Space to Learn

The challenges of today’s technology and learning styles require flexible classroom arrangements.

This week I attended a course on cooperative learning which was a timely reminder about using group work and a variety of strategies to improve learning outcomes. However, I was struck by an important factor we haven’t dealt with yet. In order to use cooperative learning strategies and still maintain a stable working environment (listed as the second highest factor in improving student learning), classrooms would benefit from different configurations, different furniture, different space usage altogether. So why don’t we all dream about different spaces and work towards it happening.

Here are a few items from my very long wish list:

Flexibility, relevance and the desire to be taken seriously

Come with me as I work through some ideas about the relationship between student engagement and flexibility in teaching and learning. Reading Hugh Mackay’s What makes us tick? has helped me to give shape to some ideas which accord with a constructivist approach to learning.

What makes us tick? contains a chapter entitled ‘The Desire to Be Taken Seriously’ which resonated with me as both a teacher and as a student. On page 3, Mackay writes, “We all want our voices to be heard as authentic, legitimate and worthy of attention. We can’t bear to be overlooked, dismissed or belittled. … When we know we are being taken seriously we can relax into that assurance.”

Whilst completing my Masters from 2004-07, I found myself in the position of a student for the first time in fifteen years. Obviously it was a great experience in terms of what I learnt, but it was also insightful to be in the student role again. What I particularly want to comment on in light of my reading of Mackay’s book, was how the best teaching and learning occurred in classes where I and other students were taken seriously. In these classes I felt that all of the students’ voices were considered ‘authentic, legitimate and worthy of attention’.

One of the most interesting aspects of the classes was the lecturer’s flexibility in setting essay questions. What this meant was that the lecturer waited to see what issues were generated by the students’ input before constructing the assessment. And every lecturer allowed students to disregard the given questions and set their own question, increasing the relevance of the learning. Thus, on many occasions, my own research led me to a particular area of interest, and the lecturer(s) took me seriously enough to allow me to write about this. I was constructing my own knowledge about the texts and issues which I encountered and because of this, not only was I more passionate and diligent about each topic, the learning has remained with me to this day.

This experience has in turn shaped my teaching. We don’t always have the freedom to allow students to develop their own question and respond (e.g., in HSC exams, where questions are well and truly set), thus we should make more of effort to provide this opportunity elsewhere – in every other aspect of learning if possible. One of the reasons why I support the Extension 2 English Course was because it offers the student a way of learning so similar to my positive post-grad experience. This ties in with Daniel Pink’s theory in Drive (see earlier posts) as autonomy, mastery and purpose are inherent in constructing one’s own learning.

One way of thinking posits that good teaching is about setting an assessment task first and then tailoring most of the teaching towards students meeting the outcomes which will be assessed. It’s not my contention that this thinking is incorrect. Students should know (as I did when I completed my Masters) what type of task will be expected of them at the end of the course. I am arguing that we need to be flexible enough with the content/subject matter of the task to take into account student interest throughout the course. By offering a variety of questions, or allowing students to set their own agenda, or some other flexible approach in meeting the outcomes, teachers are increasing the relevance of the learning and demonstrating to students that their voices are ‘authentic, legitimate and worthy of attention’.

Mindset and Praise

The work of Carol S. Dweck has become one of the most influential theories I have come across over the last few years. Her two books, Mindset and the more academic, Self-Theories, from the Essays in Social Psychology series have had a significant impact on the way I think about education and my classroom practice. This is the first of a few posts dealing with this theory.

Dweck proposes that students (and people in general) hold one of two theories about their intelligence: either that it is fixed or changeable.

Some people believe that their intelligence is a fixed trait. They have certain amount of it and that’s that. We call this an “entity theory” of intelligence because intelligence is portrayed as an entity that dwells within us and that we can’t change. (Self Theories, p. 2.)

Other people have a very different definition of intelligence. For them intelligence is not a fixed trait that they simply possess, but something they can cultivate through learning. We call this an “incremental theory” of intelligence because intelligence is portrayed as something that can be increased through one’s efforts. (Self Theories, p. 3.)

In Mindset, she calls these theories the fixed mindset or the growth mindset. I can’t do justice to the theory on this blog, but I recommend educators read one or both books. Whether you agree or not with the theory, it is thought-provoking reading. In light of recent brain research and other books such as The Brain That Changes Itself, Dweck’s theory cannot be ignored.

Let’s look at Praise.

Dweck’s studies show that effort and strategy praise is more effective in encouraging a mastery oriented response in students. Intelligence or person praise can encourage a helpless response.

Thus, in my comments (whether verbal or written) I always try to be specific about aspects of students’ written submissions. I try to avoid general comments such as ‘this is good work’, ‘great work’ or ‘excellent work’, instead identifying the actual features which are good. This might include comments about vocabulary, particular sentence structures or variation, plot, strength of argument, innovation, creativity, quality of examples, etc. By being detailed and explicit with praise, it also allows me to offer criticism which is precise and definite. Thus students can rework the elements of the draft which have been identified as needing attention.

In verbal responses (in class teaching/learning), Dweck discusses how praise can become a conversation and I have been practising this with my classes recently. The teacher can ask the student how an idea evolved, or what strategies the student used to arrive at the answer and praise the actual thinking which occurred in the process of developing a response. In this way, the teacher is encouraging the student who offered the interesting response and alerting all students to strategies they might like to try. It is a great way to be explicit about metacognition.

Effort and strategy praise generally stems from, and contributes to, an incremental theory of intelligence which encourages a mastery oriented approach. Those with this approach continue to strive for improvement even when they get something wrong or fail at a task. Thus, they are motivated to learn, rather than motivated to prove they are correct.