BCTELA

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.

Joanne Panas was a teacher consultant for Richmond last year, with a focus on adolescent literacy. She is currently teaching English at McRoberts Secondary in Richmond and working on her first novel. 

( Click here for Joanne's full article, including graphic organizers.)

Leyton Schnellert and Nicole Widdess' excellent article in the Winter 2007 edition of Update detailed where the idea for Second Shot classes came from, the research behind it, and some of the amazing work that went on in Nicole's class. As a district consultant in Richmond this year, I have been the support person for our Second Shot teachers and classes; as such, I would like to take this opportunity to follow up and share what has been happening this year with Second Shot.  

Overview of the IRI and Second Shot

As you may recall from Leyton and Nicole's article, Richmond applied for and received literacy grants from the Ministry of Education for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years; we have been approved for 2007-2008 as well. These grants are used to support the Intermediate Reading Initiative (IRI) in Richmond. The overall purpose of the IRI is to improve the literacy skills of all students, with a particular focus on grade 8 students transitioning into secondary schools and the additional literacy challenges that come along with that move. To that end, each secondary school in Richmond has a Literacy Leader, who has time in her or his schedule to support school teams and individual teachers as they work to improve their instruction in literacy skills across the curriculum.

Part of this larger picture, which is represented in the recently-updated IRI graphic (Figure 1), is the Second Shot class, which is part of the "Extend" portion of the triangle. This intensive instructional class focuses on students who "survive but don't thrive" in secondary school; often their reading challenges have been minor or masked in elementary school, but when they are faced with the increased amount and complexity of the reading they are required to do in secondary school, they tend to fall further and further behind. These students are offered, in addition to literacy-related instruction in their regular core classes, a "second shot" of literacy instruction and practice in grade 8 which increases the explicit instruction they need to improve.

It's important for me to emphasize here that Second Shot classes are intended to reinforce what is going on in the rest of the school, not fill in gaps of missing literacy instruction. Richmond schools are working to address shared goals set at the school level and across the curriculum in the regular classes; Second Shot classes are part of that school wide-effort. In Richmond, five of our secondary schools have offered a Second Shot class (as each school has its own name for the class, I will use the generic name "Second Shot" throughout this article). For some schools, this is their second year offering this class, and for some it has been their first year. We had new teachers in this role in three of our five schools this year, and the learning curve has been steep! In the next sections I describe some of our successes and struggles.

Sharing and Problem-Solving Together: October

In October 2007, the Second Shot teachers had a day together to discuss their progress, share ideas, and bring up issues of concern. The teachers shared a number of things that were working well for them, including: having one-to-one conferences with students; engaging students with each other through partner talk; incorporating a reading workshop classroom model; using lots of modeling and think-alouds; using graphic organizers; reading aloud to students; guiding students in their choices for independent reading; and using sticky notes to both hold thinking and communicate back and forth with students. Several teachers brought sample lessons and activities to share with the group.

One of the challenges that the teachers identified was that some of the students who had been recommended for the class (usually by their elementary school) were not actually the clientele for whom the class had been designed. For example, some students were reading quite well and did not need to be in the class; in some classes there were students who were reading at a level well below what the class is intended to address. A few students with significant challenges such as emotional or behavioural issues or severe learning disabilities were placed in Second Shot classes; teachers found that the learning needs of these students could be better met through different, more tailored supports in other settings. In essence, there was a lot of confusion-from elementary school resource teachers and grade 7 teachers, to secondary school counsellors and even whole secondary school staffs-about the purpose of the class and the students who would most benefit from the Second Shot experience.

Beginning in January, I solicited the input of all the Second Shot teachers to create a set of guidelines for student selection. Over several months, and with many revisions from the teachers themselves as well as from district staff, we developed a set of documents (see Figures 2-8). In April, I debriefed the documents with elementary principals, with elementary and secondary resource teachers, and with a team from each secondary school, including the Second Shot teacher, the Literacy Leader, and other interested staff. Secondary schools can adapt the documents as needed to their Second Shot program specifications; however, they are keeping the referral form the same for the sake of consistency across the district. The Second Shot teachers have used the documents in their transition meetings with elementary schools; feedback received from the group in June may result in further revisions of the documents for next year.

Second Shot Classroom Partnerships

Part of the role of district consultants in Richmond is not only to support initiatives and school teams, but also to work with individual teachers and classrooms; indeed, it is one of the most enjoyable parts of the job! From January to June I was privileged to be able to work in varying capacities with three of our five Second Shot teachers and classes. My roles included: co-planning lessons and units; helping teachers find suitable materials for their classes; co-teaching lessons; teaching lessons while the teacher observed; and working with individual students and small groups while the teacher worked with the rest of the class.

One classroom where I was able to have long-term involvement was Ian Felgar's Literacy Dynamics class at Cambie Secondary School. Ian and I co-planned a unit on Looking for X by Deborah Ellis, with the goal of teaching students inferring skills; this goal was chosen based on the results of a school-wide grade 8 performance-based assessment (PBA) in the fall, and the students' progress since that assessment. I was able to co-teach many classes with Ian and got to know the students well over several months. (See Figure 9 for an outline of our unit). This classroom partnership was very successful, and Ian and I will be co-presenting the unit and our experiences with this lovely group of students at the SFU Literacy Continuum Conference on August 23 and 24.

In another classroom partnership with Brenda Dewonck at McRoberts Secondary School, we adapted the basic outline of the unit Ian and I developed for use with another novel, Touching Spirit Bear by Ben Mikaelsen. Brenda's goal was to improve her students' inferring skills as well. As part of the assessment-to-instruction cycle, we created and administered a mini-PBA on inferring partway through the unit (see figure 10); using that, Brenda was able to determine what other instruction the students needed to improve their inferring skills.

At the end of the year, both Ian and Brenda were keen to know how their students perceived the Second Shot class, and very graciously allowed me to interview their students, asking questions about their affect, metacognition, independence, and application and transfer-four of the six goals of the Second Shot class (see Figure 11 for all the goals). This has yielded some rich qualitative and anecdotal data about the class; we will continue to collect both quantitative and qualitative data next year and will share it with all our secondary schools.

Looking Back, Looking Forward: June

This June, the Second Shot teachers met to review our year and think ahead to next year. Some Literacy Leaders, as well as new Second Shot teachers for the 2007-2008 school year, were also in attendance. Once again, teachers shared something they had done that worked well, and we celebrated our successes. We collected feedback on various structures associated with Second Shot, including: the student selection process; connections with elementary schools; connections with Literacy Leaders and the grade 8 team; the assessment-to-instruction cycle and the grade-wide PBA; instructional practices including modelling, scaffolding, and gradual release; and professional development. The feedback will be used to help us support Second Shot teachers in a variety of ways next year.

An important part of the meeting was a focus on the goals of Second Shot (see Figure 11). We had a chance to reflect on how well we had met those goals over the year, and what we might do differently next year. We emphasized that everyone had done some work on the goals, but that it was important to strive to reach all six goals in each unit, and ideally to focus on several of them in any given lesson. Using the work Ian and I had done in his class, I was able to show how we had worked on comprehension goals by teaching inferring; we also worked on goals around application and transfer (using a science-based text to teach fix-up strategies), affect (building their confidence with fun scaffolding activities) and metacognition ("Beliefs About Readers" activity and other reflections/discussions). I also noted how we might have worked on improving their fluency (by having them read aloud to us one-on-one), or their independence (by having them choose among several articles to read for background knowledge). The final piece of the reflection was thinking about the assessment-to-instruction cycle; most teachers used the PBA data to set their goals for the year, but saw the value in doing more frequent and specific formative assessments through the year to check in on students' progress, much like Brenda and I did with the mini-PBA on inferring (Figure 10).

Metacognition: How did we do?

As I mentioned earlier, I was able to do exit interviews with two of the Second Shot classes; a third class filled out the interview questionnaire on their own. I was able therefore to gather data from three of our five Second Shot classes this year (27 students) on affect, metacognition, independence, and application and transfer. Did students improve in these areas over the year? Although this was a pilot survey, the results speak for themselves:

• 63% of students report feeling more positive about reading than they did a year ago.
• 63% of students report that they would have missed learning something about reading or literacy if they had not had a Second Shot class.
• 81% of students report using literacy skills from Second Shot in their other classes.
• 74% of students report using new skills when faced with challenging texts.
• 70% of students report feeling at least somewhat confident that they can handle ("I can do it") and/or understand challenging texts.
• 56% of students report an increase in their enjoyment and amount of independent reading.

The words of the students say as much as or more than the numbers do about the effectiveness of this class in building confidence in the students and developing their enjoyment of reading:

• "I feel good about myself because I read a book." 
• "I feel better about reading because I learned new strategies."
• "I can read more challenging text."
• "I feel good about myself understanding it." 
• "I think I have improved in my reading." 
• "I know I can do this."
• "After I took this class it made me connect to the book even more than before because I understand what the author's trying to say."
• "I didn't read on my own before. [Now] I read a lot! Harry Potter, Bridge to Terabithia, Shiloh; I like mystery the most, [it's] more interesting."

And one final, telling detail that dedicated childhood readers everywhere will appreciate, relayed to me with a sheepish grin by a young man who "used to read a little bit" before taking a Second Shot class: "One time I stayed up too late reading and my mom yelled at me."

This list was started by Susan Ma and Celia Brownrigg.  It is meant to be open-ended and we hope it will enjoy many contributers.

 

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud

- a great book to have.  McCloud acknowledges and tears down so many of our prejudices when approaching the graphic novel medium: comics.  The explanation of active readership (what goes on the our head when we read a graphic text) is easy to understand and integrate in to planning and instruction.  This is an excellent book for a novice in the graphic, or comics, form to start with.  It is written in the comics medium which facilitates McCloud's descriptions of the graphic form as well as subliminally reinforces the stance that "comics" is a medium suited to many types of content; don't mistake it as simply the message (sorry Marshall). This resource is a must-read for any teacher considering using graphic novels or other comics in class.

 

Panel Discussion: Design In Sequential Art Storytelling

Interviews with Masters of the Craft!  What's talking about graphic
novels without talking to the creators and storytellers?  The
interviews are very insightful.

 

 Graphic Novels in Your Media Library Center  by Allyson and Barry Lyga

This resource is notes from a teacher-librarian int he USA who uses graphic nevels in her classroom.   The Lygas' variety of grade coverage is good, covering grades two through ten, as well as their cultural coverage of both "eastern" and "western" graphic novels.  Check out their activity ideas too!

 

In Graphic Detail by David Booth and Kathy Gould Lundy

This resouce is exclusivly available to educators through Scholastic Education.  The approach in this book is particular to using comics in classroom activities.  While some of the examples used could be better, both authors are well-known educators and have great experience working with Canadian teachers and librarians.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Jane MacMillan is a lover of all things literacy and enjoys sharing her passion for literature both with her students at school and at home with her three children.

Christy Rollo knew she wanted to be a teacher from the moment she taught her brother how to tie his shoe laces. She is now having the ultimate teaching experience with her two young daughters.

 

In September of 2006, Christy, a Grade 6/7 teacher, approached Jane, a teacher-librarian with a question: How could Christy engage all the diverse learners in her class, including reluctant learners and English language learners? Jane was new to the school, and Christy had been teaching Gr. 6/7 for a number of years at the school. We were looking to collaborate with the library as a venue. Further, Christy wanted to help all of her learners connect with Social Studies in a meaningful way, even though it included reading a variety of texts, note-making, critical thinking and discussion, all areas in which reluctant and ESL learners may struggle due to gaps in skills and background knowledge. Looking to develop authentic conversation and create a greater depth in student engagement as part of a unit on Ancient Rome, we decided to try something new; that is, bring information books to the traditional “book club.” Thus, “info-circles” was born, proving to be not only a popular choice among our students, but an incredibly rewarding teaching experience for us, as well.

 

Rationale

Literature circles, an offshoot of the adult “book club” (Daniels, 2002), have seen a sharp rise in the past two decades. However, there is a growing trend towards including non-fiction materials in literature circles, as reading for information has become a significant area of concern in schools in recent years. Students need exposure to a wide variety of expository texts (Daniels, 2002), as non-fiction permeates students’ reading both in and out of school (Stien & Beed, 2004). The move to information, or content- area, literature circles draws the focus away from primarily exclusive attention to specific elements of text, to a broader program which encompasses understanding of the text as engaging literature. Content-area literature circles offer a new dimension to the traditional literature circle program, one which addresses “both the social and academic needs of the students while maintaining the curriculum” (Johnson & Freedman, 2005, p. xiv).

Johnson and Freedman (2005), in advocating content area literature circles as a premium opportunity for improving information text comprehension, emphasize its adaptability for all learners. For ESL students, it is a chance to clarify misconceptions and hear academic language through discussion. For social learners, particularly in adolescence, it is a chance to share and build on their understanding in a group setting. For more reluctant readers and students reading below grade level, it is a chance to read texts of interest at their instructional level, with opportunity for greater choice, thereby providing opportunity to share equally in a group with others discussing the same topic, as opposed to struggling through a textbook often incompatible with their reading or interest levels.

For all students, it is a chance to clarify and extend meaning beyond the written, and respond to critical challenges of text and topic in a group setting. We think it is a rich opportunity to not only enhance content area instruction, but to encourage students in the ever mindful goal of becoming effective, engaged and competent lifelong learners.

 

Info-circles: Ancient Rome

Introduction

We introduced our students to the unit on Ancient Rome using the KWL (What I Know, What I Wonder, What I Want to Learn) strategy to foster questioning (Gear, 2007) and build student interest. Students shared questions as a class, recording those most important to them. In a follow up lesson, we gave students, working in table groups, unusual facts about Ancient Rome and asked them to decide as a group which were true and which were false. These were posted at the front under “True” and “False” labels, and groups then had to explain the reasoning behind their choices to the larger group. Finally, using Gear’s (2007) OWI strategy (Observe, Wonder, Infer), we gave students photographic reproductions of Ancient Roman sites, which they were encouraged to study as follows: Observations (without judgment), Wonderings (questions about the picture), Inferences (judgments made based on the information gathered). We designed all of these introductory activities not only to heighten interest in the upcoming unit, but to further develop strategies and group processes the students would need as members of the upcoming discussion group format.

One of the significant elements of the unit was the concept of developing and pursuing “powerful” or “thick” (Gear, 2007) questions. Students looked through various information books and kept a running list of the questions they had. At various points, small groups shared their questions with each other, and, as a group, picked the top 3-4 “thick” (deep thinking) questions to share out with the class. Christy recorded these questions on chart paper for further use in the discussion group format. Students then sorted their questions into “thick” and “thin” categories, and justified their reasons for the choices made. Throughout the unit, we asked them to evaluate their own questions and group discussion in light of the “thick” questions posted, to decide if they had been answered or if they required further research. Examples included questions such as, “What gifts have the Ancient Romans given us?”, “What was Rome’s greatest achievement?” and “Why was Rome able to build such a powerful empire?” The questions were revisited throughout the unit.

Concept-driven vs. text-driven approach

We decided upon a combination of concept-driven (multiple books in one group) and text-driven (single book discussion) approaches, not only to accommodate our diverse learners, but also to provide greater opportunity for the sharing of multiple viewpoints. Because students were reading books appropriate to their reading levels, grouping them solely by text would have limited the discussion to homogeneous groups. In contrast, the inclusion of guiding groups by concept allowed for heterogeneous groups, with multiple voices and reflections based on the differing texts read. This approach also minimized student perception, and indeed, reality, of grouping students solely by ability. In this way, the topic, rather than the text and its implied reading level, was the focus for discussion.

The literature

We chose texts at a variety of reading levels, with particular attention to reluctant readers, ESL learners, and students not reading at grade level, as these composed the bulk of the classroom. Included were high interest, low vocabulary books, to address the needs of low-level ESL students, as well as non- ESL students with lower reading levels. For reluctant readers, we chose two titles with visually motivating texts sure to draw in those students, as well as the high proportion of boys in the class. For higher level readers, one title offered further detail at a more challenging reading level, with an embedded graphic novel sure to draw others, as well. Finally, we included two texts with material at a mid to lower reading level. The aim in choosing these books was to address curriculum while meeting the needs of all learners. However, we chose the books not only for their reading level or eye catching titles, but because they are clearly written with a number of information features, as well as factual information that directly links to the learning outcomes of the unit.

Info circles

To introduce the discussion group portion of the unit, we presented the “Info Circles Discussion Prompts” sheet (see Figure 1). Prompts included Question (Clarify), Wonder, Connections, Knew-New, and “This was interesting….” Rather than a role approach, the discussion prompts sheets were used to encourage student response while reading that could later be shared with peers in the discussion group. Students used sticky notes to record their thoughts as they read, later transferring them to the discussion prompt sheet just prior to each group meeting.

Figure 1: Info Circles Symbols Key
Symbol	Meaning
?	Question:Clarify something you don't understand
K-N	Knkew-New: Somethingyou already knew OR Something that is new to you
W	Wonder: "I wonder why/ how/ if..."
!	This is interesting!
T-S	Text-to-self connection
T-T	Text-to-text connection
T-W	Text-to-world connection

Initially, we modeled the strategy with a larger group text share, as students read along and shared thoughts. As a follow up, students worked in small groups with a photocopied sheet of text, following the process above, and working together as a group to complete the prompt sheet. Students transferred their sticky notes to a note-making book for discussions. We employed a gradual release of responsibility to students (Maloch, 2002) in the move from modeled response, to small group practice, to individual response activities. The modeling and practice given prior to the onset of the discussion group format was a key means of not only familiarizing students with a strategy and process for stimulating potential discussion, but to build comfort and encourage the group interaction that would be essential to the next stage of the unit.

Group meetings

At the introduction to the discussion group process, Jane gave a book talk on the books chosen for the literature circle groups. Students then selected a book to read. Books were rotated on a weekly basis. Students had one week to read and make note of their responses to the book, both through one in-class period, and during silent reading and after school homework time. As each book was relatively short, we considered this sufficient time to complete the task, which was borne out by the subsequent response and success in completion by the students.

Weekly meetings occurred after one period given to working on their book for the week, initially with Jane and Christy coteaching to ensure all groups had regular contact with an adult to monitor and guide discussions, if necessary. Students met in assigned groups that were chosen at times by common title, at others by suggested topic. Where possible, we placed beginning ESL students in groups with at least one other student who spoke the same language, in order to allow for translation and first language participation. If students were meeting to discuss the common text (text-driven approach), our prompts were limited, with only a general suggestion as to potential issue questions with which they may use the book to guide their thinking. In multiple text groups, we often asked students to consider what they learned from the book in light of one of the “thick questions” the class as a whole had deemed pertinent to their interests and the unit of study. Such questions included: “What was the role of women in Ancient Roman society?”; “How did rank and power play out across varying roles and societal structures?”; “What was life like for the average/wealthy/poor citizen?” Students referred to their prompt sheets to initiate discussion; however, with our encouragement, students moved beyond sharing their written responses if discussion led them in another direction.

The goal was to focus on rich discussion, not the sharing of each post-it on student sheets. We encouraged students to add to their own notes during the discussion, allowing struggling ESL learners to add information to their sheets. In all cases, we closed discussions by gathering the class together again in a large group format, and reviewed information in light of one of the “thick” questions posted in class. Each group had a few minutes to discuss their thinking in light of the question and their discussion, then in small groups share their group’s thinking with the whole class. Finally, students transferred their sticky notes to an exercise book under a heading that named the title of the book and the author, in preparation for the upcoming project that would comprise the unit’s finale.

Closure

After 5 weeks, students met to review the thick questions posted. In small groups, they discussed what they felt was Rome’s greatest achievement, attempted to come to a consensus, then shared their group’s decision(s) on what was the greatest achievement. In a follow up lesson, students met in groups composed of those in agreement with them as to what was Rome’s greatest achievement. After a brief discussion in their new group, each group was responsible for convincing the other groups that their choice was the “best” one. In a fluid debate format, students moved from group to group as their opinion changed, until all felt they had made their final choice as to Rome’s greatest achievement. The lesson closed as students reflected individually in writing on their final choice. The debate was a highly engaging activity that owed its success to the comfort and familiarity of the children in participating in discussion formats. Students who had, prior to the unit, been reluctant oral participants, now freely offered suggestions and moved to other groups without hesitation as their opinions changed.

As a finale to the unit, students worked in groups to create a class book. Each student chose a favorite “thick” question and developed, in groups with others, a page that defended their question, as well as including relevant text features. As part of the process, students worked with others with the same question, fact gathering using a web to categorize response options, before beginning their final product.

Evaluation

The discussion groups, and the unit as a whole, proved extremely popular with the students. We evaluated responses in a number of ways. During discussion, we circulated with notes and a quick scale response sheet in order to record both the rate and quality of participation. Anecdotal notes were also collected, as particular comments by students were recorded and shared after each session. These served to not only ensure we were aware of participation issues, but also to help us guide and facilitate particular sessions and support groups in need of further encouragement. Occasionally, we asked students to complete a “quickwrite” after discussion, in order to assess their perception of both the quality of their own participation, but also the success of the group as a whole. Students also completed reflection responses, with prompts such as, “I used to think…but now I think….” We also asked for feedback on the learning process, through prompts such as, “So far I like learning through info circles because…”, “Sometimes I find info circles challenging because…” and “Learning through info circles is different because….” As groups fluctuated in membership, the support and facilitation we provided were ongoing; however, as students became more comfortable with the process itself, discussions became richer and flowed more freely despite the fact that membership within each group differed from session to session. Finally, at the end of the unit, students asked, “Can we do the rest of Social Studies this way, too?”—a sure sign that the project had been a success!

 

Conclusion

As teachers, we want to develop in our students not only comprehension skills, but also critical thinking and a genuine appreciation for literature. We think content area literature circles have great potential to do this. Content area literature circles provide an opportunity for students to be exposed to multiple materials on a topic, rather than one resource, such as the curriculum text. If students, as Daniels (2002) argues, require greater experience with expository text, content area literature circles are an ideal way to provide that exposure in an authentic and relevant way, while providing students with a variety of reading materials at their level. Meaning is constructed with not only a strong emphasis on text engagement, but also with opportunity to link content with background knowledge, personal connection, and opportunity to entertain multiple viewpoints. Further, where fiction “[l]iterature circles prepare and strengthen critical literacy skills through the use of higher order thinking skills” (Dawson and FitzGerald, 1999, p. 4), so too may content area circles, as students have the opportunity to discuss issues, challenge viewpoints, and clarify thinking through discussion with their peers.

The social aspect cannot be undervalued in its contribution to such critical thinking skills, as “a group working together can construct knowledge to a higher level than can the individuals in that group each working separately” (Wray & Lewis, 1997, p. 19). Students are powerful peer models, and info circles offer a unique opportunity for this at an age when peer power is at times of more impact than any teacher-driven lesson. Finally, from an assessment standpoint “listening to student- led discussions also provides valuable information on how students are applying strategies such as making connections, summarizing and synthesizing, or finding the main points” (Robb, 2002, p. 30), which further drives instruction and provides authentic opportunities for evaluation and curricular goal setting. These elements further provide opportunities for students to develop skills and attitudes toward content area materials in a small group environment, using materials at appropriate reading levels, with ample opportunities for discussion and clarification and opportunities for meaningful engagement with text. Further, discussion around information text engages the “info kids” (Jobe and Dayton-Sakari, 2002) who rarely have a chance to share their enthusiasm and passion for information texts in a discussion format.

We strongly believe that this approach lends itself very well to a number of curricular areas, and has the potential to support a diverse range of learners, ensuring success, meaningful engagement, and maximum learning for all. Contentarea literature circles offer a rich opportunity to not only enhance content area instruction, but to encourage students in the ever mindful goal of creating effective, engaged and competent lifelong learners.

 

References

Daniels, H. (2002). Expository text in literature circles. Voices from the middle, 9(4), 7-14.

Dawson, D. & FitzGerald, L. (1999). Literature circles: Reading in action. Wagga Wagga, New South Wales: Centre for Information Studies.

Gear, A. (2007). Workshop handout: “Reading Power for Non-fiction”.

Jobe, Ron & Dayton-Sakari, Mary (2002). Info-kids: How to use nonfiction to turn reluctant readers into enthusiastic learners. Markham, ON: Pembroke.

Johnson, H. & Freedman, L. (2005). Content area literature circles: Using discussion for learning across the curriculum. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94-112.

Robb, L. (2002). Multiple texts: Multiple opportunities for teaching and learning. Voices from the middle, 9 (4), 28- 32.Stien, D. & Beed, P.L. (2004). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510-518.

Wray, D. & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy: Children reading and writing non-fiction. NY: Routledge.