Motivating and responding to adolescent literacies
“Motivation in learning grows in importance through adolescence, but it challenges us all as we try to locate the key to unlocking it (Fisher and Frey, 2010).” I begin with this quote because I think it accurately describes the current state of our education system. As students get older, their ability to learn becomes dependent on their motivation to participate in learning activities. It is a teacher’s job to unlock and tap into the motivation in each of their students to ensure they are engaged in learning. My goal as a teacher is to use purposeful instruction to create students that are mathematically literate- that is, they can interpret and create mathematics.
An effective way to motivate students and make sure they are engaged in learning is to teach for meaning. Jay McTighe (2013) explains that teachers must teach and assess for understanding and transfer. Knowing is not equivalent to understanding…students must show their understanding through transfer. They must use what they learned, explain what they learned, or teach what they learned in order to show understanding. McTighe (2013) describes a process of backward design or planning with the end in mind.
An important focal point, in my opinion, of stage 1 of Understanding By Design (McTighe, 2013) is creating essential questions that are thought provoking, will sustain inquiry, and raise other questions. If we intend to motivate, engage, and develop student learning, we cannot simply give them the answers. So, an essential question might be “how do different interests represent data?” or “how may they choose to represent or misrepresent data?” It is not “is data represented in different ways?” In order to make learning durable and sustainable, we must guide students through inquiry and allow them to construct their own knowledge.
In stage 2, “evidence of understanding”, a memorable point is the creation of a meaningful and challenging performance task.
“The task challenge is central to creating a motivating environment. While there is a certain intuitive logic to reducing difficulty in order to keep students motivated, the evidence among adolescents is quite the opposite. Developmentally, a mark of adolescence is the pleasure one takes in approaching a challenging task (Fisher & Frey, 2010).”
GRASP is a great acronym to help create such tasks (goal, role, audience, situation, product/performance/purpose, and standards). I think tasks that encompass GRASP criteria are more interesting and engaging, promote perspective taking, and build critical thinking skills in students, while also addressing and assessing the standards. For example, in our Toyota recall task performance we asked students to “Pretend you are a public relations officer at either Toyota or a competitor. You are given data and are asked to, form a graphic and written response to the recall crisis that occurred in 2009. After viewing a competitor’s response, create a counter-narrative that addresses the arguments made.” Through situations like these, students are able to take a perspective and show their understanding of material by creating a product-for a specific purpose, situation, and audience.
In stage 3, learning activities are planned. In order to be an effective educator, you must be responsive to the needs of your students. Being responsive “requires that we listen to their voices so that we can respectfully and individually guide them toward their destinations (Gutzmer and Wilder, 2010).” In stage 3, these learning activities must be adaptive and ever changing to accommodate the student’s progress. Responsive instruction identifies outcomes, uses formative assessment to detect bottlenecks, and adjusts instruction to bridge these bottlenecks. An interesting concept introduced by Geneva Gay (2010) is the concept of caring beyond feelings of empathy and emotional attachment. It focuses on caring for instead of about the personal well-being and academic achievement of diverse students (but understanding the two are interrelated). Caring about “conveys feelings of concern for one’s state of being” while caring for “is active engagement in doing something to positively affect it.”
Another method of instruction that will promote mathematical literacy in my students is through the release of responsibility model (Grant et al, 2012). In this model, responsibility is held within four domains: the teacher (focus lesson), the teacher and students (guided instruction), the students (collaborative), and the individual. It is important that each facet is present in every single lesson. It is the teacher’s responsibility to ask questions to check for understanding, prompt cognitive and metacognitive work, use cues to shift attention, and explain and model material. Additionally, it is the teacher’s responsibility to allow for productive collaborative work, as well as independent worth to further learning. Going back to the Toyota recall assignment, perhaps the teacher would begin the lesson with asking students to individually choose which graphs are “good (effective)” or “bad (ineffective).” The teacher may then have a focus lesson on what makes a graph effective or ineffective. The students would then identify effective and ineffective graphs with the teacher through guided instruction. And lastly, the students may work collaboratively to evaluate graphs.
Instructional transparency in all of these methods is very important. Transparent teaching methods allow students to understand how and why they are learning content in particular ways. The Association of American Colleges and Universities (Winkelmes, 2014) states that “transparency around academic work enhances a students’ success at statistically significant levels, with even greater benefits for historically underserved students.” Students that receive transparent instruction about the purposes, tasks, and criteria for their work show gains in academic confidence, a sense of belonging, and a mastery of the skills most valued (Winkelmes, 2014). Ways to be more transparent include discussing learning goals and design rationale before students begin tasks, providing criteria for success, gauging students’ understanding before moving onto the next task, indicating and modeling thought processes and methods, and giving feedback on assignments and a chance to revise. In the Toyota recall scenario, this may mean reminding students that today’s lesson on graph effectiveness is a vital part of a task performance or independent homework. It also includes asking students what they need more of or perhaps what they don’t need (maybe students don’t need a focus lesson on bar graphs which they are very familiar with).
By providing instruction in these ways, I hope to provide my students with the four “O’s” (Grant 2012). First, the opportunity to observe quality models of thinking. Second, the opportunity to explore and evaluate ideas with their peers. Third, the opportunity to test ideas with the confidence that they will be steered toward desired learning. And lastly, the opportunity to personally apply what they have learned to relevant, real-world scenarios using the skills and knowledge acquired in previous classroom activities. This last opportunity, in my opinion, is the most important component in making learning truly meaningful and purposeful.
References:
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2010). Motivation Requires a Meaningful Task. English Journal, 100(1), 30–36. Retrieved June 20, 2017.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grant, M., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Purposeful Instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 45–55. Retrieved June 20, 2017.
Gutzmer, C., & Wilder, P. (2012). “Writing So People Can Hear Me”: Responsive Teaching in a Middle School Poetry Unit. Voices from the Middle, 19(3), 37–44. Retrieved June 20, 2017.
Hawker Bronlow Education. (2013, July 17). What is Understanding by Design? Author Jay McTighe explains. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8F1SnWaIfE
Winkelmes, M. (2014). Transparency in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from https://www.unlv.edu/provost/teachingandlearning
