eleventh grade student must understand was

another way for the student and teacher to stay present in the room. The teacher

mentioned that her understanding of the student and the content helps her know how


21/42

21

to connect the material to his life. The student mentioned that the teacher's ability to

really know her material" allowed him to connect with the work.

Language of teenagers

Finally, both student and teacher talked about communications role (via

listening, talking, sharing) in creating a safe environment where the students needs are

met and where a relationship based on trust is developed. The student mentioned that,

teachers who are good at teaching know how to communicate with kids and know

what teenagers are going through. The teacher commented on how she tried to listen

in such a way to know what a student is communicating to her. When he comes and

gets his work out without any prompting there's no avoidance there. sometimes he

comes armed with questions thats an obvious clue that he thinks he can get it. He can

work through it. Most times, though, she said that this student just told her honestly

how he was feeling.

This student and teacher pairing created an environment of thinking by mutually

fostering a safe space built on authentic presence and the ability to really listen to

where the other was coming from.

Studentsteacher group 4

SUBJECTS: One 10th

grade and one 11th

grade public high school student and the world

history/psychology teacher

BARRIER TO THINKING identified by each student: Difficulty focusing and thinking deeply

about concepts


22/42

22

Very similar elements in creating an environment of thinking between teacher

and students were revealed in this fourth grouping.

Being real and present with self and with the material

Both students remarked extensively on how this teacher seemed to understand

and love the subjects that he taught as well as pop culture and teenagers. His love and

knowledge helped them connect with the material, so they could go deeper with it. The

student who had this teacher in 10th grade remarked, "[This teacher] knew a lot about

current events. He made it relevant to our lives he could do this with any content.

His knowing things and being intellectual made this seem like a useful skill to have for

the real life." This teacher said he is responsible to the students when doing his work. If

they are not learning, he sees it as something that he can change. He added,

This is not a clich, though it sounds sappy. When I have a dud lesson... it

happens all the time and to see the body language in the class. [It says],

youre not entertaining me; Im not interested; Im not learning. The lesson

tomorrow is going to kick ass."

Dialogue using the same language in a safe environment

Clearly, different forms of communication in a safe environment was key with this

group, but was made accessible to all involved since the participants seemed to speak

the same language. The tenth grader said:

He definitely mastered the language of teenagers used slang made the wholeclass feel lighter, less serious. He would get us to interact with him. He would call

on people a lot made sure everyone was listening he could just tell. He would

do it in a fun, maybe mocking way ask someone what was going on or what the

last person said. It was never mean.


23/42

23

Engagement of all participants on many levels, in this case, yielded a thinking

environment that motivated students to push through thinking barriers in order to

connect more deeply to the material.

Studentteacher group 5

SUBJECTS: 11th

grade private school student and AP Literature/writing teacher

BARRIER TO THINKING identified by the student: negative mindset regarding writing

abilities

This student's negative mindset toward her ability as a writer came as a result of

a previous teacher telling her that she was not a good writer (which confirms Kamii and

Randazzo's research in 1985 showing that a teacher can discourage a student via words

or acts.) The student also had difficulty connecting with writing on a personal level due

to psychological issues that resulted from her being stalked by a community member for

the last several years.

Authentic engagement

Being real and showing up was important to both the teacher and the student

here. The student noticed that she [the teacher] was going to put as much effort as we

were going to, which often included doing the same writing assignments as the

students. Likewise, the teacher felt that students must bring to [learning] their

openness, their willingness, [since] this is what will make the biggest difference for

them. For the student to become a better writer the teacher not only needed to show

that she knew the content, she needed to model to the student how to be vulnerable.

The student said, It was her knowledge it was all about writing essays that initially


24/42

24

helped the student engage with the material; but, by sharing herself with her student at

a later point, the teacher played a pivotal role in helping the student tap into her own

voice, which had been quieted from her difficult experiences outside of this class. The

student remarked, She would tell us about her life so this helped me open up with

her.

Understanding that change takes time

Another element used to remove this students barriers was recognizing that it

takes time for changes to occur. The student acknowledged that, good work on the

teachers part occurs when they take time to try to help you figure out what is keeping

you from doing well.

Safe space as shelter from outside world

Since this students life outside of school distressed her, both teacher and

student recognized the importance of learning in a safe space. The teacher asserted,

The best thing I could do for [the student] was make as safe a place in the classroom

getting back and forth to school wasnt safe my classroom was safe.

Connecting through communication

Finally, reaching out to each other and having the student talk her way through

the process of writing was integral to connecting this student to thinking like a writer.

The student said that good work on her part included talking with my teacher and

getting help.


25/42

25

This student and teacher cocreated a safe physical and psychological space,

which produced an authentic, caring connection to each other; it is ultimately what

seemed to push this student through her barrier to thinking.

DISCUSSION

This study was designed to determine if there is something unique and key in

how a teenage student and teacher create a thinking space together to effectively help

the student push through his or her barriers to thinking. The research presented here

illustrated a few key findings that support the hypothesis that teachers and their

teenage students do have the ability, when certain criteria are met, to create

environments that foster the lessening or removal of emotional, cognitive, or negative

mindset barriers.

Criteria

As found with the Good Work Project (Gardner, et al., 2001), certain zones of

optimal states can occur when three or more isolated and specific elements come

together to form this new and unique higherlevel quality. For good work to occur, for

example, a worker must have engagement, ethics, and excellence (Gardner, et al.,

2001). All three should be present for the highest form of good work to occur.

Engagement without ethics, for example, would not be considered good work, in the

definitional sense. Likewise, true excellence without engagement would most likely not

even be possible. The optimal state only exhibits itself when the core individual

elements are present at the same time. Physical sciencewith the chemical composition

of an element, such as water, H20gives us another example of this emergent quality. If


26/42

26

only one hydrogen and one oxygen molecule come together, the element water would

not result, since water must have the three chemical elements, two hydrogen and one

oxygen molecule, in order to exist. When all three individual molecules come together,

the sum result is something completely different than the identity of the individual

parts. This concept of emergence where, in laymans termsthe whole is different

from the sum of its parts [italics included] (Pepe, 2010) is present in many other

disciplines as well. This study seems to show that such is also the case when certain

conditions come together in order for a teenager to push through emotional, cognitive,

or negative mindset barriers to thinking. To create what I oftentimes see as the magical

space where good thinking in these challenging situations can occur, the simultaneous

presence of four core elements and their specific qualities seem important: a safe space;

flexible time; authentic presence of learner and teacher; and giveandtake dialogue.

FIG. 2: Model of Four Core Components


27/42

27

Each of the fourteen interviewees, as yielded in their coded and cross

referenced interview transcripts, attributed the success of their learning environments

to several qualities, which I later synthesized into the above four elements based on

their common denominators. These four qualities appeared in each of the smaller

teacherstudent groupings as well as in the overall sampling of interviewees.

It is important to understand the aspects embodied in each of the four

components. These four components do not seem to be hierarchical, nor do they come


28/42

28

in any order, per se. A key quality to recognize is that each of the four core components

seems to require the interaction of the other components in order to effectively exist

and in order to create the space for good thinking during challenging moments,

especially. Its interesting to note that within each component, the concept of

emergence is also taking place at some level, since it takes several individual traits to

come together to create the more general core concept.

Safe Space

The interviewees all addressed traits, explicitly or implicitly, that when analyzed

fit under the heading of safe space. These traits include: a literal space where the

students and teachers feel physically safe, and a place where they can be themselves. A

safe space is also egalitarian, questionpromoting, open to differences, democratic, one

where participants (teachers and students) feel that others can succeed, respectful of all

members, and a place where mistakes are tools from which to learn. It is also a place

that is rigorous (but not to the point that the students or teachers feel that they cannot

succeed), yet relaxed and comfortable. There are other qualities, I am sure, that could fit

under this safe space component, but the traits here are those mentioned by both the

students and their teachers interviewed.

Flexible Time

The interviewees all mentioned traits of time that could be grouped under the

main heading of flexible time. These traits include: learnercentered where time serves

the learner (i.e., teacher and student) and processcentered where time is circular

instead of linear (or focused merely on the end result). Flexible time is open ended, as


29/42

29

well, so the teacher and student have more space in which to dialogue to get to know

each other, the material, and ways to connect the student to the concepts. Flexible time

also allows the student to make deeper connections with the material.

Authentic Presence of Student and Teacher

This third component, that of the authentic presence of student and teacher,

might be the most difficult to achieve in the western world. It seems to be best created

when the student and teacher are in a safe space, where they can listen to their own

emotions and thoughts, and where the act of reflection is inherent in the act of being

authentically present. Traits, revealed by the interviewees, that were grouped under

this core component include: the teacher knowing his or her content well in order to be

fully present with the student/s and the thinking taking place, participants in the

learning/thinking space being real, approachable, intrinsically motivated, engaged,

vulnerable, relevant, and honest with themselves and others; and where understanding

of the material, of the participants, and of the self are held as important (if not more so)

as the end product (i.e., grades, scores, or due dates).

Giveandtake dialogue

Something unexpected in this study, but that confirmed Vygotsky's (1978)

theories on language's role in cognition, was the role played by dialogue in opening the

pathways to thinking through barriers. The traits referred to by the interviewees and

grouped under this core component tended to be the most numerous. This component,

interestingly, can exist in a studenttoteacher, peertopeer, or selftoself

configuration. It is also seen in many modalities, such as in selfreflected journal writing,


30/42

30

verbal backandforth in a oneonone meeting, Socratic seminar with an entire class,

collaboration exercise between a few students, or through engagement with art. It

seemed to be the one core component that included some action in order to open the

mind to thinking. Another characteristic of this component is that the giveandtake is

just that The student and teacher are on equal standing in that the teacher does not

tell a student the information that the student does not yet know, in most cases, but

questions the learner in order to draw out the information assumed to be stored

latently within the student. Give and take dialogue can occur when participants are

getting to know each other (more personal) or the subject (more academic). Something

definitely seems to shift for a student when time is spent engaging in external or

internal dialogue about his or her own thinking (metacognition) regarding a difficult

concept or when emotional or negative mindset barriers arise.

Other Surprises

There are a few other findings in this study that were surprising:

First, these core components are abstract in quality and represent dimensions

more than they represent one of the hundreds of typical best practice teaching

devices and tools. The teaching modalities initially listedwhen explored in more depth

by interviewees via followup questions to a primary question in the interviewwere

generally deemed most effective when utilized within the "zone" of the four core

components listed in this study. Playing a touted learning game, for example, in a space

where a student didnt feel safe, but where the other three components were

somewhat present, it is hypothesized, would not result in the student reaching a level of


31/42

31

success that he or she could have obtained had all four components occurred at the

same time while he played the game. This study shows, for example, that when a

teacher takes the time to listen (in many ways) to what a student needs (and when a

student is open to sharing with a teacher what he or she needs), the student and

teacher can cocreate an aligned teaching/learning "dance", so to speak, and therefore

can effect good thinking on the student's part that can at that point help the student get

through difficult thinking barriers. When the teacher hears from the student where the

student is with the learning, the teacher can then determine the most effective tools to

use in that specific context in order to help bridge the student's background knowledge

with the new information.

This knowledge is very much in alignment with the scaffolded support theories

that Vygotsky (1978) and Fischer and Bidell (2006) championed; though, what seems to

be new here is that an environment for thinking needs to be fostered before an intent

to scaffold can be realized. This makes it somewhat easier to see now why scaffolding

wouldn't necessarily work with just any slapping together of a teacher and student

pairing. When a student and teacher cocreate a safe space, show up authentically as a

result, and dialogue together in a flexiblytimed setting (not in any particular order),

scaffolding would in this environment, I hypothesize, be an effective strategy to lessen

or eradicate barriers to thinking. If however, a student didn't feel he had a voice (lack of

dialogue), which resulted in the space feeling not quite so safe, I would counter that the

intent to scaffold on the teacher's part would not be an effective way to get the student

to remove his barriers to thinking, in this setting.


32/42

32

This study also seems to address certain of Piaget's theories. First, the findings

do seem to corroborate Piaget's Constructivist Theory in that engagement with the

material at hand (or being present with the material) does play a role in the core

components of a thinking environment revealed here. Second, the research here does

seem to want to initially refute, but then ultimately just lengthen Piaget's Theory of

Autonomy. Counter to a good thinker being solely one who can independently solve

problems (as addressed in the Theory of Autonomy and by the literature revealed at the

beginning of this paper), I argue that a good thinker can solve problems independently,

BUT he or she can also, at times, run into barriers to thinking which would demand that

he or she gain support from a teacher with whom an environment of thinking can be co

created in order for the student to gain scaffolded help and supersede the barrier to

thinking. This act, of cocreating a thinking environment with another more adept

teacher individual in order to push through a challenging thinking barrier, is another way

a person can be considered a good thinker. A comprehensive view of a good thinker,

then, is one who can independently work through problems generally, but when faced

with challenging barriers that supersede his or her current ability, can think through

these barriers with effective support that is fostered within the core components

revealed here of an environment that breeds good thinking. Ultimately, this

independent, then supported, then independent thinking is more cyclical than linear,

which, again confirms (with an addition of the core components seen here) Vygotsky's

(1978) Zone of Proximal Development and Fischer and Bidell's (2006) Functional and

Optimal levels of development.


33/42

33

Conflict for schools that arise from this study

Unfortunately, the abstract and nonstandardized qualities of this study's core

components for thinking through barriers, while effective, could potentially be difficult

for schools in our nation to carry out due to their large class sizes and focus on

standardized learning and testing. While this model is not the only one for producing

good thinkers, it does seem to be a highly effective chemistry for creating an

environment that helps teenagers, at least, push through their barriers to thinking. The

public school teachers in this study both mentioned that the recipe that works for them

with their students is very difficult, for they themselves or for others in their school, to

enact most of the time due to these factors as well as other constraints. Interestingly,

the two founders of two of the private schools each indicated that they left the larger

school setting and founded a smaller, more studentcentered school in order to be able

to create environments more conducive to critical thinking and content exploration.

I argue, that this conflict, if not addressed by revamping or reinventing our current

public school system, will result in the weakening of excellence, engagement, and

potentially ethics (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon, 2001) when it comes to

students and their teachers getting students to push through their barriers to thinking in

the 21st century.

Validity/Limitations

The primary limitation encountered in this study was the relatively small and narrow

(mostly middle to upper class teenagers) sample in the interview process.

Ideas for future research that my study suggests


34/42

34

I see several interesting research projects that this study could suggest. A worthy

next step study would be to examine the brain to understand what happens when the

four components in this model are present for a student (of any age) with thinking

barriers. Does this recipe actually do something tangible to the brain allowing it to

unlock itself in order to promote deeper learning? Are different ages affected differently

(or not at all) by these components? It would also be interesting to see if these four core

components are important factors when helping blocked thinkers who are being

schooled via cyberspace. Finally, though not least important, further studies could focus

on the role giveandtake dialogue plays in unlocking thinking.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that there was a gap in the literature regarding defining an effective

teacherstudent collaboration, and the specific space within this collaboration unit that

best facilitates the process of unlocking the thinking process, in order to allow the

student to pass through emotional, cognitive, or negative mindset barriers to thinking. I

addressed this gap by interviewing teenagers breaking through these barriers and the

teachers who had a part in this process. I argued that an environment for thinking is co

created by a teacher and his or her students in the classroom when barriers to thinking

are removed or lessened, and I created a unique model illustrating the four core

components that produce this environment. Though this is not the only model to

promote good thinking in teenagers, it is an effective model for promoting thinking

when students are wrestling with emotional, negative mindset, or cognitive barriers to

thinking. Since this model is based on abstract, concurrent dimensions cocreated by


35/42

35

student and teacher, and not on concrete, isolated, or standardized qualities, the school

system as we know it would most likely have a difficult time utilizing this seemingly

important model for thinkers with barriers. If this conflict is not addressed, potentially

by removing the factors in our schools that prevent this form of thinking environment to

occur, the result in our schools could yield a lowering or eradication of excellence,

engagement, and possibly ethics (Gardner, Csikszentmihalyi, & Damon, 2001) instead of

the learning barriers that we were hoping to expel in order for 21st century skills

promulgate.

APPENDIX A: Barriers to thinking as identified by interviewees

Mindset and/or emotional issues:

Fear of failure

Comparing self to others

Perfectionism

Difficulty taking risks

Lack of confidence in own ability or overall lack of belief in self

Fear of dealing with the unknown (something the student cant control)

Inability to focus on work (due to general depression)

Inability to focus on work (due to anxiety around being stalked)

Inability to focus on work (when tired or hungry or emotional)

Inability to focus on work (when teacher doesnt explain information in order for it to

make sense)

Cognitive Issues:


36/42

36

Difficulty thinking abstractly

Difficulty reading for understanding

Not knowing the content or how to do specific academic tasks (i.e., writing an essay, or

doing algebra problems)

APPENDIX B: Student Interview Protocol

These questions were given to each teenager after it was determined that he or she did

have a selfidentified thinking barrier in a class. Each student also identified the teacher

that helped him or her push through the barrier before these questions were given.

What is the type of barrier to thinking that you experienced in the (identified) teacher'sclass? (SL: Explain "barrier to thinking", if needed.)

Describe what this barrier felt/was like when you experienced it? How did you know you

were dealing with a barrier to thinking?

Were you able to get through this barrier in this teacher's class (whether for a short or

long period)?

What were the main factors/strategies that helped you get through this barrier at that

time?

What did you do that helped you get through the barrier to thinking? Be specific.

Did your teacher employ strategies to help you get through the barrier? If so, what did

he or she do that helped?

Did anything in the environment help you break through the barrier? If so, what?

Did your knowing the class content (subject information that you need to know in class)

play a role, if at all, when you worked to push through the thinking barrier? If so, how?

Did your teacher's knowledge of the subject material play a role, if at all, to get you

through the thinking barrier? If so, how?

Who were you responsible to when you worked to push through your barrier to thinking

in class?


37/42

37

What did good work on your part look like when you worked through your thinking

barrier? Be specific.

What did good work look like on your teacher's part if he/she helped you move through

the thinking barrier? Be specific.

APPENDIX C: Teacher Interview Protocol

These questions were given to each teacher after it was determined that he or she did

have a student with a studentidentified thinking/learning barrier in class.

How long have you been an educator?

Approximate number of students in your class when the identified student was in that

class?

What type of barrier/s to thinking did this student contend with in your class?

What sign/s did this student give you to signal that he/she was dealing with a barrier to

thinking?

What did you observe to be the main factors/strategies that helped the student get

through this barrier?

Did you employ strategies to help this student get through the barrier/s? If so, what

were the ones that you feel worked?

What did you observe the student do, if anything, to help him/herself through the

thinking barrier?

Did the environment play any role in helping the student move through the thinking

barrier? If so, what?

Do you feel that your content knowledge was an important factor when helping the

student get through the thinking barrier? If so, why? If not, why not?

Who are you responsible to in your work when helping a student through a thinkingbarrier?

What does good work on your part look like when you are helping a student get through

a thinking barrier?

What does good work on the students part look like when he/she is working to get

through a thinking barrier?


38/42

38

REFERENCES

Ayoub, C.C., Rogosh, F., Toth, S.L., O'Connor, E., Cicchetti, D., RappoltSchlictmann, G.

(2006). Cognitive and emotional differences in young maltreated children: A

translational application of dynamic skill theory. Development and

Psychopathology, 18, 670706.

Bransford, J.D. & Stein, B.S. (1993). Ideal problem solver, 2nd

ed. New York: W.H.

Freeman.

Broadbear, J. T. (2003). Essential elements of lessons designed to promote critical

thinking.Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(3), 18.

Carson, J. (2007). A problem with problem solving: teaching thinking without teacher

knowledge. The Mathematics Educator, 17(2), 714.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist,

41(10), 10401047.

Dweck, C.S., Leggett, E.L. (1988). A socialcognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256273.

Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In R.


39/42

39

M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development, Handbook of child

psychology(6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 313399). New York: Wiley. pp. 313336, 347399

Frydenberg, E. & Lewis, R. (1993). Manual: The Adolescent Coping Scale. Melbourne:

Australian Council for Educational Research.

Frydenberg, E., Lewis, R. (2009). The relationship between problemsolving efficacy and

coping amongst Australian adolescents. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling,

37(1), 5164.

Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, W. (2001). Good work: When ethics and

excellence meet. New York: Basic Books.

Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. (3rd

ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Haynes, T., & Bailey, G. (2003). Are you and your basic business students asking the right

questions? Business Education Forum, 57(3), 3337.

Kamii, C. (1982). Number in preschool and kindergarten: Educational implications of

Piagets theory. National Association for the education of young children


40/42

40

(Washington, D.C.) Appendix: autonomy as the aim of education: implications of

Piagets theory.

Kamii, C., Randazzo, M. (1985). Social interaction and invented spelling. Language Arts,

62(2), 124132.

Kreber, C. (1998). The relationships between selfdirected learning, critical thinking, and

psychological type, and some implications for teaching in higher education.

Studies in Higher Education, 23(1), 7186. doi:10.1080/03075079812331380502.

Leshowitz, B., Jenkens, K., Heaton, S., Bough, T.L. (1993). Fostering critical thinking skills

in students with learning disabilities: an instructional program.Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 26(7), 483490.

Macpherson, R., Stanovich, K.E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and

instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual

Differences, 17, 115127.

McCollister, K., Sayler, M.F. (2010). Lift the ceiling: increase rigor with critical thinking

skills. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 4147.

Memory, D.M., Yoder, C.Y., Bolinger, K.B., Warren, W.J. (2004) Creating thinking and


41/42

41

inquiry tasks that reflect the concerns and interests of adolescents. The Social

Studies, July/August, 147154.

Ormrod, J. (1999). Human learning (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pepe, A. (2010). Structure and Evolution of Scientific Collaboration Networks in a

Modern Research Collaboratory (May 27, 2010). Retrieved December 8, 2010,

from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1616935.

Piaget, Jean. (1973). To Understand is to Invent. New York: Grossman.

Pollak, S.D., Cicchetti, D., & Klorman, R. (1998). Stress, memory, and emotion:

Developmental considerations from the study of child maltreatment.

Development and Psychopathology, 10, 811828.

Snyder, L.G., Snyder, M.J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills.

The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, L(2), 9099.

Van der Wal, A. (1999). Critical thinking as a core skill: issues and discussion paper.

(HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 1215 July.)

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press


42/42

Webster, A.F. (1994). The consequences of the lack of critical thinkingbased education

in the AfricanAmerican community. (Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the MidSouth Educational Research Association November 911, Nashville, TN.

Documents

Suzanne_Lettrick_Good Thinking- Teachers and Their Teenage Students Co-Creating the Environment of Thinking to Help Students Push Through Emotional, Cognitive, Or Negative Mindset