Engagement and Learning

So, I'm planning to start posting more about my Professional Growth plan here.  I'm going to do some research (reading and studying, as well as "action-research") about engagement and its links to learning.

I hope the links are obvious.  What I'm after are the specific ways that I can promote engagement for my students - who are, of course, specific people.

The reading list is long and somewhat difficult.  I'm planning to include the challenging theoretical research on engagement as well.  I'd like to really make this count, and I think a superficial reading based on secondary interpretation of research findings will not suffice.  I enjoy the challenge of reading difficult theoretical text.  I'm finding more and more that I'm reading "beneath" myself.  Which, of course, can be a lot of fun.  But I don't want my overdeveloped literacy skills (from years of grad school) to lapse.  And I might as well use them for something useful.

So here's an initial list of sources on engagement.  For this list, I'm focusing on books.  And I'm not going to include full bibliographical information yet.  I don't think it's necessary in this context.  And, at this point, it's supposed to be a weird list.  My goal isn't reading what's "expected" (or only that), but to read as widely as I can.

• Schlechty, Philip.  Engaging Students.
• Bugess, Dave.  Teach Like a Pirate.
• Marzano, Robert et al.  The Highly Engaged Classroom.
• McGonigal, Jane.  Reality is Broken.
• Stager and Martinez.  Invent to Learn.
• Zhao, Yong.  World-Class Learners.
• Schmoker, Mike.  Focus.
• Pink, Daniel.  Drive and To Sell is Human.
• Darling-Hammond, Linda et al.  Powerful Learning.
• Keene, Ellen Oliver.  To Understand.
• Beers and Probst.  Notice and Note.
• Lehrer, Jonah.  Imagine.
• Wagner, Tony.  Creating Innovators.
• Robinson, Ken.  The Element.
• Maiers, Angela.  Passion-Driven Classroom.
• Ferlazzo, Larry.  Self-Driven Learning.
• Hattie, Doug.  Visible Learning for Teachers.
• Lemov, Doug.  Teach like a Champion.
• Vygotsky, L.S.  Mind in Society.
• Loomans.  The Laughing Classroom.
• Willis.  Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student learning.
• Stronge.  Qualities of Effective Teachers.
• Archer.  Explicit Instruction.
• Whitaker.  What Great Teachers Do Differently.
• Bomer.  Time for Meaning.
• Wilhelm.  You Gotta Be the Book.
• Hillocks.  Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice.  
• Gambrell et al.  Best Practices in Literacy Instruction.
• Calkins et al.  Pathways to the Common Core.
• Gardner.  The Unschooled Mind.
• Himmele and Himmele.  Total Participation Techniques.  
• Layne.  Igniting a Passion for Reading.  
• Kittle.  Book Love.
• Tovani.  So What do they Really Know?
• Dewey.  How We Think.
• National Research Council.  How People Learn.
• Wilhelm.  Engaging Readers and Writers with Inquiry.
• Anderson.  10 things Every Writer Needs to Know.
• Echevarria.  Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners.
• Miller.  The Book Whisperer.
• Wormeli.  Fair Isn't Always Equal and Summarization in Any Subject.
• Wilhelm.  Action Strategies for Deepening Comprehension.
• Diller.  Practice with Purpose.
• Farr.  Teaching as Leadership.
• Copeland.  Socratic Circles.
• Erickson.  Concept-Based Curriculum.
• Winebrenner.  Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom.
• Kingore.  Differentiation.
• Kagan.  Kagan Cooperative Learning.
• Saphier and Gower.  The Skillful Teacher.  

I won't promise that I'm reading everything on the list.  I hope to consult many or most of these, and then some.  I'm hoping that I'm researching widely and deeply.  And some of these I've already read and already used.  But I think going back through my shelves and digging up books that I used to think about more often is a good habit, and will help me try many different things and think critically about their effectiveness.

My Summer Reading Goals

I've been thinking about some kind of "process" post about what I'm doing as a summer reader - I'm a firm believer in writing about process, since I don't think I'll ever have a "finished" statement about things like teaching writing or conducting effective research (or teaching others to do so).  So, in that spirit, I thought I would write about my thinking about my summer reading goals, as they stand, right now.  Instead of waiting for them to be "finished."  Because even the goals are being revised, as we speak.  

So, here are some of my personal summer reading objectives:

1. Read around several key professional (education) topics, such as 
1. Engagement, when and why it occurs, how to improve/increase it in the classroom
2. Teaching writing
3. Teaching reading
4. Non-traditional or "outside-the-box" teaching methods that encourage engagement and learning
5. Best practice or most-effective methods of teaching 
2. Read 50 "kid" books (YA and MG)
3. Blog usefully about most of what I read
4. Tweet about all of the above
5. Synthesize/synergize all of the above as much as possible

I'm only three books toward Goal 2, but I've never read that many.  My highest achievement thus far has been 32, and that was with a little "cheating" (like reading a lot of Babymouse books).  I hope that my blogs have been useful so far, but not many posts lately have been about my summer reading.  I hope to work on that.  I am trying to average about one post a day, though, and that's a lot of fun.  

I think the only goal that needs further explanation, really, is Goal 5.  I hope that it's clear that many of  the topics under Goal 1 overlap (teaching reading in an engaging and effective way, for example).  Regardless of the actual overlap among the books, though, I remain one person, with one classroom.  I'm developing plans to use Genius Hour, for example, which fits 1-4, 1-1, and 1-5 without too much stretching.  It might take some careful design to apply this strategy to 1-2 and 1-3.  Can Genius Hour be used to effectively teach reading and writing?  I think so.  I hope to try, anyway.  

Perhaps I should also clarify "read around."  I don't think that I need to read an entire 500-page book about brain science to learn something from that book, or to use what I learn.  I know from experience that persisting through a difficult and time-consuming book doesn't automatically make that book more useful.  Don't get me wrong - I finish a lot of books - but I no longer feel obliged to finish every book I start, especially when the book is dull, not especially useful, redundant, or covers something I think I already know.  

So the first part of "read around" is not feeling required to finish every book I start reading.  The second part is to start/skim/peruse as many different books about the topic as I can.  Let me give you an example.  Related to the topic of engagement, I am currently reading Self-Driven Learning by Larry Ferlazzo, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnemann, Reality is Broken by Jane McGonigal, and The Anti-Education Era by James Paul Gee.  I recently finished Teach Like a Pirate by Dave Burgess and Visible Learning for Teachers by Doug Hattie, and I have copies of Teach Like a Champion, Book Love, Crafting Digital Writing, Notice and Note, The Book Whisperer, and Research-Based Strategies to Ignite Student Learning.  I am picking up a copy of Invent to Learn, as well.  

There's no way I'm going to read all of these.  I probably wouldn't want to.  I might finish two or three of these titles this summer.  Finishing 10 professional books in a summer would be an ambitious goal for me.  Pulling chunks from half or more of these books is reasonable.  In fact, I think that reading a little of one book, then a little of another with related ideas, can be more interesting and more useful.  Since I'm the boss of my own learning with this, and since I think this is the best strategy for what I need, based on what resources are available, that's the way I'm going to do it.  

I hope to share some of these weird idea webs soon.  

 

More about Middle-School Guided Reading

I was able to observe another middle-school (7th grade) teacher using the Guided Reading structure, and we talked a little bit about methods that are effective for this age group.  

I should point out at this point that I don't want to pretend to be the best at using Guided Reading.  There are things about the strategy that I don't like, and that I struggle with.  It takes a significant amount of prep time to start, for example.  If it weren't so effective, and if the kids didn't enjoy the change so much, I might not use it at all.  But those are powerful motivators for teachers.  I also struggle with re-using old curriculum.  I like to try new things, sometimes to a fault, and I sometimes abandon old ideas (like old stations) merely because I think I have a better idea.  So, I end up experimenting a lot, instead of using "tried-and-true" stations.  

I'm thinking through the last part of the year, now that we're in "testing mode."  I think that Guided Reading is a nice, engaging strategy for the "home stretch," and there are a lot of fun things kids can do as part of this that are still effective and yield results.  But I also really want to push more writing.  I haven't done enough Writing Workshop this year, and I'm hoping to play around with ways to combine the two.  

So, as I dig through my professional resources (I found a book by Katie Wood Ray that I'm going to look through for new perspectives on workshop), and I refine some of the things that I've already done, I'm looking at how to make the most of Guided Reading.  

The teacher that I observed didn't do traditional "rotations."  Instead of a "you go here at this time" rotation, as I've seen in elementary school, or the "get your materials and return to your seat to work on this at this time" structure that I usually use, she establishes the stations and then allows kids to work on the various stations at their own pace.  The only timed and structured station, really, is the teacher station.  There is a fixed group of kids ("fixed" as in set by the teacher, according to a specific purpose) who meet with the teacher for a reasonable chunk of time (15-20 minutes or so), then are dismissed to continue working on stations.  

There are positives and negatives to this way of doing things:

POSITIVE - 

• Kids have more flexibility to follow their interests and work at their own pace.  (More choice) 
• Less troublesome if kids are absent or pulled out for something
• Less set-up time for rotations and stations (don't have to create a huge, detailed chart and keep posted)
• Can create an incentive to finish early through engaging "early finishers" activities, like games or "free time" activities

NEGATIVE - 

• Need to monitor stations and "sharing" to avoid crowding or "I was there first!" disputes
• Less immediate accountability for off-task or misbehaving kids who might not want to do all of the stations 
• Less control over personality clashes and kids who might work better away from each other

Most of the negatives involve management issues.  It's much easier to lose control in this kind of an environment, so a teacher who attempts this approach will have to feel comfortable trusting his/her kids with this kind of freedom.  It allows choice, but it also might allow conflict over popular choices.  It would also take some teaching and some control over conflict resolution.  During the observation I was doing, for example, some kids were watching videos on a portable DVD player.  There just wasn't enough room for everyone to watch at the same time.  Similarly, there was an iPod with a song and some headphones that kids were supposed to listen to (and summarize).  There just weren't enough headphones for everyone to do this at once.  It helps when all the stations are reasonably "cool," of course.  But I can still see that it takes teaching - or some fabulous students, though I think some teaching would have to be involved - to get kids to understand this kind of procedure.  

I like this format, and I like the kind of feedback it provides me about the stations and about the students.  I think that kids enjoy having a say in what goes into the stations, and I really think it might be fun to invite kids to contribute to a "music" station, for example, since I know so little about contemporary music (though I'm trying).  

I'll be thinking about this over the next few weeks, and I'll try to post some more about how I'm melding (love the Star Trek reference) Writing Workshop and Guided Reading.  

Engagement and Instant Feedback

So, the other day, I was giving a test and had students who were finished early and waiting for others. Not an uncommon situation, I suppose. Typically, I have several options available for these students, but a new option presented itself. I was chatting with a student - who happens to be a student who struggles to persist through difficult tasks, who can be challenging to motivate, and so on - and we talked briefly about the school alarm system.

 Our school - like many - has a security system that is activated when the building is empty. One component of this system is motion detectors. On the wall in the hall outside my classroom is a small rectangular box, perhaps three inches tall and two inches wide. There is a small red light on the box, and it lights up when it detects motion, even when the security system is not turned on.

 I told this student about the red light, and he didn't believe me. We stepped into the hall to investigate. "See, right there - that little box on the wall." He was moving, and the light was on. "Now freeze, and the light will go off." There happened to be no one else in the hall, so when he and I stopped moving, the light went off.

 "Cool!" he said. I think that was the first time I had heard undisguised interest from this student. He went back into the classroom and told a friend. They both went back into the hall, and the first student started explaining it to the second. In a few minutes, most of my class was standing in the hall, watching the light turn on when they moved, and trying to "sneak" or "ninja walk" the fifteen feet to the wall without setting off the light.

I was fascinated, so I let this continue. Almost my entire class was engaged and focused on this little red light. After 15 minutes, a few showed signs of being bored with the game, but most of the students appeared ready to play this game with the little red light indefinitely.

I thought about why these students were so interested in something so - for lack of a better word - dumb. I was pretty sure that I could be more interesting than a red light turning on and off. But why didn't they always automatically listen to me the same way?

 I think this was a nice reminder of the value of instant feedback. The kind of instant feedback that makes video games so much fun. They did - or did not do - something, and the light told them what it thought, clearly and quickly. Their sneaking was easily and readily judged good or bad. They could learn and adjust quickly. And, it was challenging. Most students couldn't move more than a few feet before they set off the red light. One student claimed to have been able to do it, though I didn't witness the success. So it wasn't an impossible or unattainable goal. It quickly turned into a brilliantly designed, yet accidental, psychological test. These kids were motivated.

 So, the ultimate question is this: how can I make my classroom more like that little red light?

Research = Work?

So I was listening to Car Talk, the NPR show with the two old mechanics from the Boston area who take phone calls about car trouble.  They were talking to a woman from Palo Alto who was having problems with a noise in her tire.  Eventually, they asked her what she did for a living.  She answered, "I'm a graduate student."  Of course, they asked what she studied, and she responded, "Italian literature." They tried to make that into pleasant "small talk," and something came up about "at least you get to go to Italy."  She said, "Yes, for research," and one of the hosts said, "sounds like a lot of work."

My first thought was, "what the heck are you talking about?"

My second thought was, "you must not be someone who enjoys research."

I was putting myself in her place.  I was thinking about what it feels like, to finally dig into the topic to try to create your own original work, your own take on the issues that stir your field.  To step forward and assume the mantle of the professional scholar, diving into the topic to discover and explain something new.  An intellectual astronaut, as it were.  If you are the kind of person who is lucky enough to have found a field that you can be passionate about, this is a dream come true.  This is akin to meeting your childhood hero and getting his/her autograph and then sitting down for dinner with that person.  It's a chance to drive your dream car, go on a date with your dream girl/boy, sleep in your dream house, and so on.  It's a GOOD thing, not work.  It's a chance to play in the "big show," the audition for the lead on Broadway, and so on.  It's not a bad thing.  It's not work.

There's lots of ways to think about this.  I know that not everyone likes research, and not everyone gets a chance or a reason to conduct research on a topic that they love.  But it's the kind of skill that everyone needs and that everyone wants.  It might be work to do research for something you hate, but hopefully a graduate student is not someone who hates to do research.  Hopefully, it's the opposite.

My point is this: research doesn't have to be work.  It doesn't have to be painful and soul-crushing.

That's not to say that it isn't difficult or sometimes time-consuming or even expensive (like flying to Italy).  But my own research experience was not really work, or not always work.  True, there were a lot of difficult nights with piles of dense, seemingly irrelevant text to wade through.  But there were great moments and the pleasure of discovery.  There were times when I could make sense of things, and I could explain something new.  That's a great feeling.  I feel like I learned something and made something, and that has helped me in ways that are hard to explain sometimes.  Perhaps it's like the kid who can be successful in sports, so he/she feels more confident off the playing field because of success on it.  I don't know if that's adequate.  But research is a chance to make something new, building things from the knowledge and experience of others.  It's important now because of the vast opportunity to conduct research via the Internet and other electronic tools.

This is an ongoing concern, and I don't think I've adequately expressed it here.  I'm going to think about the research process and post again when I'm ready to try to explain it again.

"Mindless Progressivism"

While I was thinking about how I want to digest the 36 principles listed below, I came upon this comment on James Paul Gee's site:


"It surprises me how often educators who know better lapse back into “mindless progressivism”, a theory that children learn best by participation and immersion in interest-driven activities.  People can participate in an interest-driven group and still gain few of the higher-value skills that participation in the group leads others to attain.  That is why an emphasis on production is important.  Learning to produce the knowledge or outcomes an interest-driven group is devoted to leads to higher-order and meta-level thinking skills.  If only a few are producers and most are consumers, then a group is divided into a small number of “priests” (insiders with “special” knowledge and skills) and the “laity” (followers who use language, knowledge, and tools they do not understand deeply and cannot transform for specific contexts of use)."


To re-state (if necessary): putting kids into groups based on interest doesn't guarantee learning, or at least not the higher-level stuff that teachers really want.  Teachers need to emphasize the creation of some kind of appropriate product (the students need to make something).  If only a few students move into this way of thinking, instead of all, then the group can be divided and less effective overall.  


I take this as a caution.  I'm on the cusp of pushing students into groups, hopefully with an appropriate emphasis on a product.  But that doesn't guarantee learning all by itself.  


Thanks, Jim.    

Drive by Daniel Pink

Someone suggested this book to me a few weeks ago, and then someone else - I don't remember who in either case - suggested it as well, so I thought it was officially my job to read it.  So I did.

It's not written for teachers, and there are a number of places where it's obvious that the author (Pink) is not sympathetic to or informed about the interests of educators.  But that doesn't mean that it can't be useful.

It's mostly interested in explaining what motivates people, and the essential insight is that carrot-stick motivation strategies don't work.  Paying people to do good things can sometimes make them not want to do good things anymore.  It can also hurt creativity.  According to the majority of studies, extrinsic rewards can limit and even damage creativity.

I think most teachers already know that extrinsic rewards can be bad for intellectual work.  Any kind of payment sends the message that the work isn't rewarding enough in itself, that it requires some kind of outside motivator to be worth doing.

The most useful part of the book, in my opinion, is the way that it breaks down intrinsic motivation into three essential components - so-called Motivation 3.0 -

1. Autonomy - acting with choice of method and means to achieve desired results.  For this to be effective, people need autonomy over task (what they do), time (when they do it), technique (how they do it), and team (who they work with).  
2. Mastery - seeking skill or fluency, as a result of appropriate challenges (not too difficult, not too easy).  There are three "laws" of mastery - it is a mindset (a way of thinking about being good at something), it is a "pain" (it takes effort and hard work), and it is an asymptote (it is something that people can work toward but never achieve).  
3. Purpose - some sense of an end that is important or worth working toward other than money or extrinsic reward.  

I think that most teachers already knew a lot of this.  I think that some of the thinking and the language around this helped clarify the "why" for me, but I don't think that this stuff is as groundbreaking as it wants to pretend.  The challenge, of course, is implementing these things in a consistent, responsible way in the classroom.  Giving middle school students the chance to choose who they work with can easily go wrong.  But what an incentive, and a powerful tool, if it is done right!  

Now, the goal is to get through some of the material I have on inquiry.