Creating
Room for a Child’s Presence: Finding the Middle
Ground
(alias) The Utilization of Independent
Study Skills for Nine to Twelve Year Olds
An Exploratory Study of Intrinsic Motivation
For Learning
David Lafond and Mary Anne Purdy
Vancouver, British Columbia
“We want E.T.! We want E.T.!”
Imagine
this enthusiastic chant coming from a classroom near
you. Is it a demand for the Steven Spielberg film of
the same name? In this case, the students are clamouring
for something more alien than you might think. They
are insistent about working on their class projects,
projects of their choice, we have dubbed exploratory
time, or E.T. for short. The students have embraced
this project wholeheartedly, and when allotted class
time for this project is cut back, they are visibly
disappointed and verbal in their demands for more E.T.
time.
Something
strange and wonderful has happened in our classrooms
by allowing our students a choice in their learning,
something that has positively affected their motivation
to learn and has them excited and involved in the learning
process. And even though each student is working on
an individual project, the overall classroom environment
is one of increased communication and co-operation,
with meaningful conversations taking place between
student and teacher, and student to student.
By asking
the question, “What if students were given a choice
in what they learn?” we have discovered a new way of
looking at curriculum delivery that allows us to powerfully
engage our students in learning. For us, E.T. has initiated
an investigation of curriculum content and delivery
and how it links to the intrinsic motivation of our
students to learn.
Day
in the Life…
Teachers
of today enter into dynamic classroom environments.
They engage in interactions with children from many
different socio-economic backgrounds. No longer is
the nuclear family the norm. The myriad of family structures
has created new challenges for both educational institutions
and society. “Young people live in a severely fractured
world—families are less stable, divorce has become
common place, neighbourhoods tend to be in flux and
less community-minded, schools are less personal and
more competitive, and peer groups set up conflicting
loyalties” (van Manen 1991, 2).
At best,
teachers will be able to utilize each student’s diversity,
background knowledge, and interests to provide an enriched
learning experience. At worst, an implied lack of trust
by government-prescribed curriculum and standardized
testing brings teachers’ accountability into question.
Teachers are forced to abandon acknowledging and building
upon the diversity in the classroom in order to implement
prescribed objectives and performance criteria which “threatens
to turn teaching into a mechanical process of training
students to pass tests, while unnecessarily restricting
teachers’ freedom to open their students’ minds” (Osborne
1999, 41).
Curricular
Tug of War
On the
surface, today’s typical classroom may look homogeneous,
but in reality students have a wide range of abilities
and needs, which the prescribed curriculum does not
allow for or recognize. Aoki (1993, 261) believes that
one of the dangers of adhering only to the curriculum-as-planned
is that
[the
students’] uniqueness disappears into the shadow when
they are spoken of in prosaic abstract language of
the external curriculum planners who are in a sense,
condemned to plan for faceless people, students shorn
of their uniqueness or teachers who become generalized
entities often defined in terms of performance roles.
Palmer
(1999, 23) agrees that, “one of the greatest sins in
education is reductionism, the destruction of otherness
that occurs when we try to cram everything we study
into categories that we are comfortable with, ignoring
data, or writers, or voices, or simple facts that don’t
fit into our box.”
In the
classroom, we must work “outside the box” and make
space in the curriculum for each student’s unique experiences,
qualities and talents. When we, as teachers, are able
to see children in a variety of different situations,
this opens the door for a number of possibilities. “In
terms of pedagogy we must learn to discern those moments
when children in subtle, quiet ways are ‘opening’ their
gifts in front of us because how we receive them will
determine whether or not the child will learn to find
herself in the world creatively” (Smith 1999, 146).
The
struggles classroom teachers face delivering the curriculum
is addressed by Aoki (1993, 260-261) when he discusses
the difficulty the practicing teacher has with the
multiplicity of curricula, living in the middle of
balancing the curriculum-as planned which is the required
curriculum, geared towards the end-means, and the curriculum-as-lived,
the other curriculum which varies from student to student,
depending upon their experiences and the reality of
their own lives. Grumet (1996, 16), supports Aoki’s
argument by stating, “What is basic to education is
neither the system that surrounds us nor the situation
of each individual’s lived experience. What is basic
to education is the relation between the two.”
Unfortunately,
today this relationship seems to be heavily weighted
toward the system (curriculum-as-planned) rather than
the individual’s own experience (curriculum-as-lived). “When
teachers and children talk of meaningful educational
experiences, these experiences often seem to occur
on the margin or outside of the daily curriculum experiences
of the classroom.” (van Manen 1991, 4)
What
seems to matter to children are their learning experiences
outside of the prescribed curriculum. This idea that
the most meaningful learning experiences happen outside
the classroom is indicated through the words of a student
in a graduate teacher education class who stated, “If
I had to choose between keeping all of my school learning
or keeping all of my outside of school learning, I
would not hesitate a moment: goodbye, school learning” (Wolk
2001, 56).
The
Student Voice in Curriculum
“To
learn in meaningful ways, students need to be fully
and emotionally invested in their work” (Sylwester
1994, 60-65). Steven Wolk (2001, 56) talks of “owning
my learning” which for him means that “This learning
has a personal connection to who I am: my interests,
cultures, life experiences, opinions, ideas, questions
and curiosities.” This has led him to propose providing
one hour of classroom time a day for students to explore
their interests in a way that will both complement
the curriculum and help create lifelong learners.
Grace
(1999, 49), working on a project with preservice teachers
to design courses of study on students’ interests with
elementary school children, has given up “teacher’s
manuals, the mandates, the curriculum guides, the list
of state-approved learning outcomes, and a nebulous
factory mentality in favor of engaging students in
the simple process of learning how to learn.” She observes
that “[t]he results are remarkable learning experiences
only because the students themselves made important
decisions about what to study, how to study it, and
how to demonstrate to others what they had learned;
they were engaged in a student-generated curriculum” (1999,49).
In our
review of the literature, we found few empirical studies
on exploration or choice outside of the science and
mathematics disciplines. Secondly, “there is virtually
no research base on either the effects of choice on
learning or how teachers implement it” (Flowerday and
Schraw 2000, 2). However, there is much research on
intrinsic motivation, which provides insight into the
link between learning, motivation and engaging students
in meaningful curricular content.
Intrinsic
Motivation and Learning
When
looking at the research on giving students choice in
what they learn, Flowerday and Schraw (2000, 2) believe
that although “there is little research on choice,
there is an extensive literature that examines the
role of controlling environments.” They cite a number
of scholars (Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990;
Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Miserandino, 1996; Ryan,
Connell, & Grolnick, 1992) who suggest that “controlling
environments reduce a sense of personal autonomy and
intrinsic motivation and result in decreased learning
and poorer attitudes about school. Teachers indicated
that choice resulted in increased student engagement,
sense of control and motivation.”
“When
our learning is driven through intrinsic motivation,
we own that learning. It comes from within us and is
deeply purposeful” (Wolk 2001, 57) There is an overwhelming
wealth of research material on intrinsic motivation
and its connection to children and learning. Ryan and
Connell (1989) found “Results supported the view that
the orientation of motivation in school can markedly
affect the quality of experience, learning and adjustment
of children and young adults within the academic domain” (Boggiano
and Pittman 1992, 185).
In looking
at schools, motivation, and development, Ryan, Connell
and Grolnick (1992) have looked at the factors that
influence internalizing intrinsic behaviour and “first
and foremost is the degree of autonomy afforded the
child” (Boggiano and Pittman 1992, 180). Zuckerman,
Porac, Lathin, Smith and Deci (1978) found that if
children had the opportunity to make choices it would
enhance intrinsic motivation.
Evidence
from studies on intrinsic motivation and learning indicates
that intrinsically motivated activity tends to be associated
with greater creativity and cognitive flexibility (Amabile
1983; Koestner et al. 1984; McGraw and McCullers 1979)
and increased emotional tone and self esteem (Garbarino
1975; Ryan 1982). Intrinsic motivation leads to “an
interest in learning, a valuing of education and a
confidence in their (students’) own capacities and
attributes” and contributes to a theory of self determination
put forth by Deci and Ryan (1985, 1991).
How
Student Choice Affects the Classroom Teacher
So what happens when teachers allow students a voice
in developing curriculum? Do the benefits of allowing
our students to pursue their own interests outweigh
the risks? Staying within the boundaries of the prescribed
curriculum puts us, as teachers, at the risk of becoming
cynical or entering into a state of “gloominess” (Bollnow
1989, 21). Hong suggests that teachers can slip too
easily into
maintenance
teaching when school days are fragmented and move at
the pace of fast-food eateries rather than four-star
restaurants, teachers have no time in which to build
the provocative experiences that nurture richly layered
learning-experiences that provide teachers with the
continuing intellectual and creative challenges that
allow them to be professional educators rather than
short-order cooks. (2001, 1)
In contrast,
when we decided to allow students to develop their
own interests, and slowed our own curriculum-driven
pace to engage as teacher-researchers, we learned that
the rewards are great, not only for our students, but
for ourselves as well.
Our
School Community
The
participants for this study were nine to twelve year
old students in our Grade Five, Six and Seven classrooms,
roughly half of them boys, half of them girls. They
come from a culturally diverse population, with a wide
range of socio-economic situations. There are approximately
310 students attending this elementary school, located
on the eastern boundary of Vancouver. Skytrain expansion
provides the area with high density, rapid growth,
including a Neighbourhood House and a retail and residential
development. The school grounds include two adventure
playgrounds, a black top with two basketball courts,
and two playing fields (all-weather and grass).
The
school site consists of seven enclosed classrooms,
two open area settings, library, computer lab, activity
room, and full gym facility. Parents are involved in
a variety of volunteer activities in our school and,
as part of an elected executive and attending monthly
parent advisory committee (P.A.C.) meetings, have a
voice in the school’s activities.
Setting
the Scene for Exploratory Time
The
Grade Five, Six and Seven students in both of our classes
were involved in individually researching a topic of
their choice and then presenting what they had learned
to the rest of the class. We called this project Exploratory
Time, or E.T. Data for this study was collected in
three ways. Verbal responses were written down from
interviews conducted with six students from each class,
roughly half of them boys, half of them girls, who
were selected based on first term report card results:
two students exceeding expectations, two students meeting
expectations, two students not yet meeting expectations.
Other
methods of data collection included exit slips from
all fifty eight students throughout the independent
study process, as well as field notes taken by the
co-investigators during this time. A number of steps
were taken to triangulate the data. First, the interview
data was coded. Exit slips were then analyzed and compared
to the interview data and themes emerged. Finally,
field notes were reviewed to substantiate themes and
interpretations.
What
happens when children are given a choice in what
they learn?
For
this research project we assumed teacher directed activities
as geared more to the curriculum-as-planned, whereas
we surmised student choice ties more closely into the
curriculum-as-lived. We wanted to look at what happens
when teachers allow students a voice in developing
curriculum.
At the
start of our study, the Grade Five, Six and Seven participants
were asked whether they would rather choose their own
topic to learn or have the teacher choose it. An overwhelming
number of students said they would prefer to pick their
own topic to study. When the twelve selected participants
were later interviewed about their classroom experiences,
some stated that they were required to learn subject
matter in which they had little interest or control.
The following are some student responses when asked
how they feel when teachers choose what students have
to learn:
“When
teachers choose, I feel caged in.”
“Teachers
talking the entire time, [when I am] copying down
everything that the teacher writes, I feel invisible.”
“When
learning, I have more ideas and I don’t get a chance
to say a thing.”
Feelings
of detachment from the learning process, negativity,
and frustration seem to emerge from these student statements.
In contrast, the majority of students during the interviews
suggested that having a choice was a preferred way
to learn, as indicated by the following responses:
“Kids
know what’s cool, they know what they like...teachers
have different ideas.”
“Before,
I never wanted to come to school because it was boring,
but now I feel like coming to school.”
“I
learn best when I get to choose.”
When
students were involved in making decisions about what
they were learning, they seemed more motivated and
positive about the learning experience.
Interview
responses, exit slips and field notes were categorized
into four themes, which emerged when students chose
their own topics of study. These were motivation, class
environment, learning and barriers to choice.
Motivation
Did
choice affect motivation? Being allowed to choose their
own topic seemed to positively affect most students’ desire
to learn. There was evidence of intrinsic motivation
when a number of students said they became more interested
in what they were doing at school when given a choice
in learning, as indicated by the comment, “I want to
come to school 24-7!” Another student who was genuinely
interested in the topic of study and wanted to learn
for personal reasons said, “My motivation was just
learning about what I wanted to learn.” When asked
if there was any time they didn’t want to work on the
project, most students stated no, that it was fun to
have a choice. Comments included:
“It
was fun and exciting.”
“I wanted to work on it all the time because it was fun to finally learn
what I want to learn.”
“It
kepted my interest.”
“This
was a fun project and I said to myself I can do this.”
Other
students were motivated extrinsically by stating that
they wanted to please their teacher, peers, and parents.
Also, getting a good mark was another important factor
that affected their motivation. As one student explained, “My
motivation for good marks was the greatest.” Generally
speaking, these extrinsic motivation comments came
from the female Grade Seven students who were exceeding
expectations, and this may show some insight into how
pleasing adult expectations over time plays a role
in motivation.
Classroom
Environment
When
students were asked what made them unhappy at school,
a large number expressed various examples of bullying,
such as exclusion, teasing, name calling, and being
picked on, all contributing to a negative experience
at school. Therefore, it was very gratifying to observe
the development of an inclusive, friendly classroom
environment during our research, which eventually permeated
the classroom, even when not doing Exploratory Time.
Both
teacher-researchers noted relationships developing
between participants who normally would not interact
with each other and this was confirmed with comments
such as, “M. and A. were not really friends before,
but they were sharing information on the Internet” and “you
get to know your classmates.” There was much social
learning taking place during Exploratory Time, with
participants showing a genuine interest in what their
peers were studying. Comments included, “T. gave me
ideas about reptiles,” and “classmates help out, listen
when you are presenting.”
This
contrasts with what one participant believes is what
normally happens, “during usual projects, they [students]
don’t ask everyone to help.” Most final presentations
included not only the presenter but also a number of
classmates who helped. Final presentations included
a mock trial, game shows, dances, role plays, and sports
tournaments which involved the whole group.
During
the interviews, “supportive” was a term used frequently
by the students to describe the classroom environment
and how it changed during Exploratory Time. As the
following comments indicate, the classroom environment
became more collaborative:
“Friends were sitting together, talking, not giving answers, just supporting
them.”
“Kids
support, oh that’s cool! I should have picked that
topic.”
“Some
of them [classmates] will encourage you, they try
to help.”
While
participants were encouraged to make decisions on how
to use their time, what to research, and how to organize
it into a presentation with minimum teacher intervention,
a final observation was the strong relationships that
developed between student and teacher, as more one-on-one
time was used to discuss each project. Both teacher-researchers
found they had the time to talk with each participant
about their individual project. This created a more
in-depth level of communication and awareness, allowing
both students and teachers to develop a stronger understanding
of each other. Relationships changed in the classroom
as teachers sat and listened to what was really important
to students.
Outside
the classroom, family relationships also evolved. B.
is a student who has always struggled with schoolwork,
rarely submitting an assignment on time. At home, the
relationship with his father has been strained because
of his learning difficulties. The first weekend after
the project was assigned, he went home and discussed
it with his family. They proceeded to find a topic,
crocodiles, and knew that they had an extended family
member living in Australia near a crocodile farm. B.
used the Internet, the local library, and family resources
to complete his project.
On Monday
morning, (four days after the project was assigned)
B. returned from his weekend smiling. When asked how
his weekend had been, he said, “Great!” He has finished
his project after working with his family. He proceeded
to show me his notes, pictures, display board, and
edited video with music. B.’s whole family had helped,
including his dad.
Learning
Our
research indicated choice affected our students’ learning
in several ways. Participants’ responses and field
notes created three subcategories: skill acquisition,
varied content, and social learning.
Participants
reported when they were able to choose their own topic,
it reinforced skill development, as the following quotes
indicate:
“When
I read books [on my own] I want to search deeper.”
“I
learned I have to be organized to learn best.”
“I
learned how to research and present clearly.”
Participants
also chose a learning style best suited to their individual
needs. Choice can help students identify ways in which
they learn best, as one participant stated, “I learned
hands-on things make you learn more,” while another
participant agreed, “The experience of actually running
the tournament, I learned more than just writing it
down.”
The
curriculum content became varied with many different
topics, presented in many ways. They included such
things as role-plays on urban legends, a game show
on the Philippines, and a video on visiting a crocodile
farm in Australia. Students learned more than they
thought they would. “I know so much more about government
and court systems” stated a student who wants to be
a lawyer and so researched and presented a mock trial.
When
participants were asked specifically about the effects
of choice on student learning, nearly all indicated
that being with their friends was an important element
in the learning process. Various participants reported, “I
learn by talking out to others,” “Funner to work with
classmates, makes you want to learn more,” and “I prefer
to work with people and get everyone’s ideas.” Some
chose topics that they thought their peers would enjoy.
As one participant said, “I thought about how my project
would affect the class, as well as how it would affect
me.”
Barriers
to Choice—the Shadow
Participants
described a number of factors that affected their ability
to explore a topic. Technology was a barrier, with
slow computers, or computers unavailable, either through
break down or time constraints, making it difficult
for students to complete their research.
Secondly,
time became a factor that affected the participants’ ability
to explore their learning. Although students were to
be given one hour of exploratory time each day, this
was sometimes hard to provide. The school is on a 40-minute
timetable, which created problems when trying to schedule
the school library or computer lab for a one hour time
slot, and it was difficult to get extra time in the
lab outside of assigned class times. This led to frustration,
as one participant indicated, “I don’t have enough
time to go on the Internet. The only way to get more
time is if I had Internet at home but I don’t.”
Interruptions
to the regular timetable, both planned and unplanned,
such as performances, picture day, and earthquake drills,
contributed to the erosion of one hour of exploratory
time each day, provoking many participants to complain, “What,
no E.T. time?” while others chanted “We want E.T. We
want E.T!”
Finally,
parents’ expectations were an important variable as
well. Many of the participants and their families have
newly immigrated to Canada. Often their approach to
educational instruction is traditional. They view the
teacher as solely responsible for dispensing what is
to be learned, and student choice is not considered.
The participants had to alter their traditional views
of learning, which parents often articulated as, “You
listen to your teacher.”
Providing
the Bridge
Our
research on choice has allowed us to look at the delivery
of student-led curriculum and to assess the benefits
of Exploratory Time, with implications for how we deliver
curriculum in our classrooms. Too often students talked
about being bored in the classroom during teacher-assigned
activities.
In contrast,
Exploratory Time invited students to answer questions
that were meaningful for them. Fun was a word used
consistently throughout to describe the research project. “I
learn best when I am interested in the subject” and “It’s
fun, not boring, I wanted to learn” were feelings consistently
stated throughout the process.
A love
of learning started to develop. The most apparent implication
is that students seem to benefit greatly when given
time to explore their own learning. Motivation to learn,
learning, classroom environment, social interactions
and relationships seem to be affected positively when
students are allowed to shape and develop their own
curriculum.
In our
future practice, we see the inclusion of a project
similar to Exploratory Time into the regular curriculum,
as it offers skill acquisition and core content, while
making learning meaningful because it is student driven.
We support offering students the opportunity to make
decisions in their learning by providing choices through
a project like Exploratory Time. We see this as a way
to work in the middle, providing the bridge between
the curriculum-as-planned and the curriculum-as-lived.
In addition
to an exploratory time project, how student choice
is encouraged within the required curriculum on a daily
basis needs to be addressed. For example, if the Grade
Seven Socials curriculum requires the study of Egypt,
we need to look at how to involve students so that
they are able to have a voice regarding what they want
to learn about Egypt, and to be aware that students
will have differing interests. As teachers, our presentation
of prescribed curriculum will aim to involve more choice
and input from students.
Controlling
Motivation, Evaluating Choice
Initially,
when we outlined the E.T. project to our students we
included for them a timeline, goals to meet, specific
learning outcomes, and evaluation criteria in the form
of a rubric. But after looking at the literature on
motivation, we realized that if we wanted participants
to be intrinsically motivated to learn, we would have
to de-emphasize extrinsic motivational factors, such
as working to a deadline and letter grades.
As we
moved from the role of teacher to researcher, we had
to give up control by letting go of our traditional
evaluation procedures. Control, through evaluation
rubrics and testing, encourages students, like obedient
trained seals, to work only for the extrinsic reward
of marks. We noted that after we de-emphasized the
rubric and evaluation, conversations were more meaningful,
focused on content and how to present, rather than
on how to get a good mark.
How
do controlling factors affect intrinsic motivation?
When looking at things that control behaviour such
as rewards, (Deci 1971; Yoshimura 1979; Ryan, Mims
and Koestner 1983) it was found that the motivation
they induce is extrinsic. Some rewards even decreased
intrinsic motivation (Ross 1975; Harackiewicz et al.
1984; Deci & Cascio 1972; Greene et al 1976). Another
controlling factor is evaluation and studies looking
at evaluation and intrinsic motivation found that intrinsic
motivation decreased when students were evaluated,
even when subjects received positive feedback. (Smith
1974; Amabile 1979; Benware & Deci 1984)) It would
seem that control factors, such as rewards and evaluation,
are tied into extrinsic motivation. These controlling
techniques to increase achievement can cause a decrease
in a child’s desire to learn.
When
developing curriculum in the classroom we will need
to be aware of the importance we place on evaluation,
knowing that it can adversely affect intrinsic motivation,
and in turn, lifelong learning. Most teachers have
probably faced the dilemma of how to assign a grade
to the bright student who does not produce assignments,
even though this student knows the work. Or the students
who have difficulty with written text, but can strongly
articulate what they know. Rather than providing evaluation
criteria that asks for the same performance from each
student, we need to look at how our evaluation methods
address each student’s strengths and ways of learning.
One of our future objectives will be to provide different
ways for students to show what they have learned.
Through
this research process, we realized if we truly want
our students to be intrinsically motivated to learn,
we need to emphasize the process of learning rather
than the end product. Next year, we would like to shift
the focus away from evaluating absolutely everything
to try to develop students’ intrinsic motivation to
learn. At the same time, we recognize we work within
a system, and acknowledge the reality of prescribed
curriculum, testing, letter grades, report cards, and
parent and public expectations. Our professional challenge
will be to balance the system requirements for testing
and marks, with creating opportunities in the classroom
for the learning process to take place without the
constant pressure of evaluation.
Developing
Community Through Communication
In a
majority of schools, issues of bullying are a contant
concern, affecting students dramatically in subtle
and not so subtle ways. With Exploratory Time, the
classroom atmosphere in our classrooms became more
inclusive and welcoming because students got to know
each other by engaging in conversations, becoming more
familiar with their peers and their teacher. As one
participant stated, “I got more related to my peers,
trusted them, got to know them.” Peer conflicts and
misbehaviour were reduced. An implication here is that
a form of Exploratory Time could be an effective way
to address some of the underlying causes of bullying:
lack of understanding, exclusion, and boredom.
With
a positive classroom environment, students who trust
one another are more willing to take risks, make mistakes,
and learn without inhibition. “The project got us together,
because they were helping each other.” The participants’ responses
indicated that it was a positive experience because
students felt comfortable and supported. Many comments
from the participants during the interviews showed
that they “felt good and were happy.” As teachers who
believe in a democratic approach to learning, we can
use these findings to support student-led activities
in our classrooms.
This
research reaffirmed that, as educators, we need to
trust that students want to learn and are capable of
making decisions about learning choices. Wolk (2001,
59) believes, “students have endless interests that
they would love to pursue. But giving them those opportunities
in school requires a tremendous amount of trust in
students, something most adults lack.” Bollnow (1989,
14) strongly agrees that, “This trust is truly a foundation
that must exist if the child is to develop properly.” Flowerday
and Schraw (2000, 2) found “classroom management styles
affected the use of choice. Teachers who valued student
autonomy were most likely to support the use of choice.”
This
link between trust, choice and teacher control was
illustrated through a situation observed during Exploratory
Time, when a usually boisterous group of students was
sharing scary stories. The group was listening with
focused intensity, hanging on every word as D., in
a hushed voice, vividly recounted a hair raising urban
legend, and at the end of her story, students commented, “D.
tells the best stories, she knows how to tell a story
so that you really want to listen.” My initial reaction
when this group caught my attention was that they were
all off task and as the teacher, I needed to make a
comment to that affect. However, as the researcher,
I said nothing and just observed, and in the process
realized that there was a lot of positive learning
taking place. Students were learning about ways of
communicating through storytelling, and I was learning
what kinds of stories were appealing to my students.
This
situation made us analyze how the teacher decides what
behaviour is deemed on or off task, controlling what
is important to be learned. It also taught us a lesson
about control and being reactive to a situation and
cutting off the learning experience, rather than allowing
students the chance to find their learning in their
own way. Wolk (2001, 59) cites Carl Rogers who wrote,
“If I
distrust the human being then I must cram him with
information of my own choosing, lest he go his own
mistaken way. But if I trust the capacity of the human
individual for developing his own potentiality, then
I can provide him with many opportunities and permit
him to choose his own way and his own direction for
learning.”
Creating
Time for Meaningful Conversations…
Reflecting
back on the process and looking at our classroom through
a researcher’s lens has been a valuable experience.
The most salient lesson learned from this project has
been to rethink how we use our time so that we can
engage in conversations with children and find out
together what really matters. It is easy to get caught
up in the regular day-to-day grind that includes report
cards, meetings, IRPs, Foundation Skills Assessment
and the pressure of increased class sizes. More than
ever, we need to forge meaningful relationships with
the students in our classrooms.
Teachers
must promote the dignity of the child through thoughtfulness
outside of the traditional prescribed curriculum. Exploratory
Time is one way to connect significantly with children.
As teachers we are reminded to slow down. “We must
give them time to own their own learning. The next
step is ours” (Wolk, 2001, 59).
References
Amabile,
T.M. (1979). Effects of External Evaluations on Artistic
Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 221-233.
Amabile,
T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Aoki,
T. (1993). Legitimating Lived Curriculum: Towards a
Curricular Landscape of Multiplicity. Journal of
Curriculum and Supervision,
Vol. 8, No.4. 255-268.
Benware,
C. & Deci, E.L. (1984). The Quality Of Learning
with an Active Versus Passive Motivational Set. American
Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-765.
Boggiano,
Ann K. and Pittman, Thane S. (1992). Achievement
and motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bollnow,
O. (1989). The Pedagogical Atmosphere. Phenomenology
and Pedagogy, Volume 7, 1989, 5-63.
Deci,
E.L. (1971). Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards
on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,
18, 105-115.
Deci,
E.L., & Cascio, W.F. (1972 April). Changes in Intrinsic
Motivation as a Function of Negative Feedback and Threats.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological
Association, Boston, MA.
Deci,
Edward L, Vallerand, Robert J., Pelletier, Luc G.,
Ryan, Richard M. (1991). Motivation and Education:
The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 331-344.
Dewey,
John. (1963, c1938). Experience and education.
New York: Collier Books.
Flowerday,
Terri and Schraw, Gregory. (2000). Teacher Beliefs
about Instructional Choice: A Phenomenological Study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92 (4), 634-645.
Fogarty,
Robin. (1999). Architects of the Intellect. Educational
Leadership, November, 76-78.
French,
Marilyn. (1985). Beyond power.
New York: Summit Books.
Garbarino,
J. (1975). The impact of anticipated reward upon cross-age
tutoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 421-428.
Goff,
Katherine. (1998). Chaos, Collaboration and Curriculum:
A Deliberative Process. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision,
14 (1) j29-42.
Grace,
Marsha. (1999). When Students Create Curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 57 (3), 49-52.
Greene,
D., Sternberg, B., & Lepper, M.R. (1976). Overjustification
in aToken Economy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
34, 1219-1234.
Grumet,
R.M. (1996). The Curriculum: What are the Basics and
Are We Teaching Them? Thirteen questions: Reframing
education’s conversations, (2nd edition). Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg,
Eds. New York: Peter Lang. 23-30.
Halpin,
D. (2001). The Nature of Hope and Its Significance
for Education. British Journal of Educational Studies,
Vol. 49, No. 4. December 2001, 392-410.
Harackiewicz,
J., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Rewarding
Pinball Wizardry: The Effects of Evaluation on Intrinsic
Interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, 287-300.
Holt,
Maurice. (2002). It’s Time to Start the Slow School
Movement. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 84, No. 4, 265-2710.
Hong,
Laraine K. (2001). Too Many Intrusions On Instructional
Time. Phi Delta
Kappan,
82 (9), 712-715.
Koestner,
R., Ryan, R.M., Bernieri, F., & Hot, K. (1984).
Setting Limits in Children’s Behaviour: The Differential
Effects of Controlling Versus Informational Styles
on Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity. Journal
of Personality, 52, 233-248.
Maehr,
M.L., & Stalling, W.M. (1972). Freedom from External
Evaluation. Child Development, 42,177-185.
McGraw,
K.O. & McCullers, J.C. (1979). Evidence of a Detrimental
Effect of Extrinsic Incentives on Breaking Mental Set. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology,15, 285-294.
Mitchell,
Alanna. (2003). Slow Schooling. The Globe and Mail,
Section F, 1,10.
Palmer,
P. (1999) The Grace of Great Things Reclaiming the
Sacred in Knowing, Teaching, and Learning. Steven Glazer
(Ed). The heart of learning spirituality in education. New York: Jeremy P.Tarcher/ Putman. 15-32.
Osborne,
K. (1999). The Curriculum: What should be taught and
learned? Education: A guide to the Canadian school
debate—or, who wants what and why? Toronto: Ont: Penguin/McGill Institute. 31-45.
Ross,
M. (1975). Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 245-254.
Ryan,
R.M. (1982). Control and Information in the Intrapersonal
Sphere: An Extension of Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
Ryan,
R.M. & Connell, J.P. (1989) Perceived Locus of
Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for
Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Ryan,
R. M., Connell, J.P. and Grolick, W.S. (1992). When
Achievement is Not Intrinsically Motivated: A Theory
of Internalization and Self-Regulation in School. Boggiano & Pittman
(Ed). Achievement and motivation. New
York: Cambridge University Press. 167-188.
Ryan,
R.M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation
of Reward Contingency and Interpersonal Context to
Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using Cognitive
Evaluation Theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
45, 736-750.
Smith,
D. (1999). Pedagon. New York: Peter Lang.
Smith,
W.E. (1974). The effects of social and monetary
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Sylwester,
R. (1994). How Emotions Affect Learning. Educational
Leadership, 52(2), 60-65.
van
Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching the meaning
of pedagogical thoughtfulness. London, ONT. : The Althouse Press.
Wasserman,
Selma. (1990). Serious players in the primary classroom:
empowering children through active learning experiences.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Wasserman,
Selma. (2001). Quantum Theory, The Uncertainty Principle
and the Alchemy of Standardized Testing. Phi Delta
Kappan,
83, 28-40.
Wein
C.A. and Dudley-Marling C. (1998). Limited Vision:
The Ontario Curriculum and Outcome-based Learning. Canada
Journal of Education,
Vol. 23, No. 4. 405-420.
Wolk,
Steven. (2001). The Benefits of Exploratory Time. Educational
Leadership, 59 (2), 56-59.
Yoshimura,
M. (1979). The effects of verbal reinforcement and
monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Unpublished manuscript, Kyoto University Psychology
Laboratory, Kyoto, Japan.
Zuckerman,
M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E.L.
(1978). On the Importance of Self-Determination for
Intrinsically Motivated Behaviour. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,
4, 443-446.
