In this video, kids talk about time travel and use various resources to explain their concept. Since I was recently in an 8th grade classroom talking about black holes, this was especially interesting and, thus, I’m sharing it with you. This is consistent with the previous message about reaching higher in our expectations than we might otherwise consider.
Seems like the week to discuss motivation and as I consider various links and tracebacks, I’m found bringing together some ideas into a new framework of understanding many things I have written before and will likely ponder in the future. This video brings this thinking to specific relief.
We have discussed previously how setting our sights on common denominators (e.g. high stakes tests, common core curriculum, etc.) seems somehow counter-intuitive. Additionally, many others have offered insight into the dangers of these practices. Any other approach seems just too challenging to discuss in the midst of political wrangling, decaying facilities, and budgetary degradation. We seek the average because we have lost the incentive to reach for something that often seems beyond our grasp. We have lost the pioneering spirit.
In this video from 1972, legendary psychiatrist Viktor Frankl offers an important message about our motivations and our expectations for each other.
Whether we are talking about advances in science, travels to Mars, or the development of new curriculum, this simple video may be the piece that helps us all get past our limitations and our struggle with mediocrity.
We must find a way to seek for children more than our perceptions of their limitations. We have to provide for the true and honest development of their pioneering spirit. As the video declares, we must seek point far “north” of mediocrity and find our destination somewhere between average and eminently closer to excellent.
Motivation theory has been around for multiple decades and has been reflected on by hundreds of authors over a wide span of influence. Behavioral Psychologists have used animal studies with primates and other species to extrapolate motivational theory for humans. Many research projects and meta-analyses have considered the implications of various forms of treatments and their impact on motivation. Despite this rigorous study from multiple disciplines, the results of our efforts continue to confound us. A prime example is the Strathclyde University study that failed to find any support for a mainstay of motivational practices when considering reward systems in 63 organizations. No support for contingency theory could be found in this study, which has been described as the largest and most detailed of its kind (Bowey, 2005). Despite this, contingent rewards are still the cornerstone of the business world and continue to develop in the form of spiraling wages (or reduction of hours associated with wage), fringe benefits, or any number of creative incentives aimed at propelling a work force toward both stability and performance (Herzberg, 2003).
Harlow, Harlow, and Meyer (1950) laid a foundation for an alternative theory to standard contingent theory when they found in their experiments with monkeys that motivation in fact existed in absence of any of the typical extrinsic incentives typically associated with performance. The complexity of the problem itself in the form of a puzzle created a manipulation drive that was studied prior to any reward structure being introduced. This study caused them to conclude that manipulation drive was as powerful as homeostatic drives that are related to satisfying unrelated needs (food, etc.).
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) pursued a large meta-analysis of 128 studies to reflect on the interaction of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. Their analyses indicated that the effect of all tangible rewards led to significant undermining of intrinsic motivation, no matter what measure was used. The implications of this are profound and consistent with Herzberg (2003) where he postulates that extrinsic rewards simply reinforce motivation toward acquiring the next reward, and not toward greater degrees of accomplishment.
Pink (2009) confirms that intrinsic motivators have superior power over extrinsic rewards and can be found through three principles: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. The following video demonstrates how this is instrumental in developing deeply personal goals.
Two questions that can change your life from Daniel Pink on Vimeo.
Herein lies the rub. In the current age, we seek greater accomplishment of task and insight into innovation and creativity while holding on to industrial age methodologies for eliciting quantity of performance rather than quality. By virtue of this, motivational insights that uncover the intellectual dynamics involved in encouraging complex cognitive tasks are critical to the next age of human enlightenment.
References
Bowey, A. (2005). Motivation: The art of putting theory into practice. European Business Forum, (20), 17-20.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Harlow, H. F., Harlow, M. K., & Meyer, D. R. (1950). Learning motivated by a manipulation drive. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 228-234.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 86.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive : The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Riverhead Books.
Coming on the heels of my post this morning is a new release from TED.com – Aditi Shankardass — who shares her work on brain research that has uncovered the misdiagnosis of 50% of autistic children due to using behavioral observations alone. Sounds like examining the boulder from the outside again and coming to inaccurate conclusions.
Seems, despite the associated costs, that we should address this issue by examining our decision-making paradigms. Should we assess the American Educational System on the basis of high-stakes tests alone? Should we use carrot/stick methodologies to increase competition and offer rewards for excellence when we want a comprehensive and viable education for all?
While deeply involved in Marzanno and Waters (2009), I had the opportunity recently to attend a recent high school orchestra concert. It is, thus, logical to reflect on instructional leadership as similar to the experience of developing a musical harmony that mingles concepts from Marzanno and others such that we have a cohesive, but responsive approach to student achievement. While many would assume that a musical composition is static in nature, it is in fact a highly dynamic endeavor that yields different results when factors of acoustics, instruments, expertise, and the emotions behind the score spread and mix upon the stage. In this most recent concert, graduating seniors and year-end farewells set the stage for an once-in-a-lifetime version of a particularly complicated flute solo that was masterfully presented as a farewell tribute to the conductor and teacher. Much like an orchestral piece of music, the notes and staff only told a very course version of the story behind the music. The instrumental process that yields note dynamics, breath control, posture, precision (or lack thereof), and a weaving of expertise results in a performance – an experience.
In much the same way, our current approach to achievement is more about looking at the music rather than reflecting on the elements of the performance. This emerges from an issue of granularity. When we look at a large boulder, we see the surface and get general information regarding the face of the boulder and maybe some insight into the color, texture, and weight of the object. Summative testing is akin to this global view where we derive scores and assess program by examining the accomplishment of large groups of students. What we don’t see, and teachers often reflect on this, is the material just below the surface. If we begin by breaking the boulder into smaller and smaller pieces, we reveal the details of the musical composition – the subtleties, the nuances, the complexity. Ultimately, when we arrive at grains of sand, we have a very complete picture of the boulder – even though it is a boulder no longer.
Formative testing is largely about breaking the boulder of education into grains of accomplishment and by looking with this level of scrutiny, we greatly improve our chance of impacting performance in a positive way. The key is achieving a high degree of granularity while not distracting from our primary task of achieving broad spectrum learning goals. Formative assessment meets this criterion and provides an instructional strategy that not only focuses teachers on viable instructional objectives, but also informs both students and teachers about their progress toward accomplishing the same. The musical score transcends the subtleties of the dynamic factors of performance by forming the foundation of the presentation. In this way, we have a metaphor for the core structures that Marzano and Waters (2009) propose in the form of nonnegotiable goals. Their reflections on the inadequacy of NCLB and other summative high stakes measures gives way to a formative system of measures aimed at developing a “value added” approach. This is consistent with multiple recent research endeavors including Hatie’s (2009), where formative feedback to teachers regarding their efforts with students yielded the 3rd highest effect rating on overall achievement – approximately d=0.90.
The challenge is not about curriculum, while it is valuable to continue curricular development processes as we currently do. The issue is the creation of common formative assessments that match the curriculum and provide for close scrutiny of granular accomplishment. With Marzano and Waters (2009), we find a proposal for a “value added” approach to education that calls for both horizontal and vertical alignment with a common scale of measurement for formative assessment tools used along the way. Arranged according to topic areas and grade levels, this proposal leads to a comprehensive look at how a curriculum should emerge in the classroom, the way in which we test pre-operationally for its introduction, and the way in which we report developmental progress along a scale toward achievement of that curriculum.
But they may not be going quite far enough in addressing the thousands of small bits that constitute a comprehensive child-centered approach to personal development that also addresses the development of character and emotional intelligence. Education continues to stare at the boulder and misses this aspect under the surface. A value added approach may also miss many of the grains of sand by sifting and looking only for the specs of interest.
If we really want to form sand castles, we need to address how all of the sand can be cemented together into the complex structure that is a whole “person.” While I value assessment as important, it does little to address the complex nature of a child and the nuances of how the the score becomes a performance.
References
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Richard Elmore, in this video clip and with the associated graphic, defines the best measure of how we should judge innovation and change in an organization. The data that we collect must come from the core if we are to determine with any degree of certainty that these changes have been implemented and whether or not they are sustainable.
High stakes testing does not accomplish this. Many have now written about test scores and continue to miss the point. The scores do not inform instruction and lack the “granularity” needed to affect real change. Teachers do not change based on either initiative nor incentive based reward. They change, in Daniel Pink’s words, because they want to master their craft, because they have always been an autonomous lot, and because they have a special purpose that stands them apart from other professions – nurturing the progeny of others. The talents that will change schools are those with unyielding drive that infects these other dimensions powerfully and without hesitation, as in Geoffrey Canada’s work in Harlem. These efforts will often come from the teachers themselves when they are effectively empowered to be leaders in their own organizations.
But, ultimately, systemic change will only happen when we keep our “eye on the ball” and that means the instructional core.
 |
N2RK75QCZRP7
Under a grant from HP, the New Media Consortium and the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) has released the latest New Horizon Report for K-12 education. Not surprisingly, the two critical trends to take center stage are Cloud Computing and Collaborative Environments.
The critical issues surrounding the trends that this collaboration brings to the forefront is the degree to which we have failed to link student achievement to the technology that we are adopting and, further, the degree to which schools have been forced to miss the boat on one initiative after another due to lack of financial resources or insufficient political resolve. The Horizon Report lists five critical trends that are not disappearing any time soon:
- Technology is increasingly a means for empowering students, a method for communication and socializing, and a ubiquitous, transparent part of their lives.
- Technology continues to profoundly affect the way we work, collaborate, communicate, and succeed.
- The perceived value of innovation and creativity is increasing.
- There is increasing interest in just-in-time, alternate, or non-formal avenues of education, such as online learning, mentoring, and independent study.
- The way we think of learning environments is changing.
With new devices (e.g. iPad), and new technologies descending upon us on a daily basis, we need to consider how to best approach the challenges that we now face since our prior efforts have been so stilted and restrained. While we see pockets of excellence throughout the world, the systemic and sustainable changes to educational systems still evade us.
I understand why. While we all recognize the import of technology on daily life, we continue to be circumspect because the research proving its efficacy lacks so far behind the intervention that new technologies have already replaced those originally reviewed. Our system of reflection and review is insufficient in its capacity to truly address the actual effects of these trends.
A recent presentation by adjunct professors at Pacific Lutheran University is a perfect example. Their research on purported unintended consequences of technology heaped upon young unsuspecting children was, in most cases, 10 years old. Can anyone remember what kind of computers we were using 10 years ago? Can you remember which devices didn’t exist a decade ago?
In Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement by John Hattie (2009), computer assisted instruction was considered using 81 meta-analyses that included 4,875 studies involving 3.9 million subjects. The effect size was approximately d=0.37, something just more than developmental effects – in other words an effect that was about equivalent to just normal growth and development. Despite my argument above, there was little change in effect size when broken down by year of study which Hattie believes counters the belief in increasing effect with increased sophistication. Like many, the only correlation was between the use of computers and increased student engagement. Hattie concludes that there is no necessary relation between having computers, using computers, and learning outcomes.
But, hold the phone – Hattie throws us a bone when he does further analysis of the data and proposes that the following conditions must be met.
Computers are used effectively…
These two pieces of literature coupled with our own sound judgment form a new approach to prudent thinking on deployment of technology resources. A formula based approach of developing infrastructure, providing training, and prudently purchasing equipment may lead to a best practices scenario for technology’s next horizon.
Alan November has put up a new video that captures effectively the nuances of moving beyond current educational paradigms. The recent release of the “new” NCLB, the responses from AASA, and the Common Core Standards development are all symptoms of a system plagued by mediocrity and standardization – the antithesis of creativity and innovation. We can’t continue to churn out a homogenized curriculum under the dishonest banner of “guaranteed” curriculum. It’s not only dishonest, but grossly limiting to what we might otherwise accomplish.
Myths and Opportunities: Technology in the Classroom by Alan November from Brian Mull on Vimeo.
Read more: http://novemberlearning.com/resources/archive-of-articles/digital-learning-farm/
Nice video from Kevin Honeycutt on the possibilities…
As we discuss leadership and technology, we have to remember that teaching is a complex endeavor that requires minds that move beyond discrete evidence like checklists and test scores. As seen in the clip below, there is something far more subtle going on in classrooms that defies calculation and quantification.
On other posts we have debated time and qualification challenges in an age of increasing accountability. But, these dialogs force us to simplify teaching into homogenized measures that may be less important that some of the more critical aspects.
The New York Times challenges us to consider the more complex and systemic issues in teaching in their recent article on “Building a Better Teacher.” There are many embedded links that will take you to critical content in addressing the “art” of teaching in a more comprehensive way.
A perfect example: The Uncommon Schools initiative.
Here’s an example:
What we learn from this and countless other examples is that there is in interplay of skills that constitutes good teaching – and ultimately the measure of good teaching is in the ability of students to articulate their learning as in the first example above.
Students must engage their learning. We’ve known this for decades. China and India understand this as they move to escape hundreds of years of testing and sorting. America still has the advantage. Can we hold onto it?
Below is a video that has had lots of play in the last 4 years since its original posting. It recently resurfaced on YouTube and in a few social network sites. It’s a powerful story of an autistic youth and overcoming adversity. It also reinforces the notion of the critical aspect of teacher/student relationship at the center of the instructional core. In this instance, a coach has a sense of readiness and plays to the makes decisions for the individual. He struggles with this and even doubts his own actions. But instinct and experience help him stay the course. As much as this is a video about student accomplishment, it is also about the subtle and often emotional aspects of the learning process.
With some degree of glee, I can report to you today that a Judge has finally confirmed what we knew 25 years ago – Washington State does not fully fund basic education:
The state of Washington is not fulfilling its constitutional duty to fully pay for basic public education, a King County judge ruled Thursday.The decision from Superior Court Judge John Erlick came after nearly two months of testimony last fall in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of school districts, parents, teachers and community leaders. They said the state was failing its constitutional duty and leaving school districts to rely on local levies, donations and PTA fundraisers to educate students.
By DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
So, you might ask – What are they failing to fund?
From my history as a teacher in Washington during the onset of collective bargaining, consistent with my experience as principal in White River Schools, and in connection with my aspirations to the superintendency, here is my list:
If you are cheering this decision like I am, be aware that our cheers will likely fall on deaf ears. First, the decision comes after the legislature has already moved past its self-imposed deadline for bills to come out of committee. Thus, unlikely to get much more than status quo for this session. Do I hear “special session” in the wind?
Second, and also likely, there are appeals that will be played out all the way to the State Supreme Court. Stay tuned. Long road ahead.
Jeff Utecht is being a bit pessimistic with his description of the recently launched third iteration of the Learning 2.0 conference series. Despite his apprehension, there is every reason to believe that this conference will again inspire and direct individuals along the path of creating the next generation of learning practices. Inspired by a collaboration of like-minded individuals in 2008, this conference continues to elicit strong gains in applying technology based practices in real learning environments. We have changed practices through our efforts, and yet we are still struggling with the degree to which that change continues to be hampered by politics and outdated pedagogy.
Thus, we offer the latest iteration of 21st-century thinking and give you the new and improved Learning 2.x. The focus this time will be on research-based practices in providing for sustainability through development of long-term relationships in cohorts of like-minded individuals. Of particular excitement to me is the opportunity to coordinate the leadership strand. Applying theory and leading-edge concepts on school change with a cohort of individuals responsible for implementing that change is an exciting and energizing venture. If everything comes together as planned, there will be opportunity prior to the conference to build an essential common framework upon which our conversations will emerge. These personal learning networks (PLN) will continue through and beyond the conference and provide a significant foundation for future collaboration and support.
How can you not get excited about something like this?!
Take a look at the website and consider joining us in what ever cohort strikes your fancy. Personally, I hope you will consider the leadership strand. 😉
A thought on why broad education reform is lingering despite selective successes…
In looking at organizational behavior, there is one theory of motivation that may apply to the current scenario in regards to the willingness of teachers to embrace necessary change. Equity Theory provides a basis for thinking about motivation that goes something like this:
The equity theory of work motivation was developed in the 1960s by J. Stacy Adams (equity means “fairness”). Equity theory is based on the premise that an employee perceives the relationship between the outcomes — what the employee gets from a job and organization — and his or her inputs—what the employee contributes to the job and organization…. According to equity theory, however, it is not the objective level of outcomes and inputs that is important in determining work motivation. What is important to motivation is the way an employee perceives his or her outcome/input ratio compared to the outcome/input ratio of another person. (George & Jones, 2008)
What’s interesting about this is the “referent” or other person that is used as the comparison. In the last decade, there has been a movement to compare teachers at a professional level to other white collar careers, and rightfully so. Education is clearly a highly valued profession in the truest sense and many aspire to the profession out of desire to service and more intrinsic motivation.
But, when I talk to teachers, there is a terrible disconnect between the two factors described above. There is a huge demand for excellent inputs with little potential for commensurate outcomes that would ever be considered consistent with doctors or lawyers.
So, does that mean we have to raise pay exponentially and provide incentive based rewards? Nope – not necessarily! In fact, additional pay may not be a motivator if all other factors of work conditions remain the same. If children have increasing needs and if demands associated with the job continue to escalate, pay and other extrinsic incentives will have little impact on overcoming the significant disparity between needed work (and there’s lots of it) and the slim possibility of rewards in a system that never seems to be “fixed.”
At the core of expectancy theory is a need for people to believe that they can achieve the expected performance level. Have we given teachers any degree of belief that they can achieve the targeted performance? Many reports have been published on the problems with the American education system. Have many been published on the quality of the system? Do teachers feel like their goals can be achieved if they go from one evaluation to the next thinking they are doing the right thing only to find that their evaluations and performance demands change in any given year without additional possibility of remuneration?
In 1993, the Washington State Legislature enacted HB 1209 school reform. There were three steps:
Steps 1 and 3 have been accomplished, although accountability still seems a wavering target. But step 2 has not been fully addressed at either constitutional nor budget level. Thus, it is clear that a disconnect still exists between desired program change and a willingness to address the associated costs for resources and staff motivation towards these changes.
It’s easy to understand why changes in the profession of teaching are hard-fought in an era of increasing complacency. With nothing but criticism often greeting them at the doors of their classrooms, teachers are the most difficult group to address when considering motivational strategies. Setting standards is only one part of the puzzle. Giving teachers a sense that a new order is not only achievable, but desirable, is the real challenge of leaders and policy makers.
References
George, J., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
A debate continued to brew regarding the general focus of education and how to reconcile the differences between schools in three distinct cultures and two significantly different dichotomies. It’s western vs. eastern philosophy about eduction and the case is being used to both deride American education and highlight the realities behind the 21st century brain drain that is emerging in the United states. Robert Compton says we should fear India and China. Michigan State Professor Yong Zhao says “Wait one minute.” So what now? Where do we begin to reconcile this and what next in the debate? These two points of view will generate the next decade of debate while schools languish in static complacency with teachers feeling more confused and disheartened than at any time in history. Where do we turn for leadership in an environment where we are still debating Nation At Risk 25 years later?
I stand corrected. It looks like Smart Tech (www.smarttech.com) has got one in the works. Would love to know how implementation is going. Anyone?
Click here – The SMART Table
So, it’s been out for a year or so and the educational implications are just starting to take shape.
Here’s one in a UK Primary School
Here’s the link on educational development of this device:
http://www.rm.com/generic.asp?cref=GP1365987&SrcURL=/surface/
Microsoft Surface details: http://www.microsoft.com/surface
Tech-savvy educational leaders will be watching this development with interest because it constitutes the first viable initiative that can effectively address the dynamic early learning environment. If we can put these in ECE classrooms with all of the collaborative tools that are demonstrated here, we are on the road to a true revolution of the educational pathway.
Pay close attention to the details here. Students login by placing a nametag on the table. Content is tailored to their needs and level – even within the context of collaborative play. In general, this resolves our discomfort with having young students in front of computers. Let’s take it one step further and imagine walls that literally open to a child’s fingertips and allows them to interact with inexhaustible content. Consider the live collaboration and then think of the virtual collaboration that is also possible. This whole concept just screams for creativity and innovation.
I’ve been impressed with my re-introduction to educational reform in Washington through my Superintendent Leadership Seminar (first in a year long series). The concept here is personalizing student learning and this is far beyond earlier concepts of differentiation or individualization. Personalizing has more to do with the involvement of the student in understanding the process of their learning through learning targets and meaningful, relevant learning episodes.
In this professional development series, there are 6 elements of positive impact on student learning:
No rocket science here. Just foundational look at the continued development of best practice.
A revamped draft of proposed common academic standards for states offers more detailed expectations than an earlier version, though the document also says that some decisions about specific curricula and lessons should be left to individual states and schools.
via Education Week: Revised Draft of ‘Common Core’ Standards Unveiled.
Direct link to standards: http://www.corestandards.org/
Everyone should become familiar with this and its ramifications.
One of the things on every educational leaders “to-do” list should be addressing early learning. Similar to what Jeffrey Canada has taught us in the Harlem projects (see previous post), this project in South Shore School District is addressing this challenge. Consistent with this is a need to look at Birth to 3 programs that address the community and daycare component in addressing the key to the future of education – a comprehensive plan for kids from womb to 3rd Grade. This is all fully researched and connected to the latest work on brain research. Leaders must address this challenge as critical to sustainable change that has not yet been achieved.