Are Today's Students Actually Different?

In my role in state science leadership, I often end up hearing from educators that the students right now are different than before. I have especially heard that as we’ve gone back to school during this COVID era, but frustration aimed at cell phones and social media has been around for a while. Notably, I also heard these sentiments from several educators when I first started teaching 23 years ago. “Kids have changed from when I first started teaching…They’re not as ______ as they used to be.”

I sometimes wonder if those perceived changes are reflections of changes in society in general more so than children being inherently different now.

I have a few concerns with focusing on perceived “changes” in children:

First, it’s an easy excuse. It shifts the onus of responsibility away from educational systems and educators, and instead focuses on children. It becomes part of the ongoing blame game in education. It would be helpful to change how we frame our analyses. For example, instead of saying, “Only 30% of our students are proficient,” we ought to note that our instructional system and curriculum only meet the needs of 30% of our students.

Second, it can be conflated with changing demographics. I taught in California in a district that went from about 70% white to 20% white in the 20 years before I started there. We all have implicit biases; lots of evidence points to that. So, when we say students are different, their demographics are sometimes quite different, and we can come off as suggesting that that is the underlying problem, even if unintended.

Third, children are amazing, creative, and bring a fresh new lens on the world around them. That’s what we need to emphasize.

Some instructional shifts might help, but I think that’s always been the case. For example:

First, yes, there are real issues with social media, internet-connected phones, etc. Cell phones turn most of us (adults too) into screen-addicted zombies. That includes me (I’m working on it). Social media usage is linked to self-esteem issues in children. I’d hypothesize that social media and excess screen time are linked to mental health issues for people of all ages. I would suggest rules and a culture that gets rid of phones in general during school day – not in the bag, not in a pocket. It would take serious time and effort, but it would give children some time to be away from those addictive platforms. We could model that behavior as educators (your family can call the school if there’s an emergency, and the front desk staff can contact you). Admittedly, students need to develop healthy habits with phones and use the internet for good. Using computers on a structured basis can support those goals. Perhaps there is real research that show most kids having phones will keep them safer in an emergency – if so, that should be considered, but I haven’t seen it yet (science is about evidence, not random anecdotes).

Second, if they can Google the answer, that’s the type of pedagogy that has needed to change for a long time. It’s even more critical now. Content-focused instruction has never been motivational for most kids, and according to repeated research, students quickly forget the details from that type of learning. Any DOK 1 or 2 learning can be effective when embedded within community connections, local phenomena exploration, and meaningful problem solving, but it shouldn’t be the focus. Kids have never been excited about memorizing the periodic table or the stages of mitosis! Applying understanding means connecting it to real issues, jobs, challenges, changes in the local community; it is not giving some fake context on a test to make stoichiometry (etc.) appear like it has “real-world” value. Students should be learning to make sense of the world around them, not be fed pre-packaged understanding.

In the end, are students different? Probably a bit. Society is different. But, that 13-year-old is still a lot like the 13-year-old from 50 years ago with similar core needs and wants. Let’s work together to help them find joy and wonder in the world around them!

What Is “Student-Centered” Instruction?

To begin, if there is one right answer to a task, it’s not student-centered. It’s students figuring out the answer the teacher wants. True, that might be the “scientifically accurate” answer to a problem, but it leads to students being dependent on the teacher (or another outside source) for telling them what is correct and what is not. It leads students directly to the sense that the teacher, textbook, or website are the knowers and creators of science, not the students. We want students to grow in their identity as scientists by becoming scientific knowledge creators themselves! That’s the key to student-centered instruction.

So, does that mean learning shouldn’t involve problems with only one right answer. No, but there should be many fewer than they typical classroom includes. And, when they happen, they should be in the larger context of student sensemaking and creation. The foundation of the Wisconsin Science Standards (and NGSS) is that students should use scientific practices, ways of thinking, and content to make sense of phenomena and solve problems. So, if there are single answer problems or questions, such as a limiting reagent in chemistry or the speed of a cart in physical science, they should be included specifically so that students can then use that understanding to make sense of or solve problems within a larger context, not be an end in themselves.

Learning targets and assessments should then have this student-centered focus as well and not stagnate in lower cognitive levels. For example, I would not have an objective that says, “I can describe an ecosystem.” Instead, I might have one that says, “I can explain with evidence how changing environmental factors can affect some species of bats more than others” (for reference, here’s a unit outline for learning related to that target). I might then break that down into success criteria for students, such as, “I can: 1) use my understanding of ecosystems to explain why changes in particular aspects of them matter for bats; and 2) use my understanding of structures and functions of different bat species to explain why some bats will be more affected by those ecosystem changes than others.” Therefore, students are using an understanding of ecosystems for learning in a context of Wisconsin bat populations--specifically building toward making sense of decreasing bat populations due to various causes including white nose syndrome, and then determining what to do about it.

In this unit example, assessment should also involve sensemaking/problem-solving and questions that do not have one right answer. The assessments should reflect the 3D instruction. They could include:

1. Modeling a bat ecosystem and using evidence to show how it might change with a new environmental pollutant or other ecosystem change; 
2. Writing a letter to a local politician describing the bat population problem, why it’s important, and possible solutions; 
3. Designing and physically building a locally adapted product to help bat populations, like a bat house tailored to a local species of bat; 
4. Developing an evidence-based explanation in relation to the success criteria--see sample bat ecosystems explanations rubric.

Notably, students will be using their own research, investigation results, and a variety of data to make these assessment products their own. In particular, writing an explanation (CER if you use that) should not be a reading comprehension exercise.

In the end, the goal is for students to do science that is directly meaningful in their lives and community—to engage in learning that builds up their scientific identity, not reinforces their proclivity to want the teacher to tell them what the “right” answer is.