Harnessing Cognitive Dissonance: Leading Deep Change to Benefit Every Student

By Joe Schroeder, PhD Associate Executive Director, AWSA

Cognitive dissonance is defined as the mental discomfort experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideals, or values. As leaders in education, we care about cognitive dissonance because this discomfort is essential to any deep transformation or change. And I contend there is no more daunting or worthwhile challenge in education than leading transformation that will promote equitable conditions for all students. I also contend (and kindly offer) that the current design of most schools, particularly in how we group students, contradicts such student-centered aims. Therefore, if we are serious about deep change, we need to clearly illuminate such approaches of our daily work and structures that are in contradiction to our stated beliefs and ideals. This is never easy to do, but it is where the growth is. And one of the key reasons that transformational leaders are able to excel in the first place is their ability to “get comfortable about living in discomfort” -- and helping others they lead and serve do the same. This article will share one component of last month’s launch of AWSA’s Leading for Equity Academy (LEA) in Eau Claire and Madison, which prompted cognitive dissonance in many participants so that they can better promote equity and excellence for all back home. 

As we got underway in September, LEAco-facilitators, Drs. Colleen Capper (UW-Madison) and Elise Frattura (UW-Milwaukee), engaged participants in an activity that explored key findings of nearly fifty years of research, which highlighted a key design feature for promoting the success of all students:  heterogenous classrooms. 

Here is just a small sampling of the research findings about heterogeneous classrooms that Drs. Capper and Frattura organized and facilitated through the LEA activity: 

• Heterogenous classrooms provide “improved cognitive skills, critical thinking, and problem-solving, because students’ experience with individuals different from themselves, as well as to the novel ideas and situations that such experience brings, challenges their thinking and leads to cognitive growth” (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25).
• Student diversity promotes learning outcomes, better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares students as professionals (American Educational Research Association, 2016, p. 25).
• Students having difficulty at school, especially those from lower social class homes learn more when they are working in heterogeneous rather than in homogenous ability groups (Oakes, 1985,Yonezawa, Wells, & Serna, 2002). Relatively high expectations for learning, a faster pace of instruction, peer models of effective learning and curricula that are more challenging are among the reasons offered for this advantage. (Leithwood, Lois, Anderson, & Wahlston, 2004).
• More than 100 studies found that students labeled with disabilities make more academic gains in integrated settings (Baker, 1994; Carlberb & Kavale, 1980; Cole, 2004; Cole, Waldron, & Majd, 2004; Downing, Spencer, & Cavallaro, 2004; Hall & Wolfe, 2003; Lindsay, 2007; Katz & Mirenda, 2002; Wang & Baker, 1986).
• For students labeled with mild cognitive and learning disabilities, no additional gains in reading or math were made in segregated settings (Cole, 2004; Lindsay, 2007).
• Students labeled with severe LD made equal academic progress in segregated or inclusive settings (Walderon & McLeskey, 1998).
• Students with mild LD made greater reading gains in inclusive settings and similar gains in math in inclusive or segregated settings (Waldron & McLeskey, 1998).
• Students labeled with disabilities receive higher grades and achieve higher scores on standardized tests than students with disabilities placed in separate classrooms (Rea, Mclaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002).
• For students with moderate to significant intellectual disabilities, achievement is enhanced or at least equivalent in integrated versus segregated settings (Cole & Meyer, 1991; Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995; Saint-Laurent & Lessard, 1991).
• For students without disability labels, there is no evidence that academic progress is impeded when students labeled with disabilities are integrated in general education settings, and in some cases academic progress for students without disability labels increases when students with intellectual disabilities are integrated in general education settings (Cole, 2004; Fishbaugh & Gum, 1994; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Kalambouka et al, 2007; Odom, Deklyen, & Jenkins, 1984; Saint-Laurent, Glasson, Royer, Simard, & Pierard, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994; Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994; Wang & Birch, 1984).
• Students labeled ELL learn more academic English and make greater achievement gains in classrooms with peers who are English speakers (Brisk, 2006; Scanlan & Lopez, 2013; Thomas & Collier, 2002; Theoharis & O’Toole, 2011).
• When students labeled gifted are placed in ability segregated classrooms, raw course grades and students’ relative rankings among his or her peers as measured by grades fall substantially (Bui, Craig, & Imberman, 2011).
• When students labeled gifted are placed in ability segregated classrooms, some of these students have lower self concept and more test anxiety (Bui, Craig, & Imberman, 2011; Ireson, Haliam & Plewis, 2010; Preckel, Gotz & Frenzel, 2010; Zeidner & Schleyer,1999).

Participants of the LEA built a common understanding and language by engaging in dozens of such findings. As you can then quickly surmise, it is for reasons such as these that The National Education Association (NEA) supports the elimination of ability grouping. Specifically, the NEA believes that the use of discriminatory academic tracking based on economic status, ethnicity, race, or gender must be eliminated in all public school settings (NEA Resolutions B-16, 1998, 2005).

But that said, although even a relatively shallow dive into decades of research provides a highly compelling argument for the elimination of ability grouping, the harsh reality is that most schools and educators continue to segregate students by ability. In other words, most schools and educators currently perpetuate practices and designs that prevent real progress on the equity goals that we roundly claim to believe and aspire to achieve. . . .

And that, my friends, is cognitive dissonance. 

So how do the educational practices in your current setting reflect this research? To the degree that they are in contradiction to heterogeneous classrooms, the mental discomfort that arises from such a realization can be incredibly disconcerting to be sure. But at the same time, this cognitive dissonance can be one of the greatest resources for you and your school to make real change for every student. At both the Eau Claire and Madison cohorts of the LEA, I saw firsthand (through this equity research card activity previously described) the powerful impact that cognitive dissonance can play for grounding educators in “the why” for the effort and also for fueling the movement through the discomfort to a better design that will promote the success of each and every student. And the good news:  these research findings were also paired with multiple examples of schools at all levels, in communities and settings of all sorts, where a shift to heterogeneous settings created very different conditions and results for the success of all students. Finally, let us step back to kindly and sensitively acknowledge a fundamental and universal truth of human nature -- we are ALL works in progress. Thus, when we know more, we can do better. So, rather than perseverate on the past, let’s lean into the discomfort of cognitive dissonance that arises today and allow the knowledge gained to powerfully inform and impact the actions we take tomorrow! 

The Leading for Equity Academy is designed to help support leaders and their teams through this arduous but incredibly important transformational journey. Based on Session 1, I see a foundation that teams can build upon to make real change possible. And given how important such efforts are to all of us realizing our deepest moral purpose, I am convinced that we couldn’t be pursuing a more important pathway or legacy.  For this reason, I intend to share two subsequent articles in our AWSA Update newsletter as the Academy progresses through the 2017-18 school year. So stay tuned and thanks for your efforts and commitments to keep learning and stretching -- to lead in ways that make an ever more fruitful future possible for every student under your charge.

Reference

Capper, C.A., & Frattura, E. (2015). Integrated Comprehensive Systems Series. Integrated Comprehensive Systems, Series. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Education Products and Services. 

Read more at:

Elementary Edition - Secondary Edition - District Level Edition