Paolo Torresan: Francesco, thank you for this discussion. Your dissertation addresses a critical issue: classroom management. This topic is often overlooked in teacher training in Italy. You mentioned the difficulty of finding a strategy for dealing with unmotivated classes or those showing evident signs of disinterest. Could you explain why both overly lenient and excessively strict teachers fail, and what it means (or meant for you) to find a middle ground?
Francesco Diodato: Thank you for the kind invitation, Professor Torresan. I believe we need to distinguish between at least two types of lenient teachers, both who lower the cognitive level of the lessons and grant considerable freedom, but they do so for different reasons. The first one does not believe in the student’s ability to learn and improve, whilst the second one fears them, worrying they will complain, judge them negatively in end-of-course surveys and that they will not re-enroll in classes. Some research (Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997; Johnson, 2002) and my personal experience unfortunately show that this fear is not unfounded.
The strict teacher, however, does not satisfy students’ desire for autonomy (Daddis, 2011). For example, fearing loss of control, this type of teacher tends to avoid peer work. The learning environment in all the cases mentioned is negative—it can generate stress in students, inhibiting the proper functioning of executive functions, and thus, compromising performance (Blair et al., 2011; Diamond, 2013; Piccolo et al., 2016; Wagner et al., 2016). Moreover, the fact that learning activities are not sufficiently challenging does not allow executive functions to be stimulated and, consequently, to develop (Caine et al., 2016; Welsh et al., 2010). The middle ground is an authoritative teacher (Diodato, 2018).
In your dissertation, you highlight the importance of certain conditions for effective learning based on neuroscience data. Some of these include getting enough sleep, being attentive and not distracted, having a hearty breakfast (important for morning classes), and engaging in aerobic activity. While these suggestions might seem obvious to some, I believe they are not. Many students arrive tired, constantly look at their phones, and sigh when asked to change seats. How do you approach your teaching considering these suggestions, given that some of them pertain to time spent outside the classroom?
Regarding the obviousness of certain recommendations, neuroscience research does not just confirm ancient wisdom; it adds new details. For example, it tells us that the type of physical activity beneficial to the brain is aerobic and that the executive functions that benefit from it vary with age (Guiney & Machado, 2013; Tine, 2014).
To leverage the benefits of movement, teachers can ask students to: (a) place dictionaries on the teacher’s desk, so they have to move to consult them (Catizone & Humphris, 1999); (b) change seats multiple times to form new pairs (Byrne, 1987); (c) go outside the classroom to take part to an info gap oral free imaginary interaction/production (Diodato, 2017b); and (d) walk in circles around the classroom while talking in pairs (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003).
To address sleep deprivation, starting a morning lesson with listening activities can often induce sleep. It is better to begin with a more dynamic activity, such as oral free production. This approach helps mitigate but does not solve the problem.
The issue of sleep deprivation, which I often observe in my students, is more complex than it may seem. Some students simply say they do not have enough time to sleep due to numerous other commitments besides the academic ones (e.g., participation in club activities, part-time work, etc.). Economic conditions can also play a role. Some students cannot afford to rent a room near the university, so they have to travel for two or more hours to attend classes. When classes start at 9:00 am, they have less time to sleep compared to students living nearby. Additionally, young people, due to neurobiological reasons, tend to fall asleep late and wake up late (Hagenauer et al., 2009). We can imagine the conditions they arrive in class. A possible solution could be to delay the start of lessons. If it were up to me, I would have them start at least around 11:00 am.
Teachers cannot intervene in students’ private lives but can offer advice and explain the importance of certain habits. I have created a short guide in Japanese and uploaded it to Moodle so that students can consult it whenever they wish.
Let’s return to the issue of stress. First, what can cause it in the classroom? Second, how can we equip students with tools to manage it, ensuring they can control (self-regulation) and overcome (resilience) it?
The causes of stress can be numerous. One might be not feeling heard or understood. A survey of interests and needs could help guide teaching actions. Another source of stress could be fear of something, such as not being up to par on an imminent exam. It is important that activities are presented in a certain way or adapted to appear feasible (Diodato, 2017a). At least initially, it might be useful to use the learner’s mother tongue or a vehicular language to further reassure them.
To reduce stress levels before an exam, a simulation can be set up. In pairs, one student plays the examiner’s role and the other the examinee (Mazza & Montali, 1999). An alternative is to allow sharing of anxieties, again within an oral free production activity (Davis et al., 1998). This latter activity is also useful for discussing stress in general.
Jokes could also help reduce stress levels; they often require cultural reflection to be understood (Medgyes, 2002). Oral free production can also be used to stimulate self-regulation. For example, students could debate starting from a list of actions considered by the teacher to hinder learning (e.g., looking up all unknown words in the dictionary, not asking questions when something is not understood, etc.). They would have to explain which actions they perform, why, and what precautions they could take in the future to avoid them (Sion, 2001). The fact that students themselves reflect on their actions, in my opinion, stimulates deeper attention and increases the likelihood that certain behaviors will be less frequent in the future.
According to Holdsworth et al. (2017), cognitively complex teaching activities and positive relationships between students and between students and the teacher are among the ingredients for shaping resilient individuals. In class, this translates to an authoritative teacher, which for me, as I mentioned earlier, involves challenging activities and pair work. This working method allows for understanding other points of view and learning to respect those who think differently.
I found your reference to variety in sequencing enlightening. I mean, a lesson does not always have to start the same way, right?
Exactly—young people, particularly due to ongoing neurobiological transformations, need novelty to feel stimulated (Chambers et al., 2003; Steinberg et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important for teachers to introduce variations. One way to do this is by proposing activities in a different order (Humphris, 1984).
Let’s discuss the core topic of your dissertation: applying DI.L.IT. techniques in university-level Italian language teaching in Japan. Specifically, you reflect on: (a) authentic listening, (b) conversation rebuild, (c) language puzzle, and (d) oral free production. Which of these techniques, if any, are more acceptable than others? Don’t Japanese students risk being overwhelmed by requests that may seem excessive, especially if they come from traditional learning experiences that prioritize absolute security, considering the typological distance between the target language and the native language?
I will start with the activity that disorients most of my students: authentic listening. This activity confuses them for two reasons—the text’s difficulty far exceeds their comprehension ability, and no information about the content is provided, nor is a transcript distributed.
When I started using this activity years ago, it was tough. The reasons were that I was not persuaded of its usefulness and, above all, did not know how to manage students psychologically. In other words, I could not gain their trust. Since then, I have improved significantly, and thanks to appropriate strategies (e.g., those described in Diodato, 2017a), even those few students who protest in the early stages stop doing so within a few months.
The most appreciated activity is conversation rebuild. They find it fun, dynamic, and immediately useful because they practice grammar under the teacher’s guidance and memorize phrases. They also enjoy the language puzzle and oral free production. However, the latter also requires some psychological preparation.
In your dissertation, you mention the idea of creating customized training paths considering the sociocultural variables students belong to. From this thought, I deduce the legitimacy of developing different teaching ways, each tailored to a specific cultural context. However, one might ask, “Do not all languages get learned the same way?” or “Do the brains of an American student and a Korean student of the same age not go through the same acquisition processes?”
Dehaene (2020) explains that all humans learn in the same way. Differences concern the speed of learning, prior knowledge, and motivation. However, we must not forget the impact of environmental factors—experiences, belonging culture, type of education received, et cetera. These can contribute, along with genetic factors, to brain development (Stiles & Jernigan, 2010). I particularly think of the previously mentioned executive functions lead to the formation of limiting beliefs (Diodato, 2017a), influence habits and interests, shape value systems, affect relational dynamics, et cetera. These are all aspects that a teacher must consider to avoid failure.
Referring back to the earlier discussion and considering more specific individual differences related to intellectual profiles, how and to what extent can the theory of learning styles/intelligences be useful (if at all) to teachers (especially language teachers, but possibly any subject)?
The topic is controversial. Although 90% of teachers worldwide believe in the effectiveness of adapting lessons to students’ learning styles (Newton & Salvi, 2020), there is currently no conclusive evidence that accommodating learning styles or intelligences leads to more effective learning (Waterhouse, 2006; Pashler et al., 2009). Some scholars now consider these theories neuromyths (e.g., Geake, 2008). Yet, many teachers claim to have evidence in their classes of the validity of these theories. For Willingham (2009), this could be a confirmation bias; teachers would only accept facts that conform to their beliefs, ignoring all others. The conclusions of the aforementioned studies leave me perplexed. If we accommodate students’ preferences, in theory, motivation should increase for two reasons: Students may appreciate the teacher’s attention to their needs and use the mode in which they feel most competent (Putcha & Rinvolucri, 2007; Rosenberg, 2013; Zull, 2002). Since increased motivation corresponds to increased attention and memory (Duan et al., 2020) and since, as experience teaches us, motivated students are more inclined to engage actively, a crucial factor in learning (Dehaene, 2020), progress should be tangible.
No doubt, I would say it is better to accommodate students’ preferences, as long as this does not mean abandoning objectives. Doing so might make students a bit less stressed and lessons even more varied, two aspects that, as I mentioned, are important.
How important is the sense of affiliation to the effectiveness of classroom learning? I mean, should the student feel part of a group rather than feeling alone in the class? You mention this in your dissertation, also presenting activities developed for this purpose.
The need to be accepted by peers is intense in adolescents and, to a lesser extent, in young adults (Chein et al., 2011; Gardner & Steinberg, 2005). This leads to greater consideration of social evaluation (Somerville, 2013), increased sensitivity to peer exclusion (Sebastian et al., 2010), and greater risk-taking when advised by peers or even just observed by them (Chein et al., 2011).
I deduce that working with peers is particularly rewarding for these types of learners. The teacher can leverage their desire for group conformity. For example, they can surround an unwilling student with hardworking peers. For a similar reason, the teacher should avoid reprimanding students in front of the class. Some might go to great lengths to avoid losing face.
To maximize the benefits derived from these learners’ characteristics, it is essential to create a cohesive class. Icebreaker activities are the starting point, although indirectly, cohesion can be strengthened through all activities, particularly oral free production, where one student asks a peer for advice on some matter. People like to be helpful (Plevin, 2016).
It is also possible to stratify activities to promote inclusion (Hess, 2001). For example, multiple versions of a language puzzle could be created to accommodate different competence levels. This way, during pair consultations, even the weakest student can help the more proficient one and, consequently, be more accepted by their peer.
In your dissertation, you also touch on the topic of assessment. Could you summarize the conclusions you have drawn based on your experience?
In theory, I prefer continuous assessment based on classroom observation. The reasons are numerous:
- It allows for evaluating the maturation of executive functions and other aspects that formal exams cannot assess.
- It enables assessing the quality of interaction.
- It is economical as activities and assessment occur simultaneously.
- It is more sustainable: students are less stressed, positively affecting performance quality as they forget they are being evaluated.
- It is more precise because it is based on a significant number of “sessions,” each one longer than a formal exam.
- It is useful for the teacher to evaluate their work in real-time, allowing for timely intervention when necessary.
During observation, the teacher can collect data from various sources: (a) the types of questions asked; (b) the degree of understanding of instructions; (c) the level of confidence with which activities are carried out; (d) the level of engagement; (e) the number of times the dictionary is consulted; (f) the responsiveness to peers’ prompts; (g) facial expressions; (h) glances towards peers; (i) glances towards the teacher; (j) the number of gestures, drawings, et cetera used to communicate; and more.
To interpret the collected information, context must be considered, including knowledge of one’s students and their culture.
In practice, a purely observation-based assessment presents two main drawbacks in my context: The classes are relatively large, making it difficult to observe everyone accurately, and some students might contest their grade if they fail, but I would not have evidence to present.
A compromise could be to adopt a mixed method: assessment based on observation (assigning it a small weight) and formal exams.
Thank you for sharing your insights with us.
References
Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M. T., Kivlighan, K. T., Fortunato, C. K., & FLP Investigators. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Development, 82(6), 1970–1984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x
Byrne, D. (1987). Techniques for classroom interaction. Longman.
Caine, R. N., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimek, K. J. (2016). 12 brain/mind learning principles in action: Teach for the development of higher-order thinking and executive function (3rd ed.). Corwin.
Catizone, P., & Humphris, C. (1999). Volare: Corso di italiano (Vols. 3) guida per l’insegnante . Alphabeta.
Chambers, R. A., Taylor, J. R., & Potenza, M. N. (2003). Developmental neurocircuitry of motivation in adolescence: A critical period of addiction vulnerability. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(6), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.6.1041
Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science, 14(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01035.x
Daddis, C. (2011). Desire for increased autonomy and adolescents’ perceptions of peer autonomy: “Everyone else can; why can’t I?”. Child Development, 82(4), 1310–1326. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289844
Davis, P., Garside, B., & Rinvolucri, M. (1998). Ways of doing: Students explore their everyday and classroom processes. Cambridge University Press.
Dehaene, S. (2020). How we learn: Why brains learn better than any machine...for now. Viking.
Diamond A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
Diodato, F. (2017a). Beliefs in foreign language learning: Research on Japanese university students studying Italian. Teaching Italian Language and Culture Annual, 2017, 13–33. https://www.academia.edu/37836213/Beliefs_in_Foreign_Language_Learning_R...
Diodato, F. (2017b). Un’analisi dei fattori legati alla motivazione degli studenti d’italiano della Kyoto Sangyo University (Giappone) [An analysis of the factors related to the motivation of students of Italian at Kyoto Sangyo University (Japan)]. Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras, 11, 173–202.
Diodato, F. (2018). Verso l’insegnante autorevole: ragioni e modalità [Towards the authoritative teacher: Reasons and methods]. Revista de Italianística, 36, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2238-8281.i36p96-110
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Duan, H., Fernández, G., van Dongen, E., & Kohn, N. (2020). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on memory formation: Insight from behavioral and imaging study. Brain Structure & Function, 225(5), 1561–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-020-02074-x
Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625
Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802082518
Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1209–1217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1209
Guiney, H., & Machado, L. (2013). Benefits of regular aerobic exercise for executive functioning in healthy populations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0345-4
Hagenauer, M. H., Perryman, J. I., Lee, T. M., & Carskadon, M. A. (2009). Adolescent changes in the homeostatic and circadian regulation of sleep. Developmental Neuroscience, 31(4), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000216538
Hess, N. (2001). Teaching large multi-level classes. Cambridge University Press.
Holdsworth, S., Turner, M., & Scott-Young, C. M. (2018). … Not drowning, waving. Resilience and university: A student perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1284193
Humphris, C. (1984, January). La programmazione [Programming]. DI.L.IT. https://www.dilitformazioneinsegnanti.it/bollettini/programmazione/la-pr...
Johnson, V. E. (2002). Teacher course evaluations and student grades: An academic tango. CHANCE, 15(3), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09332480.2002.10554805
Mazza, A., & Montali, S. (1999). Parlando parlando: 100 spunti per parlare in italiano: Guida per l’insegnante [Speaking while speaking: 100 ideas for speaking in Italian: Teacher’s guide]. ALPHA & BETA.
Medgyes, P. (2002). Laughing matters: Humor in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Newton, P. M., & Salvi, A. (2020). How common is belief in the learning styles neuromyth, and does it matter? A pragmatic systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Piccolo, L. R., Salles, J. F., Falceto, O. G., Fernandes, C. L., & Grassi-Oliveira, R. (2016). Can reactivity to stress and family environment explain memory and executive function performance in early and middle childhood? Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 38(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2015-0085
Plevin, R. (2016). Take control of the noisy class: Chaos to calm in 15 seconds. Life Raft Media.
Putcha, H., & Rinvolucri, M. (2007). Multiple intelligences in EFL: Exercises for secondary and adult students. Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (2013). Spotlight on learning styles: Teacher strategies for learner success. Delta.
Sebastian, C., Viding, E., Williams, K. D., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2010). Social brain development and the affective consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition, 72(1), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.008
Sion, C. (2001). Creating conversation in class: Student-centred interaction. Delta.
Somerville, L. H. (2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512
Steinberg, L., Icenogle, G., Shulman, E. P., Breiner, K., Chein, J., Bacchini, D., Chang, L., Chaudhary, N., Di Giunta, L., Dodge, K. A., Fanti, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Pastorelli, C., Skinner, A. T., Sorbing, E., Tapanya, S., Uribe Tirado, L. M., Alampay, L. P., Al-Hassan, S. M., & Takash, H. M. S. (2018). Around the world, adolescence is a time of heightened sensation seeking and immature self-regulation. Developmental Science, 21(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12532
Stiles, J., & Jernigan, T. L. (2010). The basics of brain development. Neuropsychology Review, 20(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4
Tine, M. (2014). Acute aerobic exercise: An intervention for the selective visual attention and reading comprehension of low-income adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00575
Wagner, S. L., Cepeda, I., Krieger, D., Maggi, S., D’Angiulli, A., Weinburg, J., & Grunau, R. E. (2016). Higher cortisol is associated with poorer executive functioning in preschool children: The role of parenting stress, parent coping and quality of daycare. Child Neuropsychology: A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 22(7), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1080232
Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4104_1
Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., Blair, C., Bierman, K. L., & Nelson, K. E. (2010). The development of cognitive skills and gains in academic school readiness for children from low-income families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016738
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Routledge
