The Student as Learner

Educational reformers, both those authentic and inauthentic, are always asking themselves the rhetorical questions, "What factors influence student learning? How can we most effectively invest so that students will have the best outcomes?"

In recent years, the Instructional Core (IC) has served as a rather expedient (if not simplistic) solution to address these questions. The Instructional Core is a diagram which asserts that three criteria above all others influence student learning and growth. Here is a quick image:



As you can see, the three criteria of Student, Teacher, and Content are each placed at the vertices of an equilateral triangle. The assertion of the Instructional Core is that above all else, interventions aimed at one of these three classroom elements can impact performance, whereas anything which is aimed outside of these three elements is extraneous and unlikely to produce improvement.

My issue with the Instructional Core is not that it is incorrect, but that it is relatively simplistic, and even potentially belies a very inexperienced and uninformed author. Each of these three elements is quite obviously a sine qua non of learning. To develop this model, all one has to do is sit back for a moment and consider the question, "What elements are absolutely essential to the educational process, in such a way that if one were removed, it would irreparably damage the process of learning?" I would think that even an unpracticed, yet thoughtful person could probably develop the three criteria listed here. Their arrangement at the three vertices of an equilateral triangle is eye-catching and provides a reasonable visual summary of their equal importance in the eyes of the designer, and the bidirectional arrows show that there is a constant and reciprocal feedback between these three classroom elements.

While a bit simplistic, nevertheless, the Instructional Core is presently a commonly used tool to assess whether a staged intervention is likely or unlikely to have the desired impact, and in the sense that these three elements are absolutely essential to the learning process, we can use it to quickly assess the likely outcome of planned interventions.

In my experience as a classroom teacher, much effort has been aimed at improving the teacher and assuring rigorous content, but the student element has been woefully left behind. Even worse, it is the intervention point which offers the most hope and promise for improvement.

Regarding content, much has been done to address and ensure that the information that is being presented in the classroom is of a high quality and rigor. Long before the introduction of Common Core (which I do NOT think are presently very good standards), the state of New Jersey has had a history of rigorous, demanding educational standards. These standards have been both content- and process-based. That is, the content element ensures that students are learning the basic foundational facts regarding a new topic, and the process-based standards ask teacher to address procedural or learned skills. A student is considered well educated when both content and process based standards have been successfully inculcated in students.

Regarding teachers, could they be any more the focus of attention and effort? After his Small Schools Initiative failed (which at least was targeted in the right place, but perhaps did not address the bigger issues of poverty and inequality), Bill Gates next decided that the reason schools were "failing" was that they were populated with inadequate, ineffective teachers. Thus began a virtual Inquisition of teachers; schools were labeled failing and "bad teachers" were rooted out and removed. No thought was given as to why teachers in the hardest hit areas might be struggling. Could they be fighting against the larger social issues of inequality, inequity, and the soul-crushing weight of poverty on student performance? The answer was an unequivocal "no" from the world's richest man. Poverty is an excuse, he declared, from high atop his ivory fortress. And the irony is not lost on me that a man who is so incredibly influential in reforming our nation's schools never completed his own formal schooling. Perhaps we should at least require that Mr. Gates complete his own undergraduate degree before he is permitted to evaluate the educations of our nation's teachers??

At any rate, teachers have been very heavily investigated as a factor of influence on student performance. However, I do not see this as a great investment of resources. Teachers, by virtue of their position, have necessarily demonstrated the skills to complete university. They often have graduate-level education under their belt. In order to get the job in the first place, they had to undergo a significant interview process, which usually involves at least two interviews, one of which requires a "demo lesson", during which the teacher has to demonstrate their ability to conduct a lesson in front of the decision-makers regarding their position. They are then regularly re-evaluated every year thereafter, to ensure that they are still delivering quality lessons, with the actual expectation being that they will rather improve their ability to do so over time.

Hence, while obviously a classroom teacher should constantly be reflecting on their performance, and adapting and adjusting their lessons as appropriate, I don't see this as an area of fertile growth. Much has already been done to ensure a high quality candidate long before they ever enter the classroom, and these measures do help to keep the quality high.

Hence, the only remaining part of the Instructional Core to be addressed is the Student. We must ask ourselves the most difficult question: What is the student doing to ensure the quality of their own education? I know that many people, professional educators and non-educators alike, will bristle at this idea, but please hear me out for a moment, for I feel that it is the great untapped reservoir of educational change. Professional educators often shy away from addressing the issue of student involvement and engagement. The most common excuse rendered is, "We can't control that, so we're not going to focus on it." Okay, true, we certainly cannot completely control what a students decides to do or not do, but I would argue that as educators, parents, and invested community members we can certainly influence the way that a student behaves, and even how involved they get in their education. And this, my friends, is the linchpin of educational change. More than any other factor, I would argue that the student's involvement and engagement is the most important element of the Instructional Core. In fact, I would argue that the diagram should be redrawn to show the student as occupying a more important role than the other two positions.

Consider a simple thought experiment:

Scenario # 1: Imagine a poor student in a great teacher's classroom. The teacher is widely recognized as an expert in pedagogy and content, and works hard to create exciting, inspiring lessons. Yet the student is not interested. In this case, the student will probably learn little.

Now picture the opposite condition:

Scenario #2: Imagine a classroom in which a truly ineffective teacher is found. The teacher is negative, demoralizing, and even mean to the students. The teacher does little to inspire or awaken any natural inclination towards learning which exists in the learners. Yet, hiding in this classroom is a great learner, a deeply invested student who really wants to learn. What will happen? How will this unfold?

While obviously, a great teacher in the company of great students produces the best results, I would argue that the quiet learner in Scenario # 2 will still learn more than the uninterested learner in Scenario #1. This is obviously more anecdotal than research-based, but I hope it brings home the point that in my opinion, of the three factors introduced in the IC, the learner is by far the most important. And sadly, the learner is also the most neglected in educational reform efforts.

While it may not be comfortable, while we may want to shy away for lack of control, and while it may ask our students to take on the truly challenging task of owning their learning, this is in my opinion as a seasoned classroom teacher, the key which will unlock the educational potential of our classrooms. We should keep assuring that our standards are realistic, but rigorous. We should also continue to insist on high quality teachers, and obviously remove those who weigh down the profession. However, more than any other focus, we must re-direct our attention to the behavior and effort of the learner. For in my estimation, more than any other factor, it is the involvement of the learner which predicts educational success or failure. And as the simple scenarios above hopefully demonstrate, learning is, ultimately speaking, in the hands of the learner. That is, while a society can deeply desire that a student learn, and while parents, teachers, administrators, and all sorts of stakeholders can want this for the student, what the student wants for herself is far more important than all of these other factors.