Several times I’ve mentioned the Think-Pair-Share (TPS) strategy as one way to allow students time to process their thoughts and consolidate learning. This week I’d like to dive a little deeper into this strategy. The TPS is a very well-known strategy and one that is used extensively across the college, but some newer instructors might not have heard of it and some of the more experienced instructors may have forgotten just how powerful it can be and use it sparingly or ineffectively. The Think-Pair-Share teaching strategy is a very simple collaborative learning technique used to encourage active engagement and critical thinking. It consists of three distinct phases: Think, Pair, and Share. 1. Think: In this phase, students are given a specific question, prompt, or problem to consider individually. They are encouraged to reflect on the topic and generate their own thoughts or ideas without discussion with others. This step allows students to process information independently and develop their own understanding of the topic. Example: In a psychology class discussing theories of motivation, the instructor might ask students to think silently for a few minutes about what factors they believe motivate people to achieve their goals. What is important in this step is that students are given enough think time (Remember last week’s article?). Hurrying this phase will result in truncated thinking where students will simply take quick and superficial stabs at the problem and fail to unpack assumptions or discover complexities. 2. Pair: After the thinking phase, students are then paired up with a classmate to discuss their thoughts and ideas. This phase provides an opportunity for students to articulate their own understanding of the topic and to hear perspectives from their peers. By engaging in dialogue with a partner, students can clarify their own thoughts, gain new insights, and practice communication skills. Example: Continuing with the psychology class example, students might pair up and discuss their thoughts on motivation theories with a partner, comparing and contrasting different perspectives they came up with during the thinking phase. In this phase the quieter, more introverted students are given a safe place to share their ideas. Sharing thoughts will a class of seventy can be daunting, but talking to your elbow partner is a little less intimidating. This step is important because every student is expected to participate, not just the five or six that continually give feedback to the instructor. And it is helpful to remind students that listening is just as important as sharing! 3. Share: Finally, students are given the opportunity to share their ideas with the entire class. This phase allows for the consolidation of learning by synthesizing individual ideas into a collective understanding. It also provides an opportunity for the instructor to clarify any misconceptions and facilitate further discussion or exploration of the topic. Example: In the psychology class, each pair of students might share a summary of their discussion with the rest of the class, highlighting key points and insights. The instructor could then lead a class-wide discussion, drawing connections between different perspectives and providing additional context or examples. Often, I will ask students to share an insight that they heard from their elbow partner. This practice can tighten up the discussion (Students must remember and summarize, not pontificate!). Applying the Think-Pair-Share strategy in an online context requires some adjustments but can still be effective:
The Think-Pair-Share strategy encourages active learning, collaboration, and critical thinking, making it a valuable tool for both traditional and online instruction. NB: This article was a collaborative effort between Jeff and Chat GPT!
0 Comments
If you are anything like me, you can become very focused on making sure that, within allocated class time, you get through the central concepts in a timely fashion. Because of this pressure, you might hurry through classroom questions, waiting only for a quick response that confirms the answer so you can get on with the lesson. And, since you already know the answer, you are ready to jump in just as soon as you feel the students have had time enough. Trouble is, it usually isn’t time enough. What can seem like an eternity of waiting can sometimes be only 10-15 seconds. This is barely enough time for an online student to hear and understand the question and perhaps raise an online hand! (If you think I am overstating this, re-watch some of your recent recordings! I did… I am very impatient!) Giving think time when asking questions is important. Students need the opportunity to process questions thoroughly and formulate thoughtful responses. If we fail to give enough think time, we will end up with very little interaction–only the very quick, auditory processors will be volunteering answers. The rest of the class may disengage or simply let others do the thinking for them. A class of seventy will quickly devolve into a back and forth from one teacher with 5 or 6 keener beaner students. Ultimately, we want to encourage deeper engagement with the material and critical thinking. We would also like it if all students had an equal opportunity to participate and contribute meaningfully to the discussion! So how do we go about doing this? Well, one way is by setting time limits and conditions. When you present your question, let the students know that they are not to answer immediately, but that you are giving them a certain amount of time to think about their response. Depending on the question, this could range from a minute to four or five minutes. During that set time, students might jot down their thoughts, make an illustration, or formulate an argument. The hardest part in giving think time is keeping yourself from interrupting! That’s why you need a timer! When the time elapses, you might engage the students in a think/pair/share activity (in-person) so that every student gets a chance to share their thoughts with someone before you pull back to a general classroom discussion (More on TPS in another musing!). Or, if you are working in an online environment like Class Collaborate (BBCU) or Kaltura, you might ask the students to type their thoughts into the chat feed and then “flood the chat” when the time limit elapses. Having students press submit at the same time means that everyone can contribute and prevents students from piggy backing on responses from those quick processors. Flood the chat also provides a rich trove to use as you further discuss the topic. Often students provide perspectives and insights that we never thought of. However, you need to be careful with this strategy because the chat is not anonymous. If you are discussing sensitive topics and want to safeguard students, you might choose to get their ideas through an online polling or posting tool (Padlet, Jamboard) that allows for anonymity. Giving think time fosters a supportive and inclusive learning environment by reducing pressure and anxiety associated with rapid-fire questioning. We’d like our students to be confident and willing to participate! We also want them to engage in more than just passive listening, we want them to do some of the work! An icebreaker is an activity or exercise designed to help a group of people get to know each other and feel more comfortable working together. Icebreakers are used in many different settings, including classrooms, meetings, workshops, and team-building events.
In a college classroom, icebreakers are an important tool for building community and establishing a positive climate for learning. When students feel comfortable with one another and with the instructor, they are more likely to participate in class discussions, ask questions, and take risks in their learning. Icebreakers can be especially helpful in online classes, where students may feel more isolated and disconnected from their classmates and instructor. In an online class, icebreakers can help students feel more connected to each other and establish a sense of community despite the physical distance. Here are some examples of icebreaker activities for both online and face-to-face instruction: Face-to-face:
Reciprocal teaching is a collaborative learning strategy that involves students taking turns as the teacher and leading discussions about the text or subject matter. This strategy can be used in various disciplines such as nursing, business, social work, and other fields where critical thinking and analysis are necessary. In a reciprocal teaching session, the instructor would typically divide students into small groups and provide them with a passage or article to read or a short video to watch. The group members take turns leading the discussion, taking on one of the four roles: summarizing, questioning, clarifying, and predicting. (If predicting is a challenge, students might be assigned to illustrate the process or define significant terms.) In a nursing classroom, for example, students could read a case study or patient scenario, and each group member could take on a role in analyzing the information, such as summarizing the patient's condition, questioning the diagnosis, clarifying the treatment plan, and predicting the outcome. In a business classroom, students could read a case study about a company's financial performance and take on the roles of summarizing the company's financial statements, questioning the reasons for the company's success or failure, clarifying the economic factors that may have impacted the company, and predicting the company's future performance.
The instructor should consider several factors when using reciprocal teaching. Firstly, the instructor should ensure that the text or subject matter is appropriate for the students' level of understanding and knowledge. The instructor should also set clear expectations for each role and provide examples of how each role could be performed. Instructors should also encourage collaboration and active participation among group members. The instructor should monitor the group discussions to ensure that each student has a chance to participate and provide feedback to students on their performance. Overall, reciprocal teaching is an effective strategy for promoting collaboration, critical thinking, and analysis among students in a college classroom. By taking turns as the teacher, students can develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter and improve their communication skills. For more information: https://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/teachtechnique/reciprocalteaching/index.php Philosophical chairs is a teaching strategy that is designed to encourage students to engage in critical thinking, discussion, and debate. It involves arranging chairs in a circle or semicircle, with one side representing a particular viewpoint or perspective, and the other side representing an opposing viewpoint. The students take turns sitting in the chairs and presenting their arguments, with the goal of persuading others to adopt their viewpoint.
To adapt Philosophical Chairs for an online class, the first step is to establish ground rules for respectful dialogue and debate. Next, choose a topic, divide the class into two groups and assign each group to a particular side of the issue. Provide preparation time for students to gather evidence and prepare arguments. You might let each group prepare for the discussion by putting them in break out rooms. During the discussion, have students take turns presenting their arguments and responding to each other, using breakout rooms for smaller group discussions. Finally, pull all the groups together, summarize the discussion and ask students to reflect on the activity and provide feedback for future discussions. The key is to provide a structured, safe, and respectful online space for dialogue and debate. The philosophical chairs strategy can be applied in various fields, including social work. For example, in a social work class, students could discuss the pros and cons of different social policies, such as those related to poverty reduction, mental health treatment, or child welfare. They could sit on one side of the chairs and present arguments in favor of a particular policy, while students on the other side of the chairs would present arguments against it. The teacher could facilitate the discussion and encourage students to ask questions, challenge assumptions, and engage in respectful debate. By using the philosophical chairs strategy, social work students can develop their critical thinking, communication, and advocacy skills. They can also gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of social issues and the various perspectives that shape social policy. Overall, this teaching strategy can help students become more effective advocates for social justice and positive change in their communities. NB: this post was done with the help of ChatGPT! At many post-secondary institutions, faculty is encouraged to form teaching triangles or teaching squares to sharpen practice.
With a teaching triangle, three instructors would form a mini “Community of Practice” in which they might meet regularly (once or twice a month), visit each other’s classrooms, and share discoveries and learnings with each other. I know of several departments at NorQuest that have used such a model as part of their FED work with faculty. At some colleges, such as Thompson Rivers University, teaching triangles are facilitated through their Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. I like what they explain the concept on their webpage. The educational developers from TRU are careful to point out that “the goal of each observation is not to critique the faculty member being observed, but for the two faculty members in attendance to reflect on what they have learned about teaching from observing their colleague. Over the course of a semester, each member of the triangle will be observed once and be an observer twice. These classroom visits will be preceded by an opening meeting with a CELT team member to discuss your group’s goals for the triangle and a follow-up debriefing once the observation process is complete.” More information can be found on their page The Teaching Triangles Program . Other institutions, like the University of Calgary or the University of Alberta, use a variation on this called “Teaching Squares”. In an article for Faculty Focus, Teaching Squares Bring Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Neil Haave (from the University of Alberta) suggests that teaching squares are an “opportunity for faculty to reflect on their own teaching in light of colleagues’ teaching examples. Could I do something like that? Would that approach work with the content I teach? I might be able to use that, but what would I need to change so that it better fits with my teaching style? Are my students ready for a strategy like that?” At both U of C and U of A, these teaching squares are meant to be cross-disciplinary. In our context that might mean that each of the four members might come from a different faculty. Variations on this might include faculty members with a wide range of experience or very different roles (teaching, curricula development, librarian, WIL support, etc.) or teaching in a different modality (face-to-face, synchronous online, Hyflex, asynchronous online). So why am I sharing this? Well, at Norquest we encourage instructors to participate in peer observations as part of your FED reflections. The FED support pages on the Academic Hub contain all kinds of resources and observation guides to help instructors do these kinds of observations. But all too often these observations are done be close colleagues who may be too close to see the big picture in your teaching. Or they might be done by someone who feels that peer observation is really another phrase for “peer evaluation”, and that would be a bit of an issue too. Observations and consultations should avoid evaluative language and critiques like “you should have…” and instead focus on “how might we…”. The rationale behind the NorQuest peer observation process is to facilitate growth and reflection on the part of both the instructor being observed and the colleague doing the observation. Perhaps teaching squares or triangles could be a natural extension of our already ongoing Communities of Practice? If you want to know more about teaching squares, I found two very helpful guides, one from Dupage Faculty Development, The Teaching Squares Handbook , and another from the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning (University of Calgary), Teaching Squares; Observe and Reflect on Teaching and Learning . Both publications are creative Commons and downloadable. In this musing I would like to share a discussion strategy I learned quite some years ago, it is called a “Focused Conversation”. I picked up this strategy by attending a full day workshop from Jo Nelson, who at the time, was working for the Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs. The workshop was great, and I ended up leaving with a copy of her book and a new approach to guiding conversations towards actionable decisions. Over the years I have used Focused Conversations in many different contexts:
These aren’t all the times that I have used a Focused Conversation, but they should convey just how versatile the strategy is. What is a Focused Conversation? (ORID) A Focused Conversation is a strategy that uses four rounds of questioning to guide participants through information and help them reach some their own conclusions about the data. Facilitators (teachers, leaders, workshop coordinators) skillfully guide the participants through:
Ground rules for ORID conversation participants (which should be shared at the outset):
What follows is a bare bones summary of the four steps. Whenever I use this model I tailor the accompanying questions to the educational or leadership purpose for the discussion (literary analysis, issue investigation, program review, curriculum mapping, etc.). The example questions are geared towards a focused discussion on a data set (like year-end surveys). You would need to make questions that suit the needs of your discussion. 1. Objective - What do you see? Concerned with data, facts, and the ‘truths’ that everyone can agree on, such as what was seen, heard, touched, etc. It is important to spend a considerable amount of time on this step so that all aspects and angles are explored. Example questions:
2. Reflective – How do you feel about this? Focused on reactions, moods, memories, associations. Examples:
3. Interpretative – What might this all mean? Concerned with meaning, purpose, significance, implications. Examples:
4. Decisional – What should we do? Focus on resolution, agreement, and possible new directions or actions. Examples:
Focused Conversations in Online Teaching I was thinking about the online applications of this strategy, especially in a teaching context. Here’s a possible scenario: One of our instructors in environmental education is guiding her students through an examination of the current controversies regarding pipelines from Alberta (eastward, westward and southward). Instead of assigning a number of readings or video clips to her students, she has asked them to do the research. Over several days of time, the class is assembling their ideas on a Padlet. The students post their own observations, paste in images (of the oil sands, of unemployment lines, of graphs regarding pollutants, etc.), and provide links (to news articles, websites and video clips). This “Pipeline Padlet” becomes the muse, artefact or data set from which to proceed through a focused conversation. After providing enough time for students to explore and peruse the posts on the Pipeline Padlet, the instructor asks her students to share their observations. What do the students see on that Padlet? Which images, words or angles emerge? Can they specifically identify the various kinds of environmental or economic impacts? How might this dats set be grouped or classified according to themes (environmental, economic, political, jurisdictional, or community factors/viewpoints), credibility (reliability of sources/voices), historical development (timelines) or environmental impact and urgency? What do the students notice about the kinds of information, the way it is shared, and how it is shared? This first phase (observation) often takes the longest. It is important not to rush the process. A skillful facilitator will make sure that every item is touched upon and considered. Hopefully, such facilitation will help stem the impulse to just jump on one line of thinking (the first or loudest voice) and help students to see that the issue is a complex one with many stakeholders – including themselves (as residents, as stewards of the earth, as those seeking employment). After giving enough time to do this review (I often spent over an hour in this phase), the instructor moves to the reflection part of the process. How do the students feel about what they are reading, seeing and hearing? Do the pipeline deliberations cause sadness, frustration, anger – or hope and potential? Are these emotions generated by concern over the environment, economy, or a sense of fairness and human rights? How do the students feel about the ways in which information is shared or viewpoints expressed? Which aspects or concerns generate the most emotion? In the second step, the instructor is helping the students move past a simple knowledge of the issues and is pushing them to question their established assumptions and beliefs, develop empathy and perspective taking, and come to a richer understanding of the context, the stakeholders, and the ramifications. This step should not be rushed, and students should have an opportunity to express their own perspectives through discussion (small group or classroom) or forums (written or video). Once the emotions have been shared and named, the group is ready to look at making sense of the issue. What does all of this mean? The instructor challenges the students to make sense of the observations and their feelings. What have we learned about the issue? What seems to be the central issue in all of these pipeline deliberations? How can we make decisions that are truly the best for the environment and for the people, animals and plant life in it? Where might we start? What would give us the most “bang for the buck”? How might we address misinformation, bias and political factors? Often, this is where an instructor wants to start. We have a passion for our subject area and we assume that our students share this passion and have some background knowledge and investment in the topic. However, many of our students have had very different life experiences and are immersed in a very different context than we might have. So, while some of the students can follow and partake in our “class discussions”, many others become disconnected and “check-out”. Our students need the opportunity to become aware of the data, viewpoints, players and stakeholders, before we move to such a discussion. And if we have done this pre-work, the discussions will be richer and more productive. Finally, the instructor moves to the last phase of the ORID process. What should we do in response to this issue? This questioning phase pushes students to ideate directions, decisions and possible solutions both for themselves and perhaps also for society in general. What kinds of initiatives might be started that work towards helping the environment, the people and the economy? What might individual roles and collective responsibilities be in such change processes? How would you sequence actions and decisions in a responsible way? Where would you start? What kinds of timeline or constraints might there be? How would we know that we are making a difference (success indicators?). This last phase in the ORID process may lead to individual assignments, essay writing, or presentations. As is often the case when confronting big questions or a wealth of data, there may not be consensus and, in a teaching situation, there doesn’t need to be. However, if the application is for choosing a direction for a faculty department or solving an emergent issue, you may need to work towards consensus. ORID was developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs, a nonprofit organization with offices in Washington, DC. It was adapted from Winning through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation by Laura Spencer (Dubuque: Kenndall/Hunt Publishing, 1989). Brian Stanfield further elaborated on the ORID model to show how it might be used in a variety of professional and intercultural contexts. Jo Nelson and the Canadian Institute for Cultural Affairs then built upon ORID model and describe how it might could be applied to teaching and leadership contexts. Stanfield, R. Brian, ed. (2000) The Art of Focused Conversation, New Society Publishing. Nelson, J., & Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs. (2007). The art of focused conversation for schools: Over 100 ways to guide clear thinking and promote learning. Toronto, Ont: The Canadian Institute for Cultural Affairs. Forming and NormingThe NorQuest Faculty Community of Practice NorQuest has officially started. At the time of writing this we have approximately 40 members who will be participating through networking, online gatherings, resource sharing, team inquiry and mentorship. One of the first things done was to establish Learning Teams, each with a particular instructional focus. Combining some of the 8 suggestions we have settled on three independent groups:
Each group will now be looking to have an initial meeting so they might chart out their next steps. If you would like to join one these teams, just shoot me an email and I’ll add you. It is not too late, we’re only taking the first few steps! I’m hoping that, in the first couple of meetings, each team will have a chance to form and norm. They’ll need to consider their purpose, how often they would like to meet (and when) or how they would like to carry on conversations and inquiries. To support each group in this initial planning I put together a few questions that might help them focus and perhaps build a bit of a “team charter” 1) What would you like your team to be called/known as? (these names were only place holders) 2) Who are the members of your team? 3) How might you describe your team to others who may want to join? (in 2-3 sentences): 4) What are your team’s major goals? Do you hope to:
8) How will you know that the team should shut down? The last question is often one that often gets overlooked. However, from years of working with learning teams (Professional Learning Communities), I know that teams eventually lose their steam and members look to find a new challenge. This life cycle corresponds with Bruce Tuckman’s five stages of group development: forming (gathering the team and choosing a focus), norming (deciding on the processes and procedures), storming (experiencing tension as boundaries are pushed), performing (producing important work) and adjourning or mourning (fulfilling the original purpose or losing focus and energy) (Tuckman, 1965 and Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). It is important to acknowledge this cycle and perhaps even re-visit question #8 on a regular basis to check whether the team is alive and relevant. In the coming months, we will also look at developing a bit of a cross-faculty mentorship group. I realize that a number of departments already have some type of mentorship for new hires, but there is room for something that would function across the institution. When I asked if instructors were interested in participating in such a program, quite a number said that they were. Some were instructors who were new to NorQuest, but many were not. And there were instructors who said that they would like to participate as both a mentor and a mentee. There were areas of teaching that they were quite confident in, but there were some other areas where they would appreciate a sympathetic friend who might provide them with feedback or share approaches techniques or apps or help them work through the intricacies of Moodle and BBCU. It’s my belief that the larger Community of Practice together with the targeted Learning Teams and a Mentorship Program could provide an important vehicle for community building and professional development for faculty at all stages of their career in post-secondary education at NorQuest. Now we’ll just have to see if this becomes a reality! References: Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100 Tuckman, B.W., & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977) Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Studies. 2(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404 Last Week's Faculty Talking Circles - The InspirationThe growth of any craft depends on shared practice and honest dialogue among the people who do it. We grow by trial and error, to be sure—but our willingness to try, and fail, as individuals is severely limited when we are not supported by a community that encourages such risks. (Palmer, 1998, p. 144) A week ago, we had two Faculty Talking Circles at NorQuest College where we continued to explore the concept of learning teams. I asked these faculty groups several big questions. The first was “What, in your experience, allows a learning team to work well?” In the chat and discussions individual faculty said that, in their experience, a learning team works well when there is:
This group also suggested that it might also help to have:
Most of all, our colleagues suggested that a learning team would need to be passionate and committed “owners” of the learning team. A powerful learning team should be built by instructors - for instructors. Thankfully, these observations validated the musings from Jan 11! So on to my next few questions: “Do you have an idea for a team?”, “Who should form these teams?” and “What should their goals be?” Instructors wrote suggestions on a Padlet and we took turns discussing some of them. Ideas for learning teams included a/an:
These were wonderful ideas! That said, I cannot count how many times I have worked with groups of keen individuals and gotten to this point, only to have the enthusiasm ebb out with a bit of time and the pressure of staying on top of daily teaching commitments and student concerns. So how might we take some of these ideas and establish learning teams that meet regularly, sustain a clear and practical focus and make a difference for team members and for our students? One idea: A NQ Faculty Community Of PracticeThe onset of Covid and the switch to online everything has left many of our instructors feeling overwhelmed and disconnected. LRN sessions are not as popular as in the past; people cannot find the time to invest in one-off workshops that may or may not apply to their current teaching contexts and pressures. However, if these same people knew that they could regularly connect with colleagues who face the same challenges and then collectively address ongoing concerns it might lead to professional growth, community building and alleviate some anxiety and stress.
So here’s my idea going forward. I think it is time for NorQuest to establish a Faculty Community of Practice. This umbrella group would be able to facilitate the networking, sharing, and resource development necessary for a wide range of learning teams. Your faculty developers would help to coordinate this community, but they would not be the ones who lead it. The NQ FC of P would be a true professional learning community. Some thoughts: With tight budgets and Covid cutbacks, it would be difficult to secure funding or dedicated time to run this Community of Practice. While being supportive, our college leadership would not be able to carve out something for us. That said:
A plan: I know that we have a core group of dedicated and innovative instructors who might champion learning teams. I have been in their classrooms (online and F2F) and I have listened to their reflections and presentations. Now we just need to find out if there is enough interest to make a go of this idea.
If all goes well, we might be able to stage several NorQuest College Community of Practice Showcase afternoons. This would allow individual groups to share what they have tried and learned with colleagues. However, at this point, let us just see if there is enough interest to go forward. Many thanks to Mabyn Grinde from Lakeland College who attended our last talking circle, shared the Parker Palmer quote and the suggestion that “Members of a learning team need to be owners, not renters!” Palmer, Parker J. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life. San Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass, 1998. It’s all about ME and six C’s Just after finishing my master’s program in 1994, I started looking at what makes an adolescent learner persevere in their learning. From research and experience, I found that teens have less patience in learning than pre-teens. When charged with teaching teens Trigonometry in Math, Poetic Meter in English, the Past Progressive Tense in French, Mitosis and Meiosis in Biology, or the Causes of the Great War in Social Studies, my students would often fire back three questions:
Now, at first, a teacher might resent such questions. After all, learning for the sake of learning is a noble pursuit, and many of us became teachers - not only because we love teaching - but because we also love learning. Nevertheless, these three student questions are significant and we needed to be ready for them. Moreover, our responses needed to be better than “because it is in the curriculum/syllabus” or “well, some day you might….” So I continued to dig into the research and surprise, surprise, I found out that perseverance in adolescent learners is dependent upon ME! You might take that in a number of different ways: 1) that it all comes down to the teacher or 2) that the single most important factor is the student and their personal (almost selfish?) needs for learning. In fact, both are wrong, what the research told me is that it all comes down to Motivation & Engagement (ME!) and the interplay of these factors in a teaching and learning environment. What is more, as I continued my odyssey in education, teaching at King’s, U of A and NorQuest, I discovered that what applies to adolescent learners aligns with much of what we know about adult learners. Just like teens, adult learners are concerned about practicality, immediacy of application, and personal and professional relevance. In other words, “So what?” and “Just how can I use this?” For our learners at NorQuest, it also comes down to ME - motivation and engagement. However, the idea of motivation is a tricky one. I have heard a number of scholars say that motivation is completely dependent upon the learner and that the teacher has no influence on this. If a student is unmotivated, either intrinsically or extrinsically, there is very little a teacher can do about it. Other educational scholars say that this is poppycock and that such teachers simply do not want to figure out what motivates their students, individually or collectively. Yes, these scholars say, motivation does come from within, but it is also very much influenced by situation, culture, necessity, and rewards (and many other factors). Teachers cannot create motivation, but they can learn and act upon the motives of their students and discover their “motivators”. This makes me think to the work I am doing now with my four-month-old puppies. Daisy’s “motivators” are food and love, Edgar is less interested in food rewards, but thrives on praise and attention, and Rufus is a very smart little dog who likes a challenge (He has already figured out how to open and close the back door.) and is motivated by play. I often catch him doing that Border Collie head cock thing where he looks like he is trying to figure out just how to get into that cupboard, or take away a toy from his siblings. Now, I am not comparing our learners to puppies (well, maybe a little…). Coming to class with a bunch of “puppy snacks” or a clicker would be absurd. However, I am saying that every learner is different and it is up to us to explore ways to use motivators to ignite and fuel their passions. Thankfully, most of our learners at NorQuest come to us of their own free will and chose programs that they see as beneficial to their development a persons, citizens, and professionals. So finding their motivators is a little easier than connecting to teens. Adult “motivators” might be self-improvement, a new career or challenge, a permanent residency card, or simply the love of learning. Junior and senior high school students do not have that same liberty as adult learners – they are conscripts in more comprehensive programming that they may or may not appreciate. Coupled with motivation is engagement. In order to tap into the motivators of our students we need to design learning environments and challenges that allow students to participate in a variety of ways and on a variety of levels. In this way, we might reach and inspire more of our students and support them in their learning journey. That still leaves us with an important question, “Just how can we better engage our students?” Well this is where the six C’s come in. In researching engagement, I found that students engage and persevere in learning, when they:
Keeping these six C’s in mind (choice, confidence, challenge, context, connections and collaboration) when we plan our courses, units and lessons, gives us a better chance in reaching our students and in making courses meaningful and relevant. |
AuthorJeff Kuntz Ph.D. ImagesExcept where indicated, images used in the blog posts are personal photos, images from NorQuest College or images from Pixabay. Pixabay is a vibrant community of creatives, sharing copyright free images, videos and music. https://pixabay.com/ Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|