Is engagement really that important or should we only be concerned with our students doing what we ask them to do: read the canon, write those essays? After all, that's what our curriculum calls for, doesn't it?
Discuss.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Engaged Learning Part I
The first part of Engaged Learning grapples with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's ideas of "flow" - what it is, why it's important, how it happens. After you read this first section, reflect on the times you have experienced flow and how/why we should consider the role of flow in our teaching.
Is engagement really that important or should we only be concerned with our students doing what we ask them to do: read the canon, write those essays? After all, that's what our curriculum calls for, doesn't it?
Discuss.
Is engagement really that important or should we only be concerned with our students doing what we ask them to do: read the canon, write those essays? After all, that's what our curriculum calls for, doesn't it?
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well I have to say that I am really enjoying this so far! When he brought up 'flow' I reacted as though I had never heard of something so wonderful, even though I know full well the experience of being so totally immersed in something that it affects me deep down, where my heart and mind meet. The funny thing to me was that I had never before given thought to this as a learning exercise. It took me roughly 2.4 seconds to understand that I had simply been blind to this fact. Flow is about engagement, which does not always mean one is learning, but it certainly means that a person is connecting and processing many different things at once. Flow is being completely engaged or immersed in something, and I really see it in the classroom as feeding the inquisitive nature that all people have (in differing degrees, I suppose). Human brains always search for meaning (p 14) and teachers can use that to our advantage in the classroom by making our students search for meaning or telling stories to help make natural connections for students to engage with.
ReplyDeleteI haven't finished reading the first half of the book yet, but I was just getting excited and I couldn't wait for Christmas morning. My own experience with flow usually involves completely losing myself in a book or film, or being as far away from civilization as I can, staring at the stars and smelling the pine trees in the night air. I recently realized that I also gain immense pleasure by conversing and relating to people around me. I think this is an interesting thing, especially considering the OED definition of engagement as "to involve, to entangle." Being emotionally attached to something requires a certain degree of entanglement, whether it be a person, art, an experience, learning, etc.
Basically for me in this initial exploration of 'Engaged Learning', I find it immensely important to focus on the ways we can cause students to engage by drawing them into it using their natural tendencies inherent in the way their brains work.
It's almost like once we understand this, the kids will pretty much teach themselves, and we can just sit back and relax..............Now that Dr. Shea has stopped laughing at my last audacious statement, and hopefully successfully composed himself,sufficiently for the moment, I can continue. WE WANT OUR STUDENTS TO TEACH THEMSELVES! Or at least we want them to be be actively engaged in the learning process rather than merely spectating. I am beginning to understand some of the ways we can accomplish this. I'll report back again when I have figured everything out.
Jesse, I haven't read the entire first half of the book either, but I found your early reactions to be spot on. Your remark, "WE WANT OUR STUDENTS TO TEACH THEMSELVES" makes me really excited about the prospect of teaching. I doubt that many of the concrete things we teach our students will stick with them beyond their educational experience. To think otherwise is naïve. What will stick with students are the tools of learning that we have the opportunity to provide them. In the upcoming years I hope to teach my students inquiry based learning skills that will allow them to formulate questions, ideas and meaning about the world around them. A student will be able to teach themselves, like you so eloquently put it, only when they can evaluate the information they are given, which is everywhere these days, and form their own meaning from it. The ideal student will be able to form well thought insightful questions and understandings.
DeleteI have experienced flow every month since the last day of school in eighth grade when I realized tampons are not for throwing at awkwardly pubescent boys on the bus that think touching one will incinerate their hands. I know, I know; wrong type of “flow” but honestly that monthly delight was the first thing that came to my mind when I read this prompt. Fortunately for you guys, I do not bring up weird things for no reason; believe it or not, this activation of prior knowledge has relevance to the Engaged Learning that I’d love to discuss!
ReplyDeleteMuch of what is said in Engaged Learning seems to pivot around the idea that the best learning with the most optimal engagement occurs naturally (as Jesse already discussed in his post). It’s the Teachers’ role then to be there to help students make their own natural connections where engagement is genuine (bringing about VanDeWeghe’s “flow”) which in turn allows for the inquiry driven questions to come from genuine curiosity which then cultivates learning because things become meaningful to them on an emotional level. What better way to spark this genuine thirst for meaning than to activate students’ prior knowledge and then challenge their normal ways of thinking?! I think this is partly what VanDeWeghe is getting at in his text. This is also where menstruation comes back into play! Activating prior knowledge is a diving board before the jump into the pool where the challenging of prior knowledge forces students to submerge themselves, reflect and reevaluate before reaching the other side of pool with new meaning about a subject (and repeat!).
For example, students know about betrayal in friend groups (as I already had previous associations with the word “flow”). We should appeal to these natural understandings to get them genuinely involved from the beginning and then introduce Brutus and Caesar on the Ides of March to challenge their prior knowledge and explore more of what it means to betray a friend (from not only Shakespeare’s p.o.v., but more importantly the students’ multiple p.o.vs to be shared!). That’s where making meaning happens!
However, I have doubts. Students aren’t used to their stories, opinions, and ideas being of much value in the classroom. They are told to read the stories, they are told what their opinions about the text should be, and their ideas…well they don’t have any because no one let them see that the story has relevance to their own lives. Resilience from all kinds of students may be an issue. But I see VanDeWeghe’s views and methods for gearing towards engagement as something still plausible in our classrooms. (especially taking into account activating prior knowledge in students). Do you guys? In what ways?
First of all, Becca, congratulations on making me laugh while I imagine how uncomfortable your post made all of our male peers.
ReplyDeleteMoving on.
I'm pretty sure any freshman suffering through a dry gen-ed could vouch for the importance of engagement in the classroom. As far as I'm concerned that need is a no brainer. Our problem, as future teachers, will be twofold: 1) how to go about creating the flow talked about in the first section of VanDeWeghe's book 2) how to make that flow/engagement coexist with "rules" like the Common Core Standards or the canon.
I have no doubt that we will all find a way to conquer #1. My concern lies in #2. I have recently had the pleasure of reading through all of the common core standards for both English and history in classrooms from grades 9 to 11. Let me tell you that the opportunity for making any of that seem exciting is pretty bleak, especially when VanDeWeghe wants us to engage the "hearts and spirits" of our students.
How on Earth are we supposed to help students, "connect deeply to nature, to their lineage, or to a high power" when we have to worry about them being able to, "Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. " (common core)
Just like everything else in education, getting students engaged in learning while at the same time following the "rules" seems to be a daunting task, but one that I suspect will be well worth the effort.
Ashley,
DeleteI have to entertain myself somehow haha.
I see Common Core Standards as that annoying aunt who kisses you too hard with bright red lipstick, still picks you up by your armpits at age 21, and asks outrageous requests of you when she starts throwing back the wine coolers at Thanksgiving dinner. She is a part of your family (therefore your life) and it’s best to appease and respect her, because she’s not going anywhere anytime soon; in fact, Christmas is just around the corner. Common Core Standards are just as crusty as your aunt. The standards are dull, wordy, and hard to live with in our professional lives, but they are there with good intentions that we should try and work with instead of get discouraged by because they are there and not going anywhere soon either.
I may be too optimistic, but I feel that VanDeWeghe gives teachers a way to see the Common Core Standards come to life where engagement and flow can still happen in students while “writing informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization and analysis of content.” If we want to work with (instead of against) this standard and have engagement of the heart, spirit, and brain by our students than we have to get to know our students. What complex ideas, concepts, and information are they interested in? Isn’t this a perfect time to use portfolios of students’ work in a classroom to find out what interests them? Then we introduce Multi-genre text sets, mentor texts to explore the ideas/concepts further through reading and writing? If genuine engagement by our students is our goal and the standards are our framework that we must work with, I say we get to know our students and their genuine inquiries and then support their learning with multiple texts that can personally appeal to all students pivoting around that “complex idea or concept.” I see getting to know our students as the bridge between engagement and the Common Core.
So give your Common Core Standards a hesitant hug, some apple pie, and then once she’s outta your living room, you’re free to vent your heart out. Because we all do it.
Becca,
DeleteI honestly have yet to come across a better picture of Common Core than yours, seriously it's perfect.
I really love this conversation of connecting the text to the reality of Common Core because I feel like many times I read books like this and I get so excited and think 'yes! yes! we need flow and engagement and questioning and natural responses!!!' but then I'm slapped in the face with the bland Common Core and, like Ashley, I wonder how on earth can we make this dream a reality?
I agree that getting to know each student is a great stepping stone to bridging the gap between engagement and Common Core, but I honestly don't see it as enough. Especially if we think about the amount of students we'll each have. Is it really possible to get to know each of them, individually, at a deep enough level to guarantee they are receiving this engagement of heart, spirit, and brain when we have to think about standardized testing and scores? This is honestly what scares me the most when I read texts like this, because I get so excited but then reality gives me a nice wake up call and I wonder if its possible. These are all probably just the giant worries of a scared pre-student teaching college kid, but I can't shake them.
Flow sounds like a concept that intersects with any worthwhile endeavor. One particular phrase in Csikszentmihalyi's definition I thought was integral to the idea was in regards to the action. He described it as, "a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile." This outlines all of the contributing factors to flow, the individual, the activity and meaningfulness. The facilitation of flow rests on an individual making a voluntary effort. As educators, the voluntary effort must be made by the student, but teachers have the important role in the other factors that contribute to flow. Ultimately the voluntary effort may be tied to a multitude of things like self-motivation, efficacy or personal meaning making on the students part. As a future teacher I want to figure out lessons and teaching methods that allow students to develop personal meaning to the books and concepts I present them.
ReplyDeleteAshley, I think you have a valid concern regarding the application of the common core standards. My co-op for next year actually advised me to connect every lesson along with every activity involved into the lesson to as many standards as I can. He even suggested physically copying the standard onto anything given to the students. According to him this practice had two benefits. First, it provided detailed accounts of how we incorporated the CCSS into our classroom for anyone who wanted proof. Accounting for Common Core Standards in our lessons is something we have to learn how to do. Oversight of our classroom is something we have to manage and by effectively integrating the Common Core we can make our lives easier as teachers. Furthermore, my co-op thought that providing Common Core standards on his activities that he gave to his students gave them a better understanding of why they were doing an activity. He said that kids appreciate being given the standards because it provides further direction and a basis for teaching methods and activities. From my understanding of my co-op’s advice, we don’t teach the standards. Instead, we teach our students writing and literature, and demonstrate to them and others how our teaching emphasized the expected standards.
As far as flow, I don’t believe we should let standards dictate how we interact with our students or how we challenge them to make meaningful connections to the material.
Ashley, I agree with your concerns. Our common core standards, important though they are, do not mix well with the idea of "flow." Let's be honest; phrasings such as "CC.1.2.11-12.A: Determine and analyze the relationship between two or more central ideas of a text, including the development and interaction of the central ideas; provide an objective summary of the text" do not lend themselves to connecting with the hearts and minds of our students without effort. The lessons I remember most vividly from high school seemed less like legal mumbo-jumbo that I needed to check off a list to get through public school and more like an exciting link between the acquisition of knowledge and my own life. Each of my favorite moments in school allowed me to make connections to my own experiences or found ways to actively stimulate my body and brain. I was engaged when asked to connect literature to my own life, write my own chapters in an author’s style, direct and act in a section of the play we were studying, put a character on trial in a court scenario, go outside to read romantic poetry as a break from the classroom, or create a grave rubbing before writing an elegiac poem. Giving students the common core standards with every assignment helps them to understand that they aren’t just doing busy work, but they need help in finding ways to connect those standards to their own lives and ways to stimulate learning beyond the traditional lecture setting. Some of my teachers understood that, and those are the lessons I remember best.
ReplyDeleteNow that I’ve gone through quite a bit of schooling, I’ve discovered ways to make those synaptic connections between the material and my experiences. However, I vividly remember a time I was unable to do so. Learning was nowhere near as exciting as it is now. Quite a bit of information just didn’t stick. If we can find ways to guide our students to making those connections, flow will come much more readily. [Becca, by the way, I feel strange talking about flow this way after your story. Thanks for that.] I used to think of modeling in a vague sense of demonstrating a process that needs to be done. We as teachers need to remember that “[w]hen we model our own work habits for students, we show, not the ways of getting work done, but our ways. We engage students momentarily in our ways of meeting the challenges of daily academic life, our problem-solving strategies, our ways of being strategic about our work” (53). We can also exhibit our ways of connecting what we’re learning to our emotional history. Model how to make learning personal for us, and perhaps the students will begin to think of their own connections. Just as people always tend to think of more stories about their past as a friend tells something similar, our students can bridge from literature and our stories to their own. As VanDeWeghe points out, we do not just want to make connections for our students (35). We do want to model ways to make those connections. By using the “multiple memory pathways,” the information is more likely to be exciting (and stick)! I must admit, I was hesitant when I read that one of the main sections of our text was about “engaging hearts.” I’ve never been one for corny, mushy teaching metaphors. But it’s true—by engaging hearts we’ll engage minds.
I don't know if you read the preface to Engaged Learning, but VanDeWeghe touches on one of the points you brought up in your post during an observation with a teacher he was mentoring. (If you haven't read it, he writes about a situation he observed where student attentiveness increased when the teacher brought real-life stories/connections into a dry math lesson.) Like you (and probably everyone else), I find that the only experiences I remember from school are the ones that I was able to mold into my personal history and produce connections with, even if it meant just helping me to understand a small part of the whole. The earlier we encourage students to connect with the material, the more that initial connection can grow into aiding them in formulating thoughts and questions beyond the basic level that will help them bridge the gap between understanding and relevance.
DeleteAlso, I like that you mentioned how connecting the minds and hearts (I'm not one for cheesy teaching metaphors either, so I had a hard time not rolling my eyes as I was first reading this chapter) does not go without effort. Up to this point we have only been able to discuss pedagogical strategies; this semester will be the first time (at least in my opinion) that I feel like I will be putting any effort into the incorporating what we have learned into a real-life classroom and I don't think I even realize yet just how much effort that will be. I wish I could go revisit my past teachers and thank them for all of the time and energy they spent making lesson plans for a snot-nosed kid like me because I know it's going to be hard to see our hard work go unnoticed by our students some days.
This was fun to read after the Postman reading because it continues on with the similar theme. For students to really learn, they must be involved in their learning. Each text points out the importance of students enjoying the learning process, whether they are directing it with their own questions, or directing it with their own interests. This really hit home when I read the quote “If learners are not making meaning or not searching to make meaning, they are not, by definition, truly learning.” This should be in the back of all of our minds as we teach and grapple with the incorporating Common Core Standards into our lessons, but still finding the best ways to engage students. The Common Core Standards might be a pain, but it’s our job to help our students find meaning, or at least try to find meaning in our classroom. If we can find a way to make the standards seem relevant to our students, then we have done what might possibly be the most complicated part of our job.
ReplyDeleteI especially enjoyed the ideas of unity. As English teachers I think that we have the ability to teach life lessons more than any other subject area. Through literature our students can learn about history, about good vs. bad, about growing up, and about hardships. Overall, no matter what we may be teaching, the ultimate “big story” can be how to live a fulfilling life as a good person, and hopefully each student can find relevance on how to improve as a human being in many different aspects of literature. Through literature we have the unique ability to look into others’ lives that we would otherwise never be able to see or experience, and there is a special learning process that is connected to this. Engaging hearts is something that not every subject can do to the extent that English can.
Kelsey,
DeleteI love the quote that you gave. I think that CCSS are obviously important, but I think they can be hidden - maybe not hidden, but safely nestled, within meaningful and fun lessons that students truly relate to and enjoy. They are not a cause for us to panic, but rather a challenge to be taken for the good of our students. I don't necessarily think that they need to be brought forefront of the students' attention.
As far as your thoughts on English being the "life-subject," I completely agree. As long as reading and writing are involved, a lot of the content can be shifted to better suit our students.
Flow is one of those things that I experience when I am complete immersed in my work, whether it is totally scrubbing down my entire house, keeping my nose to the grindstone and looking up only when I can see my own reflection in the front of the stainless steel dishwasher, or dulling my pencil in frantically writing a poem that seems to come out of nowhere, or realizing that I stayed up until 3:23 in the morning finishing the last few chapters of the “world’s greatest book.” The act itself is not a chore, but just sort of… takes over. In classes that I really loved and excelled in in high school, I did a few projects for which I stayed up late adding details to a diorama that I could have stopped putting together two hours before and still have gotten an A. In those instances, I took what the teacher gave me and reached further, teaching myself about the topic little by little, project by project because I was in love with what I was learning.
ReplyDeleteSure, I might be one of those weird people who asks questions when every other student in the room is begging me to shut up so we can leave class early. I am genuinely curious about pretty much everything because I have learned that teaching yourself is so rewarding. I think it is incredibly important to set our students up for those rare flow states so that we can teach and share with them that same lesson – that teaching yourself is so rewarding: Continue learning at all costs. Scaffolding, teaching our students and setting them up for what they need to learn only to let them stand on their own when they are truly ready, is something that needs to be taken seriously in the classroom. Students will put more effort in and feel much more invested in their education if they have a choice, if they feel that they accomplished the task instead of feeling like the teacher is spoon feeding them. VanDeWeghe tells us, “The most engaging learning involves sufficient challenge at just the right level of skill” (8). We should set them up for the puzzle and give them an example of how to solve it, not just let them sit beside it while we put all the pieces in. It might take patience as a teacher, but the wait is worth it. We can encourage this by keeping them interested. Another thing that influences my flow state is how emotionally invested I am, as the book talks about in chapter two. I feel like most students are interested in and love the projects that allow them to pick something to research or write about that they can relate to. The answer lies in CHOICE.
Another way the book talks about facilitating flow is to constantly give immediate feedback to the students about their performance, like the concept of washback (10). This goes hand in hand with another concept discussed in chapter two about learned helplessness. It is important for teachers to use praise and feedback correctly when students are doing things right on their own so that we can downplay the helplessness and make students more apt to be happier and therefore reach a state of flow and to eventually learn on their own. I often talk to my modeling and acting students about their self-fulfilling prophecy. It all boils down to this: whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right. If we help students to stay positive, we help them to reevaluate their self-fulfilling prophecy and eliminate helplessness. More independence and more positive feelings about learning equal a greater likelihood of flow – a teacher’s ultimate goal in the classroom.
I think that fearing the Common Core Standards is an appropriate response when facing the challenge of balancing a student's voluntary hunger for learning with the dry language of state-mandated standards. That fear is rooted in the recognition that these standards, heavy with unsettling challenges, may become a barricade between our students and their potential (especially if they are actually supposed to revel in their learning). That concern for students who we have not even been introduced to yet is a quality (albeit rather early) of an attentive, successful teacher. As teachers, we are the middle-man between the standards and our students; it is imperative that we interpret the standards with VanDeWeghe's concept of flow in mind so that we can appease what is mandatory while also creating a classroom where students have the possibility to thrive. However, like Kerri mentioned, this does not go without effort. As novices in education, I think one of my lingering concerns is not yet realizing the degree of that effort.
ReplyDeleteNarrowing focus on one tangible approach to creating flow, and perhaps a good place to start, would be to remind or reveal - for those students who have (sadly) never had a teacher who attempted to bridge connections - the relevancy of what they are learning. That will look differently for each student (and here I am echoing the need to know your students that many of you have previously stated), but that individualism must be present in order to produce an equal opportunity for each student to take responsibility in their learning. While I find my solace in reading and writing, which I hope that a handful of my students share with me, it is dangerous (and stupid) to develop my pedagogy based on that. Most of my students will not experience flow with reading and writing like I do, but will require differentiation in instruction so that I may touch upon what they connect with. I recognize the bond between flow and student success, but I question the plausibility of casting those lines and catching all of my students when many of them have found complacency submerged under the surface, accustomed to the feeling of drowning because previous attempts to break the surface have proven to be exhausting. I know that it is my responsibility to extend my hand to those students anyway - and part of me feels bad for suggesting that there are students who prefer their failure to attempts at success - but having experience working with adolescents, some of them really do seem to take comfort in their inadequacy. I recognize that I am taking this discussion down another more pessimistic path, but I'll end my post by just saying that I am eager to see how this concept would work in real-life classroom and how my co-op approaches this idea.
To me flow is the times I'm sitting with a notebook and pen in hand, scribbling furiously to get my thoughts onto paper as they run from my mind, the times I hit that perfect rhythm in a hard workout or race, where I focus only on my breathing and the way my foot hits the ground. Those are moments where I am completely immersed in what I am doing, to the point that I am oblivious to what is gong on around me. Flow is what we should be aiming to achieve in our students. Now don't misunderstand me. I don't mean to say that I want my students tuned out in oblivion during class. On the contrary, I want them completely immersed in what we as a class are doing so that they can gleam as much from the lesson as possible.
ReplyDeleteAs the text goes into, engagement happens not only when the brain is activated but when the heart is tapped into as well. I want to get my students excited about learning because this engagement will add to and enhance their learning. Rather than copying notes from a lecture I intend to make the content relevant to them so that their hearts as well as their minds are activated and it can push them towards that state of flow.
I really do believe engagement is that important, and not just because the textbook told me so. I know this from personal experience as as student; when we were given writing prompts that excited me in English class I was always more thrilled to work and gave the class more of my attention than I ever would if I was in physics class. Yes, some of students' engagement levels will be inherent to their personal interests, but as a teacher I will make it my mission to attempt to interest as much of the class as I possibly I can, if not all of it. Sure, it is easy to limit ourselves as teachers to what the curriculum calls for, to teach and leave the learning up to the students, but I do not believe that is what a great teacher would do. If I am to teach, I do not want to be an adequate teacher; I will strive to be a great teacher.
I think anyone would agree with you in your last paragraph about engagement - students are much more excited to complete assignments that put them in the spotlight of attention rather than those that did not. Students need to feel that their work is worthwhile, and engagement does just that. Just think back to all the assignments we've had to do in the past - were we more excited to write a personal narrative about ourselves, or a five paragraph theme of a book that's been beat to death over the past fifty years? The narrative of course, because the kids are engaged and interested in what they have to write! That doesn't just apply to English, but all other subjects as well. The more interest and realization of importance the students have in their work, the more likely we'll see that natural flow of performance.
DeleteTo me, flow is having the ability to sit down and have thoughts come naturally - none of the fluff or filler thought, but actual emotion and feeling. It's being able to truly let go and show off your personality, talents or whatever else that may be. It's kind of like writing in a journal about your day - no specific prompt, but just ranting and writing until your pen runs out of ink or you have nothing else to say. The key here is natural, not anything by force.
ReplyDeleteEngagement with the students beyond having them follow the curriculum is incredibly important, especially with everything changing with the Common Core standards. As teachers, if we just throw material at kids and test them on it, those kids aren't going to learn anything. They're simply going to memorize the material, regurgitate it for a test and move on with their lives. We've all been there - let's just admit it. Unless we really show these students why the lessons are important in their outside and personal worlds, we aren't going to get anywhere. If we can somehow show them that importance, the students are much more likely to take the lessons with them onto their later educational years.
But that's why the Common Core and all the standardization worries me - in the students' eyes, there is no reason for them to take all those tests except to get funding for the school. At least, that's how I viewed it in grade school. The more standardization that shows up in the schools, the more zombie-like the students will become. I'm all for making sure students are reaching some kind of requirement, but there has to be a different way other than just multiple choice tests with an essay thrown in there. There is no way to show that "flow" and see what students are really taking out of our lessons.
When I think about "flow", reading instantly comes to mind. Ever since I was a toddler, my grandma read books for me every night. Most of them made me lost in thought and stopped me from falling asleep. I wanted to go to bed just to listen to the end of the story. I would close my eyes and picture everything... And then dream about it. Then, I started reading myself. Some books, especially the ones required for school, didn't affect me as much. I would read the assigned material and go on with my day. But there were books carefully picked by my grandma that I read way past bedtime on a school night. I remember getting a flu once and having to stay home, that's when I started reading Harry Potter. I didn't want to get better just to be able to finish the book.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I can't really recall the sense of "flow" in a school setting. And it scares me, what if my students won't be able to experience "flow" in my classroom? How can I ensure they all will be engaged and learning?
Flow in the context of a classroom can have a variety of different meanings. When I think of flow, I think of how well my lessons transition into one another. I think of connections to real life experiences and bridging the gab between subjects, particularly in high school. I also think of curriculum choices-how do the books/non-fiction texts/articles/photographs/cartoons/graphic novels/documentaries/films I use in class reflect what I want the learner to take away from a particular lesson or unit?
ReplyDeleteSomething that I deem important when creating the concept of flow in a classroom is eliminating extraneous materials or assignments. There should be no busy work. Everything we do in my classroom should have an obvious purpose and connection to the overarching theme of the lesson or unit. I remember getting so many (excuse the language) bullsh-t assignments for homework that I would have to complete because they were graded, but had no relevance whatsoever to what we were discussing in class. It made me respect my teacher less, and it frustrated me because I knew I had other things to work on that were actually worth my time.
Another important factor is planning, which is something I am hoping to become better at. Students can tell when you don't have it all together, and it totally disrupts their learning zen. If you have to stop what you're doing to rummage through your classroom closet in order to find the documentary you want to show, kids check out and start talking. If you're digging for papers they need to start an assignment, only to find out you've left them all at home, kids start to take you less seriously and your control over the classroom is lessened. So, being organized and planning ahead is essential to flow within the classroom.
On the other hand, flow also encompasses knowing when it's okay to allow for a break in the plan. When a student makes a connection that you had never even thought of before, it's okay to go with it and let your lesson take a different direction. This may be one of the more difficult things to learn as a new teacher. I think a few years of experience are necessary when it comes to allowing for unforeseen learning connections to manifest while balancing material that needs to be covered. But, we'll get there!
The common core will be a hurdle for sparking engagement, no doubt...but luckily, we as English teachers have a huge advantage: interpretation and subjectivity. There are limitless ways for us to help students connect with literature, or even connect with text and writing as a whole. Common core standards, I have noticed, use very broad language for what students must be able to do, and if we're confident that creative writing and just making English personal in general...if we're confident that these things will prepare children more than just memorizing obtuse facts about language, the common core shouldn't keep us awake at night. If we're sharpening critical thinking with engaging, groundbreaking tasks, students should be able to reach benchmarks unwittingly.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, engagement to me is all about making things personal, making things more interesting and creative. One lesson idea I have is a multimedia memoir, either of the student themselves or someone they know with a story to tell. That way, language is less about reading old dusty books (much as I like em) and more directly about self-exploration and discovy. After that, hell, the dusty old tomes might not be so intimidating or boring.
After reading Part 1 of Engaged Learning, I felt that most people would agree with this view of learning and the teaching techniques it demands from educators. Perhaps the connection of English classrooms to the self, the world, and the human experience is more obvious than in any other discipline because we place so much importance on the growth of the emotional and intellectual aspects of a person. This goes hand in hand with teachers who strive to create environments where engaged learning happens.
ReplyDeleteOne of the parts of the chapter that I especially liked discussed the areas of the learning over which teachers do have influence. These include defining the goals and purpose of each activity and unit, giving immediate and relevant feedback, and maintaining a balance between task difficultly and skill set. Two areas that only students have influence over are their levels of concentration and enjoyment. This empowered me because it shows that as teachers we do hold so much influence and responsibility in how we establish our classroom atmosphere, discussions, trust level, and relatability to the real world.
Another phrase that hit me was "if there is no meaning, there is no learning." That is to say, only when we ascribe value to something does it resonate and stick with us. State standards and tests come to mind immediately. However, it also made me realize that perhaps we are contributing to some of the "disease" of testing if we only complain and give a negative regard to these very real expectations to which we're held. Please do not assume that I am a fan of standardized tests, but I do have to say that most of the Common Core standards are not foreign or opposing concepts when compared to the goals most teachers have for their lessons and students. I think the true fault lies in the method of assessment used to evaluate otherwise worthy and valuable skill sets. To go back to my first point, when we talk negatively or sigh and roll our eyes when discussing standardized tests in front of our students, we are giving them reason to not value these standards and tests, and are thus taking the meaning out of them. Despite the issues of standardized tests, I do believe that teachers should be held responsible for the important job they have of educating future generations (perhaps not at the cost of their job, mind you, but at least with a plan of action to help grow and develop a teacher who may not be meeting expectations). Ultimately, don't toss standards out the window because they conjure up unpleasant feelings; perhaps their target isn't too far from ours.
And now back to Engaged Learning:
I think this book reveals what has gradually been happening to schools through the years: a separation of school and soul. I take it as a challenge to bring student inquires and musings back into the classroom, especially the English classroom, and show them past examples of others who dealt with the same issues and new ways for them to creatively navigate their own lives through writing and discussion.
That's all for now folks!