Social Emotional Learning and Toxic Stress
Question in mind: How can social emotional learning
help students who have experienced toxic stress?
Photo by schaaflicht on Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA |
The first
point is time: getting to know
students takes time from curriculum content and instruction. But if teachers do
not make a conscious choice of taking the time needed to survey students’
emotional states and probable causes, then we are not dealing with a human relationship,
or are we? I have had numerous encounters with teachers who were at a loss in
this issue. Because the institutions they worked at did not allow for some time
to be dedicated, at teachers’ discretion, to such anamnesis (to borrow a term
much valued in health professions that defines the moment of data gathering
about previous experience), they did not know what to do when students overreacted
or misbehaved in class. They did not have access to the many variables with
which to construct a case scenario and examine the situation form a variety of
perspectives – a central characteristic of empathy (Walter, 2012). This lack of
valuable information to be able to listen
(as in actively engaging with one another- a core characteristic of empathy),
led to a disengagement from the ability to truly perceive students’ needs. That
disengagement, in turn, turns one’s eyes (and minds) to the solution of one’s
problem using the tools that are available in one’s repertoire. Thus, truly
capable professionals are left in the dark because using the tools in their
rich toolbox for solving problems that are born out of students’ rampant
emotions and affective states will simply not fix the ‘problem’.
Another
point is emotional investment:
developing the capacity we are all endowed with for feeling/ understanding the
emotions or states of others (Walter, 2012) does not come with experience of teaching
a subject per se. Teachers who do not
take the time to investigate their own emotional state to understand how that
affects their attitudes and behaviors in class do not share the disposition for
understanding feelings or states of other. Without that understanding, and the
necessary differentiation that understanding does not equate approval or
endorsement, teachers are ill-prepared to teach the students albeit being, at
times, fully prepared to teach the content. That is when our curriculum
designs, which do not separate one from the other, fail in signposting moments
when being a teacher means understanding much more than the subject content to
be taught.
I remember
once being in a teacher development course (a pre-service that an institution
offered) that catered exactly for this matter. The trainer pointed out that the
age-bracket that we were dealing with (pre adolescents/adolescents) were
‘primed’ to being emotionally unstable and that had not to do with you
(teacher) personally but mainly with the period of development they were going
through. Being informed at that time of such developmental basics by the
trainer (and coordinator) of the program has given me great latitude as a
teacher to adapt content to the needs of my students’ emotional states.
A third
point is data gathering: schools and
educators do not invest in gathering the kind of information necessary for a
good development. Due to the ever-increasing nature of content and curriculum,
and the rigidness of standards, education has treated students as buckets to be
filled rather than fires to be lighted. In failing to survey what motivates
each student, how their development has taken place and the contexts that they
thrive in, educational settings and actors perform their work as if they were
spectators; as if what they did, the choices they made and the results of their
work would not interfere with nor shape students’ choices and lives. In failing
to recognize their role properly, and to act in accordance, some teachers and
schools have done more harm than good and caused stress instead of alleviating
it.
After
examining how time, (emotional) investment and data gathering might interfere
with empathy, I would suggest that teachers start analyzing the kind of stress
that their work, their environment and their students feel. If that stress
resonates with any kind of stress that has been experienced before, like toxic
stress in early childhood, the consequences might be disastrous. Red lights
should be flaring and immediate attention and action should be employed to
terminate the source of stress at present. If teachers are leaving their
comfort zones and fortress of content delivery and management in search of
students’ motivations and needs, then there is room for improvement and an
investment of time and resources for professional (and personal) development.
The road to influencing thinking and changing attitudes start by recognizing
that it is not by doing the same or amplifying the spectrum of what has always
been done that results will change for the better (Lamm & Majdandžić, 2015).
Change will come when the need for
change is felt within.
References
Lamm, C., & Majdandžić, J. (2015). The role of shared neural
activations, mirror neurons, and morality in empathy–A critical comment. Neuroscience Research,90, 15-24.
Walter,
H. (2012). Social cognitive neuroscience of empathy: Concepts, circuits, and
genes. Emotion Review, 4(1),
9-17.
Warren,
C. A. (2014). Towards a pedagogy for the application of empathy in culturally
diverse classrooms. The Urban Review, 46(3),
395-419.
Comments
Post a Comment