BCTELA

by Krista Ediger

I've been teaching thematically for the nine years I've been in the classroom, but when I heard Jeff Wilhelm speak at the SFU Literacy Continuum Conference last August, his discussion of the importance of using essential questions to frame and focus units led me to reconsider my unit planning. I had been hearing murmurings of backwards design, and was involved in a group planning process two years ago for Humanities 8 which followed many of the principles of backwards design without my being aware of it, and I worked extensively with a partner on English 11 three years ago tackling big assessment questions, but I knew that it was time to explore the process further. The key difference between the unit planning I was used to and backwards design is the piece where, before deciding on instructional activities, teachers articulate the summative assessments they will use to determine whether or not their students have met their stated enduring understandings or learning outcomes.

Last year, I followed much the same program I taught the year before for English 12, and was feeling increasingly ineffective. In February, I decided I needed to plan the rest of my grade 12 course more purposefully, and so enlisted the help of a district consultant, Joanne Panas. In this article, I'll touch on our planning process, and then outline the unit itself, which grew into a multi-faceted, three month unit on story that touched on literary analysis of poetry and short stories, small group discussion, spoken word and personal narratives. Of course there are things I'll change next year when I teach this again, but it's a unit I will teach again, and some of the principles I practised in this unit in both the planning and implementing stages are ones that I am coming to understand as increasingly important in all my teaching: backwards design (identifying clear enduring understandings, essential questions, summative and formative assessments - all prior to the creation of daily lessons), planning with a partner or team, explicit teaching using modeling, gradual release, and differentiated instruction.

Our Planning Process

Before we began formally planning this unit, we had some conversations that focused on materials and activities. In particular, I was interested in a poetry unit Joanne had done last year with her English 10's that used text sets in a literature circle format. I also wanted to incorporate some spoken-word poetry that had been successful with my students in the past. We had a great conversation about how each of us might open a unit on short stories; from this came one of our big ideas: "Why do people tell stories?" After these informal chats, we set up a meeting to plan with a focus on backwards design. To our first meeting, I brought my copy of Understanding by Design, by Wiggins and McTighe; Joanne brought an activity from her staff meeting the day before, which was a boiled-down version of chapter 1 of Wiggins's and McTighe's book.

We began by determining the enduring understandings we wished to address, and these were based on our knowledge of the new ELA 8-12 IRP and its increased focus on oral language. At the same time, we worked out our essential questions. It's important to note that this was something of a back-and-forth process, not a linear one. We wrestled with phrasing, pared down ideas, checked the book, and moved items from one category to another. Once we had these ideas down, we looked at the skills, knowledge, and attitudes we wanted the students to acquire. Though somewhat "old-school," these last three areas are still valid organizers with their practical and concrete nature, but we realized they should come after the enduring understandings and essential questions are determined.

Our next focus was on assessment. For this part, we decided to go back to our two enduring understandings. We created a chart that helped us see how for each of the enduring understandings, we would have a formative piece and a summative piece. We found it easier to divide the enduring understandings up somewhat, as you can see in our final chart. This gave us a good idea of what we would have students do to demonstrate their acquisition of the big ideas. Again, this was not a linear process; we excitedly came up with ideas for instruction and assessment as we chatted, and wrote them down separately for the next section. At times it was hard to keep focused on just the key assessments. As we worked, we realized that we wanted to weave stories and poetry together; from that came the idea of choosing poems for the literature circles that had something to do with the idea of "story," which linked back to our essential questions.

Next, we needed to get a sense of the flow of the unit-how would we instruct and assess students so as to move them toward these final assessments? Actually, it was by then a fairly simple process. I began by sketching out a flow for the unit, incorporating instruction using modeling and gradual release, as well as formative assessment. Together we brainstormed ways to flesh this out, while continually checking back to our big ideas. Once this flow was pretty well set, we went back through it to make sure we were following a clear pattern of instruction and practice, followed by assessment. When we created the chart from our notes, the purpose of each activity was clear.

We met again about a week and a half later; by that point, I had just begun the unit with a class on "stories" - the history of story, their purpose and power, how their roles have changed. We also talked about narrators and points of view and truth and perspective before sharing some of the stories we tell often from our own lives. Then we looked at three short stories: "Man from the South" by Roald Dahl, "The Bet" by Anton Chekhov and "The Chaser" by John Collier, and did a variety of pre/during/post reading strategies, followed by discussion that linked us back to our opening questions and the essential questions of the unit. Joanne and I began our second formal planning session by brainstorming other possible stories for later in the unit. Then we worked on the shift to poetry. We decided to do a "fishbowl" with three teachers, Joanne, me and Gordon Powell, the teacher-librarian at McRoberts, using a new poem for each of my three English 12 classes; in addition, each of the administrators was invited to participate in the fishbowl sessions, and we ended up having an administrator at each one. We also worked on the poetry literature circle idea, and began to think of suitable poems as well as how to make up the text sets. Because we had done so much work last time on getting a clear idea of our focus for the unit, we were able to spend more time on the actual instruction, materials, and student activities we would use. We were also able to take our initial notes from the first planning day and make changes and additions to them to reflect what was happening in the classroom.

This has been a great process, and has solidified for us a few key points: two minds (or more) are better than one; the process of backward design is very practical, but it's not linear; and there is no "one right way" to incorporate the key concepts of understanding by design into your own planning. It doesn't matter what route you take, as long as you get to the desired destination.

 

The following is the result of our initial work with backwards design.

  

Part 1: THE BIG IDEAS
Enduring Understandings

• Students will understand how to engage with and respond to literature and ideas, and to interact with others around those ideas, orally and in writing.
• Students will understand that stories have a variety of purposes in our lives and society, and a variety of effects on us.
  

Essential Questions

• Why do we tell stories?
• What are the ways we tell stories?
• What stories do I (students) want to tell? Skills:

Students will…

• Respond personally to literature and ideas
• Participate appropriately and thoughtfully in small-group and large-group discussions
• Make appropriate choices in diction, language, rhythm, and structure when presenting
• Write analytical paragraphs and essays about short stories and poems

Knowledge: Students will…

• Review and use the elements of literature and literary devices of short stories and poems

Attitudes: Students will…

• Gain an appreciation of the purpose of stories in our lives and culture n Demonstrate willingness to engage in and explore literature and ideas
  

  

Part 2: Assessment

Enduring Understanding	Formative Assessment	Summative Assessment
Engage with and respond to literature and ideas, and interact with others around those ideas, orally…	■ class discussion of rubric for group discussion; students use rubric to evaluate teachers in fishbowl discussion ■ self-assessment and teacher feedback of small-group discussions (first - poetry lit circles and then short stories)	■ self-evaluation of small-group discussions (poetry lit circles)
…and in writing	■ teacher feedback and self/peer-assessment of analytical paragraphs on poems and essays on stories using teacher rubric	■ teacher evaluation of analytical essay on short story
Understand that stories have a variety of purposes in our lives and society…	■ peer/self-assessment of language and presentation skills for group poem written in response to a story or poem, presented to the class	See below.
… and a variety of effects on us	See above.	■ teacher assessment of spoken-word poem (your own story) written by individuals and presented to the class (Poetry Café)

 

Nicole Widdess teaches in Richmond and is the Curriculum Co-Chair for BCTELA. She is committed to teaching diverse learners and is passionate about literacy. Her current focus is teaching students in the middle years.

Click here to open a PDF version of this article.

As one of the Curriculum Coordinators, I am pleased to share that our Curriculum Pack sub-committee has developed new submission criteria that reflect current thinking, research and pedagogy. These criteria are also aligned with the ideas and research presented in the pedagogical considerations section of BC’s new K-7 and draft 8-12 English Language Arts IRPs. We hope that the new criteria will support you, our members, in writing up and submitting units of study for publication.

When you submit a curriculum pack, a member of our committee will provide descriptive feedback to assist you in revising and readying your unit for publication. Once accepted for publication, you are eligible for curriculum resource funds ($400). If you are interested in crafting a unit to be published by BCTELA please be sure to review the criteria below. Please send your unit (or proposal for a unit) to Nicole Widdess at NWiddess@richmond.sd38.bc.ca. Once your proposal or unit has been reviewed, we will be sure to get back to you as soon as possible.

 

Overview

• Identifies essential questions and enduring understandings

o These are the big ideas/inquiries that will guide the unit and the skills/strategies (including cognitive and metacognitive) that will be used/developed by students

• This overview should demonstrate links to the 2006 K-7 and/or the 2007 Draft 8-12 ELA IRPs m cuts across outcomes from the 3 organizers and 4 suborganizers of the ELA IRP

Assessment

• formative assessment/metacognitive activities

o formative assessment practices that help students learn to analyze and critique their work and to set personalized goals in relation to shared criteria

o offer students opportunities to generate criteria and strategies that are both contextual and meaningful

o a variety of assessment activities, including performance-based assessment

• summative assessment m performance-based assessment that includes detailed rubrics and links back to enduring understandings

Lesson Sequences

• a clear, detailed outline of suggested lesson sequences including m gradual release of responsibility

o assessment-to-instruction m metacognitive activities (e.g. using and/or generating criteria, self-assessment, goal-setting, and reflection)

o reading, writing, and oral language activities

o well-structured lessons that help students connect, process, and transform and personalize texts, concepts, and/or understandings

Diversity Considerations

• suggestions for adapting based on students' individual strengths and needs

• ways to differentiate based on student interests and context (e.g. text choices, variety of output options, variety of instructional modes)

Additional Documents

• performance rubrics

• handouts used in the lessons

• resources used, and suggestions for alternative resources

Reflection

• what worked especially well

• what came before this and after this in the year

• how this unit built on or was able to be built upon by other inquiries/units

Would you like support in developing a unit that integrates strategic teaching, formative and summative assessment, gradual release and the use of diverse texts using learning outcomes from the new IRP? Consider attending the Saturday Institute at our Fall Conference October 25, 2008. The 2008 Conference will be held at the Delta Hotel in Richmond this year. BCTELA Executive members Krista Ediger, Joanne Panas, Leyton Schnellert, and Nicole Widdess will be facilitating an institute on backwards design tentatively called "Designing Units with the End in Mind." A description of this institute follows:

So many best practices...how do you put them all together to create engaging, pedagogically-sound units that will help your students learn what they need to? Come and spend the day with us-learn about inquiry and backwards design, modeling and gradual release, assessment-to-instruction-and put it all together in a framework for a unit you can use. To get the most out of this session, bring a topic for a unit and sample texts you might use, and any brainstorming you might have already done.

The Curriculum Pack sub-committee members are looking forward to a year of learning together as we explore the new English Language Arts IRPs and develop new curriculum packs to support their implementation.

Amber Huguet Flanagan taught in Maple Ridge for six years and has worked with student teachers at SFU for two years. She is the District Facilitator for Mentoring, Social responsibility, and elementary Initiatives in SD#42.

 

Imagine a classroom with twenty-five students and one teacher. At any time of day you can walk in and observe some students fully engaged, excited and motivated as they work through the given task and others seemingly disengaged and unmotivated to do the task at hand. What makes one student motivated, at times regardless of the subject or task, and others unmotivated most of the time? As a classroom teacher, I continually asked myself this question. As I tried to get to know my students to figure out the factors that contributed to their motivation, I realized this would not be an easy task, as it seemed different for everyone. Thus, engagement and motivation became the main focus of my research throughout my master’s coursework and ultimately, the topic of my thesis. As I taught full time while completing my master’s degree, I continually reflected on my own practice and developed my own thoughts and beliefs about motivation and engagement. I have a strong belief in the power of the teacher-student relationship, which developed even before I began teaching from my own experiences as a student and from what I learned about attachment theory and working with students with behavioural challenges within the education program. I found that the positive relationship I tried to develop with each of the students in my classroom seemed to contribute to their motivation, but this positive relationship was not enough to motivate some students. I wanted to find out what other factors contributed to their motivation or lack of motivation, so I started to read research from various sources and I decided to do my thesis research on motivation.I worked with a group of grade seven students from another classroom in the school in which I taught in order to gain a clearer understanding of student motivation and engagement in school. The first step in my study was to gain an understanding of the research on motivation.

 

What does the motivation research have to say?

The research on motivation was broad and deep, so I began to delve into the achievement motivation research where I learned of a vast array of theoretical perspectives. I chose to focus on four main theories found in the psychology literature. One of these theories, Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1994), relates to whether students attribute their successes and failures to effort or ability, which in turn may influence their motivation to complete a task. Another is Social Cognitive Theory (Self-Efficacy) (Bandura, 1994), which suggests that students’ past experiences contribute to their beliefs about their ability to be successful in similar tasks in the future. The third theory I addressed is Value-Expectancy Theory (Wigfield et al., 1997). This theory suggests that both students’ expectations regarding how well they will do on a task, often based on past experiences, and the level of value they hold for the task contribute to their motivation to complete the task. The final theory I considered is Goal Orientation Theory (Ames, 1992). Goal Orientation theory highlights that, to varying degrees, students hold performance and mastery goals and these goals influence their motivation in school.

Each of these theories seems to potentially provide an answer to my initial question concerning why some students are motivated in school and others are not. However, it is difficult to distinguish one of these theories from another in practice as the processes that each describe may all be occurring within a student simultaneously. Thus, in my opinion, none of the theories provide a clear picture of the student’s motivation on their own. As well, although I believed the teacher relationship was a powerful motivating factor for students; it was not directly addressed in any of this research; therefore, I looked to other disciplines to expand my understanding of the literature.

I believed it was also important to consider the contextual factors within the classroom when examining students’ motivation in school. The socially oriented literature discusses students’ need for affiliation within the classroom, which speaks to their need to belong and to feel a part of the community. Engaged participation was one theory within this literature that addressed this need. Lave and Wenger (1991) describe engaged participation as a process by which a student enters a community as a newcomer. Once the student has internalized the values and expectations within that community, she becomes an old-timer and she will be more engaged and more likely to participate within the community. Lave and Wenger suggest that members are more likely to internalize the values and expectations of the community if there is mutual respect among them. It was great to see research that addressed the relationships students had within the classroom, but I knew there must be more to it so I continued reading. This led to further research on the social factors contributing to a student’s motivation in school. This research suggests the relationships students have with their teacher and peers are both strong contributing factors to their motivation in school, and that these relationships can positively and negatively influence a student’s participation and motivation in school (Murdock & Miller, 2003; Toohey, 2000; Wentzel, 1994).

Taking into consideration the research on achievement motivation, students’ need for affiliation (Coleman, 2001), engaged participation, and the additional research on social factors, it was apparent that independently none of the theories provided a complete picture of student motivation in school. Therefore, I considered each of these approaches in my attempts to understand intermediate students’ motivation in the classroom, and I decided to take a qualitative approach to my own research, which I believed would allow me to look at all possible theories that may come into play when considering the factors that contribute to a student’s classroom motivation. I thought qualitative work that focused on students’ perceptions would provide a new, possibly more complete, perspective on motivation in the classroom. Therefore, in my research I interviewed students and observed them in their classroom to gain an understanding of how a group of grade seven students from an inner city school perceived their own motivation in school.

I believed that having a deeper understanding of the factors that students believed influenced their motivation in the classroom would be valuable in helping me to more clearly understand students’ behaviour in the classroom, which would help me become a better teacher. I hoped that this study would answer some of the questions I had about student motivation, or lack of motivation, and I realized that to gain a comprehensive understanding of classroom motivation, I needed to consider the whole child including both their social and academic lives, which I attempted to do in my research.

 

What do the students have to say?

I randomly selected 5 students, Derek, Brad, Sara, Brenda, and Brett (pseudonyms), from a grade seven classroom in the school. I interviewed each student at the beginning and end of the three-week research period and observed the students eight times of varying lengths, within various contexts, such as the classroom, the library, the gym and the computer lab. Once analysis of the data occurred it was apparent that motivation might not be the correct term to describe what was happening; thus the term school engagement, which was more observable, seemed more fitting.

With the term school engagement in mind, it was evident that a simple model of school engagement might not exist because student engagement and the factors that seemed to contribute to it looked different across individuals. However, some common factors were evident within each student: relational factors, evident in the student’s relationships with teachers, peers, and family; contextual factors, such as the classroom or subject the student participated in; and individual factors, such as personal interests and beliefs all influenced the engagement of the students in this study. In addition to these factors, some external elements, such as choice within tasks and working groups and grades also contributed to their school engagement, or lack thereof (see Figure 1).

Although each of these factors was present in one way or another in each student’s story, how they influenced each student’s engagement differed across individuals. All of the factors that arose within this study are present within the current research on motivation and engagement. However, to date a single coherent conceptualization of all the factors that may influence students’ engagement is not present in the literature. I explored the findings of this study to determine the connections between the students in this study and the research on motivation and student engagement.

 

What did the students say about how relational factors
influenced their motivation and engagement in school
and how does this connect with the research?

In the motivation research the need for affiliation is seen as a social form of motivation relating to the need to develop close, personal, and cooperative relationships with others (Coleman, 2001). In the emotional engagement research, a similar concept, referred to as a sense of relatedness, exists. Both relate to a student’s need for belonging and connectedness among members of the classroom. Furrer and Skinner (2003) suggest

 

feelings of relatedness tapped by measures of school climate and quality of teacherstudent relationships, as well as feelings of belonging, inclusion, acceptance, importance, and interpersonal support, have been linked to important academic outcomes, including self-efficacy, success expectations, achievement values, positive affect, effort, engagement, interest in school, task goal orientation, and school marks (p.149).

 

Students in this study demonstrated this need for affiliation and relatedness. This was evident in the relationships they developed with their teachers and peers; however, the influence these relationships had on their school engagement was both positive and negative.

 

How do teachers impact student motivation and
engagement?

Brett highlighted the importance of the teacher in his learning and engagement in school. He stated, “The best thing she does that motivates me is by teaching me. The more she teaches the more I get motivated to work to learn new things….” (BK Int.1, 2/10/04, p.9).

Fredericks et al. (2004) discussed the influence a classroom teacher can have on a student’s school engagement. They state that “in classrooms where teachers created respectful and socially supportive environments, pressed students for understanding, and supported autonomy, students were more strategic about learning and had higher behavioral engagement and affect (Stipek, 2002; Tumer, Meyer, Cox, Logan, DiCintio, & Thomas, 1998)” (p.75). Not only is this consistent with the findings of this study, particularly in Brad’s case with the supportive relationship he had with his classroom teacher versus that with the librarian, which was often negative and plagued by misbehaviours, warnings, and consequences, or his classroom teacher from the previous year at another school where Brad was suspended 7 times, but it also parallels the motivation research previously discussed (Murdock & Miller, 2003; Toohey, 2000; Wentzel, 1989; Wentzel, 1994).

Brad says, “If they respected me I wouldn’t have disliked teachers as much as I do right now” (BB Int.1, 2/9/04, p.7). When he changed schools this negative attitude carried with him; however, throughout the interviews and observations it seemed as though the current relationship with his teacher was much more positive. Although Brad described his past relationships with teachers very negatively, his perspective was much different when he described his current teacher. He described his teacher this year as “understanding”, “respectful”, and “helpful”. He said he had a comfortable relationship with her and he could go to her for help with his problems. He explained that she would not yell at him or get him in trouble, and that she would try to talk to him first before going to the principal if a situation happened. Brad said he could talk to her about anything and she would listen to him and would do anything to help him. He also said he believed she helped him learn more and get better grades (BB Int. 1, 2/9/04, p.7, 8, 17, 24).

In this study, the students were more likely to work for teachers they valued and respected, which was particularly evident with Derek and Brad who demonstrated very different behaviours with the classroom teacher, librarian, and teacher-on-call. Additionally, at times, the teacher relationship seemed to take precedence over the peer relationships; however, it truly depended on the nature of the studentteacher relationship. This was apparent in the struggle some of the students demonstrated when trying to gain the respect of the teacher and peers simultaneously. For example, in the library Derek and Brad seemed more easily enticed into behavioural antics with their peers than in the classroom. This could be due to the fact they had greater respect for the classroom teacher than they had for the librarian, thus in the library the peer relationship took precedence. This parallels Murdock and Miller’s (2003) research suggesting students are more inclined to internalize the values and standards of their teacher when they perceive mutual respect and admiration to be key characteristics of their relationship. This could explain why Brad and Derek’s behaviours with the teacher-on-call were so different than with the classroom teacher, as they may not have had enough time to develop a relationship, thus they did not necessarily internalize the values the teacher-on-call may have had. When asked about whether or not his behaviour was different with his classroom teacher versus a teacher-on-call, Derek replied,

 

I’d say I probably act maybe a little different. Since it’s
somebody I don’t know I probably act a little different, like
I’m really good with the teachers I know in the school, but
if it’s with a TOC I might be a little worse…I mean, refusing
to do work and having big hissy fits and stuff…Because it’s
somebody different and… it’s just somebody different. (DF
Int.2, 3/8/04, p.10).

 

Derek accurately reflected his behaviour as during observations it was evident how different he was with a TOC; however, contrary to his statement, he also acted quite differently with the librarian, and she was a teacher he knew in the school. Connell (as cited in Fredericks et al., 2004) explored the connection between behavioural engagement and classroom structure. He found that teachers who were clear and consistent with their expectations have students who are behaviourally engaged. It is possible then that Brad and Derek may not have perceived the structure of the library class as clear and consistent, thus leading to behavioural disengagement. This is only one other explanation for why Derek and Brad acted so differently in the library than in the classroom.

It is interesting to note that not all students in the study demonstrated different behaviours with the librarian or the teacher-on-call than they did with their classroom teacher. What may account for this difference? It is my belief that students with a strong self-efficacy and self-concept, such as Sara, have internalized their own set of values and beliefs regarding school no matter which teacher was present; their personal beliefs had more of an influence on their school engagement than any other factor. Sarah respected her classroom teacher as well; this is evident in the way she described her,

 

She is really nice. She said she is old and haggard but
she is not…She has a good attitude when she gets mad
at people, she expresses it in a different way than other
teachers do…And she just makes learning fun, by
doing interesting assignments and stuff…She doesn’t
yell and point her finger. She just tells them to go in
the hall and talks to them in a minute or something
(SP Int.1, 2/9/04, p3).

 

However, although she expressed that the librarian was at times unfair, her behaviours, engagement and motivation in the library were no different than in the classroom. Thus for Sara, it seemed her high self-concept was a bigger influence on her engagement than outside factors, such as teacher relationships. It would be necessary to conduct a deeper study to determine if this is in fact the case.

 

Following this line of thinking then, Brad and Derek, who may not have as high a self-concept as Sara, demonstrated different behaviours and engagement from room to room and teacher to teacher, thus highlighting the importance of relational factors on their engagement. In the classroom, for example, the relationship each of the boys had with the teacher seemed to have a powerful influence on their engagement, whereas, when a teacher on call was present, their peers seemed to have more of an influence on their engagement.

 

How do peers impact student motivation and
engagement?

Just as with the teacher relationship, the influence of peers on a student’s school engagement differed from student to student. In Brenda’s case, the social aspects of school were very important to her and she seemed more engaged when talking with her friends or passing notes than when completing her work. She described herself as a student who did some work but was mostly talking to other students (BE Int.1, 2/9/04, p.5). She said, “I guess I’d rather talk than do work” (BE Int. 2, 3/8/04, p.7). Thus, her peers seemed to have a negative influence on her school engagement. Sara and Brett seemed to recognize the influence their peers might have on their school engagement and tried to make choices accordingly. They chose to either work alone or with friends whom they believed would have a similar work ethic or help them to reach their goals. This is in line with the ethnographic research showing that more successful students seek out friendships with academically supportive peers and separate themselves from peers who may encourage behaviours that do not fall within the school norms (Juvonen, 1993, 1995; Farrell, 1990, 1994, cited in Murdock and Miller, 2003). This was evident with all of the students in this study who stated in their interviews that they would not want to work with Brad because he fooled around too much.

Although others felt Brad was a bad influence on them in the classroom, Brad also knew he needed to make particular choices regarding seating and work partners in order to be more engaged in school as well. However, at times he found the desire to be with his friends too strong. He struggled with this desire a number of times throughout this study period, particularly outside of the classroom walls. In the library, Brad threw airplanes with his friends and in the computer lab he fooled around and swore at the teacher, but in the classroom, he chose to sit alone in order to better focus on his work. This again supports the finding that the relationship Brad had with his classroom teacher seemed to have a more powerful influence on his engagement than his peers in the classroom, but outside of the classroom his peers seemed to have a stronger influence. Murdock and Miller (2003) state that peer influences could be both positive and negative, as students can be reinforced by some peers for behaviours that fall within the school norms and in other instances by behaviours that are not within the norms. In Brad’s case, the laughter and support he received from his peers in the library and computer lab seemed to reinforce the negative behaviours, thus leading to his lack of engagement. In the classroom, however, the positive reinforcement from his teacher seemed to override that of his peers, thus leading to increased school engagement.

Therefore, although peers do seem to have an influence on a student’s school engagement, the level of influence depends on a number of other factors, specifically relational and contextual. Additionally, although not covered specifically within this study, an individual’s self-concept and personal beliefs may also determine the level of influence peers can have on a student’s school engagement.

 

What did students say about contextual factors and how
they influenced their motivation and engagement in
school and how does this connect with the research?

I believe it is also necessary to look at the context the students are working within when trying to determine the factors that may influence their school engagement. For the purposes of this study, the context included external factors, such as the classroom structure, representing the values and expectancies of the teacher and students within it; the subject students participated in; and the grades for which they strove. The main factor within the classroom and subject areas that affected the students in this study was choice.

 

How does choice impact student motivation and
engagement?

This excerpt from an interview with Brad highlights the
power choice has on student motivation and engagement:

 

A.H.: So, why do you think you find it more fun
learning stuff about your socials project than other
things?

B.B. Because I get to choose in this project what
I want to write about. So that makes me want to read
and write more stuff. (BB Int.1, 2/9/04, p.2).

 

When prompted to explain further, Brad said:

 

Like when we get assigned things, like go study on the
Nile. A certain subject like gifts of the Nile, if it was
something like go choose something like a topic on
the Nile that you would prefer to study on. If it was
that, it would be more like engaging cause you would
be able to pick if it was something interesting. (BB
Int.1, 2/9/04, p.2).

 

The research on motivation and school engagement speaks of choice as a motivating factor for students in the classroom. Ames (1992) found that choice in learning and opportunities for collaboration and discussion will elicit a mastery goal orientation in students, which in turn is said to orient students to a focus on learning, mastery of content and tasks, and is related to a number of adaptive outcomes such as high efficacy, task value, and interest. The engagement research also highlighted autonomy, characterized by choice, democratic decision-making, and absence of external rewards, as a classroom characteristic that enhances school engagement (Fredericks et al., 2004). Choice was a motivating factor in the present study as each of the students discussed having choices in tasks, such as which topic to research in social studies, or choices in groups, such as whether to work alone, as Sara often did, or with a group, as Brad preferred to do. When the students were able to choose a topic, they were more interested and thus more engaged in their work.

Further research on school engagement also supports the use of choice as a motivating factor for students in school. Ryan and Connell (1989) believe this is due to an individual’s need for autonomy, or desire to do things for personal reasons, rather than doing things because their actions are controlled by others (as cited in Fredericks et al., 2004). Connell and Wellborn (1991) state “the need for autonomy is most likely to be met in contexts where students have choice, shared decision making, and relative freedom from external controls. When individuals’ autonomy needs are met, it is assumed that they will be more engaged” (as cited in Fredericks et al., 2004, p.81). This was evident with Brett, as he explained why choice in working group was important to him:

 

I like it if she gives us a choice because there is some
people I like to work with because they are good maybe at research and I am good at like drawing and
fine tuning stuff and then there is some projects I just
like to do by myself because I like certain things to be
done (BK Int.1, 2/10/04, p.5).

 

In the present study, the classroom teacher provided students with choice whenever possible and the students shared their appreciation for this, as they each mentioned the importance of choice to their engagement in the interviews. However, having choices does not guarantee a student will be more engaged in an assignment, as Brenda demonstrated in this study. Although she could choose the topic she wrote about in her speech, her disinterest in sharing her speech with others seemed to have had more of an influence on her desire to complete the speech. Thus, although providing choice in the classroom meets the students’ need for autonomy, potentially leading to increased engagement, there is no guarantee that students will be more engaged when choices are provided when it comes to individual students who, as Wentzel (1999) states, have a number of social and academic factors competing for their psychological resources and energy.

 

How do grades impact student motivation and
engagement?

The students had very different perspectives on grades,
which reinforced the importance of getting to know my own
students as individuals. Brad believed grades had a negative
effect on his school engagement:

 

I do not think that there should be grades or anything
cause that is just pushing kids to either feel bad of
themselves or good of themselves. And think highly.
I think that it should just be an award that they get.
Like no A’s no B’s or anything, just good work, or try
harder or something. Like I think that in class if isn’t
like A or B or 100% it should be like more of a positive
thing (BB Int.1, 2/9/04, p.5).

 

Sara, on the other hand, believed grades were an important
motivator for her and she had her own beliefs about
what a ‘good’ grade for her might be:

 

Um, because a C+ is good, like it is a good mark but
on my report card, I have always been getting higher
marks than that, and so if I stick to that I might do
better. So if I get a C+ I might start slacking off more
so I won’t care if I get such a good grade. … cause if
you get an A, it almost inspires you to do more work
and if you get a really bad mark, if you totally fail a
test then it will make you feel bad and you will just
want to stop it (SP Int.2, 2/9/04, p.3).

 

Each of the students in this study discussed grades in relation to their motivation in school. The students’ desire for a particular grade influenced the decisions they made regarding assignments and working groups. For example, Brad chose his partners for the social studies project based on who he thought he would work well with and who would help him get a good grade. As I discovered during the analysis, each of the students had different views of what they considered a ‘good’ grade and the goals they set for themselves were based on this belief. How the students determined what they believed to be a ‘good’ grade is unknown, however, the students’ parents, peers, and teachers seemed to have some influence. This was evident in Derek’s case where his parents rewarded him for ‘B’ and ‘A’ grades, thus setting a precedent for what a ‘good’ grade might be. This highlights a possible connection between relational factors and grades, thus strengthening the influence relational factors can have on a students’ school engagement.

The students’ plans for their future also had an impact on their beliefs about letter grades and thus their school engagement. This was particularly true for Brenda, who said she was happy with C+ grades but if she decided to go to University after graduation, she would need to set goals for higher grades in high school. In order to achieve higher grades Brenda believed she would need to work harder and make sure to get to school on time. Brenda’s story is an example of a performance or performance-approach goal (Ames, 1992; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000) to achieve higher grades, potentially influencing her school engagement. Additionally, the belief Brenda had in her ability to achieve higher grades if she put in more effort is reflective of the attribution theory previously discussed (Weiner, 1994). Attribution theory seemed to accurately account for many of the students’ beliefs in this study, as each of them attributed their success or failure, as represented by the grades they received, to the effort they put forth. However, as mentioned in the introduction, attribution theory alone cannot account for the students’ school engagement.

The students’ grades also contributed to their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). For example, Brad described how getting a high grade on a math assignment led to “heightened expectations” as he knew he was capable of getting a high grade in the future. Therefore, Brad’s self-efficacy toward his math skills increased due to his beliefs surrounding the high grade he received. It was interesting to note that although Brad mentioned that he didn’t think we should have grades in school, they still impacted his motivation in a positive way at times. Derek had a low self-efficacy when it came to French, as he had poor grades in the past, which he said caused him to decrease in effort on future assignments. This decrease in effort may have allowed Derek to feel better about his marks in French because he could ascribe the low grade to his lack of effort. Although Derek seemed to have a high self-efficacy in writing, this was not enough to overpower his concern for how his peers might react to his writing, leading him to choose not to share his writing with his peers. This again testifies to the strong role of relational factors in a student’s school engagement. Thus, self-efficacy seems to have both a positive and negative influence on students’ school engagement and again, cannot be looked at in isolation.

 

What did the students say about how individual factors
influenced their motivation and engagement in school
and how does it connect with the research?

It is difficult to discuss the individual factors that influenced the students’ school engagement as a completely separate factor because the relational and contextual factors could influence a student’s personal beliefs and goals as well. As the scope of this study did not allow for a clear map as to where the students’ interests, beliefs, and goals arose, I focused solely on the influence an individual’s beliefs and goals may have on their school engagement.

I found it useful to look toward some of the motivation research when examining the individual factors that influenced the students in this study. The previous discussion on attribution theory and self-efficacy in relation to grades also fits within this discussion. A student’s self-efficacy for example is not high or low across the board, but is subject- or taskspecific (Bandura, 1994). Therefore, a student, such as Derek, may have a high self-efficacy in one area, such as writing, thus influencing his interest and goals in the subject area, but a low one in another, such as French. It is difficult to determine all of the factors that may have led to this high or low efficacy as a number of factors could have contributed along the way. For example, in French, Derek said it was boring and he didn’t try because he wasn’t interested in it. This lack of interest could be due to a number of factors, for example he may have had a bad experience in the fourth grade where he was embarrassed in front of his peers, thus influencing his interest in French, leading to poor grades, and ultimately to his lack of effort and low efficacy toward the subject. Therefore, it is necessary to look at both relational and contextual factors to determine where one’s individual beliefs derived.

The goals students set each day are also very important when it comes to school engagement and can also be reflective of an individual’s beliefs, attributions, and expectancies. As we saw in the discussion about grades, performance goals seem to take precedence over mastery goals for the students in this study. This was evident with Derek, who said his goal in grade seven was,

 

To learn as much as I can in school and make sure
that everything that is told to me in school stays in my
brain. So I study it every night and a little bit every
day at school to keep it in there and remind myself
how it’s done…. Because then I know that when it
comes to tests that I know that I have a really good
chance of getting good marks and that, then I just
know that I’ll do good, and I’ll have people that will
be very proud of me (DF Int.2, 3/8/04, p.12).

 

It is difficult to determine why, and if this will change over
time for any of the students, but I suspect that as individuals
decide what they want to do for their future careers, mastery
will become more of a goal.

 

How does what I learned about student engagement
influence classroom practice?

There are a number of findings in this study that teachers can take into account when setting up their classrooms and interacting with their students. As Fredericks et al. (2004) state, “engagement can result from a variety of antecedents in the context, both social and academic, at both the school and classroom levels, allowing for a wide range of intervention targets” (p.83).

 

Building relationships and setting up a classroom
community

I knew from my own teaching experience that the relationship I had with my students was very important and the research confirmed this belief. I provided students in my class the opportunity to share their interests and beliefs about teaching and learning through a letter they wrote the first week of school. With guiding questions and a freedom to share whatever they thought was important for me to know as their teacher, the students had control over their learning environment. The information provided guided my planning and instruction, and the letter not only provided a quick picture of each individual student but also a snapshot of their writing. The desire to maintain a positive relationship with students also influenced my classroom management style. I believed greatly in attachment theory and the influence of a student’s secure and insecure attachments at home on their beliefs when it comes to building and maintaining relationships with others. I knew that many of my students came from situations where they often felt let down and developed insecure attachments at home and I wanted to ensure they did not feel that way in my classroom. My belief is that unless there is a serious safety concern with the student remaining in the classroom, all behavioural issues are dealt with by me in my classroom, or just outside the door if privacy is required. I don’t believe in ‘kicking students out’ or sending them to the office, as this sends a message to the student that I don’t care about them and don’t want to take the time to figure out what is going on, which can often reinforce their beliefs that I might ‘leave’ them just as a parent did. Additionally, taking the time to talk to the students and figure out the intention behind their behaviour demonstrates to students that I respect and value them, which, as this study and the research demonstrates, impacts a student’s engagement and motivation in school.

Establishing an engaging and motivating environment should be a goal for classroom teachers. The first few days and weeks of school are imperative in building positive relationships with and between students, thus finding ways to build a sense of community and ownership in the classroom is essential. Additionally, research demonstrates that teachers who are clear in their expectations from the start and provide consistent responses have students who are more behaviourally engaged (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner & Belmont, 1993 as cited in Fredericks et al., 2004). Thus, taking time to ensure expectations are clear and perceived as fair by the students and constructing a classroom environment that allows for student choice could go a long way in promoting school engagement in students. Setting classroom expectations with students and talking about what they look like and sound like in the classroom is valuable and provides students with a sense of ownership over their learning and the classroom environment. Although establishing expectations together, getting to know your students, and creating a community in the classroom can take time at the start of the year, it is worth it. As the research and the students in this study suggest, taking the time to build positive relationships and involving students in creating the classroom community, influence motivation and engagement which should in turn make it easier to address the curricular goals in the classroom.

Another interesting finding in this study that influenced my classroom teaching was the fact that none of the students talked about rewards. Although I knew the classroom teacher had a reward program in her classroom, including a ‘golden chair’ and a class ‘maturity points’ chart, there was no mention of rewards in any of the interviews. In fact, during one of the observations, the student who ‘won’ the right to sit in the golden chair chose not to. I always struggled with the use of the rewards in the classroom as I didn’t want my students to act a certain way because of a reward; I wanted them to internalize their behaviours and choose to act certain ways because it was right or the responsible or the respectful choice. This study just reinforced my beliefs about not using rewards in my classroom and strengthened my resolve around this issue. Although this did not stop my students from asking for candy at times, they understood why I did not use rewards in my classroom once I explained it to them.

Essentially, involving students in decision-making in the classroom from the start of the year will go a long way in creating an engaging environment for students. The students in this study all talked about the fact their teacher listened to them, and many of the examples the students shared demonstrated the democratic nature of the classroom, as well as the fact the teacher was “human”. She laughed and joked with the students and although the students had a lot of power within the classroom, the teacher always maintained control and a mutual respect was evident. Building positive relationships with students, creating an environment that encourages positive relationships with peers, and providing students with choices allowing for individual needs and interests to be met all contribute to their school engagement.

 

Providing choices and differentiating instruction

Providing choices wherever possible will give students a sense of autonomy and allow them to meet the goals of the school while still feeling a sense of control. This is one aspect of my teaching that really changed following my research. I ensured that I provided students choices in what they learned, how they learned, and how they showed what their learning whenever possible. In fact, this led me to look more closely at Differentiated Instruction and how it impacts student learning. Differentiated Instruction involves taking into account students’ learning styles, interests, and readiness, which I already did in my classroom through the letter writing activity and other assessments for learning using the Performance Standards or other tools at the beginning of units, but it also suggests differentiating product, process, and content in order to meet the needs of all students (Tomlinson, 2001).

As I taught full time while completing my masters, I had the chance to implement what I learned right away. I began to provide students with more choices in how they showed their learning, ensuring that the students all demonstrated an understanding of the big ideas we learned about, but in various ways. For example, in Language Arts, we learned about a number of reading comprehension strategies as a whole group, where I modelled and students practiced various ways to show their learning and then students chose books at their own level and demonstrated their comprehen
sion in various ways throughout the novel. Not only did students have choice in the novel they read, which took into account their interest and readiness, but they also decided how they would show their learning throughout the novel, with the expectation that by the end of the novel they demonstrated their understanding predicting, identifying main ideas, and visualizing, as well as their understanding of character and setting. I found the students to be much more engaged and motivated than when I had completed whole class novel studies in the past. In fact, some students showed far more than they ever would have with the limiting units I used when I first started teaching.

I also began to experiment with ways to differentiate process, by providing my students with choices in how they learned, such as using the internet, reading texts, or watching videos. It was very important in this case to ensure the classroom expectations were clear and that students felt safe working on their own or with others, as differentiating process required students to move around the room and choose which way works best for them. Differentiating content was bit more challenging; however, we had the chance to experiment with this through a Social Studies unit where the class learned about aspects of culture through studying North America and then the students in grade five either researched Canada or a province, the students in grade six researched either South America or a country in South America, and students on an IEP completed projects on Maple Ridge or our school community. This allowed all students to choose different content to research based on their interest and readiness and yet the whole class learned about the big ideas of culture and shared their learning with others at the end.

Based on the findings in the research and the students in this study, differentiated instruction clearly reflects the factors that influence motivation and engagement in school. In order to successfully differentiate instruction, teachers need to set up a classroom where students feel safe and have some autonomy and control over their environment and their learning; where teachers know their students’ interests, learning styles and readiness; and where teachers develop positive relationships in order to be able to ‘let go’ and trust the students to make the choices that are best for them. I found that building positive relationships with my students, differentiating instruction whenever possible, and having high expectations of the students in my class not only increased the engagement of the students in my room, but also made my days more enjoyable as students were engaged and less likely to be off task. Thus, taking into account all of the factors that contribute to students’ motivation and engagement and incorporating them into my teaching style positively impacted not only my students, but also myself as a teacher. I felt better about my teaching, and I believe my students learned more in my classroom.

 

Conclusion

Conducting this research was an important part of my development as a teacher. It confirmed my belief that building a powerful relationship with each student is invaluable in setting up a successful classroom where students will feel comfortable enough to ask questions and learn in ways that are meaningful for them. It confirmed for me that taking the time to set up a classroom based on mutual respect and student autonomy is so important, and will go a long way toward the engagement and motivation of students in my classroom. It also confirmed for me that the time I spend developing units and lessons that are engaging for students and providing choices within the units to best meet their needs and learning goals is well worth it. Through all of this, I realize that I need to not only get to know my students but also to come to terms with my own strengths and needs as a teacher. I think I have done a good job of this so far, and I look forward to working with many more students in the future as I continue to find ways to reach all students in my classroom. As long as I get to know my students as individuals, am willing to relinquish control at times and let my students guide their own learning, then engagement, motivation and learning will all fall into place. I will always remember what Derek said when asked what a teacher could do to motivate him: “basically just say that I can do what I want to do with my life and I can do things the way I choose to do things, I can do anything I put my mind to or something like that.” (DF Int.2, 3/8/04, p.14). As long as we believe in ourselves and in our students, we will all be engaged and motivated in our classrooms.

 

References

(Includes references within this article as well as additional
references related to the topic)

 

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3),
261-271.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development
and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28,
117-148.

Blumenfeld, P.C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivacontinued tion: Clarifying and expanding goals theory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272-281.

Church, M.A., Elliot, A.J., & Gable, S.L. (2001). Perceptions
of classroom environment, achievement goals, and
achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93 (1), 43-54.

Coleman, A.M. (2001). Oxford dictionary of psychology.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective
on motivation and school reform. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

Drysdale, P. (Ed.) (1991). Collins canadian english dictionary.
United States: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd..

Eccles, J.S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit:
Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents.
In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-186). New York:
Academic.

Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and
avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A
mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and
SocialPsychology, 70(3), 461-475.

Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement
goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(3), 501-519.

Fredericks, J., Blumenfeld, P. C. & Paris, A. H. (2004). School
engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.
Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

Furrer, C., Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of Relatedness as a Factor
in Children’s Academic Engagement and Performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162.

Hickey, D. (2003). Engaged participation versus marginal
nonparticipation: A stridently sociocultural approach to
achievement motivation. The Elementary School Journal,
103(4), 401-429.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Murdock, T. & Miller, A. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle
school students’ motivational identity: Variable-centered
and person-centered analytic approaches. The
Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 383-399.

Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways:
The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544-555.

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on
the role of student motivation in learning and teaching
contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-
686.

Saito, L.T. (2002). Ethnic identity and motivation: Sociocultural
factors in the educational achievement of vietnamese
american students. New York: LFB Scholarly
Publishing.

Skinner, E. & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the Classroom:
Effects of Teacher Behaviour and Student Engagement
Across the School Year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 571-581.

Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity,
social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.

Van deWalle, D., Cron, W.L., & Slocum Jr., J.W. (2001). The
role of goal orientation following performance feedback.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 629-640.

Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories
of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research,
64(4), 557-573.

Wentzel, K. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social
acceptance, classroom behaviour, and perceived social
support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 173-
182.

Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal
relationships: Implications for understanding
motivation and school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
91(1),76-97.

Wentzel, K. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve?
Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25,105-115.

Wentzel, K. & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social
motivational influences on students’ academic performance.
Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 155-175.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Suk Yoon, K., Harold, R., Arberton,
A. J. A., Freedman-Doan, C., et al. (1997). Change in children’
competence beliefs and subjective task value across
the elementary school years: A 3-year study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89(3), 451-469.

Wong, E., Wiest, D., & Cusick, L. (2002). Perceptions of
autonomy support, parent attachment, competence, and
self-worth as predictors of motivational orientation and
academic achievement: an examination of sixth- and
ninth-grade regular education students. From Adolescence,
37(146), p.255-266.
continued from page 32
Student Beliefs about Motivation and Engagement:
Vol. 50

 

 

 

 

 

Lynn Fels is Assistant Professor at SFU. Her research interests are performance and technology, performative inquiry, and teacher education. She and co-author George Belliveau recently published Exploring Curriculum: Performative Inquiry, Role Drama, and Learning.

The story that follows was told to me by a colleague of a grade twelve English teacher who had taken his students outside into the playground of the elementary school next door. “Take time to explore the playground,” he tells them, “the swings, the climbing bars, the slide.” It was, as he tells my friend later, a curious sight, witnessing his grade twelve students, on the cusp of adulthood, playing, shouting, laughing, calling to each other, as they scrambled up ladders, swung into the blue sky, and slid down the slide. “Back to the classroom,” he yells, as the elementary school recess bell rings, and the playground is swarmed by wide-eyed children, who stutter to a stop at the sight of high school students occupying their playground.

Later, as the students bend to the task of writing poetry, the teacher spots one young woman, staring out the window, tears on her cheeks. “What is it?” he asks, coming to her side. She is one of his top students, an insightful debater, a conscientious learner who consistently writes A+ essays. As well as being the captain of the soccer team, she is president of the student council and an accomplished pianist. “I can’t remember,” she whispers, her eyes welling with tears, “the last time I played.”

Driven towards excellence, have we forgotten the value of play within teaching and learning environments? Has play been abandoned on the playground, our students and ourselves locked inside classrooms, staring wistfully out the window? As philosopher David Appelbaum calls such a moment, the action of a student’s tears is a “stop”—a moment of risk, a moment of opportunity. What are the moments that call us to attention, the stops that give us pause in the busyness of our lives, to tell us that something is wrong, that we must respond? This young woman’s tears in her secondary English classroom call us to action. How are we to respond to our children in new ways, if we are to realize the wellbeing of the present and future generations? As Hannah Arendt (1961) requires of educators, we must love children enough “to engage them in the world’s renewal.” The question is, how are we engaging our children, and are their voices, the tears they shed, the stories they yearn to tell, those to which we listen? What is lost when a child no longer has time for play?

And, now months later, I find myself asking, “When was the last time I played?” As an exhausted academic scrambling up the pre-tenure path, teaching in a pre-service teacher education program, working with graduate students, editing a journal, responding to endless emails, I ask myself, “When do I schedule time for play within my work day?” And more miserably, “Who has time for play?”

In an earlier article (Update, Vol. 49, 2, Fall 2007), I introduced performative inquiry as a way to engage students in collaborative explorations across the curriculum, with a focus on language arts. Performative inquiry invites a stance of inquiry, an embodied exploration of curricular concerns, issues, assigned texts, communal narratives, and lived experience. Performative inquiry involves students in performative activities (e.g. tableaux, visualizations, scene creation, writing-in-role, playbuilding, role drama, multi-media creations) as a means of learning about themselves in relationship to the world and each other. The ambition of performative inquiry, as I wrote, is not to simply “put on a play” or expose students to the arts, but to engage students within curricular spaces of learning through collaborative, critical and creative inquiry and reflection.

But when I invite teachers to consider bringing performative inquiry into their own classrooms with questions like, “Why don’t you do role drama with your students? Or create a play about an issue you are exploring in social studies?” I often meet with reluctance. The constant refrain is, “There’s not enough time.” And yet, I know the powerful curricular, communal, and personal learning that comes to educators who engage in performative inquiry with their students. How might we learn to give ourselves permission to set aside the curricular “shoulds” and trust in the learning that comes through the play that performative inquiry invites?

And so I give my M.Ed. students, teachers all, an assignment: Design and do a role drama with your students. Report back to me in three weeks.

 

 Sunnyvale: A Town Revisited

“I wonder if you could give me the name and address of the lawyer that you work with as I anticipate some legal technicalities that are beyond the limited capabilities of our town council. HealthCo promises to be a challenging but fruitful endeavor—but we need to have an iron-clad contract before I sign any final agreement.” — memo from Mayor of Sunnyvale to town councilor

I designed the role drama, Sunnyvale, with a group of student teachers several years ago. It was our vehicle into multiple teacher education classes to introduce the value of role drama as a way of engaging secondary and elementary students in a variety of language arts activities. As we developed the role drama and played it out multiple times that winter and spring, the benefits of role drama became obvious: promotion of critical and creative thinking, collaborative problem-solving, opportunities for oral speech, exploration of multiple perspectives and embodied decision-making through play.

Participants were largely enthusiastic, often remaining in role through the fifteen-minute break we built into the role drama, arguing with each other, trying to find solutions. My experience is that many of those who initially resist find their way into role drama at various levels of engagement, whether through observing others, or reflecting on the decisions taken or getting caught up in an interview when approached by a reporter. Those reluctant to speak in a large group often enjoy the one-on-one or small group conversations that the role drama invites; others find their voice during the writing-inrole activity. As one participant during a recent Sunnyvale role drama described, first, she felt uncomfortable taking on a role, feeling as if she was only acting as the role of an environmentalist, but by the end of the role drama, she was an environmentalist arguing passionately for her vision of Sunnyvale.

The Sunnyvale role drama involves a variety of community interest groups: arts committee, entrepreneurs, residential developers, playground architects, town council members, environmentalists, seniors and neighbours who live in the area, and reporters. All are invited to a town hall meeting by the mayor to discuss Site #39, an undeveloped plot of land in the middle of town. The mayor, having won a recent election on a platform of “communication, collaboration, consensus,” encourages everyone to create a community plan for Site #39 that will address everyone’s needs. The groups of students-in-role are encouraged to consult with each other, discuss various solutions, and try to persuade others to their point of view, or as often happens, find a compromise that suits everyone. Sunnyvale is financially suffering due to the shutdown of the local Kraft Dinner factory and so the mayor tells them to come up with a plan that will “put Sunnyvale on the map” and (as an aside) money in the town coffers.1

This meeting is followed by a news broadcast during which Sunnyvale citizens are interviewed, with reporters highlighting key areas of agreement and conflict, (this activity often leads to prolonged discussion about the role of the media and its representation of issues). Then three participants are invited to take on new roles, this time as the CEO, accountant, and scientist of a pharmaceutical company. Inevitably, their reception at the press announcement is unfavourable; there is a flurry of questions fielded by the three along with the mayor who is accused of not consulting with the people of Sunnyvale (this activity is known as the “hot seat”). Participants are then invited to write-in-role in response to the turn of events in the format of their choice: a job application to the pharmaceutical company (there are few), a letter to the editor or editorial, (often someone begins a petition), a note in a diary, a memo to a town council member, or a scathing letter to the mayor himself. I have watched in amazement as participants write for ten, fifteen, sometimes twenty minutes, the majority focused and willing to share their writing, as we read aloud to find out “what the citizens of Sunnyvale are thinking.”

My understanding of the value of this particular role drama as a site of inquiry has multiplied over time, as I have played the role of the mayor of Sunnyvale many times through the years. Inevitably I find myself in a variety of discussions, faced with new issues and concerns, as individual participants bring their own experience and interests and knowledge to the role drama. Each time, the Sunnyvale we create together is unique; sometimes, for example, the environmentalists find their way to a compromise, such as the building of a park and a community centre, other times they call on legislative action because a rare species has been discovered in the stream running through the property. Most recently, I remember the odd feeling of shame and embarrassment, as the CEO of the pharmaceutical company presents himself as self-interested, taking phone calls on his cell. I remember thinking, “I’ve made a mistake with this guy, and yet, here I am publicly supporting his proposal. How do I deal with this?” It is then that I determine that there will be no deal without a contract that secures our town’s interests and safety, a decision supported by the citizens of Sunnyvale when we move to a vote. And so, during the writing-in-role segment of the role drama, I write a memo to one of my town councilors requesting the name of her lawyer.

Each time I am the mayor of Sunnyvale, I gain a new insight into what matters, how my engagement with others influences the outcome (or not), insights that spill into our post role drama discussions as we reflect about the choices we made in role, and in turn, talk about how we engage within our communities outside the classroom (the role drama was based on a land development project in my neighbourhood). While we can only draw upon our prior knowledge, our experiences, and what we imagine, these role dramas inevitably, uncannily touch the truth of our being in action, if only for a moment, a stop that calls our attention to what matters, what is absent, what is present.2 As Appelbaum writes,

Between closing and beginning lives a gap, a caesura, a discontinuity. The betweenness is a hinge that belongs to neither one nor the other. It is neither poised nor unpoised, yet moves both ways...It is the stop.3

So it is. Our Sunnyvale role drama reminds us that seniors have stories to tell, that they have contributed and continue to contribute to the narrative and work of the town; yet in our role drama, they are often unheard, not consulted, ignored. We have at times voiced condemnation of the mayor’s proposal of the pharmaceutical company and then felt shame, when we realize that we have judged him too quickly as he announces his resignation, “I have tried to do what is best for this town; I’ve stayed awake hours at night trying to think of a solution; it hurts me to think that the townspeople believe I deliberately tried to cheat them.” As one participant commented in reflection after all the townspeople in Sunnyvale ganged up against the mayor, “We immediately judged him as acting in his own interests. Instead of trying to work things out together, we just blamed the mayor. It was only when he announced his resignation that I understood how much he cared for Sunnyvale.” During our debriefing, we have talked about the important role of conflict resolution, and how we often judge others without knowing how they truly feel, or what motivations lay behind actions we so quickly reject.

We have learned to listen for hidden agendas, interpret motivations behind words, understand issues from multiple perspectives, and ask questions of what we had taken for granted. Curiously, the pharmaceutical company has only twice been accepted into the community, the most recent time, upon assurance that any contract between the town and the pharmaceutical company would be “iron-clad.” Interestingly, the participant in role-as-scientist had actually worked for a pharmaceutical company prior to becoming a teacher and so could bring strong arguments to the benefits of such a company as HealthCo in Sunnyvale. We have learned to question the dichotomies and judgments we make; and to see what may become possible through compromise.

 

Performative Inquiry Revisited:The Teachers Report

I have to confess to the occasional bout of nail-biting while I waited the three weeks for my M.Ed. students to return and report on their experiences of doing role drama with their students. What was happening in their classrooms? The morning of our class, my students arrived with excitement, with individual reports of renewed vigour for teaching, with tales of the unexpected enthusiasm and engagement of their students, of the collaborative learning that had taken place, of the willingness of students to write-in-role, of the thoughtfulness of their students’ decision-making, of the absorption of their students in their work while in role.

I shouldn’t have been surprised. Patrick Verriour and Carol Tarlington were proponents of role drama long before I arrived on the scene; in fact, I first learned of role drama, through Dr. Verriour, who was my thesis supervisor, and who, with Ms. Tarlington had traveled the province in the 80’s promoting role drama among teachers.4 What interested me, however, was less the learning of the students (although important), but the spirit of the teachers who, as one told me, had found themselves engaged and learning along side their students. The joy of role drama is that no matter what you choose to explore, the learning happens not in the telling what is expected and known, but in the doing, engaging in that which has not yet been imagined, a playful engagement of inquiry. Not knowing what would happen each day as the teachers and their students re-entered the worlds they were co-creating through role play added to the excitement and curiosity and pleasure that becomes possible in teaching beyond the curricular scripts that so often are our habits of engagement. I had, through my assignment, given my M.Ed. students, teachers all, permission to play.

And in writing this article, I am reminded again, that I do play, joyfully, with curiosity, when I engage in performative activities with my students. What will happen? What stops will we encounter? And I celebrate the learning that surfaces as I ask questions of inquiry and engage the students in reflection. Why did we decide to do what we did? Why did you say what you said? What surprised us? What, I ask my students and myself, does our experience within our performative inquiry tell us about how we engage in the world, what issues emerged that matter, what questions yet remain? If we understand play as an action of inquiry, as an action of exploration, embodied engagement, curiosity and reflection that leads to learning, then it is critical that we look again to ways of incorporating play into our classrooms.

To engage in play within our classrooms is to trouble the expected, to sidestep the status quo, to perform a reciprocal dance of learning and teaching, to rewrite our curricular scripts. To play is to encourage laughter, to explore the underbelly of the unsaid, to inspire new understandings, to engage in “wide-awakeness” (Greene, 1971) with our own learning as educators, to create anew our educational relationships, and to invite the unexpected into our presence, thus “enlarging the space of the possible” (Sumara & Davis, 1997, p. 299). To play, in today’s classroom, is a radical act.

Joyce Carol Oates writes, “Time is but the changing of light.” I think of the many different role dramas that I have engaged in with my students, and of the learning that came through moments of recognition—unexpected encounters that opened up new horizons, that no amount of lesson planning could have anticipated. A lesson plan survives (barely) a 75 minute class; it is often in the unraveling of our lesson plans, in the releasing of expectations, in the escape of the tyranny of time, that open us to unanticipated learning and possibilities of renewed engagement. The learning that comes to us through performative inquiry, a reciprocal exploration embarked upon by students and teacher, if we come to our play with “mindful awareness” (Varela Thompson & Rosch, 1993) may last a lifetime.

Jan Milloy (2007) writes of a moment as being a “child of duration,”—a moment of learning, that, as I have experienced, may continue to haunt, educate, guide and remind us, of what is possible. Through the lens and interplay of performative inquiry, an unexpected moment of encounter between two students in role, or within a sentence written-in-role that pulls us into the realm of metaphor, or an image within a tableau that startles, new perspectives may emerge to become portals into compassion and meaningful comprehension.

Performative inquiry in the classroom brings to curriculum a spirit and practice of inquiry, critical and creative engagement, and collaborative reflection. The benefits of engaging in persuasive oral speech, writing in role, exploring multiple perspectives, collaborative problem-solving, experiencing leadership in role, developing a reflective practice with students, cover a variety PLOs within and across curricular engagements. Within the practice of performative inquiry in the classroom, however, is a commitment between students and teacher to play, a willingness to engage each other in new ways. Whether you are in role as the mayor of a financially troubled town or as CEO of a pharmaceutical company or as a citizen who wants a community centre in Sunnyvale, performative inquiry, through active engagement and reflection reminds us, again, of the value and possibility of play within our classrooms.

Consider this text, then, an invitation for you and your students to play.

 

 Notes

1 The Sunnyvale role drama is described in Exploring Curriculum: Performative Inquiry, Role Drama and Learning, along with other role dramas. See Fels & Belliveau, 2008 in Resources.

2 See Fels, L. (2002) for a discussion on the learning that happens within a “moment of recognition” in which the author understands, for a performative moment, what the words, “a prison without walls” truly means.

3 Applebaum, 1995: pp. 15, 16.

4 See Verriour & Tarlington, 1991. Their co-authored book, Role Play, provides a wonderful entry point into the design and delivery of role drama. See also Fels & Belliveau, 2008.

 

References

Appelbaum, D. (1995). The stop. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Arendt, H. (1961). The Crisis in Education. In Between past and future: Six exercises of political thought. New York: Viking.

Fels, L. & Belliveau, G. (2008). Exploring curriculum: Performative inquiry, role drama and learning. Vancouver, B.C.: Pacific Educational Press.

Fels, L. (2002). Spinning Straw into Gold: Curriculum, Performative Literacy and Student Empowerment. English Quarterly, 34 (1, 2), 3-9.

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Milloy, Jana. (2007). Persuasions of the wild: Writing the moment, a phenomenology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University.

Sumara, D.J. & Davis, B. (1997). Enlarging The Space Of The Possible: Complexity, Complicity, And Action Research Practices. In T. Carson and D.J. Sumara (Eds.), Action research as a living practice (pp. 299-312). New York, Peter Lang.

Tarlington, C., & Verriour, P., (1991). Role drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.