Choice, Motivation and Higher-Level Thinking

Tim Patterson
EPSY 1530
July 27, 2009
The Effects of Choice on Motivation and Higher Level Thinking
Introduction
The assumption that students cannot be given choice in the direction of their schoolwork is one that is widely accepted. To be sure there are advocates for offering students more choice, but the pendulum has swung far to the other extreme as policy makers and the public embraces standards and accountability. When pressed, educators will explain how they allow students to choice the topics of their papers or what book to read. In this age of high stakes testing and teacher proof curriculum, few educators have the time or freedom to offer choice. While schools of education (at least the one that I know best), write visions, missions and philosophies that reflect choice centered learning; they cannot or have not been able to effect the realities of student choice that most school settings present. This leaves educators in the position of abandoning student choice (if they ever sought to offer it) as their pay and jobs increasingly count on the performance of their students on standard tests.
It is my assertion that student choice is one of the key factors that we need to include in education to increase student motivation and to help them develop higher-level thinking. As I explore these issues in a select setting, I will look for aspects of choice that can be generalized from a high choice explorative summer school into an elementary classroom.
Lewis & Clark Summer Institute
The Lewis & Clark Summer Institute (LCSI) is a private summer that has offered classes to kindergarten through eight grade students to children of St. Louis for twenty-eight years. Throughout it's history, it's founder and director, Pat Dugan, has put choice at the center of the school. Teachers offer courses based on their special interests. Each student graduating the 3rd through 8th grade (the younger students participate in the Young Explorers program) chooses three 1.5-hour classes from an offering of twenty or more classes. If a chosen class is not available, Dugan works hard to find another class that the student is interested in. Dugan also works hard to help parents to understand that their child needs to make their own choices about what class to take. This choice is a key element in creating the explorative learning that Lewis & Clark's name implies.
When presented with the opportunity to teach at LCSI I proposed two course offerings. The first would be a beginning programming class. Initially I thought that I would base the class on two free programs, MIT's Scratch and Alice. Both of these programming environments offered graphic user interfaces that were designed with young users in mind. As the first day of class arrived it because clear that Alice would not be stable enough for students to work with, the frustration of the persistent bugs would not be outweighed by the power of 3D graphics that it offered where Scratch falls short with 2D. The second course, HTML, Blogs, and Wikis (I wish I had the insight to call it the more simple Web 2.0 when I wrote the course description), would engage students in the new web paradigm of collaboration through the use of email, chat, blogs, wikis, website builders and other tools that are part of the web movement from publisher as content controller to user as collaborator in providing web content. I picked up Creative Writing for the second session when another teacher could not teach it. While I feel that I am doing well with the course, I believe that the matching of teachers to courses that they did not design and choose is one place where the school falls short at times. With a choice centered model, it is important that teachers come to each course with a deep understanding of and passion for the subject. I knew that my passion for programming and web design would serve as a model for enjoyment for explorative learning that would not otherwise be present.
As this is my first summer at LCSI, I knew from the beginning that I would be learning and adjusting my teaching throughout the two three-week sessions. I knew that the traditional model for teaching would not work well in this environment, as students would not be receptive to direct instruction. Anything that I offered for students to work with would have to meet a simple criteria, “why should I want to do this rather than X other entertainment media?” While I would need teaching objectives and methods, these would not be means to “teach them” as direct targets of a set of specific information, rather the information would have to be “offered” to them. While I did not know this at the time, these ideas would later be reinforced by negative reports of students being bored with a class that were presented as lectures and another that did not offer enough interesting content for the full 1.5 hours.
It is important to explain the future plans of Pat Dugan and LCSI before I go much further. For a few years now LCI has been planning to start a charter school. It is our hopes that we can find a way to offer the unique learning environment found at LCI’s summer school in a general public school setting. As a founding teacher and a believer in explorative models, this research is prudent and practical, much more than a paper, assignment or grade.
My Teaching Model
As with most of my endeavors, my planning for these classes involved considering ideas and discussing them with others. Before any other element, I came up with ideas for bits of information that I picked up along the way in my own informal education. I saw these as “geek” skills, things that geeks understand about technology that applies in a wide range of situations to help solve problems. These include games, videos about technology and the opportunity to make a network cable. I would always have these ready to fill time as needed.
As I tried to find a balance between the chaos that critics point to in many constructivist environments and teacher focused, high structure classes that would drive students to boredom and stifle innovation (read: motivation and creativity), I remembered a workshop model that learned about in Reading and Writing as Cognitive Processes, taught by Dick Koblitz. I had the opportunity to visit Mr. Koblitz's multi-age classroom to see this model in practice as part of literacy time. Koblitz started with group time as he read a poem and pointed out language structures in the content of genuine text. Students joined in, sharing their ideas and insights about the poem. Then he let students work individually or with partners reading. He asked them one by one what they would be reading or writing and whom they would be working with before sending them on their way. When Koblitz discussed this in class at Webster, he made the point that he was intentional about how he did this, as it was both a social contract committing students to focus on specific work and an opportunity to match students with others in ways that he thought beneficial. During this work time, he would call students over to have one-on-one conferences with him. Self directed students would not need this as often, allowing him to spend more time with struggling students. After 30-45 minutes the class would meet together again, where students would share their insights on the work. This allows for reinforcement of desired behavior and skills as Koblitz commented on student work. This is the model I would attempt to use for my classes.
With a model and some extras worked out, I decided that I would present the core tools of each class as they became relevant to the student's projects.
Much of this would be ordered intuitively with one skill needed before another could be presented in a meaningful way. This became the fuzzy area that I have struggled with as I will explain later.
Data and Observation Methods
As I had access to students throughout the two three-week sessions, I have extensive informal data with a variety of students in three classes. Additionally with the two initial classes I would be able to make adjustments and see how they lead to different results. Through continuous discussions with students, I found that most students chose my classes because they had an interest in technology in general. Many of them took at least one other technology class, either my other class or an animation class offered by another teacher. Over the two sessions, three students transferred out, one of which reported that his mother made his class choices. An additional three students transferred into my course, with mixed results, I believe due to limited choice or a greater desire to leave another class than to choose mine.
The formal data that I collected was far from ideal. I surveyed fewer than half of my students with questions designed to be accurately self-reported by students while offering insight into student choice and technology background. I did not have a control group of students who did not choose my class or the means for truly getting at the extent to which each student made choices vs. parent directed choices. I wonder whether students understand course descriptions enough to understand what a each course is about. I also would like to measure the student's exposure to choice and explorative learning models as I notice that many students don't know how to act responsibly when given choice.
My measurements of outcomes, while informally adequate, could benefit from a more formal rubric. My informal means for measuring motivation is time focused on task. While this means for measuring motivation could be skewed by learning style, student disability, or any number of things including the factors that I would like to measure formally (mentioned above), I believe that the workshop model addresses student differences by allowing for additional one-on-one time with select students. Higher-level thinking can be measured by examining the range and depth of tools used in each student project. Higher levels would be defined by the ability to combine a number of tools together to solve complex student-defined problems. My evidence in these areas is purely anectdotal, and outside observation or video recording classes to review later then applying a rubric would greatly improve the quality of my data.
Insights and Adjustments
For the most part the insights and adjustments that I made over the course of the two sessions fall into the categories of content and structural issues. During the planning of my classes I knew that students would have to bring their ideas to offer as content for their projects. This was a challenge that I did not always handle well. I often found that students did not know that they wanted to do after I presented new tools. For the web design class I came to understand that writing skills had a lot to do with this content challenge. If students did not have practice in writing or if I did not find a way to help them to find a voice, they would not have meaningful content to put on their websites. One of the first adjustments I made was to have students sit with paper, pencil and clipboards away from their computers while they brainstormed lists of topics that they were interested in. Often the focus would not last long and I tried to include more refocusings as often as it was bearable. Fortunately in a general school environment other curricular areas will often provide content for sites and projects. Any science topic could become a multi-page wiki entry for a class to split up and author.
Content for programming was not as difficult to come by, but was troubling in different ways. As a gamer myself, my perspective on how to tap the full potential of MIT’s Scratch was in game development. In the first session this single-minded focus that left out the five other explicate areas defined by MIT: animation, simulation, music, slide show, and movie, led to far too many minutes of “research” time spent playing browser games. The second session yielded a wider range of projects as I ban the playing of browser games in the daily free time at the end of class and exposed students to a wider range of projects in all six of the areas. While the skills used to make Scratch projects is not as generally applied, I believe that it can find a place in future classrooms where it can be used as an interactive multi-media presentation tool that allows students to present their knowledge of a topic in many ways.
Even as I made adjustments as I went and between sessions, I feel that structure is still an area that I need to work on. This is where the critiques of constructivism ring true. While I understand the workshop model and I think it works, I often failed to follow through. While I still think that I should be ready to adjust teaching daily, I need to have a clear plan for assessing what instruction students need on a given day. I failed to follow through with the check in and group discussion parts of the workshop model. These elements help students to focus their choice in a way that leads to successful projects. Successful projects in turn feed motivation to try more challenging projects. While the idea of offering tools as they became relevant to students needed a bit of adjusting. I think that addressing the individual’s inquiry as they faced the problem is the most important thing to do, and I that is what I most often did. To capture the energy, I think that I should have had the student discuss the solution that we developed and the tools used in the group time following work time.
One piece of structure that I did successfully add was a bulletin board to track ideas and items in a chronological fission. Each board had a column on the bulletin board that included the fixed events during the class; workshop time, work time, cleanup time and free time. Then as students or myself came up with ideas to focus on we put them on a piece of paper and tacked them up at the bottom of the board. As I planned for each class I took these ideas along with areas that I knew I wanted to cover and arranged them within the schedule. As each student saw that his or her idea was addressed, they understand that their interests and problems are important to me. I think that this concept can be central to the way I run a general classroom as it shows the student’s place in choosing the direction of the class.
Conclusion
While many have not been able to find a place for choice in the current educational environment, I am determined and perhaps uniquely positioned to explore the possibilities. The LCSI model starts with choice and adds academics. Few teachers have a chance to consider teaching in an environment like this. Contrary to critics, I have find that my students choose academics when presented with structure and content in mind. I do not have a definitive solution, for making this kind of choice work in general public classrooms, but I am certainly on the way.

Google Chrome OS Video

I tried to post this comment about one of many Google Chrome OS videos. For some reason it would not post so I am parking it here for now:

You have to catch up on your Google I/O to know what they are really doing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aJAaGZIvk
It is not about the OS, it is about the browser. In Google's world that is all the user needs. They can give it away for free because Google makes 90% of its money on Ad Words. As long as users search they will make their money. With revenue flowing they give employees time to play. It is called “20% Time”. fun+work=inovation

Should Schools Embrace Technology

I wrote this as a 2 page reflection for class, but realized when it got over five pages that it belonged here where I write about things that I think most about. When I read two sides of this issue presented through two articles, I realized as so often is the case that both sides had a point. The Yes side spoke of the potential of technology and the No side spoke of wasted money. Within lies my reasoning on the pitfalls that lead the No side to turn away and a model for responsible and effective use of technology in schools.

Introduction
The role of technology in schools has been has been challenged for years. Frank Smith raised concerns about the possible impact of videos on teaching as far back as the 1970 (I cannot recall the article that he raises this concern in) and I am sure he is not the first. As we moved from chalkboard to quill, led pencil to ink pen, the introduction of mimeograph and the transition to photocopiers, film to VCR, the list continues. I do not know how much debate these changes in technology brought about, but I think it is safe to say that the changes brought about by the availability and accessibility of computers since the invention of the personal computer have by far out weight all other changes.

Defining the Issue
I use the term Technology Programs intentionally for a few reasons. One is to remind us that we should have a well thought out plan, a program, that computers fit into. We have to know when, why and how we are going to use them. We have to use them with purpose. The word “program” as used interchangeably with software is also intentional. It is notable that I do not endorse software. Most of what we need for classroom use is free or web based. With new directions of Web 2.0 we should be moving from the publisher model, where only high skilled users made content, to the collaborative model where our we participate in creating content. Every time I typed (and you now read) the more clunky “Technology Program” I intended these meanings.
To effectively discuss this topic I will use two questions to help define the topic. About each technology program we must ask:
1.Do we adopt this technology so students will be exposed to the technology that is used in society as a whole?
2.Do we adopt this technology because it helps in teaching more effectively or efficiently? (time and money are acceptable criteria)
When we ask this of earlier technology we find that the technology, especially writing technologies would meet the criteria of the first question because they were used widely in society. Many of the more recent technology uses can be debated under the second question. For example: When is it efficient to make copies for students and when does the cost of those copies outweigh the value? I think that there are hints about the answer to computer use in the ways that we have answered this question for copiers in a range of ways in different school settings.
It is my belief that for the most part technology programs that can pass the test of the first question are the ones that should be accepted and they are the ones that have been more effective. Technology programs that are adopted because they meet the criteria of the second question are often expensive, too focused to be valuable, supported by questionable research and easily sold to school districts who like the idea of easy, silver bullet solutions.

Everyone is using it
The first group of programs that I think is no brainers are the ones that everyone in our society already uses on a daily basis. Word processing is a no brainer, with web browsing close behind. The important thing to realize about both of these programs is that the basics have not changed for about 10 years. This means that we don’t have to upgrade our computers to use them (though we still need to upgrade out teachers). While older computers do have some troubles with image/video rich websites, media can often be presented to the class as a whole on slightly more advanced teacher computers. Spread sheets certainly have a place and should be used in math and science to record data and perform large scale math. PowerPoint is intentionally left out here. While widely used, is just a fad that is being replaced with more flexible and available presentation media.
Enhancing participation
With the competitive pricing of Electronic Whiteboards, projectors and “clickers” (small student held devices that allow immediate student feedback), the potential of technology programs that improve students participation is increasing. In the hands of skilled teachers these tools seem to add great value. But beware, low skilled and disinterested teachers prove these flashy technology to often be little more than flash. Also on the level of technology programs that allow teachers to work with the class as a whole, I think that district wide subscriptions to video databases like united streaming can prove valuable.
Note that I do not care for tailor made technology programs that focus on specific subjects and are paid for on a per seat basis. These programs have many flaws, most notably that they are costly. They are also used inconstantly, as teachers have to find the time and accept the value of each one. Finally I do not see these programs as capable of encouraging and assessing the higher levels of Depth of Knowledge that we need to increase in our schools.

“Invest in the tech not the technology”
For me the bottom line way that schools can get the most out of technology is to invest in the tech not the technology. In my experience schools do not pay competitive wages when it comes to hireling technology staff. If they shifted money away from new shiny “silver bullet” solutions and instead sought out high quality staff, they may discover what I have: some of the best solutions are free or very cheap. It is well known that school districts have lots of money to spend. Businesses have been founded and expanded the acquisition of big school district contracts. With more knowledgeable techs, school districts would have the ability to assess the value of technology programs.
These techs, should be educated as teachers and geeks so they will be able to do more than keep technology working, they will be able to understand how technology programs can work to improve educational goals. They should spend time in classrooms working with teachers, helping them to integrate technology programs into their lessons. These techs will choose cheaper solutions as they use their adaptive technology skills to fit and even modify technology programs to meet classroom needs.

Integrating Technology Programs
The ways that technology programs best improve education are when students use technology that they see in the rest of their lives in classroom settings. Too often we are behind the curve or afraid to go there. Why not use chatting to give students a reason to learn typing skills and get students talking about school? Why not use cameras and gps devices that are built into students' phones as part of field based projects? Why shouldn't we use browser games as models to encourage students to engage in programing? Why don't we use blogs to get students writing? Website building to give them a way to present their work to the world?
While we are at it, we can help them to learn ethical and wise use. Instead of being afraid of of them going off course on our watch, while they send pictures to each other leading to criminal prosecution. (think about the number of cases involving teens sending pictures of each other nude; pornography) Where was their schools? I am sure they were thankfully saying, “not on our watch!” instead we should take charge, lead the way and help them to learn life skills. Do some character education that is more than a word of the month.
With such programs we can redirect even more of our resources away from text books and into teacher salaries as we research and write, teachers and students, our texts. Perhaps some of that money would go to more periodicals and online subscriptions to scholarly resources. I see a new role for a library/research-tech too. The outsourcing of curriculum, texts, and technology (in terms of purchasing of custom software) is not needed in this model.

Teaching Programs
We also need to improve our educational technology programs to include more application of technology. As they are now, they are laughed at by employers as they prepare you for little more than teaching a technology class.