Getting Inside Students’ Thinking

by John  Jensen, Ph.D.

            A principal, formerly a math teacher, discussed with me a middle school student who’d arrived a couple months ago and whose home situation was difficult.  The student, whom I’ll call Harvey, showed stubbornness and attempts to bend the rules, yet was alert and intelligent. The principal perceived him as wanting to assert equality with staff.

            My brief Graphoanalysis of him turned up traits of stubbornness, self-consciousness, fear of failure, and a concrete mind along with logic, open-mindedness, loyalty, and practical will power.  My note to the principal later was as follows:

            What may appear as an assertion of equality with adults might be spelled out differently. Several of his traits (and what you know about his personal history) suggest that he’s vulnerable to feeling diminished by the message “You don’t count.“  If home life has been telling him that, it’s penetrated to become an emotional truth even though there’s rational evidence to the contrary.  Valued as a member of the school community and abstractly as a human being, he “counts” but a contest is going on.  The latter message has nowhere near the punch of the former. In fact, he’s been relaying the “don’t count” message to himself as a fear about what he can accomplish, and whether he’ll be accepted or rejected.

            The self-consciousness that shows up in his writing is a strong statement that he feels like an outsider, vulnerable to humiliation. Curiously, this belief often leads people to do the very thing that brings rejection because it freezes their judgment about issues that carry an emotional tone. He literally can’t think clearly about what brings rejection or acceptance when this feeling comes on. Often children experiencing it come across as awkward. While Harvey‘s will power and logic may enable him to appear even “cool,” the traits in his handwriting say that inwardly he feels like he sticks out like a sore thumb.

            The stubbornness you note in him shows up in his writing as does the possibility for wilfulness (unproductive will power that’s only self-assertive), even though he still has abundant will for positive outcomes.

            His greatest strengths are a strong, logical mind and that he’s still open to influence.  Accessing these strengths occurs best through the channel of a solid relationship.  With someone nearby with whom he feels comfortable, he can “think with” them as long as the content is fairly concrete, behavioral, and experiential, and not overly abstract or vague.  A long term task he faces is to talk out a view of the world in which he understands the better thing and it makes sense. A possible limitation to work past, for instance, is that he‘s probably loyal to people who act in dysfunctional ways at home, and his tendency is to manifest that loyalty by imitating some of their behaviors.  These need to be gradually recognized as they show up at school, and replaced with strategies that work better.

            As I’ve explained it, the process of change may sound logical and orderly.  The challenge I see often repeated with this kind of issue, however, is that teachers who may be well-disposed toward a child and want to help him/her can still be cued into an oppositional stance.  The key is to recognize it instantly and snap out of it.  Students for whom the sheer personal relationship with us is crucial have to know that there is literally nothing they could do that would alienate us from them, that we are permanently “in their corner.” For a certain vulnerable group, good problem-solving has to wait until they know we’ve placed ourselves there.

            In the hurry of many things to do, it’s not always easy to notice that we slip into an oppositional stance. Often we need a changed behavior now, and load our demand with emotional pressure. The choice we make by doing that, however, is between using the situation as a lever to change their thinking (that’s likely to drive their behavior in the future), or use our personal force to obtain the behavior alone now.

            As a counselor, my standard choice is the long-term gain through changing their  thinking, although I recognize that an administrator may have a different priority. Still, I believe it’s nearly always possible to make the behavioral demand objectively without personal opposition. We begin by listening to our tone of voice.  A common teacher voice I’d call “exasperated” is intended to let a student know they are near the end of the “rope” we’ve allowed them.  When a child repeatedly tests the rules and hears that exasperated voice, it’s hard for them to continue believing that we’ve committed to being in their corner. 

             For you as a former math teacher, you might remember what your voice sounds like when you teach math, and think of Harvey’s behavior as just another math lesson.  In teaching math, you know that when a child doesn’t get it, it’s no use to get upset at them. They just withdraw, fear you, and get down on themselves. Instead, you track how they’re thinking about the problem, and correct the glitches producing wrong answers.  Our task with their behavior is much the same.  They have a problem-solving strategy with glitches in it. We have to tease them into the open and remove them.

            You noted that sometimes you’ll get disruptive behavior for apparently no reason, and you and his teacher wonder what’s happening at home.  A strategy I’ve used with many students old enough to understand (and I think Harvey qualifies) is this. I tell them about a study years ago of what were called “superkids.”  These had every strike against them in terms of conditions in the home and  neighborhood, but somehow they managed to generate a successful life anyway.  Researchers tracing what was different about them found two things.  One was that the kid needed at least one person to trust and connect to–and usually I could point to people in the school who had such an interest in them. 

            The other difference they found in these kids was that they had a “crap detector.” They could tell when people around them were thinking like losers, and could make a deliberate choice about who to listen to, believe, hang out with, and learn from.  I’d say to them generally (opening a perspective they could carry through if they wished) that even people in one’s own family sometimes get things wrong and don’t think very well. When that happens, kids need to know not to take it on themselves. They’re to listen to, believe, and follow the people who clearly have good  instead of poor judgment, and they know enough to tell the difference.

            A final point about your relationship with kids who are misbehaving. It helps to distinguish capability from use. We need to see kids accurately enough to be able, at the drop of a hat, to give them a little speech about all the capability we see in them–as though we‘re preoccupied with seeing them that way–and the many ways it might be put to use later in life. (I still remember the very words my fifth grade teacher spoke when she told me what she thought I’d grow up to be.  She guessed wrong, but it was an ennobling moment nonetheless).  They need to know that we’ve affixed ourselves to all the good in them, and that fact constitutes the mainstream of their perception of us.  

            With this central viewpoint about them settled, the passing issue is their particular, situational use of their capability that doesn’t quite fit the circumstances of the school.  We repeatedly point out and offer respect to the trait, but steadily, as often as needed, distinguish when and where it becomes useful. Stubbornness or seeking for recognition, for instance, can each enhance one’s life if used at the right time.  We continually reaffirm the particulars of our respect for the student that sustain the connection from our end, and then with them examine how they were thinking that led to a misuse of the capability, and help them adjust it.

            A second problem brought up is that of a large class of high school students who insist on continuing to talk and misbehave, delaying their transition to the next activity. My note to the principal:

            I appreciated your invitation to make a suggestion about the scene you and I were looking at. There might be some leverage this way:

            a.  At least half of the group was waiting silently. A whole row of boys in the back were completely quiet watching the girls do their thing. 

            b.  It would be motivationally sound to treat differently those ready to work and those not.  Simplest is for the teacher to use the services of you, me, or other adults who are handy for a few minutes at these times of transition.

            Begin by announcing that those ready to cooperate will go immediately to the next activity (recess, lunch, afternoon study, dismissal). The teacher makes a written list of their names, and then proceeds to the classroom with them, leaving the others to wait with the back-up adult until they’re completely quiet and cooperative. As long as the first group responds at once when the teacher calls for their attention, they remain on the Cooperator list and proceed with him directly to the next thing.

            It’s only motivationally sound to administer a consequence to Cooperators equally with Non-cooperators (by holding them where they are) when the former have influence on the latter but don’t use it.  But if–as at present–the former are helpless to change things, then it’s better to reward their cooperation by allowing them to proceed directly to the next thing and leave the Non-cooperators behind.

            c.  Have some small, special ways to appreciate the Cooperators, such as (even this small a token can make a difference) occasionally giving each Cooperator one single M&M  as they walk through the door, along with the teacher’s smile and appreciation. You want the whole process upbeat and fun rather than grim, and might discuss with them what special reward or recognition they think would be fitting.

            d. Should the Non-cooperators persist and cluster together, you’ve at least carved them down to the number that need special counseling or group work with staff professionals, and have given maximum recognition, respect, and learning opportunity to those who cooperate.

            e.  With the Non-cooperators, the adult staying behind should remain neutral, patient, and attentive to them, and say occasionally, “Sooner or later, you’ll notice that you’re wasting your own time,” or “Eventually you’ll figure out what behavior fits what situation,“ or some such generally accurate interpretation of the moment. Then time them rigorously for exactly (e.g.) 30 seconds of total silence before they can join the others. 

            f.  Ask individuals who shift from the Non-cooperator to the Cooperator group, “Help me out here.  I want to understand the change in thinking you made so I can help others understand it.  What changed in your thinking?”  Just asking the question teaches them that they changed their thinking upon noticing something different in the situation, a lesson in itself that can be valuable to them later. The question also makes it more likely that they’ll pass on their reason in conversation with the remaining Non-cooperators.

            John Jensen is a licensed clinical psychologist and author of The Silver Bullet Easy Learning System: How to Change Classrooms Fast and Energize Students for Success (Xlibris, 2008).  He will send an ebook copy of his book to anyone without charge on request and welcomes comments sent to him directly at jjensen@gci.net.  He is also a Master Graphoanalyst, and is willing to assist school staff without charge to understand students having persistent difficulties.