Are quiet children the new outcasts of the school system? I must confess that I was quite surprised when I was asked to write an article for the Royal Society of Chemistry’s magazine, Education in Chemistry, on how to support shy students. I was even more surprised when the published article created a minor (appreciative, thankfully) Twitterstorm.
When I had been approached originally to write about teaching diverse learners, I was expecting to be asked about students with identified learning difficulties, such as autism spectrum disorders. I had no notion that shy students were an emerging group of learners whose needs were not being met.
With hindsight, I wonder whether these shy learners were an invisible group partly because of their choice to maintain a low profile in the classrooms. They also go largely undetected because they do not detract from their school’s performance, for instance, during inspections or in terms of assessment outcomes. Since shy students rarely present challenging behaviour, other than passive resistance, the temptation to leave them in quiet isolation can be strong. But it is a sad day when teaching and learning strategies are selected simply on the basis that they “let sleeping learners lie”.
We need to be mindful of the fact that, according to the tenets of social constructivism, shy students’ learning risks being compromised. Essentially, social constructivism is the idea that people learn best when they are actively piecing together their own understanding by working on an activity, rather than working on their own or simply being told what they need to know.
In science, we have a large canon of evidence suggesting that social constructivism has a powerful part to play in the construction of a secure understanding. This pedagogic tradition arose during the period when Vygotsky’s notion of language shaping thought, as opposed to being simply the means of expression of thought, was attracting increasing attention from influential scholars of education, such as Bruner.
An important example of the influence of these ideas in curriculum and teaching reform in science is the Nuffield science scheme. This was introduced in the 1960s and promoted discovery-led learning, carried out in groups. Its premise was that students would work collaboratively, using experimental results, to piece together their understanding. If their understanding differed from that of their teacher, it would be revised to bring it into line with the assessment orthodoxy.
In this social constructivist environment, children who struggle to interact freely with their peers will be disadvantaged. By missing out on the exchange of ideas, and the resulting refinement of their shared understanding, they are deprived of the process of knowledge creation and, with it, the ownership of their learning. They are also deprived of the creativity of coming up with novel solutions as part of a team, and the development of important transferable skills, such as teamwork and leadership.
Although the approach is research-endorsed and widely embedded in classroom routines, it is far from unproblematic. The “costs” of social constructivism feel very real in an age of performativity because it appears to take an unnecessary amount of time to impart to students the knowledge that is needed for high-stakes assessment.
This, I suspect, accounts for the ambivalence about what to do with, or about, shy children, and the reason that their quiet non-engagement has seemed to be only a very marginal problem. It may be that their “invisibility cloak” is especially well suited to the reality of many science lessons, as opposed to the constructivist rhetoric of the literature.
Much science education has resolutely clung on to its tradition of “transmission” teaching, which Douglas Barnes identified in the mid 1970s. Students are taught the “right answer” to enable them to answer external assessment questions, which will be based far more on accepted facts than the processes by which such facts were arrived at. The perceived need to provide factually accurate material, specified by the exam board, is apparent in the provision of the ubiquitous science booklets in which the necessary subject matter is recorded.
In an environment where the recall of material is key to assessment success, the shy student is not disadvantaged. Quite the reverse, in fact: they act as a ready recipient of factual knowledge, undistracted by social interactions around them. Meanwhile, their peers’ chatter seems to be no more than background noise.
Reflect, firstly, on this: why do you need to “remedy” these pupils’ shyness? If you don’t have evidence that their learning is being compromised, are you being unreasonable in wanting them to conform to a learning “norm”? One of the tenets of inclusion is that we don’t problematise diversity, we accept and welcome it as a fundamental feature of human existence.
If giving a presentation is part of their assessment, then shyness may hinder their attainment. But can alternatives - offering equivalent opportunities to communicate what they know and to respond to questions - do the same job? Can they raise their hand in response to the register being called rather than responding verbally? It does the same job. The student might feel more able to speak to one person rather than the whole class. Maybe they can voice-record their speech at home and then share it with their teacher?
Bear in mind that not only is the notion of “equivalent value” enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, but it is also a useful guide with respect to suitable adaptations.
Gather evidence, as you work with a group of students, of the contextual factors that influence the shyness of the student. Are there any identifiable factors that exacerbate or mitigate the shyness? Within the classroom, we are able to manipulate the environment so that it supports the shy student and promotes their confidence in social situations. Notice where and when they appear most comfortable and successful. Are there peers with whom they seem to work better than others? Are there places in the room that they prefer to be in? What are the activities that make them retreat into their shell or the activities that animate them?
Group activities that encourage the sharing of ideas without needing to speak in front of a group can be very helpful. Examples of these include “hot potato”, “flat chat” and graffiti walls, which would take a little while to explain but are all ways of enhancing metacognition and improving everyone’s learning (and all rely heavily on Post-it notes rather than talking). Use these to discuss alternative ideas and be prepared to negotiate with the student - it is their learning, at the end of the day.
Using the evidence on why students are shy, in the way outlined above, may also require you to take action beyond your own classroom. Are they, for instance, being socially excluded? If so, why? Reasons can be as diverse as “trainer bullying” over their lack of designer clothing through to poor personal hygiene or disputes that have taken place outside of the classroom. Language difficulties, ranging from use of English as an additional language to stammering, may inhibit students’ confidence to speak. Where bullying is suspected, firm expectations of behaviour need to be enforced, pastoral staff involved, and on occasions where bullying could arise, including group work, monitored closely. If poverty or neglect are suspected as contributing to a student’s social difficulties, social services may need to become involved.
If a student struggles to interact in a way that is acceptable to peers, as distinct from interacting at all, other causes must be considered. Autism spectrum disorder can be the cause of social difficulties and resultant shyness. Similarly, dyspraxia, where children are frequently unpopular on account of their clumsiness, is quite commonly associated with social awkwardness. Academically able children are prone to exclusion because they are working in a way that their peers find strange or incomprehensible. Equally, those who are struggling academically may be excluded or may be reluctant to share ideas for fear of being wrong; others may stand out for social or economic reasons.
The context for shyness is frequently related to the strenuous efforts of adolescents to be like each other. Being different is viewed almost like a form of social betrayal. So an important strategy for tackling shyness is to signal strongly that diversity in your classroom is not only accommodated, but also welcomed and valued. One key strand of this approach is to identify and celebrate all your students’ strengths, be they vocal or otherwise.
Whatever the reason for shyness, the aim should be to encourage the student to take gradual steps towards full participation. The support they may need to do this will depend on their individual circumstances. It is important that they feel that they have control over their choices, not that they are being coerced into social situations that are difficult for them.
They may not wish to speak in front of the whole class, but they may be able to speak initially to one person whom they nominate. Later, they may speak to that person plus a second person. The same little-by-little approach is appropriate, regardless of the cause of their shyness.
In short, by respecting their difficulties in speaking up, while simultaneously helping them to gain confidence in the worth of their own voice, you may open up new horizons for the shy student.
Jane Essex is a senior education lecturer at the University of Strathclyde. She previously worked in teacher education at Keele University and has taught science at schools in England. She is an expert in inclusive science education and, in July, was presented with the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Inclusion and Diversity Prize
This article originally appeared in the 29 November 2019 issue of Tes Scotland under the headline “Lifting the ‘invisibility cloak’ of shyness”
Already a subscriber? Log in
