An article by Cynthia Booth, Faculty and Coordinator with Community and Justice Services
You just finished a lesson that you have poured your heart and soul into only for it to land flat with your students. As a reflective educator you wonder to yourself, was it me or them? Could I have taken more time to front load the details or was there a full moon rising? (Yes, that was meant to bring a 😊)
Often our content does not unfold the way we expect because of the dynamics in the classroom. Far too often student’s ‘backpacks’ called life’s troubles intercept and interfere in their capacity to learn and their ability to remain open to the learning. According to American research, nearly two-thirds (roughly 66%) of incoming undergraduate students have reported exposure to at least one traumatic event before attending college (Read et al, 2011) and our students are no different. Trauma can deeply affect a person’s ability to regulate emotions, focus attention, and feel safe in new or evaluative situations (Read et al, 2011).
So, here we are in a classroom (that evaluative environment) that unexpectedly mirrors experiences where students are not feeling grounded and asking them to stretch beyond their growth zone putting them at risk for becoming unregulated. What can we do to open the learning so that the content gets through?
Well, we can do more of what we are probably already doing, and with more intentionality — teaching from a trauma responsive approach.
One way we can create this space is through modelling trust and transparency. Trust in a classroom means students believe they will be treated fairly, consistently, and with dignity. It also comes with some structure and predictability to sooth worries. So, think to yourself, how do I do this everyday without even realizing it? And, if I did it with intention, what could it look like?
Well, it could look something like this:
Needs and Offerings (aka Setting Classroom Expectations)
In my world, classroom expectations are known as ‘Needs’ and ‘Offerings’. During the first class, we engage in a conversation about what students need and can offer to be successful from themselves, each other and me to push their learning limits. Most every class this is revisited serving as the foundation of trust in the room. Each week I find a way to check in with what they need from themselves, each other, or me to keep that success going.
Rubrics
Not only do these gems make your marking easier and minimize the complaints about grades, they also offer full transparency on how a student can succeed on an assessment. Rubrics offer predictability, consistency in grading, and actionable focused feedback without a huge investment of our precious marking time.
Grade process and not just content
Think about the various ways you can offer marks, bonus mark or less of a deduction for actions that model good process. You might offer effort marks. Offer a small % increase that students can choose to put toward any assessment. This gives them agency and helps them recognizes that effort is valued. Second, you could offer unpacking the feedback marks on a select assessment for reflecting on your feedback. Students analyze your feedback and outline what they will change in the future helping them to see that feedback a conversation rather than a judgement. Finally, you might consider less of a deduction for strong communication in advance of submitting assignments late. Still offer a clear boundary that there will be a deduction for lateness and to honour open communication there will be less of one.
While being trauma responsive ultimately means creating a safer learning space, we cannot make it completely invulnerable, and we sure can try. So, the next time you create a lesson, build a new assessment or just set expectations in your classroom think to yourself – how is this building trust and transparency?
Read, J. P., Ouimette, P., White, J., Colder, C., & Farrow, S. (2011).
Rates of DSM–IV–TR trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder among newly matriculated college students. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3(2), 148–156