Tech Ed-dy

I have just finished reading a really fascinating article called How David Beats Goliath: When underdogs break the rules.  The main gist of the article is that throughout history underdogs have had unbelievable success when they decide to compete on their own terms rather than conventional terms.  In the David vs Goliath battle David

hastened and ran out from the lines toward the Philistine

rather than battling toe to toe with Goliath.  Of course, he also chose to fight with a sling and stones rather than swords.

The article then goes on to describe a breathtaking array of examples where the underdog won for two main reasons (the two parts of the insurgent’s creed): being willing to go against the conventions of society (do what is “socially horrifying) and being willing to work harder than anyone else (which takes courage).  In the end victory in these examples came down to effort.

Effort can trump ability – legs … can overpower arms – because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coordination.

Threaded throughout the article is a story about a middle school girls basketball team that enjoyed incredible success despite being inexperienced and not very skilled.  Their secret was the full court press.  In short they tried harder than the other team.  When there was a turnover they didn’t run back to their side of the court to defend, they tried to get the ball back.  They didn’t bother covering the person throwing the ball, instead they focused their energies on getting to the ball before the other players.  They played by their own rules and had incredible success as a result.  The article goes on to describe the career of a college coach called Rick Pitino who went on to use the full court press to win championships with teams that didn’t have many all star, potential NBA, style players on them.  It was obviously a very successful strategy, but it was never widely adopted because it took too much work.  Pitino described his workouts this way:

The players are moving almost ninety-eight percent of the practice.  We spend very little time talking.  When we make corrections they are seven second corrections, so our heart rate never rests.  We are always working.

The implications for how I run my classroom seem obvious.  It’s really such a simple observation that effort and motivation are the keystones of effective learning that I wonder why I don’t always see it?  I can get so caught up in either the content or the particular output that I want them to produce that I am not always asking myself what I am doing to keep them motivated.  Sometimes I am guilty of assuming that if I badger them enough they will somehow find it in themselves to be truly interested in what I want them to learn, when deep down I know that the only really useful thing I have to teach my students is a love of learning.

If we don’t treat motivation as intrinsic (or something that can be turned on and off as a result of badgering my a teacher), then we can start to explore the things that really motivate in a classroom.  I can come up with three:

1. Control.  As I understand it, if our students don’t feel in control of their learning their hypothalamus  has been triggered.  They are in some sort of fight or flight mode.  When this happens information gets backlogged in their “primitive brain” and never makes it to their cortex for processing.  So whatever I teach them will never stick.  Conversely if students feel that they are being listened to and have some control of the process then it stands to reason they will be willing to invest more in the process.
2. Choice.  This is linked to control as having choices helps students feel in control.  Cathy Nunley does a brilliant job with this in her Layered Curriculum Model.  I taught Science with this model for a few year and was amazed at how motivated my students were, I couldn’t stop them working!
3. Value.  In order for effort to be valued there needs to be a reward linked to the effort.  Of course we have grades, but often grades are a mystery and if the direct path from effort to reward is not obvious then how can I expect grades to motivate?  Using rubrics and being clear about grading schemes can obviously help here, but even then grades have very little intrinsic value.  They are all about getting something;  for example, if you get good grades you can go to university.  Portfolios and exhibitions are a lot more work than just giving grades but it seems to me that the social aspect of the feedback received in these situations carries a lot more value than grades.

Finally, I wonder how all this will play out as more and more courses go online?  In my experience online courses are wonderful for students who are already motivated and willing to put in the effort.  But if I don’t physically have the student in my classroom, what can I do to motivate them to buy into the “full court press”?

Photo by Sebastia Giralt on Flickr

Today I was telling my wife about my previous blog post on an article I was reading called Compensating for Computers.  As a social scientist and something of an expert on social learning she immediately cut to the chase with this great quote:

You have to give them roots before you give them wings.

This got me thinking about something else Monke mentioned in his article about how he felt when he taught his students about the internet.

I was about to give my high school students more power to do more harm to more people than any teens had ever had in history, and all at a safe distance.  They could inflict emotional pain with a few keystrokes and never have to witness the tears shed.  They could destroy hours of work accomplished by others not because of ill-will, but simply because the files of these poorly protected network users provided convenient bullseyes for youth flexing their new found muscles.

This may be a little overstated but I think there is some truth in this.  I am a real believer that in today`s global society it is very important that I as a middle and high school teacher use web 2.0 social networking tools to extend my students reach further than our small school on Vancouver Island.  But I`m not sure I believe this is true for elementary school children.   In fact I`m pretty sure that exposing children to social networking tools at a young age in NOT the best way to educate good digital citizens.  They need lots of exposure to lots of tangible experiences that help them become good citizens first, before we add the “digital” part.

I`m starting to wonder whether there might not be an interesting case to be made for an elementary curriculum designed to give our students ROOTS that dovetails into an middle and high school curriculum that gives them social networking WINGS.  The roots would be lots of non-virtual things like a sense of place; a connection with nature; social skills; group work skills; conflict resolution skills.  I know that all these things that are already done in elementary schools but in order to prepare students for a world in which they will need to apply these skills in a virtual setting I think that the roots become even more important so that they have a foundation for when they get older and are given their wings.

Aside #1: I am a big fan of the Lifelong Kindergarten group at MIT.  Their mission in to extend the kindergarten style of learning so that learners of all ages can learn through designing, creating, experimenting and exploring.  They suggest that we have slowly done away with this kind of learning in order to get kids ready to take tests at earlier and earlier ages.  I wonder if we might be in danger of doing this same thing with technology.  As we start to use it more and more in the older grades the temptation is to say `Well, if we can just get them doing this with technology at an earlier grade then just think what they will be able to do when they get to high school.`  But their are lots of skills they need to be good digital citizens that can`t (or shouldn’t) be taught using a computer.

Aside #2: After writing this post I was directed to this interesting article from Zone’n Workshops.  It’s definitely a fairly alarmist article, but there was one part that I think is worth reproducing:

Each individual would benefit from discovering their “just right” level
of technology to promote academic and workplace achievements, but also
understand how to balance this technology with activities that promote
physical and mental health.  Children obviously need help with managing
this difficult task.  Achieving this balance will promote optimal brain
efficiency, while maintaining a place on the world stage as leaders in
advanced technology.

I think this is our role as educators in the 21st century.  To figure out what the “just right” level of technology is at all age levels and help our students develop the discipline to use technology and not be used by it.