Principle 1 - Challenges ALL Students

Great Teaching at Markham College:

Challenges all students - so that students have high expectations of what they can achieve and they learn as much as possible

Page Contents

What do we mean by Challenges ALL Students? On this page you will find a few brief introductions to some of the ideas that have cropped up from research on the topic of Challenge. You can use the links below to access the different sections.

Memory is the residue of thought

Deliberate Difficulties

Show them Excellence

Challenge ≠ Difficult

A Culture of Challenge

Memory is the residue of thought

In Why Don't Students Like School, Daniel T. Willingham identifies this as one of his principles of the mind. In simple terms it means we remember what we think about. He gives some examples of experiments that have been done to come to this conclusion.

First, he rules out that memory is simply a case of repeated exposure, citing a study where groups of people were shown a selection of pictures of 1 cent coins. Each individual was shown a random sample of the 15 coins below, and asked to identify if each coin was the real thing or a fake. Of those who saw the real coin, only half of them identified it as the real one. Even more shocking was that one of the fake coins was identified as the real coin more often than the actual real coin.

Willingham argues that this shows that just being repeatedly exposed to ideas is not enough for us to commit it to memory, at least not with all the details.

In the second experiment he describes, people are offered a cash reward for doing well in a test on the material they are required to study. The control group was not told there would be a test on the material, nor offered any incentive to study the material. The researchers found no difference in the amount recalled between the two groups, suggesting that wanting to learn was, again, not enough to ensure things are remembered.

In the same experiment, some groups were shown a list of words and asked to identify if there was an A or a Q in each word. Other groups were asked to think about how the word made them feel. This time a significant difference in recall was measured. Those who were asked to think about their feelings did much better on the test. Willingham suggests this is because they were encouraged to think deeply about the meaning of the words, rather than performing a more mundane task of identifying.

This suggests that if we want students to remember something, we need to get them to think hard about it, and, in particular, about it's meaning. Challenging all students to think hard will enable them to remember the most.

The Struggle Zone

How much challenge is the right amount of challenge? This is a difficult question to answer since what we find challenging depends on what we already know. One useful way to think about it is to think about how much struggle students will have in attempting a task.

Making Every Lesson Count, Allison and Tharby

In Making Every Lesson Count, Shaun Allison and Andy Tharby discuss the Struggle Zone. This is where students are just beyond their Comfort Zone, and it is where optimal learning takes place.

If students are in the Comfort Zone, they are not really having to think much, and so, since memory is the residue of thought, they are unlikely to be learning much.

On the other extreme, if material is too difficult, students might find themselves in the Panic Zone. Unlike the Comfort Zone, being in the Panic Zone is an unpleasant experience, which usually causes anxiety. The issue here is that students are likely to be cognitively overloaded, and so unable to learn effectively.

The Struggle Zone lies between these, and, although not necessarily comfortable as we are having to work hard and think hard, the goals are achievable, and once achieved lead to significant learning.

But the Struggle Zone looks different in each phase of learning. When first being introduced to a new concept, the struggle is to understand the basic premise. As we progress, the struggle becomes to be able to apply this idea in different contexts. With even more expertise, the struggle is to link it to other ideas we already know or are learning. So being in the Struggle Zone can look very different, but the important part is that students are having to think hard.

Mindset

But are all students open to being challenged? If we want to challenge students to think hard we also need them to be willing to be challenged. The work of Carol Dweck on Mindsets gives us some indication as to why some students might be open to challenge, whilst others are not.

Dweck suggests that there are two types of mindsets towards a given task/subject:

A fixed mindset
A growth mindset

Those with a fixed mindset believe that their ability in a particular subject is fixed, and that no matter what they do they will not improve. Intelligence, or ability, is a fixed quantity that they possess. The result is that those with a fixed mindset will see little point in hard work as it won't make a difference (in their minds). Those with a fixed mindset will be reluctant to being challenged to think hard as this will further embed the idea that they cannot do the subject as they find it difficult. It is important to note that those who achieve highly are just as prone to having a fixed mindset as those of low prior attainment, thinking that their achievements are due to their innate intelligence. These high attaining students also avoid challenge, as it can be a threat to their perceived dominance in a subject, and can make them feel less "smart".

Those with a growth mindset believe that their ability is based on hard work and effort, and that if they put in the work then they will improve. Intelligence is not fixed, but rather something we can improve. These students will be open to being challenged as they will see this as an opportunity to learn more and become better. Those with a growth mindset, then, will seek out challenges to help them grow, and will be eager to learn from their mistakes.

However, a student does not have either a fixed or a growth mindset. It is possible to have a growth mindset in one subject, but a fixed mindset in another. As mentioned above, this is also not a distinction between attainment. Low prior achievers can have a growth mindset and high prior achievers can have a fixed mindset.

As teachers we can support students developing a growth mindset approach to learning by using the word "yet". When a student says they cannot do something, we add the word "yet" to the end of their sentence to show them that they will get there. Another way to promote a growth mindset is to praise effort and processes rather than achievement and outcomes. By calling somebody smart you suggest this is an innate aspect of their personality. By praising the effort a student puts in you show them you value hard work and trying to improve.

Differentiation

Challenging ALL students means having high expectations of all the students we teach. Traditionally there are many ways to differentiate for the students in our classes:

By task
By outcome
By content
By learning style
By support

Differentiating by task

This means giving different tasks to different students based on their current level. This might mean having multiple tasks for each lesson so students can access the same content at different levels. The issue I have with this approach to differentiation is that there are two possible options, both of which have problems.

If you asign the tasks to students, deciding who should do what, then you are likely to fall prey to the Pygmalion Effect (see video to the right). This says that your own expectations of students will push them to fulfill those expectations. By assigning some students easier work, you tell them you think they cannot do the harder work, so they resign themselves to not being good at your subject.

On the other hand, perhaps you allow students to choose which of the tasks to complete. Those with a growth midset might well choose the challenging task to push themselves, but plenty of students will choose a task that is below what they can achieve, sitting comfortably in their Comfort Zone.

In neither of these situations are ALL students being challenged.

Differentiation by outcome

This means giving all students the same task, but expecting different outcomes from different students. So, for example, accepting different qualities of essay based answers from different students. Obviously there is a link here to the Pygmalion Effect discussed above, as we are talking about expectations.

The issue here is that we accept work of substandard quality from some students. The amazing story of Austin's Butterfly (video to the left) shows that with feedback, all students can improve their work to produce excellent results. Some may require more feedback than others, but challenging them to produce excellence will push them to achieve better.

Differentiating by content

This means teaching different content to different students. There are aspects of this in how students choose options to study, but we really mean making these decisions for them in what we teach. The most classic example of this is by using differentiated objectives such as All, Most, Some will achieve. There is, again, a clear link to the Pygmalion Effect in making these choices for students.

This can be evident in the setted classroom or the mixed attainment groups where different groups of students are set different work to do. The danger with this is that students will realise that there are different expectations of them compared to other students.

Differentiation by Learning Style

This is providing different forms of instruction based on a students preferred learning style (such as visual, auditory or kinaesthetic). Unfortunately there is no evidence to suggest that tailoring instruction in this way is beneficial to their learning. In fact all students are best served by getting opportunities to experience instruction across a range of modalities.

There is evidence behind the idea of dual coding, which suggests we learn most efficiently when processing visual and and auditory information at the same time. Most often this is interpreted as using an image whilst explaining something, including both image and text together (being wary of the split attention effect though) and the use of graphic organisers. We must, however, be careful not to read slides of text to students, as this actually hinders their processing of information, as reading and listening are both auditory processes.

Differentiation by support

This is giving all students the same task, expecting the same outcome on the same content, but providing different levels of support for them as appropriate. This is sometimes referred to as scaffolding. The idea is that through the support offered all students will reach the same level in the end. We have a single challenging objective, and help all students get there.

The type of support can vary:

Time allowed
Feedback given
Use of templates

Making Every Lesson Count, Allison and Tharby

In this case, all students are challenged to reach the same high standards. The teacher's expectations play less of a role, as support is given to students who require it, and those students will be different depending on the task. It is important to be aware of our own biases though, and actively try to not help those we feel will need help before giving them the chance to have a go first. The support should be provided only when a student has shown they need it.

Content vs Task

When designing activities to challenge our students, we should be aware of the difference between a challenging task and challenging content. It is the challenge of the content that makes our subjects interesting, not the way they are packaged. Willingham, in Why Don't Students Like School, shares a story that many teachers can probably relate to.

A teacher shares their lesson on the Underground Railroad (the secret tunnels used by slaves in the US to escape to Canada) where the main activity was for students to bake biscuits like the ones that the slaves had eaten when making their way through the tunnels. This task was designed to help the students empathise with the harsh living conditions of the slaves as they made their escape. The issue, as Willingham says, is that students probably spent little time thinking about the slaves, and a lot more time thinking about the process of making biscuits.

Since memory is the residue of thought, what students learned was how to make biscuits. If this was the aim of the activity, then I am sure that it was successful. However, if the aim was to develop the students understanding of the conditions that the slaves lived in, and hence how bad their lives must have been if they were willing to live like this for many months to escape, then this activity probably didn't help them.

In this case, the activity was quite probably challenging for all students. They were probably supported to differing amounts. They were quite possibly all in the Struggle Zone. And yet, the challenge did not help them learn what they needed to learn.

It can be easy as a teacher to get lost in an amazing activity, but forget that the challenge it creates is not related to what we want our students to learn. This is what we mean by being Objective Driven (Principle 5).

FUGITIVE SLAVES FLEEING FROM THE MARYLAND COAST TO AN UNDERGROUND RAILROAD DEPOT IN DELAWARE," 1850, PETER NEWARK/AMERICAN PICTURES/BRIDGEMAN IMAGES

Perhaps a task that would challenge students to think more about the struggles of the slaves would be to get them to analyse some sources, such as the one above, and think and discuss what they show.

I have been guilty of this. I once had a top set S2 group build a scale model of the school. It was a great activity. It really challenged the kids, and they enjoyed it. The end product was amazing, and I proudly displayed it on my wall for the rest of the year. But looking back, I wanted them to learn about trigonometry. I wanted them to apply their trigonometry skills to the project. But they spent about 3 minutes doing some trigonometry, and the rest of the week taking measurements, drawing scale images, cutting card, and sticking it together. They spent very little time thinking about Trigonometry. I am sure that the students would remember that project, and perhaps that makes it worthwhile in its own right, but it was not well designed for them to practice and apply trigonometry, which is what I wanted them to learn.

Success vs Struggle

David Didau argues that the problem with challenge and struggle is that too much of it can put students off your subject. Being in the Struggle Zone is a little bit uncomfortable, so being there constantly is not a nice experience. He argues that we must make sure that students experience success before pushing them to struggle. We should build up their knowledge and skills first, give them practice to become more confident, and then push them to really challenge themselves.

But I would argue that all these stages are challenging in their own right. Following and understanding an explanation of a difficult topic is a challenge. Practicing a skill to fluency is a challenge. Applying the ideas to a new situation is a challenge. It all depends on where you are in the learning journey. The important part is that students have to be able to overcome the challenge, and also think they can overcome the challenge.

Giving students a lower challenge to start with can build their motivation to attempt the bigger challenge. If students are constantly failing at every task you set, then they will quickly become unmotivated, and possibly slip into a fixed mindset approach of thinking they cannot do your subject. So allowing them to be successful, by explaining and modeling (Principle 6) first if necessary, can actually push students on to be able to answer the really challenging questions.

Deliberate Difficulties

The work of Robert and Elizabeth Bjork has identified that we actually learn things better when we have to push through certain 'desirable difficulties'. This idea links perfectly to the Struggle Zone, as the ideas they have researched push you into the Struggle Zone, but they also link to cognitive science and how the brain actually remembers things. They have identified four different ways to introduce desirable difficulties into learning, and the first two link to Spaced Retrieval (Principle 10).

Retrieval Practice

This is the act of recalling information rather than looking it up. It is obviously more difficult to have to recall information than looking in notes to find it (if the notes are well kept, that is), but the benefits are that every time we recall something from memory it becomes easier to recall in future. It also helps new learning transfer better to other situations. The reading around retrieval practice, also known as the testing effect, has had a transformational effect on the teaching of some.

Spaced Practice

This is the act of spacing out the practice of a new skill or piece of knowledge. Again, this obviously makes it more difficult in the moment, as we develop a level of momentary fluency when we practice the same thing lots of times in a row. But, as with retrieval practice, this actually helps learning in the long term. This is the idea behind why cramming is not a good idea.

Interleaved Practice

This is the opposite of what is known as massed practice, where you practice the same skill lots of times in a row. This has students practice questions that are different, but related, all mixed up. A simple example is to switch between asnwering addition and subtraction problems, doing one of each at a time, rather than 20 additions followed by 20 subtractions. Two of the benefits of interleaving are that it helps students develop the skill of choosing the correct approach for different problems/questions and that it highlights the similarities and differences between similar concepts.

Varied Practice

This is used when first learning a new skill, and says it is better for learning if we practice it in different ways. The classic experiment (Kerr & Booth, 1978) on this had one group of students throw bean bags from 3 metres into a basket for 20 attempts. The other group also did 20 throws, but they switched between being 4 metres from the basket and 2 metres from the basket. They were then all tested at the 3 metres distance. Surprisingly, those that had never practiced at the test distance did better. There was something about the variation that helped them develop the skill, even though this initial practice would have been more difficult.

Undesirable difficulties

It is worth commenting on the term desirable difficulties in terms of the Panic Zone. We can also introduce undesirable difficulties which are challenges that impede learning. These are usually caused when students do not yet know enough or have enough expertise to be able to succeed when desirable difficulties are introduced. For example, trying to get a student to recall something they do not know will not work, and could actually lead them to recalling (and hence embedding) incorrect information.

Show them Excellence

When we up the level of challenge in our classes, we need to be explicit about what we expect. If we don't show students what excellence in our subject looks like, then they are very unlikely to be able to become excellent. There are three main ways to do this.

The first is to model our own high quality work. This shows students what an expert in the subject can do. This could be live modelling (i.e. writing it out live in front of the class, and talking through your thinking) or pre-produced models (i.e. work you have created for them to analyse). In either case, the students get to see what they are aiming to achieve.

The second is to show excellent pieces of student work. The benefit of this is that you can signpost that a student achieved this, and challenge the rest of the class to do as well. But beware that what you display will be considered as the pinnacle, so if you show substandard work, be very clear about why it is not perfect. If you show a piece of OK work, just to show something, then you are risking students thinking that it what they should aspire to.

The third way to challenge them to produce excellent work is through feedback. As discussed above with regards to Austin's Butterfly, feedback can be used to push all students to produce better work through redrafting.

Challenge ≠ Difficult

One common misconception is that challenge means making the content or tasks more difficult for the sake of it. But what we really mean by challenging all students is having them working in their Struggle Zone for extended periods of time. The goals should be attainable, with hard work, and not impossible to achieve. We must always be aware that what our students find challenging is easy for us because of our expertise in our subject.

A Culture of Challenge

Based on this post by Tom Sherrington, here are some ideas for creating a Culture of Challenge:

Plan for the highest attainers - and support all students to get there. Don't 'dumb down' the curriculum for certain students.
Celebrate intellectual achievements - make a big deal out of students achievements with regards to academics. Not just exam results, but producing excellent work, giving excellent descriptions, etc. Just be careful not to celebrate mediocrity.
Praise effort over talent - so that students realise that with hard work they can improve and get cleverer.
Normalise being 'geeky' - creating an environment where we are proud of the fact we love our subjects and that students should be proud to enjoy them too. Show kids why we love our subjects and what we find challenging about them.

Report abuse