http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/education/27valedictorians.html?adxnnl=1&ref=general&src=me&adxnnlx=1277654891-xjr67E3XJoSVL95J+zT42A
Check out this article fromt he New York Times. It's about how schools are recognizing multiple (sometimes 20 or 30!) valedictorians and even includes statistics from the St. Vrain Valley School District, which had a combined 94 2010 valedictorians from its eight high schools.
How does this trend influence student motivation and competition? Are there more students who deserve recognition for their academic achievements (excessive advanced courses, etc.) than in previous years or is this another example of recent efforts to make every student feel successful and special? Are we adequately preparing our students for real-world competition and pressures post-graduation?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Video Case Study 1
The teacher in this video does a number of things, specifically in the context of a small reading discussion group, to set his students up for success and improve their efficacy and motivation. After reading M. Kay Alderman’s Motivation for Achievement (2004), it is clear that there are reasons (back up by research) that this teacher’s techniques are so successful.
First, he is very conscious about the number of students he places in each group. By limiting each group to five or six students, he is limiting competition between students and improving the likelihood that each student will participate. Furthermore, once students are familiar with the format and expectations of the reading group, their enthusiasm for it will grow (p. 67).
More importantly, the teacher plays an equal role in the group—a participant and listener in the discussion—thus, allowing students to self-regulate and to direct their own learning. Alderman emphasizes how helping students to develop these techniques will lead to increased motivation (p.12). The group efficacy and self efficacy will increase with improved motivation and the resulting task accomplishment and vicarious experiences (p.72). The teacher also provides support and feedback, which are essential to student motivational development (p.76).
The reading group format also encourages students to develop a love of reading, literature, and debate—a passion that is modeled by the teacher and represents another source of self efficacy through vicarious experience (p.77).
Each of these carefully thought-out teaching techniques enhances self efficacy and ultimately influences students’ achievement orientation. The format of the reading group probably leads to the student formation of performance-oriented goals but, I think, the debate/discussion aspect helps students to develop the skills necessary to make successful personal learning goals that are more focused on internal motivation, effort, and interest (p.87-93).
First, he is very conscious about the number of students he places in each group. By limiting each group to five or six students, he is limiting competition between students and improving the likelihood that each student will participate. Furthermore, once students are familiar with the format and expectations of the reading group, their enthusiasm for it will grow (p. 67).
More importantly, the teacher plays an equal role in the group—a participant and listener in the discussion—thus, allowing students to self-regulate and to direct their own learning. Alderman emphasizes how helping students to develop these techniques will lead to increased motivation (p.12). The group efficacy and self efficacy will increase with improved motivation and the resulting task accomplishment and vicarious experiences (p.72). The teacher also provides support and feedback, which are essential to student motivational development (p.76).
The reading group format also encourages students to develop a love of reading, literature, and debate—a passion that is modeled by the teacher and represents another source of self efficacy through vicarious experience (p.77).
Each of these carefully thought-out teaching techniques enhances self efficacy and ultimately influences students’ achievement orientation. The format of the reading group probably leads to the student formation of performance-oriented goals but, I think, the debate/discussion aspect helps students to develop the skills necessary to make successful personal learning goals that are more focused on internal motivation, effort, and interest (p.87-93).
Friday, June 18, 2010
Attribution and Self Worth
This week we read M. Kay Alderman's thorough explanation of the theory of attribution--causes that an individual believes played a role in their success or failure and how that belief influences future behavior--and T. Seifert's article concerning student motivation. Students vocalize attributional beliefs in the classroom all the time and teachers are quick to label students as lazy or talented but these readings illustrate how important it is for a teacher to look deeper and to really examine where these beliefs are coming from.
I believe that attribution, at least in the American classroom, is rooted in the American value system. Celebrity, whether in music or athletics, is often based on "natural" talent, performance, or physical appearance. As a society, we celebrate individuals who are able to be successful with minimal effort and we encourage competition, citing ability (rather than effort, time, etc.) as the key to success or failure and glossing over much of the work and energy the individual may have put in to get there.
How we, as educators, present these models and respond to student performance is integral to students' development of self worth and is directly reflected by student the amount of effort students expend.
The American classroom is not exclusive of or separate from American culture, so how do we set our students up for success when society seems to only acknowledge success in the naturally and exceptionally gifted? I think it comes down to helping students feel safe, comfortable, and heard.
Teachers should create a learning environment that supports effort, encourages learning for the sake of learning, allows for risk-taking, and. Teachers should choose tasks and communicate values that emphasize the importance of effort in reaching individual potential (or ability). While we should recognize individual talents and interests, it is equally important for teachers to focus on creating a community with common learning goals and discourage competition.
I believe that attribution, at least in the American classroom, is rooted in the American value system. Celebrity, whether in music or athletics, is often based on "natural" talent, performance, or physical appearance. As a society, we celebrate individuals who are able to be successful with minimal effort and we encourage competition, citing ability (rather than effort, time, etc.) as the key to success or failure and glossing over much of the work and energy the individual may have put in to get there.
How we, as educators, present these models and respond to student performance is integral to students' development of self worth and is directly reflected by student the amount of effort students expend.
The American classroom is not exclusive of or separate from American culture, so how do we set our students up for success when society seems to only acknowledge success in the naturally and exceptionally gifted? I think it comes down to helping students feel safe, comfortable, and heard.
Teachers should create a learning environment that supports effort, encourages learning for the sake of learning, allows for risk-taking, and. Teachers should choose tasks and communicate values that emphasize the importance of effort in reaching individual potential (or ability). While we should recognize individual talents and interests, it is equally important for teachers to focus on creating a community with common learning goals and discourage competition.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)