Tired of Standardized Tests?
Research: Traditional classrooms depend largely on testing to gauge student learning and achievement. Teachers present a lesson to a large group of students and use tests or quizzes to determine whether or not it stuck. Termed “summative” testing, this practice gives answers to what a student knows or doesn’t know at a particular moment in time. Researcher Thomas Haladyna notes that its use as a final outcome of learning is largely biased and even dangerous, as student progress is glossed over or minimized by scores that are based on arbitrary and often developmentally inappropriate criteria.
Practice: When working with small groups or one-on-one, the need for these impersonal forms of assessment is negated. We can constantly gauge what our students know by assessing them in a variety of ways to determine the breadth and depth of their knowledge. It’s not to say that we don’t use testing as a form of assessment. Students may take tests or quizzes, but they are used to inform our teaching–where we need to focus next, what lessons we need to re-teach, and so on. We do take care to prepare students for the SAT and college by introducing test-taking strategies along the way, but we refuse to tie their success to a single number.
“Just Right” Level of Challenge
Research: In 1934, psychologist Lev Vygotski coined the term “zone of proximal development.” It represents the difference between what a student can do independently and what they can do with guidance and encouragement from a more knowledgeable person (i.e., a teacher). It’s the sweet spot in learning, where a student has enough knowledge to be comfortable and enough challenge to be intrigued and ready to stretch their learning.
Practice: In our experience, a lack of challenge creates boredom and disengagement, while too much challenge creates anxiety and stress. We aim for the zone of proximal development, or “just right” level of challenge, with each student. As teachers get to know students and their abilities they are able to match students with their ideal learning level and activities to support it. This level matches the right amount of teacher support with the right amount of challenge to encourage academic progress and performance.
Is the Traditional Day Best for our Teens?
Research: In 2014 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a study that middle and high schools shouldn’t start earlier than 8:30 am. A new study moves that time to 10 am, which has caused quite a stir in the education community. Critics move quickly to disregard the research for the “realities” of time management. They fail, however, to reimagine school in different terms, where we don’t have to be bound by a traditional 7-hour day and we can pay attention to how kids really learn. Study after study confirms that the biological changes during adolescence require teens to get about 9 hours of sleep and re-wire them to both go to bed and wake up later. The effects of what can become irrevocable sleep loss include reduced cognitive responses, increased emotional responses, and increased risk of physical responses and disease. This adds up to grumpy teens who aren’t ready to learn and can’t work at their potential.
Practice: At Chrysalis we understand that every student is unique. We know that for learning to occur basic well-being must take priority, so we schedule according to each individual’s needs. Those who are able to start early are allowed to, but very few students at our high school start before 9 am. Likewise, those who need more sleep in the morning are allowed a later start. Sometimes we see that a particular subject just isn’t working as the first class of the day and we can shift it to the afternoon to take advantage of peak brain time. It’s all about optimizing the conditions for learning.
All the Rage in Education!
Research: The term “personalization” is all the rage in the realm of education these days, with schools and software popping up in response right and left. Chris Lehmann of the Science Leadership Academy warns that this term should be exercised with caution. It can go wrong in two important ways: 1) by failing to actually tailor learning to the student and relying upon individualized pace alone to “personalize” standardized content, and 2) by embracing a “deficit model” in which the student’s weaknesses are not only identified, but narrowly focused upon, resulting in students spending the majority of their time in areas of weakness rather than areas of strength.
Practice: At Chrysalis personalization means that students’ courses, teachers, teaching methods curricula, and pace are all tailored to them. This is most true of one-on-one classes, where the course can be highly individualized to the students’ needs, interests, and abilities. In group classes personalization is adjusted to the group as a whole. Since groups formed by joining like-learners the teacher still has a high degree of flexibility to personalize learning to the group’s needs. We minimize weakness by allowing students to learn in their preferred style, building upon their strengths in the process. This is the real deal!