Classroom Management Main Page - EDEL
414 - EDSE
415
Creating a
Psychology of Success in the Classroom:
Enhancing
Academic Achievement by Systematically
by John V.
Shindler, Ph. D.
Department of
Curriculum and Instruction
Introduction
Over four decades of research has
shown a clear relationship between levels of self-esteem and academic
achievement (Auer, 1992; Benham, 1993; Klein
& Keller, 1990; Joseph, 1992;
Rennie, 1991; Solley & Stagner, 1956). While this relationship may be well documented, it has not been shown
to have widely or systematically informed practice. I propose that examining self-esteem through the lens of two
epistemological constructs can provide the classroom teacher with a set of
powerful tools to promote self-esteem in his or her students. First, I offer an opertationalized
definition of self-esteem. Utilizing
three well established behavioral correlates, locus of control, belonging, and
self-efficacy, the concept of self-esteem can be treated in a very practical
manner. Second, I propose that
self-esteem be examined as a manufactured construct. By this I mean that we as teachers manufacture the self-esteem of
our students to a large extent by what we say, our daily practice, and the way
we assess, instruct, and manage our classes.
In other words, every one of our acts as a teacher either promotes or
detracts from our students’ self-esteem.
Competing Definitions of
Self-Esteem
There are several definitions of
self-esteem in the literature and being used in our schools. They appear to be describing the same thing,
but often refer to very different realities.
For example, a student who reports feeling good about him or herself is
said to have high self-esteem. But is
this expression of self-pride a true indication of his of her deep-seated
unconscious beliefs, or is it masking a sense of inadequacy? Likewise, when a student seems
self-critical, is this an expression of
self-doubt or of high expectations of his or her performance? Self-esteem or the lack of it can often be
manifest in similar ways.
Many criticize the encouragement of
self-esteem as an academic goal (Baumeister, 1996; Lerner, 1996). Such critiques are concerned that when
self-esteem promotion is pursued in terms of making students “feel good” about
themselves, this misapplication can lead to indiscriminate praise and the
assumption that one should protect his or her students from failure. These theorists suggest that students who
feel good and are satisfied with their work do not necessarily achieve or
develop habits that lead to success.
These criticisms are justified.
There is little evidence that students who are indiscriminately praised
and protected from failure do in fact develop genuine self-esteem.
I would like to make a distinction
here between genuine self-esteem versus narcissism or self-aggrandizement. Katz (1993) suggests that there is a clear
difference between the two. Genuine
self-esteem has little to do with the feelings reported by students. In fact, feelings have very little to do
with self-esteem at all. Self-esteem
could best be described as a set of unconscious self-beliefs, formed over a
lifetime, reflecting our perceptions of our abilities, our lovability, and how
we attribute causality for the events in our lives. These unconscious self-perceptions have been burned, often
deeply, into our very being and therefore can only be altered by significant
and repeated new experiences that recondition our hearts and minds.
A Three Factor Definition of
Self-Esteem
While there may be no single irrefutable
way to define self-esteem, I propose a definition derived from examining the
fundamental traits with which it has been found to correlate. These traits seem to fall into three
categories: first, one’s locus of control; second, one’s sense of belonging and
acceptance; and third, one’s sense of competence or self-efficacy. These traits are interrelated, but can be
examined as independent factors.
An internal locus of control can be
defined as the belief that one is the author of his or her own fate. It is in contrast to an orientation that
views cause as an external factor, in which life “happens to us.” An internal locus of control comes from
having a causal understanding of behavior and effect. It is learned from freely making choices and taking
responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Through responsible action and accountability for those actions,
the young person learns to attribute the cause of success or failure
internally. Consequently, he or she
feels a sense of power and responsibility and is able learn from his of her
life experience.
Research has drawn a strong
relationship between levels of student self-esteem and sense of an internal
locus of control (Fitch, 1970; Hagborg, 1996; Klein & Keller, 1990;
Sheridan, 1991). Moreover, studies have
shown repeatedly that students with higher degrees of internal locus of control
demonstrate higher levels of achievement (Auer, 1992; Bar-Tal & Bar-Zohar,
1977, Tanksley, 1993; Wang & Stiles, 1976). In fact, having high levels of internal locus of control has been
shown to be an even more significant variable than intelligence or
socioeconomic status (Haborg, 1996).
A sense of belonging and acceptance
is essential to a young person’s mental health and ability to trust and take
risks (Inderbitzen & Clark, 1986).
Without the experience of acceptance and a feeling of belonging, the
student is unable to love and accept him or herself. In an environment where there is emotional support and a minimum
of destructive criticism, students feel empowered to take risks, express
themselves, and persist in the face of difficulty (Sarokon, 1986).
Research has shown a relationship
between a sense of belonging and acceptance and self-esteem (Davis & Peck,
1992; Katz, 1993; Washiawotok, 1993).
Again, building a sense of classroom belonging and the sense of self-
and peer-acceptance has been shown to promote higher achievement (Dembrowsky,
1990; Rhoades & McCabe, 1992; Washiawotok, 1993).
A sense of self-efficacy could be
defined as one’s belief in his or her competence in a given domain. We know that when we feel competent we try
harder and more readily trust ourselves in the process. Contrary to popular opinion, self-efficacy
does not come from complements or being spared failure. Self-efficacy comes from evidence. Bandura (1977) speaks of self-efficacy as
the degree of expectancy that one will successfully perform a desired
task. When a young person obtains sensory
feedback that he or she succeeded in a given task or has demonstrated a talent,
he or she will be confident in applying that ability in the future. In contrast, the braggart or the show-off
displays a lack of confidence in that he needs to prove to himself and others
that there is reason to view his actions as acceptable or worthy, compensating
for unconscious self-doubts. In
situations where a student feels a sense of confidence, his or her unconscious
has concrete images that support that student’s ability and therefore he or she
has no need to show-off.
Research shows clearly that those
with high levels of self-efficacy have correspondingly high degrees of
self-esteem (Bandura, 1977; Clariana, 1993; Frazier & Paulson, 1992; Klien
& Keller, 1990; Rennie, 1991; Tanksley, 1993). Moreover, self-efficacy is related to attributions of an internal
locus of control (Auer, 1990; Sheridan, 1991) and positively correlated with
academic achievement (Auer, 1990; Bandura, 1977; Rennie, 1991).
Operationalizing the idea of
self-esteem defined by these three factors not only provides a practical
definition, but also provides a means of distinguishing authentic self-esteem
from narcissism. In this paradigm,
self-esteem is best determined within the domain of behavior. Teachers using
these criteria can readily evaluate student levels of self-esteem.
Additionally, this definition provides students with a useful tool to reflect
on their own personal growth.
Promoting Self-Esteem as
“Good Teaching”
Given a definition of self-esteem that
is based on locus of control, belonging and self-efficacy, practical
applications become more effectively directed.
Instead of focusing on making students feel good, or making them feel
that everything they do is great, teachers can systematically address these
three needs within the student, focusing on long-term results.
Promoting self-esteem could in many
ways be defined as “good teaching.”
Good teachers learn that students who feel empowered and in control
achieve more. Good teachers learn that
a class achieves more when a certain environment is created from purposeful
classroom orchestration. Good teachers
realize that they can only be considered “good teachers” insofar as they find
ways to get students to perform and care about quality. In fact, it could be said that there is
really no way to be a good teacher without promoting self-esteem, and if one is
promoting self-esteem, it will lead to effective teaching practices. Yet, too often many of our practices destroy
the foundations of self-esteem without our knowing it. These practices may be “working” on some
level, but in essence they are working against our ability to teach and our
students’ ability to achieve long-term growth.
For the past few years I have given
this three-factor definition to my instructional methods and classroom
assessment methods students. I ask them
to come up with teacher behaviors that they think would promote each of these
three factors. It takes them a little
while to adjust to thinking of teaching in these terms, but once they do they
develop long lists of instructional, managerial and assessment practices that
would by definition promote self-esteem.
As a result of assigning this exercise, I have discovered two things. First, the lists from class to class are
very similar, and the contents of these lists are most often consistent with
what the research has suggested.
Second, the items the students generate are things that they have
intuitively felt were effective. They
also reported being surprised having seen teachers in the field readily using
pedagogy that they felt to be undermining the self-esteem of students, when it
would seem to be no more trouble to use self-esteem promoting practices. However, as with most ineffective pedagogy,
these practices have long been practiced, and “work” to some degree in the
short-term. I would have to agree with those who suggest the root of this
seemingly institutionalized problem is that we as teachers do not examine our
teaching within the framework of student development or needs, but instead with
a mind set primarily concerned with our personal convenience or curricular
demands.
Promoting Self-esteem
Through Practice
Given the research and theoretical
support for approaching self-esteem development within the framework of a
three-factor definition, the question then follows, “How can we instruct in a
manner that promotes high levels of self-esteem?” The following section offers a brief description of a few of the
instructional strategies that have been shown to promote self-esteem in each of
the three areas.
Locus of
Control
Instructional behaviors that promote
an internal locus of control are rooted in developing a clear understanding of
cause and effect. Students need to see
that their achievement is directly related to their behavior, especially their
level of effort. A requisite to seeing
this relationship is providing students with choices and expecting
accountability for those choices. The
following is a list of practices that have been found to promote students’
internal locus of control.
1. Assess the process and other student-owned
behaviors. Students do not often have
control over their ability, but they do have 100% control over the degree to
which they apply themselves. When we
assess the process, we manufacture a success psychology.
2. Give students voice and ownership of classroom rules and consequences. Then when students
break rules, follow through with consistently applied consequences (while avoiding punishments).
3. Create an
environment free of the need for excuses.
Begin by never asking for them.
4. Teach problem-solving skills, and cultivate an
expectancy that, in your class, students take responsibility for working
through problems individually or in groups.
5. Give choices, and then expect accountability for those choices.
6. Use behavioral contracts
with students who need an education in cause and effect.
Belonging and
Acceptance
The climate of the classroom can, on
the one hand, create a sense of hostility and fear, or, on the other hand, a
sense of comfort and support. “Gravity” leads students toward what could be
characterized as a “Lord of the Flies” set of interaction patterns,
characterized by the strong oppressing the weak and the popular oppressing the
unpopular. The climate we create is no
accident. It is a product of the
behaviors that we accept and model, how we assess and manage, and our attitudes
and values that inevitably creates the “socially constructed reality” in our
classes. The following is a list of
practices that have been found to promote a sense of acceptance and belonging
within a class.
1. Use cooperative structures where interdependence and
inter-reliance are unavoidable.
2. Use assigned roles, assigned grouping, and rotation of
grouping in your cooperative work.
Students need to work with and rely on each member of the class, not
just their friends.
3. Do not accept
“put downs” in any form, especially negative self-talk.
4. Demand and
model positive interactions and human
respect 100% of the time.
5. Competition is
great for games, but never force students
to compete for “real” rewards (i.e., your love, grades, status, privileges,
or any tangible rewards).
6. Appreciate differences and recognize the unique gifts of each of your student.
7. Be real, approachable, caring and a validator of feelings.
Sense of
Self-Efficacy:
A sense of self-efficacy comes from
evidence that confirms that we have done something well. We cannot fool our students’ senses. No
matter how much praise or how many speeches telling them “they can do it,”
their unconscious will believe only one source of information -- their
experience. The following is a list of
some practices that promote a sense of competence and self-efficacy in
students.
1. Use a clear system of feedback providing “knowledge
of their results.” Students need to know specifically what it is that they did
well when they succeed and what they did incorrectly when they are struggling
to succeed.
2. Assess
what is most important. What you
assess on a daily basis defines your classroom concept of “success.” Complete the following sentence, “If I could
only assess _________ , I would have a better class.”
3. Assess using a clear criterion referenced
system. Give students clear targets
(i.e., purposeful outcomes) to shoot for that stand still (i.e., rubrics) and
relate to their progress.
4. Have high expectations for your students and catch them
being good. Do not accept low
self-estimations, especially in the areas of effort and process. All students are capable of total effort,
and total effort in the process leads to excellent product outcomes.
5. Find ways to make the students the teacher (i.e.,
peer tutoring, writing partners, leadership of daily activities, jigsaw
instruction, etc.).
Conclusion
We create a “socially constructed
reality” in our classes by what we do and say and what we instruct our students
to do and say. That reality has a
profound influence on our students. In
the short-term, the fruits of creating a psychology of success in students are
often difficult to see, but over time, practices that promote self- esteem will
produce more successful, hard working, risk taking, ambitious, respectful, and
self-directed students. Whether our
goal is educating mentally healthy and functional students or students who perform
well academically, we cannot afford not to make self-esteem development a
primary focus. Talented people will not
always succeed in life, but people with genuinely high self-esteems will find
ways to.
References
Auer, C.J. 1992.
A Comparison of the Locus of Control of First and Second Grade Students
in Whole Language, Basal Reader, and Eclectic Instructional Approach Classrooms
(Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1992). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 53 (11), 3856.
Bandura, A. 1977.
Self-efficacy: Toward a Unified Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bar-Tal, D. B., and
Bar-Zohar, Y. 1977. The Relationship
between Perception of Locus of Control and Academic Achievement. Contemporary
Educational Psychology. 2, 181-99.
Baumeister, R. 1996. Should
Schools Try to Boost Self-Esteem? American Educator, Summer, 9-42.
Benham, M.J. 1993. Fostering Self- Motivated Behavior, Personal
Responsibility, and Internal Locus of Control , Eugene, Oregon.. Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 386 621).
Clariana, R. B. 1993. The Motivational Effect of Advisement
on Attendance and Achievement in Computer-Based Instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,
20 (2), 47-51.
Davis, L.E., and Peck, H.I. 1992. Outcome
Measures--School Climate: Curriculum and Instruction. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. ED 353 335).
Dembrowsky, C.H. 1990.
Developing Self-Esteem and Internal
Motivation in At Risk Youth.
Practicum Paper (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 332 130).
Fitch, G. 1970.
Effects of Self-Esteem, Perceived Performance and Choice on Causal
Attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44, 419-427.
Frazier, D.M., and Paulson,
F.L. 1992. How Portfolios Motivate
Reluctant Writers. Educational Leadership. 49 (8) 62-65.
Gillis, C. 1994. Writing Partners: Expanding the
Audiences for Student Writing. English
Journal, 83 (3), 64-67.
Hagborg, W.J. 1996
Self-Concept and Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities: A
Comparison of Scholastic Competence Subgroups. Learning Disability Quarterly. 19, (2 ) 117-26.
Inderbitzen, H. M., and
Clark, M. L. 1986. The Relationship between
Adolescent Loneliness and Perceptions of Controllability and Stability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern Psychological Association, Orlando, Fl. April.
Katz, L.G. 1993. Distinctions between Self-Esteem and
Narcissism: Implications for Practice.
Perspectives from ERIC/EECE, Monograph Series, No 5. ((ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 363 452)
Klein, J. D., and Keller, J.
M. 1990. Influence of Student Ability,
Locus of Control, and Type of Instructional Control on Performance and
Confidence. Journal of Educational
Research, 83 (3) 140-46.
Learner, B. 1996. Self-Esteem
and Excellence: The Choice and the Paradox. American Educator, Summer, 9-13.
Lester, D. 1992. Cooperative/Competitive Strategies and Locus
of Control. Psychological Reports, 71,
594.
Rhoades, J. and McCabe, M.E.
1992. The Cooperative Classroom: Social
and Academic Activities. Position Paper (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED
363 583).
Rennie, L.J. 1991. The
Relationship between Affect and Achievement in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28 (2) 193-09.
Sarokon, S. C. 1986. Student
Self-Esteem: A Goal Administrators Can Help to Achieve. NASSP Bulletin, 70 (487), 1-5.
Sharidan, M. K. 1991.
Self-Esteem and Competence in Children. International
Journal of Early Childhood, 23,
(1) 28-35.
Solley, C.M. and Stagner, R.
1956. Effect of Magnitude of Temporal
Barriers, Types of Perception of Self. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51,
62-70.
Tanksley, M. D. 1994. Building
Good Self-Esteem for Certain Fifth Grade Children through Cooperative Learning,
Individualized Learning Techniques, Parental Involvement, and Student
Counseling. Practicum Paper (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 367 095)
Thompson, R. A. 1986.
Developing a Peer Group Facilitation Program on the Secondary School Level: An
Investment with Multiple Returns. Small
Group Behavior, 17 (1), 105-12.
Wang, M. and Stiles, B. 1976. An Investigation of Children’s Concept of
Self-Responsibility for their Learning.
American Educational Research Journal.
13, 159-79.
Washinawotok, K. 1993. Teaching Cultural Values and Building
Self-Esteem. Practicum Paper (ERIC
Document Reproduction No. ED 366 470).
Classroom Management Main Page - EDEL
414 - EDSE
415