Motivation Matters

I have a confession: I am a public radio addict. It started a few months ago when a friend sent me a link to a show he thought I might like, and since then it's spiraled a little bit out of control. I've subscribed to dozens of podcasts and my radio dial has barely moved from my local public radio station. The reason I'm telling you this is because I stumbled across a video a few weeks ago that I would like to share. It's Ira Glass, the radio host of This American Life, talking about the creative process and the kind of effort required to be successful. It's part of a series he did about storytelling, and although he's talking specifically about radio and video stories, I find what he says to be applicable to almost anything. Also, it's one of the most motivating pieces of advice I've heard.

Posted by Katie Ash at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's another example of a summer camp that aims to introduce kids to opportunities they may not have the chance to experience during the school year. The Ohio-based program is called Camp Invention, and it fuses hands-on activities with science, math, history, and the arts.

The most recent week of the program focused specifically on combining science and entrepreneurial skills, something I think is key for success in today's global economy, but which teachers often do not get the opportunity to specifically address during the school year.

In my opinion, through programs like this one, there's great potential to spark interest in subject areas and skill sets that students may not normally be introduced to. And hopefully that newly found motivation will carry forward into the academic school year in different ways.

Posted by Katie Ash at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This story in the Tuscaloosa News hits on a lot of what we talk about here on Motivation Matters. The article tells the story of three high school students who won an international creativity and problem-solving competition while they were in elementary school and went on to found an organization that promotes those same values. Their project, THINK Organization LLC, promotes "creative thinking, deductive reasoning, public speaking, community involvement and teamwork." So far, the teens have headed a pilot program at an elementary school and hope to branch out to after-school programs and community organizations, like the YMCA.

This is a great example of encouraging creativity in the classroom, not to mention student leadership. As we've seen in the past, creativity and innovation are skills that are both hard to teach and invaluable for success later on in the workplace. Reaching kids at such a young age to cultivate a creative mindset seems like it may have far-reaching implications for those students--it obviously did for the three students who created the organization.

Posted by Katie Ash at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Apparently this is treat-kids-like-adults week on Motivation Matters because today, I'm going to point your attention to this editorial, "High schools shouldn't treat students like babies," on the Detroit News. The author of this opinion piece, Michael Williamson, specifically talks about issues that relate to Detroit students, but some of the changes he suggests are systemic in nature, rather than regional, so I thought it was worth noting. One particular point he made is something I've heard a lot of educators talk about recently. He says:

Don't create a "sit down and listen" model that replicates the classroom of today. Do foster a model of academic endeavor that encourages sociability, social integration, team work, personal responsibility and independence. Take high school to the streets and the marketplace. Integrate young people back into the community. Treat them as apprentice adults.

Doing away with the "sit down and listen" model requires a shift in the definition of a teacher from the "holder and disseminator of knowledge" to the "facilitator of learning," which is something that I've heard over and over again from educators, especially those who have embraced new forms of technology and integrated them into the classroom. With the rise of the Web, it's easy for students to find information on their own. They don't need teachers to supply them with facts and figures since that information is already available at the tip of students' fingertips. The role of the teacher, then, becomes more focused on keeping students engaged, helping them focus their ideas, and giving them the guidance, knowledge, and resources they need to follow through with those ideas.

Williamson's point also coincides nicely with the idea of engaging students by giving them hands-on, relevant curriculum--the hope being that if students are interested in what they are learning about, they will be more motivated to study and understand it.

What do you think? Do you see the role of the teacher changing in your school, or has it generally stayed the same? What obstacles might arise from this potential shift? What benefits?

Posted by Katie Ash at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Click here to watch an interesting video about curiosity. Although the speaker, Seth Godin, talks about a lot of things besides just education, curiosity is a huge factor in student motivation, and he speaks eloquently about why it's important. Also, about 2 minutes in, he raises an interesting point about education. "For seven, ten, fifteen years of school, you are required to not be curious," he says.

I have to say, I'm not sure I agree with that, and some of the other things he says, but I am sympathetic to his point. Check out the video, and let me know what you think.

Posted by Katie Ash at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was searching YouTube today for motivation-related material and I found this college commencement speech by Steve Jobs of Apple Computer. Sure, it's a little dated (2005), but it's an excellent speech about bouncing back from setbacks, the power of curiosity and creativity, and the importance of following a dream. It might offer some food for thought as the second half of the 2007-08 school year approaches. Check it out.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We want to draw your attention to a new campaign in Washington state called Creativity Matters. The goal of the campaign is to reinforce the argument that teaching kids how to be creative (as well as analytical) is important for the economic future of the United States, and that creativity can be taught across all academic subjects, not just in the arts.

It's worth noting that the campaign is supported by some big names in the corporate world, such as Microsoft and Boeing.

The campaign is considering some interesting proposals, such as training for principals on how to run schools that foster creativity.

Lately, we have been hearing more and more (particularly from the corporate world) about the need to foster creativity in students. On the surface, it seems like a good idea and educators and policymakers should be listening.

But schools need to really think long and hard about how they would accomplish this goal. I have seen many classrooms over the years in which "creativity" lessons turn into silly, academic fluff.

Bottom line: Creativity and academic rigor should be the goal.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Written by Education Week's Katie Ash

Recombining DNA and purifying proteins sound like experiments students in an upper-level college course would be doing, but researcher George Cachianes has brought those hands-on lessons to high school students, according to this recent New York Times article. Drawing on his success, high schools in surrounding areas now are using his biotech syllabus as a model for their own science classes, says the story.

"Students are motivated by understanding the relationships between research, creativity and making money," says Cachianes.

The way Cachianes balances the introduction of basic biotechnology concepts with engaging advanced lab work is pretty fascinating, as is the idea that making a class more challenging actually boosts student motivation. What I like most about his approach is Cachianes' refusal to water-down or limit his students' lab work simply because they are in high school. By treating his students like adults, he is motivating them to do adult-level work.

This is just one example of how educators are encouraging more kids to study science and engineering. Also, it's an interesting follow-up to Friday's post.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Written by Education Week's Katie Ash

A government-sanctioned organization wants to see creativity added to the list of skills taught in school, says this Associated Press article. According to Eric Lui, the founder of Creativity Matters, good teachers encourage students to tap into their imaginations when approaching problems, and that teaching style should be given more emphasis. Asking kids to think in creative ways may even help boost their resumes, the article suggests, citing Boeing Co., as an employer that lists creativity and imagination in its job requirements.

Pure creativity might be difficult to teach, but thinking outside the box and generating new ideas seem like valuable skills to learn. Also, asking kids to use their imaginations in class may keep them more actively engaged in lessons, as opposed to lecture- or memorization-based learning.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent article in the New York Times, "Less Homework, More Yoga, From a Principal Who Hates Stress," made me think: Now this is the kind of principal I wish I had had in high school. He was even ridiculed by Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh for his efforts to get kids to chill out.

Joking aside, this is an issue worth debating. If teenagers are stressed out and worrying constantly about academics, are they likely to do their best in class? Might a little official endorsement of relaxation (which is promoted in quite a number successful companies around the world) result in kids having better concentration and even heightened interest in what they are learning?

I will leave that up to the educators out there to weigh in on this topic. But I will say this: I concentrate and perform at far higher levels in my workplace on the days that I go roller blading in the middle of the day for 45 minutes or so than on the days when I am a desk blob for eight hours.

And they do offer Yoga here too.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Motivation guru Richard Lavoie, the author of The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 Secrets for Turning On the Tuned-Out Child, talks to USA Today in this Q&A session about the importance of not branding kids as lazy, the balance between providing support and encouraging challenges, and the wisdom, or lack thereof, of reward systems, competition, and punishment.

It's a good and easy read, so it's worth checking out.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How shocked would you be to learn that school and watching television rank the same among activities that make young people most happy in life? In a survey by MTV and the Associated Press, few 13- to 24-year-olds identified school or TV (or sex or cars, for that matter) as the key to their happiness.

Maybe we should be relieved that, instead, the respondents said they are most happy spending time with family and friends, playing with pets, worshiping God, and playing sports. About half of those surveyed described at least one of their parents as a hero (5 percent gave their teacher that title), and just under half said that family time and relationships make them happier than anything else.

That's enough to spell hope for a generation that is generally painted as apathetic and detached from older folks.

The findings are mixed, however. Although a number of the respondents said that success and work were important, school and homework (and bad grades) all ranked among the things that make young people most unhappy.

I guess we should expect as much. How many teens are enthusiastic about getting up early to catch the school bus or find happiness in studying for the next science quiz?

Yet 43 percent of respondents said they are happy or somewhat happy with their schools (while 24 percent indicated they were not in school at the time of the survey).

What about the rest, though? Twenty percent expressed indifference about school, and 13 percent were unhappy or very unhappy.

How can we make schools more engaging and fulfilling for more youths? Is it important that students be happy with school?

Posted by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, edweek.org at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Japan is known far and wide for maintaining a rigorous and effective public education system. But a significant number of students are less than enamored with it. A new report from the country's Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology shows that the number of students refusing to attend school is rising for the first time in five years.

The Japan Times reports in this story that "a record 138,696 elementary and junior high school students were absent from school for at least 30 days without good reason during the school year that ended in March."

That's a minute percentage of the younger students, but about 3 percent of adolescents are abandoning schooling in a country where education is highly valued and viewed as the only road to prosperity.

The report lists a number of reasons absentees gave for staying away, including delinquency, bullying, relationship and mental health issues, and apathy.

Several years ago the government began instituting significant curriculum reforms to address concerns that schools were not preparing students to succeed in an economy that rewards innovation and creativity. I was there on assignment to report on the changes—which included a 30 percent reduction in content, introduction of integrated courses, and elimination of the time-honored tradition of Saturday school. They were prompted, in part, by a floundering economy and concerns that too many students were becoming more stressed and despondent. Surveys at the time had shown that about half of students did not enjoy school or see the purpose in studying hard.

The changes were controversial, and some parents began sending their children to cram schools to ensure they were learning the essentials. But there was also a sense that focusing on developing the whole student would also have its benefits.

Alas, some cities and towns have rolled back those reforms, citing declining test scores and concerns among parents that their children were not being properly prepared for university exams and careers.

I wonder if the reforms—or the move back to the traditional curriculum—had any effect on students' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with school.

Posted by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, edweek.org at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s summer, so that means the annual bashing of the traditional school break has begun.

An article in Slate seems to take exception with the idea that children get a three-month break from school when adults are “toiling as usual” during the summer. On his blog, Alexander Russo points to another reason “to get rid of the long summer break”: a U.S. News report on the increase in serious injuries that occur while children are out of school.

I wonder if the critics of summer break were ever children. If they were, they seem to have missed, or forgotten, the wonders of summer. Both Russo and Juliet Lapidos, the author of the Slate article, imply that there is little, if any, benefit to summer vacation.

There are many parents—like those who founded the North Carolina Save Our Summers organization a couple of years ago to fight efforts to extend the school year—who believe summertime’s value goes beyond nostalgia.

Granted, for many children, particularly those who are disadvantaged, there are few constructive opportunities for them to spend this time. But that is far from universal.

Summer is often ripe with fun learning opportunities for children of all backgrounds, provided by parents, local school districts, parks agencies, and the children themselves.

For my own two children, summer is when we are more likely to visit museums and parks. We take more frequent trips to the library and attend local outdoor concerts and festivals, all of which are free or low-cost. We have long walks in the woods where we can observe firsthand the entire life cycle of frogs and toads. (Can you tell me the difference? My 6-year-old son can provide a lengthy lecture on the topic.)

My son learned to ride a two-wheeler last month, as did three of his friends in the neighborhood, thanks to the time they had to practice and that wonderful motivator, peer pressure. He and my daughter, now 9, learned to swim in summertime.

With help from the parents last summer, all the school-age children on our block wrote and illustrated a neighborhood newspaper. The group dreamed up their own magical village, housed on a wooded hill next to my house, for which they wrote a constitution, assigned each child duties, crafted buildings out of sticks and cardboard boxes, and designed flags to encircle the camp.

I don’t know if you can quantify all the facts and skills they gain during summer. But it’s not wasted time, and it’s not the toil Ms. Lapidos mentions.

Do you think summer vacation is worthwhile? Is it necessary? Should it be shortened? How could schools add instruction into the summer months without stealing too much from what has long been a rite of childhood?

Posted by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, edweek.org at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve already heard more than a few times the dreaded words of a child in the midst of summer break: “I’m bored.” Or my daughter’s version: “I’m Sooooo bored!” Of course the complaint is not an accurate reflection of summer vacation for many middle- and upper-income children, who have a wealth of activities lined up to keep them busy until the next school bell.

They tend to learn from those library and museums visits, family outings and vacations, summer camps and sporting events, albeit subconsciously or involuntarily.

A recent report from researchers at Johns Hopkins University concludes that the lessons learned during summer—or not learned--tend to contribute to the significant gap in achievement between children from more privileged backgrounds and their economically disadvantaged peers.

Education Week’s Scott Cech writes about the report, "Lasting Consequences of the Summer Learning Gap," here.

While learning gains are “more nearly equal” among students of various socioeconomic backgrounds during the school year, they tend to diverge quite dramatically during the summer months, according to the report. Researchers Karl L. Alexander, Doris R. Entwisle, and Linda Steffel Olson, culled longitudinal data from 325 Baltimore students from 1st grade to age 22 and found that students from relatively well-educated, economically secure homes saw significant increases in their test scores.

But Mr. Alexander, a sociology professor, cautions that there is no checklist of experiences that accounts for the disparities in performance.

“It’s important to point out a deeper reality, that in middle class or non-disadvantaged families, day-in and day-out the life experiences are qualitatively different than less well-off children,” he said.

Posted by Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, edweek.org at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest contributor Ann Bradley, an assistant managing editor here at Education Week, often talks about the trials and tribulations of motivating her children to do well in school. This past weekend, she witnessed the poignancy of what really motivates kids.

Here's Ann's story:

"My 12-year-old son spent the weekend working on a project for his 7th grade Spanish class. They're studying the names of school-related items, like staplers and pencils, and they have to make a locker and fill it with 10 things, all correctly labeled. They also have to write numerous sentences explaining what is in the locker and what class it's used for.

My son, who desperately wants to do well in school but is still learning that effort equals outcome, was thrilled to get this creative assignment and determined to do his best. He spent hours turning a Nike box into a miniature locker. He spray-painted it blue, made a lock out of tin foil, and filled it with a tiny bulletin board (made by ripping a corner off the one in his room) complete with a tiny note written in Spanish stuck on with a pushpin. He even got our 5-year-old in on the act, who lent him a tiny SpongeBob backpack to hang in the locker.

At one point, he said to me, "Mom, this is so good, it looks like a girl did it!"

I guess that means only girls fuss over their schoolwork, while cool guys pretend that they have more important things, like lacrosse and whether to buzz their heads, to think about!

When I checked the assignment rubric for the project, my heart sank. Turns out the actual locker is worth only 10 points, and the rest of the 70 points will be earned with clear and complete sentences that use the right verb, etc.

Being a Type A Mom, of course, I couldn't help but point out to my son that all of his labors would only yield 10 points, and that he'd better get cracking on his sentences. It was awful to have to "shut down" his creative energies that way, although I do understand that this is a language class, not an art class.

But still, the whole experience left me feeling sad that my son, who attends one of the finest middle schools in the nation, has so few assignments that jazz him up the way the locker has. He was so motivated to make it, and the assignment gave him the opportunity to exercise a little-used part of himself--even at the risk of producing something that a girl could have done."

Does this story sound familiar? What lessons do think this offers about what motivates kids?

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 1:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

If you haven't read about the concept of "flow" in learning, you should take a look at a recent commentary in Education Week titled "Schools That 'Flow'."

For years, I have been fascinated by this concept, which was coined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, a psychologist, to describe how skill, interest, and challenge intersect to optimize motivation and performance. I had looked at the concept mostly from the perspective of a writer and a youth sports coach. But the power of how this concept might be used for academic learning in K-12 schools is significant.

In their commentary, Brian Bruya and Russell Owens, faculty members in the department of history and philosophy at Eastern Michigan University, outline how the concept of flow might be used in schools to improve learning. They believe flow may be an important piece of the puzzle in determining the best approaches for improving schools.

This is an article that is worth reading. Please read it and let me know what you think about the concept of flow.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

If you believe that intrinsic motivation is a prerequisite for success in school, then you should check out a research effort spearheaded by Mark Van Ryzin, a teaching assistant at the University of Minnesota's College of Education and Human Development.

The effort is called the Hope Study and it aims to determine whether motivation to learn increases when schools give students more autonomy, a greater sense of belonging, and more opportunities to pursue individual goals.

The study is relatively small, with about 40 schools participating this school year. But that number was just three schools in 2004 when the study was started. The vast majority of the participants are secondary charter schools, not regular district schools.

In an email interview with Motivation Matters, Mark said regular district schools tend to shy away from the project for two reasons: the large amount of assessment in those schools tends to make them wary of taking on additional assessment; and the ideas represented in the Hope Study are not all that familiar to most teachers and administrators in regular district schools because motivational and developmental psychology are not a big part of traditional teacher or administrator preparation programs.

The Hope Study, Mark said, was informed by a theory from educational psychology research known as "stage-environment fit theory," which posits that student motivation and engagement will be higher when the learning environment matches students' developmental needs.

"We have found that schools that support student developmental needs (i.e. autonomy, belongingness) can promote growth in student hope from semester to semester and year over year," he said. "In other words, these schools can actually spur the development of something in students, over and above actual academic learning, that can benefit them throughout their lifepsan.

"When we have more control over our own lives, and stronger networks of support, we feel more empowered, take more interest in our work, and take more ownership of our results. [But] the standard large comprehensive high school can actually undermine student autonomy by adhering to a set curriculum that provides very little opportunity for student input."

Keep an eye on this study because it is getting some traction.

Starting next fall, Mark said the Hope Study will become an official part of the Coalition of Essential Schools online survey system, making it available to all of the coalition's schools.

In addition, Mark said he will be making a presentation about the Hope Study at an American Educational Research Association conference this spring in Chicago; and he has co-authored a paper about the study for Phi Delta Kappan that will be published in a 2007 issue of the academic journal.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We recently published a commentary in Education Week titled "The Wounds of Schooling," which makes the argument that for many people school is a harsh, discouraging, rigid environment that kills their creativity and love of learning. A fascinating discussion about the article is underway on our site and I encourage you to go there to see what others are saying and submit your own comments.

Here are my thoughts on this debate:

Although we have all had our fair share of discouraging, motivation-killing experiences in school (some more than others), I have a hard time believing that most of us have been terribly wounded by those experiences. The writer of the commentary and others who agree with her argue that the heavy emphasis on testing and rigid expectations in schools have had a harmful effect on students. Most thoughtful people would agree that too much testing undoubtedly has negative consequences.

But letting kids study whatever they want, at whatever pace they feel comfortable is a recipe for educational chaos and low expectations. I experienced this up close and personal in the 1970s when I attended an elementary school for one year that allowed us to work at our own pace. I was fortunate because my parents were both college educated and kept an eye on what I was doing in school. But the boys and girls from poor families whose parents were not as watchful suffered immeasurably from this approach -- I remember one girl who was barely reading at a second grade level when we were in 6th grade. (And despite my parents' watchful approach, I did not learn as much in that school as I did in another one in which students were pushed harder.)

Education simply needs to find a balance between these two extremes. Testing is necessary to ensure students are actually learning how to read, write, do math, and understand other intellectual concepts. But providing students with opportunities to investigate their world, stretch their creativity, and take risks is also an important role of schooling.

Finding this balance, many believe, is the key to a quality education. I was fortunate because I attended a high school that found this balance. That school fostered my creative side, while also ensuring that I had the basic academic skills necessary to survive in college and the working world.

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

"We are deeply concerned that current trends in early education, fueled by political pressure, are leading to an emphasis on unproven methods of academic instruction and unreliable standardized testing that can undermine learning and damage young children's healthy development."

That is the opening line of a Call to Action on the Education of Young Children, which the Alliance for Childhood is promoting in the wake of a recent report by the American Academy of Pediatrics suggesting that too little time for free play is leading to increased stress for children and missed opportunities for them to learn how to take initiative and be creative. The Call to Action was actually first released almost a year ago, but the alliance is promoting it again in light of this recent report.

In a nutshell, the alliance argues that children have too little time for so called "unstructured play" -- which in my days as a schoolboy was simply called playtime. The signers of the call to action include Harvard professors Howard Gardner and Kathleen McCartney, pediatricians T. Berry Brazelton and Mel Levine, as well as child psychiatrists Kyle Pruett, Alvin Poussaint, and Stanley Greenspan.

As a journalist, I am always a bit skeptical of these "call to actions," because more often than not they exaggerate the problem, and engage in what I call "crisis-speak." There is little balance in what they have to say.

Still, I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately, because this debate is undeniably connected to student motivation. If children do not have enough free time to play with their friends and investigate their environments, they are likely to be less happy and creative. And if that is the state of their minds, they are also less likely to be motivated in school.

Don't misread me. I do not envision schools where children have unlimited free play time, and study only whatever they happened to be interested in. That seems like a recipe for classroom chaos and questionable academic standards. But I do envision a little more leeway, because I think it can pay off.

I plan to test this theory in my life as a youth sports coach.

Over the years, as a youth sports coach in soccer, ice hockey and lacrosse, I have noticed some troubling traits among today's young athletes. While they tend to be more technically skilled than we were at their age, they are less creative and seem to have trouble with the concept of initiative. They rarely play pickup games with their friends, as we did on ice-covered ponds and basketball courts all the time. As a consequence, they don't react as instinctively and creatively as we did even if their skills are better. Too often, in games, my players look confused when something happens that wasn't covered in a drill in practice. If something isn't scripted, they almost seem lost. So my plan is to set them free ... by giving them more "free time" in practices to simply play. We'll see how it goes ...

More important, though, is this question: If I am seeing these traits among young athletes, are educators also seeing them in their classrooms? Please comment on what you've seen in your classrooms and how that might be connected to the issue of free time.

What do you think? Do we need to set these kids free? Or is the allilance exaggerating the problem?

Posted by Kevin Bushweller at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)