What Underachieving
Middle School Students
Believe Motivates them to Learn
Middle School Students
Believe Motivates them to Learn
|
|
Middle School Students Believe Motivates them to Learn |
|
Chapter 1: The Challenge to Educate Everyone Chapter 2: A Review of Literature Chapter 3: Methods Chapter 4: The Results Chapter 5: Discussion Appendixes |
Click Here for more on the Pilot Study The Pilot Study Motivating Learning: The Underachieving Learnerís Perspective Teachers are challenged daily by students who donít seem interested in learning. Many are labeled as at-risk, learning disabled, underachieving, or simply trouble. Teachers struggle with discipline issues, and with meeting the needs of students at widely differing ability/achievement levels. By learning the perspective of those students who are turned off by school, this study seeks to broaden and deepen the prevailing views surrounding the use of intrinsic motivators, helping both teachers and students. The purpose of school is helping students learn. A major goal of formal education should be to equip students with the intellectual tools, self-beliefs, and self-regulatory capabilities to educate themselves throughout their lifetime. These personal resources enable individuals to gain new knowledge and to cultivate skills either for their own sake or to better their lives. The rapid pace of technological change and accelerated growth of knowledge are placing a premium on capability for self-directed learning. (Bandura 1993, p. 136) The information explosion, however, has de-emphasized the importance of every student learning the same specific body of knowledge, and has increased emphasis on learning how to learn so that each student can develop her own knowledge base within a broadly defined body of knowledge. The national discipline based standards and state standards also place a greater emphasis on learning how to learn and on becoming a self-directed and life-long learner. American public education has taken on the ambitious task of not only educating children, but educating every child. Children are not in school by choice, but by law. If natural learning grows from personal goals and interests, it is easy to see that some students may learn in spite of rote teaching techniques simply because either school itself matches their goals or they happen to be interested in the subject taught. Many other students, however, see school as being much less relevant to their lives and are not so interested in what the teachers want them to learn. Their school experiences usually produce poorly indexed knowledge and very shallow schema.
Unfortunately, preparation for tests that emphasize retention of facts often leads to the acquisition of "inert" knowledge, encapsulated information that is rarely accessed again unless a specific cue to activation is given, such as an expected examination question (Brown & Palincsar 1989). Teachers havenít taught until students have learned: Teaching may be compared to selling commodities. No one can sell unless someone buys. We should ridicule a merchant who said that he had sold a great many goods although no one had bought any. But perhaps there are teachers who think they have done a good dayís teaching irrespective of what people have learned. There is the same exact equation between teaching and learning that there is between selling and buying. (Dewey 1933, p. 35-36) If we are serious about educating every child, however, we must venture to absorb every child in meaningful, engaged learning. Regardless of whether we want children to learn to be learners, or whether there are content and skills we value and want students to learn (which they may not think of as being interesting or important to their lives) then we must use teaching strategies which more closely match how students learn naturally. That means using teaching techniques which match what we know about how kids learn. Educators blame studentsís lack of motivation, engagement, and achievement on a long list of factors, such as the following: lack of academic readiness and preparation, learning disabilities, poor home life, unsupportive parents, previous traumatic experience, poverty, low self efficacy. But it is also true that instructional methods can lead to unmotivated students. If the pupil left it [the class, instruction] instead of taking it, if he engaged in physical truancy, or in the mental truancy of mind-wandering and finally built up an emotional revulsion against the subject, he was held to be at fault. No question was raised as to whether the trouble might not lie in the subject-matter or in the way in which it was offered. The principle of interaction makes it clear that failure of adaptation of material to needs and capacities of individuals may cause an experience to be non-educative quite as much as failure of an individual to adapt himself to the material. (Dewey 1938, p. 46-47) Of all the factors mentioned above, individual classroom teachers have control over only one: instructional strategies. We have come to know what sorts of classroom activities get in the way of engaging students in meaningful learning. Conditions within the classroom can produce sufficient stress to cause students to shut down learning. "When we feel threatened, we downshift our thinking. Downshifted people feel helpless; they donít look at possibilities; they donít feel safe to take risks or challenge old ideas. They have limited choices for behavior." (Pool 1997) According to Renate Nummela Caine and Geoffrey Caine, although threats producing downshifting can come from outside of school (abuse, poverty, malnourishment, and violence, for example), the following classroom conditions produce downshifting for the vast majority of students (Caine & Caine 1994, p. 84):
Lepperís and othersí (1973) over-justification hypothesis describes how the over reliance on extrinsic rewards (prizes, grades, etc.) interfere with learning. Over use of extrinsic rewards can do the following: ï damage the quality of work What can educators do instead? What helps students learn? Richard Saul Wurman (1989) refers to learning as remembering what you are interested in. Lepper and Hodell (1989) recommend trying to enhance childrenís intrinsic motivation through challenge, curiosity, control, and fantasy. Cognitive scientist Roger Schank (1995) describes learning as pursuing answers to questions which grow from our goals and interests. These ideas arenít new to teachers. Nolen and Nicholls (1994) report that teachersí beliefs about what motivates students closely match those advocated by researchers: The teachers in our sample seem well aware of the usefulness of the strategies researchers claim increase task involvement or intrinsic motivation: promoting cooperation and choice, stimulating student interest and attributing thoughtfulness and effort to students all had means well above those for other strategies, and clearly in the "useful" range. Educators who talk with students about what motivates them, also become aware of similar motivational factors. Strong et. al. (1995) asked teachers and students what kind of work they found totally engaging. "Engaging work, respondents said, was work that stimulated their curiosity, permitted them to express their creativity, and fostered positive relationships with others. It was also work at which they were good," (Strong, Silver, & Robinson 1995). I have been collecting lists of learnersí characteristics of good learning experiences since 1992. The lists are surprisingly similar, regardless of the age-group involved and synthesize into the following list:
There are, then, at least five intrinsic motivational factors which draw students into meaningful, engaged learning: ï Context - Addresses the issue of "Why do we have to know this?" Places content within the context of how it is (or might be) used in the real world. Could be a simulation, doing real work, or having a real audience (beyond the teacher) for student work. Provides a goal for which learning the content is necessary. But weíve schools donít have a good track record of applying what they know about how kids learn. Weíve known principles of learning-centered teaching for a long time. But even in 1930, the Commission on the Relation of School and College criticized high schools for failing to apply those conditions.
Some worry, however, that the absence of intrinsic motivators, and a willingness to let some children not learn, may be part of how social class structure is reproduced. The problem with functionalism, according to conflict theory, is that, consciously or not, it takes the interests and perspective of the dominant social groups in society and elevates them to the status of universal norms. Having done this it then uses these norms to measure the contributions of members of all other groups. In this way the interests of a particular class are misrepresented as belonging to the society as a whole, and this misrepresentation then serves to maintain the privileged position of the members of that class (Feinberg & Soltis 1992, p. 46). Michael Apple reminds us that school may not be about developing young minds: What counts as knowledge, the ways in which it is organized, who is empowered to teach it, what counts as an appropriate display of having learned it, andójust as criticallyówho is allowed to ask and answer all these questions, are part and parcel of how dominance and subordination are reproduced and altered in this society (Apple 1996, pp. 22-23). Critical theorists point to the hidden curriculum, which actually works against the "lower" classes using the official curriculum as a cultural step ladder. "It is the ways things are taught, rather than what is taught, that enable such norms to be learned" (Feinberg & Soltis 1992, p. 18). In one study explored in Feinberg and Soltis (1992), Jean Anyon (1980) studied five fifth grade classrooms in five different schools. Each school was fairly homogeneous to social class. The style of teaching was very different in each school, but similar between subjects within the same school. Feinberg and Soltis explain: In Anyonís study the working-class students are being taught how to participate in the world of work at the lower end of the production process. They are being taught to follow rules that are not understood, to engage in work that has little meaning for them, and to follow without question the orders issued by an external authority. Students in the upper-middle-class school are being taught how to engage in the world of work at a relatively high level. They are being taught to work independently, to judge for themselves whether a rule meets the larger purpose of the task at hand, to manipulate symbols to their own ends, to exercise internal discipline, and to negotiate with authority on an equal basis. In Anyonís study the middle-class schools and the executive-elite schools presented still different pictures of rules and authority. The first taught students the behaviors and attitudes required to follow accepted form and to find the "right answers," which were located in some authoritative text. In the executive-elite school the children were taught to manage situations in which they were expected to be in charge. (Feinberg & Soltis 1992) Miller (1991, p. 30) points to the obstacles imposed on disadvantaged youth: The data regarding the disproportionate placement of poor and minority students in compensatory and special education programs is clear. Placement in such specialized programs is predicated on the notion that these programs offer uniqueness in materials, instructional practices, and opportunities for accessing appropriately designed levels of tasks and knowledge. Not only have these programs failed to provide increased opportunity for learning, but there is not evidence to support the existence of uniquely trained teachers who use uniquely superior methods. In fact, these programs may be inferior to the general education system and serve to deny equal access to knowledge through curricular fragmentation and lower expectations. The achievement effects of such ability grouping patterns has been found to be zero. Miller (1991) warns that if we persist in allowing children who are born in poverty to fail to get the kind of education that will enable them to participate in the economy and society productively, sometime in the 21st century this nation will cease to be a peaceful and prosperous democracy. The growing concern over the high social and economic cost of large numbers of disengaged and at-risk youth is also returning attention to involving students in meaningful, engaged learning (see North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 1997, or Williams 1996). Education is still held out as the best escape from poverty, but only if the class structure is not reproduced, so that poor children get the best schools, teachers and equivalents for the preschool preparation more affluent parents can give their children (Herbert Gans quoted in Goodlad 1997, pp. 62-63). In order to help everyone, regardless of social standing, become engaged in meaningful learning, we need to hear from our disengaged learners. I believe that much of the problem of unmotivated, disengaged learners grows from the lack of voice these students have in the discussion of what schools should be like. We may be making false assumptions about our unmotivated learners, based on what we think we know about our motivated learners. They are undoubtedly two different kinds of students and how they learn well is also undoubtedly different. This nostalgia for "cohesion" is interesting, but the great delusion is that all pupilsóblack and white, working class, poor, and middle-class, boys and girlsówill receive the curriculum in the same way. Actually, it will be read in different ways, according to how pupils are placed in social relationships and culture. A common curriculum, in a heterogeneous society, is not a recipe for "cohesion", but for resistance and the renewal of divisions. Since it always rests on cultural foundations of its own, it will put pupils in their places, not according to "ability", but according to how their cultural communities rank along the criteria taken as the "standard." (Richard Johnson quoted in Apple 1996, p. 33). Further, the voice of students in general, and unmotivated students specifically, is largely missing from the literature. For the last decade, I have been listening closely to what young people have to say about schools and learning. Students report frustration, and disillusionment. Their stories have taken on a disheartening pattern: ï Schools focus on teaching students to obey rules, many of which seem unimportant or different than those outside of school (not chewing gum or wearing hats, for example). In the conflict theoristís tradition, I hope to achieve three goals (Glesne & Peshkin 1992, p. 12): ï to develop critical consciousness By giving voice to an often under-recognized population, this study seeks to broaden and deepen the prevailing views surrounding the use of intrinsic motivators and the engagement of learners. By finding out what motivates disengaged learners, we may discover the means for teachers to reengage them in meaningful learning, improving the conditions (and happiness) of teachers and students alike. The study involved students and teachers on the Ram Team at Smith Middle School. Since this was a practice exercise, I selected a site of convenience. I have worked closely with the teachers at Smith Middle School for many years, and am especially close, personally and professionally, to several of the teachers on the Ram Team. I work with college students placed at that school, and the middle school students are used to seeing me both visiting teachers and doing observations. I traded the disadvantages of a convenient site for the time gained by already having a rapport with the teachers and students. Smith is a regional middle school, serving six towns in rural New England. The 550 seventh and eighth grade students are divided between five interdisciplinary teams and remain on the same team for two years. Each team has four teachers: Math, Science, Social Studies, and Language Arts. Each teacher on the Ram Team also teaches reading, current events, and activities. The students are divided into two seventh and two eighth grade classes. There is a five day rotating schedule, generated by the team. Daily, students go to exploratory (Art, Music, Foreign Cultures, Health, Careers, or Shop) and twice a week to physical education. The teachers on the team use those times for common planning and meeting about students. Classes are heterogeniously grouped. There is a heavy concentration of special needs students. Most remain in the regular classroom with pull-in assistance; a few leave certain classes for special services. All participants were informed about the study through the Informed Consent Agreement. Only those volunteering to participate were involved in the study. Volunteers were allowed withdraw from the study at any time. (See the sample informed consent form in Appendix A.) There was no risk to participants and the study went through appropriate processes for Human Subjects Review. Access was attained by meeting with the principal and the superintendent. They each signed informed consent forms. Next, I approached the team, who also signed forms. The teachers helped me identify a primary and secondary subject for the study. Each student signed informed consent forms, then had their parents sign, as well, before returning the forms to me. There were two key parts to the study: operationalizing the population and examining the studentís view of motivation. Operationalizing the population. Chronologically, the first part was a secondary emphasis of the study, focusing on operationalizing my population. I knew generally who I wanted to study (what type of student), but I have had difficulty deciding how to define that group. I wondered if I could identify my population by observing classroom behavior. I spent five hours observing in two Ram Team classrooms. Using a laptop computer, I watched the students, recording any behavior, or other observable characteristics, which might help me more rigorously define the population. I type fairly quickly, and was able to record my observations and comments almost as quickly as I noted them. This process is more thorough and accurate than making a record after conducting the observation. I may have been a minor distraction, but I didnít notice anything which would make me think that there was any significant change to student behavior. Occasionally a student would ask what I was doing, but was satisfied with the answer, "Iím practicing watching kids." Although students were briefly interested in my laptop, they were accustomed to having computers in the classroom and to having me in the classroom, and soon either ignored or accepted me. I remarked in my field notes, "In some ways, it [the laptop] gives me a way to connect with the students, because they think my computer is cool and they are surprised that I can type fast and without looking." Studentís view of motivation. The second, and major, focus of the study was exploring the underachieving studentís perceptions of what motivates him to learn well. Through my work with college students and my association with the teachers, I have come to know some of the middle school students quite well. I selected one of these students, Andy, as my primary subject, since he is a bright, and creative young man who neither does well academically (he gets mostly Cís), nor likes school much (by his own admission). I am especially close to one of the teachers on the team, and we have discussed this project extensively. Being so familiar with my research interests, she helped me identify a secondary subject, Mike. Mike also is very knowledgeable, and intelligent to talk with, but his grades are mostly Cís, and his teachers report he has great difficulty remembering to bring things to or from home, or to turn in work. There may be more objective ways to select subjects, but I was still struggling with how to operationally define my population. Each teacher separately recognized Andy and Mike as readily fitting my (rather vague) description of "students who seem fairly bright, but donít do well in school, or students for whom school doesnít seem to work," adding to my confidence in their selection as subjects. Students were interviewed separately, at school, way from other people and distractions. My prepared questions (see Appendix B) were of two types: those based on what the literature suggests are motivators (e.g.: "How do your teachers try to make school interesting to you?" or "How is school preparing you for what you want to do when you get out of school?"), and open ended questions which would let the student suggest what motivates him (e.g.: "Imagine that the State Department of Education came to you and asked you how to design courses and units so that you could really learn well, what would you tell them?" or "Whatís the one thing you would change about how your classes or how your teachers teach which would help you to learn better?") To improve my confidence in their responses, I prodded them to expand on and clarify their answers. This was especially important, since there wouldnít be time for a member check of the transcripts. Interviews were audio taped and took approximately 30 minutes. As a sample, a piece of the transcript from Mikeís interview is included in Appendix D. To help contextualize and validate what I learned from the student interviews, I shadowed Andy for a day. Using a preformatted table on my laptop, I recorded observations for five minute intervals. To gain further confidence in what I was learning from my two young subjects, I interviewed one of Andyís teachers. Mrs. Carpender is a special education teacher and instructs Andy, together with a few other students, in math, as a pull out program. I selected Mrs. Carpender for two reasons. First, Andy mentioned her as a teacher he learns well from. Second, she identified immediately and enthusiastically with the population, stating that she not only taught students like that, but that her own son was that way. I saw interviewing her as an opportunity to both learn from one of Andyís teachers, and to learn from a parent of a student in my population. Mrs. Carpenderís interview questions paralleled the student interview questions (see Appendix C). One type of question came directly from the literature on motivation (e.g.: "How do you help students prepare for their goals for the future?" or "How do you tap into student interests?"). Other questions were open ended (e.g.: "You know Iíve been observing some of your students. What motivates those students?" or "Dealing with students who donít seem interested in learning can be a real challenge. What are some of the things you try to do to reach these students?"). I used also open ended questions to explore the experiences she had with her son. Although time didnít allow for a conventional member check, I used follow-up questions to insure I understood her responses. The interview was audio taped and lasted less than an hour. Limitations of this study. "Ideally, you should stop collecting data because you have reached theoretical saturation. This means that successive examination of sources yields redundancy, and that the data you have seem complete and integrated" (Glesne & Peshkin 1992, p. 132). This was a practice exercise for a research class, and time simply did not allow for the kind of thorough job with data collecting I would have liked to do. The reader should keep in mind that these findings are based on single interviews of two students, and a teacher, and about 10 hours of classroom observation. For future studies, I would like to interview more students, and teachers; interview them more often; conduct a member check of the transcripts or findings from transcripts; and conduct more observations. Data analysis. In spite of my concerns about, the four findings above, relative to motivating underachieving and disengaged learners, were supported by the evidence gathered. I only reported a result if I could do so with confidence, that confidence coming from the result being supported by multiple sources in the study. I transcribed the interviews myself and double-checked their accuracy by reading the transcript while listening to the tape. Typographical and spelling errors were cleaned up in the observational field notes. This work was done shortly after the interviews or observations to insure that they were fresh in my mind. Each file was printed with large margins, then read multiple times, coding for my population question, what motivates students to learn, and what interferes with their learning. Lines and paragraphs received as many codes as were suggested by their content. Passages were organized by their codes and conclusions were drawn by reflectively examining patterns in the data. Author bias. Throughout analysis, I tried to be continually alert to my own biases, repeatedly asking myself, "Is this what they meant? Can I back it up from the interview transcript or from my observational field notes?" I have 13 years of classroom teaching experience and have conducted numerous classroom action research projects. I have published 5 books and at least 10 articles related to education and engaging students in meaningful learning. I have conducted numerous workshops, presented at conferences, and taught courses throughout Maine and across the country, including working with an all black, inner-city, Title I middle school in remediation (our topic was meaningful, engaged learning). I have been active in the Partnership Teacherís Network (Maineís Foxfire Network) and worked closely with James Beane, Barbara Brodhagen, and other teachers working with integrative curriculum. I am finishing my coursework for my Ed.D. and have been well trained in conducting rigorous academic research in preparation for doing my dissertation. I am a practiced, and scholarly, critical theoretician and philosopher. These qualifications illustrate my commitment to the high standards of scholarly research, theory, and philosophy, especially as it relates to engaging all students in meaningful learning. My teaching career has been dogged by the anomalies I see around me: students who get an "A" on a challenging word processor test, but come back two weeks later with a paper to write and asking me to show them how to use the word processor again; fellow teachers who have precise, easy-to-follow, step-by-step instructions for activities or projects which seem interesting to us, but students who treat them as if the directions were written in a foreign language and the task were impossible; difficult lessons I thought I had taught well by breaking tough procedures into little steps, and students who can use the steps to get correct answers, but donít understand their work and donít remember how to do it shortly thereafter. I believe these anomalies grow from the ways that schools misunderstand learning; subscribing to the banking, or transfer, model of teaching (teachers transfer their knowledge to students for use at some unspecified time in the future) instead of recognizing the importance of personal experience, schema theory, and intrinsic motivation to individual learning. Students learn when teachers use contexts for content meaningful to the learner, share authority with and give meaningful choices to the student, build on the interests or goals of the students or generate interest by posing questions, challenges, contradictions and conundrums, or create aims by doing real work or providing a real audience. Some people see no hope for unmotivated students. The conflict theorist in me fears that some people use that as an excuse not to work towards re-engaging those students in learning. Further, I see social reproduction within schools; practices which, intentionally or unintentionally, keep non-ruling social classes at an educational disadvantage. Under-served, at-risk, "learning disabled," and disengaged youth are often offered learning opportunities of a lower educational quality than some of their "peers." Students who are not given equal educational opportunity (such as by a lack of intrinsic motivators in instruction) are often blamed for their lack of learning or engagement. My experience, however, indicates that there is hope for underachieving students. Through my involvement with the Foxfire approach to teaching and learning (an approach which actively involves students in deciding how to tackle the curriculum) and Jim Beaneís model for integrative curriculum (an approach which actively involves students in designing the curriculum), I have seen first hand, and through the work of other teachers, that unmotivated students can be re-engaged in learning when they are given meaningful contexts for learning, choices and shared authority in the classroom, lessons made interesting or building on student interests, and work and content which matches student goals. Operationalizing The Population Identifying my population was easy. I knew the type of student I was interested in and could name long lists of former students that fit my mental picture. Defining the population was another matter. How could I identify subjects rigorously? When I talk with teachers about students who are bright but donít do well in school or are disengaged, or for whom school doesnít seem to work, they seem to know exactly of whom I am speaking. But I need a less haphazard method of identifying subjects. My conversations were fine for conversations, but inadequate for conducting research. I hoped that watching kids would help me operationalize the definition, or at least provide some clues to a formal definition of my population. From my field notes: Today, I continue looking at kids "turned off by school." I say that, but I'm still struggling with who my population is. Is it at risk, under achieving, disengaged kids, off task kids? Iím not sure. I'll know more when I read the literature, but I have some intuitive sense of who I'm interested in and hope that by just watching kids who are turned off by school (no matter how many good things the teachers try or what their circumstances outside of school are) that I'll get some insights into how to define, identify and operationalize my population. And later I wrote: Who is my population? Underachieving is easy: Find tests- when compared to grades, show that the kid isn't working up to potential. But is that who I am thinking about? The kid who isn't doing as well as they could be? Or am I looking for the kid who is turned off by school? Or do I mean any kid who just isn't learning? Or is that the same as underachieving kids? Or am I looking for the kid who doesn't do their work? who doesn't participate? Or am I really interested in low SES or kids from cultural groups who don't get the same kinds of legitimacy as kids from the accepted culture? Or am I interested in anyone that school doesn't seem to be working for? I have a bias: school doesn't work for some kids. Schools misunderstand learning. Even kids who do well in school are suspicious of the value of the content they work with and the activities that they do. They think that the purpose of school is getting them to obey. Am I just interested in the kid who is disruptive? Am I interested in difficult students? When I think of the Maine Youth center and the Goodwill-Hinkley School, that's certainly who I'm thinking of. Can schools better meet the needs of those kids, or is it the outside circumstances which have placed them there and there is nothing teachers can do? By defining the population am I also defining the solution? During my time in classrooms, I saw kids demonstrate behaviors which potentially could provide clues to my population. Some students were angry. They slapped desks, or made periods with a vicious stab of their pencils, or spoke sarcastically to their peers. Other students were bored, putting their heads down on desks, or reading magazines when they should have been doing other work. Some students just distanced themselves, staring off into space. One student, who I named White Shirt in my notes, seemed to be the perfect candidate. She was in both a reading class and a Social Studies class which I observed. I wrote in my notes: Depression Era songs. Kids listening, looking in all directions but listening. Some kids bouncing around. White shirt girl sitting by herself, no one even near her. Arms crossed over chest, looking at a place on the table about 30 million miles away. Corner of mouth down. Looks around the room, but no indication she's listening to the music. Is she there? One of my practicum teachers tried to get her to do some work during reading. Practicum teacher joins White Shirt and tries to get her engaged. She's holding the book but has the same unhappy expression. She's looking through it and the practicum teacher is looking with her, but not doing the work. He just sits beside her. She seems to be reading, but isn't reading out loud. The practicum teacher asks a question and White Shirt shakes her head, he chuckles, and she almost smiles, not really, but almost. Later, she is working in a small group on her Social Studies project White Shirt is in a group sitting by themselves. She's now in the same seat she was in before, with the exact same body stance, although now sheís adding a few things to the conversation, but doesn't seem happy about it. I thought that I had found a good candidate for my study. The body language, lack of involvement, and distant look all seemed to be good indicators. But I wanted to confirm my find with the teacher. During break, I asked her about White Shirt. She said that White Shirt had recently called another girl a name and was now on "sexual harassment notice" and was pouting. White Shirt was usually much more involved and generally a good student. I had struck out. Four key motivational issues emerged strongly out of the interviews with the two boys. These issues were confirmed through critical examinations of the observation field notes, and the teacher interview. The issues are learning styles; active, hands-on lessons; trusting, respectful relationships; and the gap between what schools do and what could be done. A matter of learning styles. Andy brought up on his own how different students learn differently. He said, "Some enjoy book work, others donít. Some like papers, others donít. Some like science, some donít." I asked him if there was any kind of work that he thought that most students would like doing and he said that he didnít know. One interview question addressed learning styles directly. I asked each interviewee for their reaction to a quote by Seymour Papert: I am convinced that a large proportion (though certainly not all) of cases of learning difficulty are produced by imposing on children ways of learning that go against their personal [learning] styles. Over and over again I have seen children shake off their apparent disabilities when given the opportunity to learn in a way that comes naturally to them. (Papert 1996) All three were in strong, and enthusiastic agreement with the statement. Andy said, "I think he basically hit it right on." Mike said, "That guyís smart!... I think heís smart because heís got everything right. Itís good." Mrs. Carpender said, "Thatís right, I would agree with that. Absolutely. Absolutely." In each of the three interviews, I went on to probe how schools do or donít react to different learning styles. Andy said that teachers try to make learning "fulfilling" to students by getting them involved, building on their interests, doing a variety of activities, and doing active work. Mike mentioned avoiding book work and having access to technology. Mrs. Carpender talked about building on studentsí strengths:
Doing things vs. book work. Both boys made it clear that they prefer doing activities to doing book work. Mrs. Carpender agreed, when I shared my preliminary findings with her. Andy talked about how math class was one of his favorites because they did hands on work such as working with tanagrams. Part of why he likes them is that there is more than one correct way to do things. In fact, he seems to like finding several ways to make a shape using the tanagrams. Mike was more vehement about an overreliance on book work: "[Y]ou never learn anything sitting over a book 24 hours a day, youíre just staring at it," and "Iíd rather have hands-on than looking at a book all day." The topic came up in other points in our interview, as well:
And when I asked Mike how his Math teacher made Math interesting, he said:
Relationships, trust, and respect. I had expected students to focus on intrinsic motivators closely related to content, including pace, choice, curiosity, and alignment with personal goals. Those were validated by the boys, but not as strongly as the importance of relationship, trust, and respect in the classroom. One of the most important factors for successful learning, to my two underachievers, was the student/teacher relationship. Andy talks about how teachers who nag turn him off to learning. I witnessed the Science teacher (T) dealt with an angry child (S) by fostering a positive and respectful relationship with the child. I wrote: S came in already agitated, hit desks, snapped at people. The Social Studies teacherís classroom permeates with a respectful atmosphere. From my field notes: There is a real climate in the room of respecting student input and treating kids like people. There is more of a "social responsibility" climate than an "authority" climate and I wonder if this is part of why students seem to learn well in this class. Mrs. Carpender admits that it might be one of her most important tool in reaching underachieving students.
A gap in schools providing for motivation. It was clear from talking with Andy and Mike that although some of their teachers had created respectful relationships with their students and that some teachers made sure that their teaching was activity based, many teachers were not. Both boys, for example, referred to teachers who yelled, or nagged, or bossed students. In reference to book work, recall that Mike said, "Some of the classes thatís all you do. You sit there all day doing book work, but you donít learn anything cause you just go back to find the answer and all that. And you donít learn anything." Both boys implied that both the Math teacher and the Language Arts teacher did mostly book work. Although the boys put most of their emphasis on the student teacher relationship and on doing things, both boys said that they thought it would make it easier for them to learn if schools tied in learning to studentís interests and goals, and connected learning to the "real world." These areas, however, is where I found the largest gap between what schools might do and what they are doing. In regard to preparing students for their goals, for instance, both boys could readily identify what they want to do professionally when they are done with school: Andy wants to draw, and Mike wants to be a pilot or work with computers. Both could identify only peripheral ways that schools helped them with their goals. Mike said that the schools had computers, although they didnít work right much of the time. Andy could only see that school was helping because it was getting him ready to go to college, not that it was helping him directly with his goal to become a professional artist. Mrs. Carpender says that she is aware of many of her studentsí goals and interests, but doesnít try to relate content to them. When asked about how school learning relates to the real world, Andy said it teachers you not to sass back to adults. Mike saw no connections to the real world. When I asked him, "How do you see a connection between the work that you do here and [the town you live in]?" he replied, "Basically, I donít." When I asked Mrs. Carpender, "How do you try to show students that course content is useful and important to them?" she chuckled and replied, "I donít even go there." I would like to replicate the study, being more thorough in my data collection, and seeing if the new data generate the same results. Even so, the results from these data raise some interesting issues deserving of further discussion. You Canít Judge A Book By Itís Cover The idea that I "could not judge a book by its cover" was reinforced shortly after observing White Shirt. I was observing one of my practicum teachers working with first graders in a nearby elementary school. She was trying to involve a group of five students in a story sequencing activity. They kept moving around and were easily distracted. My practicum teacher was doing a wonderful job of trying to keep them on task, using multiple classroom management strategies, but they were an extremely difficult group to work with. We both thought that they had learned nothing from the activity. We were fooled, however. All the groups got back together on the floor for a class meeting. Every one of the active, seemingly distracted students was able to explain to the rest of the class what they had done and what they had learned in the lesson. Both the practicum teacher and I were surprised. Who is engaged and who is not may not be outwardly observable. Some students who appear distracted may be doing more than one thing at once, both attending and the behavior we have label as "distracted." Other students, who we assume are on task and engaged, may simply be "going along for the ride." They do what is asked of them, but arenít really attending to the lesson. I also wondered if I did not see more behavior indicating disengaged learners because I had conducted these observations in two classrooms with wonderful teachers. The Social Studies teacher, for example, had her students involved with projects. She conducted a class meeting at the beginning and ending of class, checking on the status of the projects and helping groups decide what they needed to work on. Those meetings also proved to be a time to do some group problem solving. Students seemed engaged by their projects, working with peers, technology, and various media. Teacher/student interactions were characterized by respect and classroom discipline was handled with an equal amount of respect. Again, relationship seemed to be an important component of the classroom. So, I might not have seen many behaviors, which would point to my population, because the teachers used strategies which engaged and encouraged the students. Or, you simply canít judge a book by itís cover and short observations are not the best way to identify my population. Either way, I am back to talking with teachers and getting them to help me identify subjects. I am more confident about this option than when I started, because of how readily teachers identify with the group I describe. That group seems to be an accepted and recognized part of the school culture. The four teachers on the team all agreed that Andy and Mike fit that group. Further, Andy and Mike both readily recognized themselves as part of that group. In fact, when I first talked with Andy, I said, "Iím studying students who are fairly bright, but..." and he quickly interrupted me and finished with, "...but donít like school much." Mike did the same thing, but finished my sentence with, "...but donít do well in school." When working with a team of teachers who share students, potential subjects for further research might be identified by asking the teachers to list students who they think "are fairly bright but donít do well in school or for whom school doesnít seem to work." Lists can be compared and students who appear on multiple lists could be selected to participate. If student records are available, their grades and test scores can also be compared, looking for a discrepancy between potential and performance. I hope to learn other strategies for identifying my population when I read more of the underachieving and at-risk student literature. I was interested that, although students and teachers believed that many of the learning problems in school were because students werenít being taught in their learning style, students and teachers couldnít really tell me what being taught in their learning style would look like. Perhaps this reflects that teachers donít have mental models of what teaching might look like; our own experiences and expectations may shape what teaching strategies we see as acceptable. In our interview, Mrs. Carpender repeatedly equated hands-on learning and vocational education, for example. But the students included in their references to "doing things" or to "hands-on learning" activities like doing research projects over topics of interest (self-selected topics). In reference to her own son, Mrs. Carpender admitted that she didnít see hands-on activities as being academically oriented, although as her children get older, sheís starting to see how reading is not the only way to be smart. Identifying alternative approaches and helping teachers build mental models of those approaches may help with motivating all students to learn. Even though both boys wanted to avoid book work and would prefer doing things with their hands, that did not mean that they didnít want to do any book work. In Shop, for instance, Andy didnít mind taking notes about different kinds of batteries. I wrote in my field notes: "Why are they so well behaved in Shop?... Do they not mind doing the book work and notes because they get to do projects and activities, too?" I noticed too, that the Science and Social Studies teachers, who do a lot of projects and activities, donít do so exclusively. Again from my field notes: "ëActivity-basedí teachers donít always do activities. They still deliver content, and review, and take tests. Does it [kids being engaged] have more to do with respect and choices and doing things?" Coprocessing And Multi-tasking? Certainly students act out if they are bored or arenít taught according to their learning style. But during my observations, I reflected on if part of the problem was that inattentive students just didnít get enough activity. "Doing things" might simply be being active. I wrote in my notes: Is one of my issues how active the students are - are they turned off because they need to be more active and there just isn't enough going on? Do they need to use more of their senses and sitting doesn't do it for them? Iíve started to wonder if some students donít simply coprocess and multi-task. Maybe they do several things at once. ADD and ADHD are increasing in our schools and have been linked, not to not paying attention, but rather to paying attention to everything. Maybe ADD and ADHD is simply another version of multi-tasking. Maybe with all the fast paced media available to young people, we have a new and different generation who does more than one thing at a time. Certainly my practicum teacher, described above, had first graders who could do more than one thing at a time Teachers are trained to keep students on task. This certainly helps with keeping order in the classroom, but may be a problem for student learning, especially if some students learn best when they are multi-tasking. I commented in my field notes: How much of the noise and stuff isnít really being off task, but is just coprocessing? Are we (educators) making a mistake by killing the drive to learn because students need to be doing more than one thing at once and we only allow them to do one thing? Project-based learning, for example, may appeal to some students because it is natural to do more than one thing at a time when working on the projects. The Science teacher on the Ram Team has been thinking along these lines for some time, and admits that she thinks that is how her own mind works. During a parent conference for a boy who is often disruptive in class, she asked the student if he was also paying attention while he moved around the room. He said that he was half paying attention. The teacher and I wondered if that was because he could only pay half attention when he was doing other things, or if he only half paid attention because he was also bored. Keeping students on task raises the issue of whether students view school as a place of compliance or a place of learning. In the Introduction, I wrote that secondary students I have talked to see the purpose of school as learning to obey others. This is the concern of conflict theorists, that not all people, or groups of people, are treated equally and that some are taught to think and lead, and others are taught to comply. This study raised further questions about issues of complying and learning. For one, I learned that you canít tell if someone isnít learning because they are doing something else, nor if they are learning because they are on task. Learning is an internal process which may have few, if any, external indicators. It is hard to tell from those indicators whether students are learning or simply not being disruptive. Therefore, although teachers do need to keep an orderly and safe classroom, they must also be careful that they are not shutting down learning by how they react. Attempts to keep the class orderly may inadvertently be squelching student interests. In the shop class, students were taking notes on different kinds of batteries. Throughout the lesson, Andy showed a lot of interest and knowledge about batteries. Andy got talking with a few neighbors about shelf life. It was related, but not the specific topic being discussed at the time. His mind was diverging onto other things that he knows about batteries and was trying to share that knowledge with some of his classmates. The teacherís aid stopped him because it was off the topic. But I wonder about the message Andy got. Was he being told that the information the teacher was going over was important, or was he indirectly and inadvertently being told that his ideas were unimportant? During one of my observations, I commented in my notes, "Part of me believes that kids who drop out mentally are objecting to inappropriate uses of power??? The kids at our alternative school do better because much of the control issues are done away with." Mike repeatedly came back to having choices and some control as important conditions which help him learn. Andy started his interview hinting at compliance issues at school:
I am certain that most teachers have nothing but the best intentions for students. I worry, however, that much of what we do is driven by tradition, and not by reflecting on the ebb and flow of young minds. I am disturbed when I hear some teacher say that students need to adapt to school, when students are not in school by choice (they are there by law) and schools are supposed to be providing a service to children (not the other way around). Only through better understanding what motivates each child to learn can we provide that service to all children. Aikin, W. (1942). The story of the 8-year study. New York: Harper & Brothers.
1. Think of a good learning experience. It can be in school or out of school, but think of a time when you had an ëah-ha!í or when everything fell into place. Maybe you could finally do something you had been struggling with or something finally made sense. Maybe it was your English teacher who finally taught you how to write a good essay, or maybe it was when your grandfather taught you how to fly fish. So whether it was in school or out, think of a time that you had a really good learning experience. Briefly describe that experience to me.
1) You know Iíve been observing some of your students. What motivates those students? When do they learn well? What are their interests and goals?
4) How do you help students prepare for their goals for the future? Portion Of The Transcript Of Mikeís Interview Researcher: You know what Iím interested in is knowing more about how you think you learn well. So Iíll ask you a bunch of different kinds of questions. |
|
|
Send questions or comments to wilder@somtel.com Last updated April 25, 2001 |
Assistant Professor of Education University of Maine at Farmington 104 Main Street Farmington, ME 04938 207.778.7179 wilder@somtel.com http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~mmuir |