Names of Group Members: Erin Hengel, Jason Rizzo, Payton Lund

Section 1- Difference 3: Effort

Section 2- Discussion of Jensen’s Argument on Effort

Many educators may think that students from low-income families put forth little effort in
the classroom simply because they are lazy, but according to Jensen there are many other key
factors that play a role in the lack of effort that poor children display in the classroom. Many
people would argue that the most important factor in a poor student’s life is their home
environment, but Jensen disagrees with that and says the most important factor is the school or
classroom environment. Therefore, if and when educators understand these key factors they can
change the environment and their instructional strategies to create a classroom full of
engagement; no matter the socio-economic status of the students. Jensen believes one tool a
teacher can use to help the student become more involved is by putting in more effort
themselves. When a student sees the teacher is working harder to try and get a student to
understand the content they might work harder themselves. Jensen also believes that when a
teacher shows effort in their teaching a student might copy that behavior and work just as hard.

Section 3- APA Citations

Burney, V. H., & Cross, T. L. (2006). Impoverished Students With Academic Promise in Rural
Settings: 10 Lessons From Project Aspire. Gifted Child Today, 29(2), 14-21. (Jason Rizzo)

Cooter, J. B., & Perkins, J. H. (2011, May). Much Done, Much Yet to Do. Reading Teacher. pp.
563-566. doi:10.1598/RT.64.8.1. (Erin Hengel)

Irvin, M. J. (2011). Relationship of school context to rural youth's educational achievement and
aspirations. Journal of youth and adolescence, 40(9), p.1225. (Payton Lund)

Section 4- Discussion of Outside Scholars’ Arguments As They Relate to Effort

Robert B. Cooter, Jr and J. Helen Perkins talk about the motivation students need and
how it affects student engagement. When a student is lacking motivation it makes it harder for
them to want to learn reading. They mention that there are six c’s of activities to gain motivation
from students choice, challenge, control, collaboration, constructing meaning, and constructing
meaning. Cooter and Perkin’s article specialized in reading teachers the choice was giving the
students an option. When you let students help make the curriculum or give them a say they will
often become more engaged. The second “c” is challenge, students will become bored if they
are not challenged a little in the classroom. The control activity is having students teach other
students or talk to the teacher about what they are doing. This makes them feel like they are
more important and what they are doing is important and not wasting their time. Collaboration is
a lot like control but, instead of the student going over what they learn and teaching it, it is them
working in groups or with the teacher to work through it together. By doing this it has an end
result of greater thinking and more in depth thoughts. This helps a student to remember it easier
for future reference making it easier to answer questions on tests and worksheets giving them
confidence. Constructing meaning is one that takes a little more effort from a teacher and it is
taking the control and applying it to various stages. The final one is consequences which is also
more of the teacher then the student because it is setting expectations and knowing what to do
when they are not met. These are all tips Cooter and Perkins gave to boost motivation in a
student. In Jensen’s article he talks about the effort that a teacher needs to show their students
to get them to show just the same amount of effort in trying to learn. Jensen talks about when
students are motivated that they are more likely to participate and have an overall enjoyment to
the class. (Erin Hengel)

In the article, “Impoverished Students With Academic Promise in Rural Setting: 10

Lessons From Project Aspire” written by, Virginia H. Burney and Tracy L. Cross they describe,
“the foundations of Project Aspire, which aims to improve the lives of rural students living in
poverty in the U.S. Difficulties in defining the rural population; Lack of statistics on the
combination of rural and/or small towns, poverty, and high-ability or gifted students; Impact of
school climate and policies on academic advancement.” Project Aspire researched and studied
many different situations that may be limiting low-socioeconomic students from succeeding
academically while in school. After rigorous study, Project Aspire learned 10 lessons from the
research project that may potentially help students of poverty overcome the obstacles they face
to be academically successful.
One such issue that Burney and Cross identified as a major factor that influences
students of poverty from putting forth the effort needed to be academically successful is low
self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-concept. Burney and Cross believe another factor, which
may be one of the most important factors, for getting low income students to put forth effort is
for the educators to develop a personal relationship and interest level with these students. “The
school counselor, or another person with an interest in the student, must provide that solid
support for educational persistence and attainment that is customarily provided by the parent in
middle class families” (Burney and Cross pp. 20). When a student has someone, who cares
about their success and sees all the effort that their educator is putting into them they will more
than likely reciprocate those same attitudes towards themselves and their school work. “If they
value the relationship, it is likely they will try hard to perform in a way that pleases” (Burney and
Cross pp. 20). (Jason Rizzo)

The article Relationship of School Context to Rural Youth’s Educational Achievement

and Aspirations has a goal to investigate the relationship of school characteristics and schooling
experiences and the achievements and aspirations of students in poverty. The article argues
that the school in “central to promoting and constraining (students) development” instead of the
home environment being the most important factor in a student’s development. The article
explores different aspects of a classroom that could help improve the learning environment for
students who live in poverty. They looked at things like student to teacher ratio, geography of
the school, and proportion of students in poverty. These factors were thought to be very
important in shaping the school’s environment to help students learn and develop.
This relates to the Jenson article’s section on effort because, in that section, Jenson
argues that student’s effort is less impacted by their home environment, but more impacted by
the environment in their school. Both of these articles share similar arguments that the school,
and teachers, can and should be doing more to give students in poverty a better environment to
learn and develop in. Each article gives different types of solutions to the problem, but they both
agree on the problem. (Payton Lund)

Section 5- Critique of Outside Scholar’s Solution compared to Jensen’s Effort Solution

When it comes to being a reading teacher Cooter and Perkin’s mentioned that
impoverished students struggled more with reading because they suffer from what they call
“word starvation” meaning that compared to middle or upper class counterparts they are not
exposed to as many words as a student from lower class families. They say that a majority of
the time a student will learn to decode it in their head but, never learn the meaning of the word
making it to where they are not truly reading. If a teacher does not catch this in time, and does
not put in extra effort it can lead to a student that lacks motivation to learn to read or continue to
read. Jensen talked about the need for teachers to put in extra effort to recognise signs like
these to help a student gain more motivation to want to learn and make them feel like they can
learn it as well. They both talked about when a teacher puts in extra work a student will also
reflect that behavior and out in more effort. For the funds of knowledge activities Cooter ad
Perkins relates to the fifth activity because they talk about language barrier and how students
that are struggling with language often end up giving up on reading. (Erin Hengel)

There are a couple of solutions that Burney and cross discuss in the article that may
help low-income students achieve the necessary effort needed in the classroom to be
successful academically. The first solution to get low income students to put forth effort in the
classroom is to raise their self-esteem, self-concept, and their self-efficacy. The second solution
to get low income students to put forth effort in the classroom is for educators to develop a
strong relationship with these students that shows that they care about them and their academic
successes.
Burney, Cross, and Jensen all agree that without proper guidance and motivation from
educators, low income student’s perceptions about themselves and their abilities hinder their
academic progress. For example, Jensen states, “One reason many students seem
unmotivated is because of lack of hope and optimism.” Burney, Cross, and Jensen also agree
that a strong, genuine, and caring relationship is a key motivational factor to get low income
students to put in the effort needed to be academically successful. Jensen believes you must,
“First, strengthen your relationships with students by revealing more of yourself and learning
more about your students,” and by doing so they will be more motivated and apt to trying harder
in the classroom.
If students don’t have or receive the proper support or motivation from their home
environment, then the only opportunity for these students to receive such support or motivation
lies solely on the school and their teachers. To be able to understand whether or not these
students have the support and motivation outside of the classroom can be a real challenge, but
when you create a true relationship with the students, like Burney and Cross suggest, then you
can begin to understand them on a personal level, which will give you insight into their home
environment and about their individual needs. Through Dr. Wysocki’s Activities to Investigate
Funds of Knowledge worksheet, if you, “Determine the kinds of literacy practices that the
respondents engage (or engaged) in within their homes and communities” then you will better
understand the needs of these students and therefore you can use this knowledge to provide
these students with the proper support and motivation they are not receiving at home. This is
extremely important because as Jensen states, “Research from 60 high-poverty schools tells us
that the primary factor in student motivation and achievement isn’t the student’s home
environment; it’s the school and the teacher. (Jason Rizzo)

Matthew Irvin in his article suggests that the solution of the learning environment for
students in poverty not being good enough are things like student to teacher ratio, geographic
placement of the school, and proportion of students in the school who live in poverty. He
suggests that less students per teacher, a school in a higher populated area, and a school with
less impoverished students are all solutions that would better impoverished student’s learning.
These types of solutions could be tied in to Dr. Wysocki’s Activities to Investigate Funds of
Knowledge document through number 10 and 11 on that document. Those two possible
strategies go over the different physical and geographical spaces in the student’s communities
and the physical places that students learn from and are similar to the solutions that Matthew
Irvin gives in his article.
Irvin’s solutions are somewhat different from Jensen’s solutions. Jensen instead focuses
on what specifically teachers can do to better the environment for students rather than what
schools could do. Jensen gives solutions like giving more effort, relating the classroom learning
to the real world, affirming effort in class, and setting high goals for the students. Jensen’s
solutions are also good ideas about how to improve the student’s learning environment, but
there are much more focused on how a teacher can do that rather than a school or school
district. Both of these article’s solutions to the problem have evidence that they would work and
school and teachers would be smart to learn from these two author’s ideas. (Payton Lund)