Archive for May 1st, 2009

Sailing the 7 C’s of Motivation

May 1st, 2009

By E. Lee Rakes

There are many theories comprising the concept of motivation, each providing insight into the begging question that many educators have: “How can I get students to remain interested, take ownership, forgo procrastination, and ultimately become a self-regulated learner?” In this short blog we will briefly examine the concept of motivation and assess how we as educators can foster a climate conducive to motivated learners who actually enjoy classroom instruction, are empowered education recipients, and don’t require nagging to complete assignments.

Motivation can be viewed as an internal state of arousal that drives us to take action, pursue a particular direction, and help keep us engaged in certain activities. It can be the deciding factor in what we learn, the extent to which we learn it, and aid in our continuing to partake in activities that involve previous learning. Generally speaking it can affect:

· Energy and activity level
· Actualization of goals
· Initiation and persistence in certain activities
· Time on task
· Active thinking or cognitive engagement

Facilitating motivation involves a multitude of processes, seven of which will be examined here.

1. Challenge
2. Choice
3. Control
4. Caring
5. Curiosity
6. Competence
7. Connectedness

Challenge: Simply put people enjoy challenge, and indeed need challenge to enter into desirable states of affect, such as Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). If there is no challenge, students will be bored, like they are when teachers lecture and nothing else. If the perceived challenge outweighs their perceived ability, then students will be anxious. It is the responsibility of educators to find the right balance, and engage students in classroom instruction that gradually builds their efficacy or ability to meet increasingly challenging tasks (Shernoff, Csikszentmihaly, Schneider, 2003).

Choice: Choice is empowering; it provides a sense of ownership. We are more likely to work harder at things we choose to do, which in turn will increase the amount of effort we put into doing it, which increases our persistence, which improves our achievement and ultimately our self-efficacy (the belief we have about our ability in a certain domain). The opposite spiral is also a potential issue, so educators must be cognizant of where students are in actualizing goals.

Control: If we believe we can make improvements and that chance and luck are not the sole contributors to our ability to perform, then we are likely to attribute success to actual causes such as hard work, dedication, etc. If students believe they are in control of their academic success they are indeed likely to see greater academic success and higher grades, put forth more effort, and spend more time on task. Intrinsic motivation increases when students believe they have control, which can be enhanced when teachers offer the ability to make choices, selections, and actions that will produce desired results. Doing so provides a much needed sense of autonomy. (See Weiner’s work on Attribution Theory- 1979; 1985; 1986; 1992 for more).

Caring: If you don’t care, then chances are your students won’t either. Additionally, ask yourself, “Does this material provide relevance?” “Is the information I’m providing interesting?” “Have I provided opportunities for recognition?” If you have and you do, student motivation is likely to be high. If not, then you need to put more thoughtful effort into your planning and presentation of information.

Curiosity: Humans are a naturally curious bunch, and so are drawn to phenomena that happen to pique their curiosity. By presenting information in a manner that bolsters curiosity, perhaps through deliberate and thoughtful questioning, educators can foster and develop a sense of inquisitive curiosity in their students.

Competence: Success at challenging tasks provides a sense of competence, which builds self-confidence. See above information on self-efficacy and the upward cycle under Choice.

Connectedness: When are you more engaged, when listening to a lecture or solving problems with peers? Chances are you are more enthralled when working with colleagues or peers, and so it goes with students. We need to feel connected to not only others around us, but to the information being presented as well, which can be accomplished as easily as facilitating meet and greets in the early sessions, 3 minute standing conversations, or group projects and discussion. As an educator find a way to let your students interact with one another, the results my surprise you.

Teachers can foster motivation in a variety ways that are not examined above, including the issuance of contracts, incentives, recognition, social support, feedback that is specific and immediate, and importantly instruction in proper goal setting. In the end, educators must determine if the material they present, the activities they provide, and the climate they set in their classrooms and lecture halls is of the nature that addresses the 7 C’s of motivation. If not, chances are that absenteeism will be high, concentration and learning diminished, and Outstanding Teacher Awards will remain chronically elusive.

I would especially like to thank Dr. Peter Doolittle, Associate Professor at Virginia Tech and Director of the Center for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, for providing discourse and resources on the topic of motivation, and particularly the notion of the 7 C’s.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
and Row.

McKenzie, J.F., Neiger, B.L., Thackery, R. (2009). Planning, implementing, and evaluating
health promotion programs: A primer (5th ed).
San Francisco: Pearson Education Inc.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Inc.

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihaly, M., Schneider, B. (2003). Student engagement in high
school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176.

On Charter Schools, Part 4: Smaller is Better

May 1st, 2009
This is the fourth in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. Previous articles have outlined the general disrepair of the American public education system , attempted to define specifically what is meant by the term “Charter School” and outlined criticisms of charter schools. This series is being cross-posted at the blog, the Sweat & Technique.
I began my teaching career in the second largest school district in the country, the Los Angeles Unified School District at Crenshaw High School. The summer before I began my first year as a teacher, Crenshaw made big news when it lost its accreditation. At this point, I had only worked at the school as a long-term substitute. As my friends and family asked endless questions about Crenshaw, I could tell them nothing except what we assumed to be true about urban education: that it was in a sorry state.
In the spring of that first year, Crenshaw’s accreditation was restored. While the initial loss proved to have been a snafu on the part of the school’s administration, for many long-time Crenshaw teachers and supporters, the loss came as a blessing in disguise. What I would learn during that first year, is that there was a deep and well thought-out plan for school reform on the table at Crenshaw. A group of parents and teachers had been working for several years to draft a plan to transform Crenshaw from one large school of more than 3000 students in to several Small Learning Communities (SLC), each numbering around 600 students. The problem was that this plan had never been taken seriously by the school’s administration. When the loss of accreditation brought attention to the state of affairs at Crenshaw, suddenly any plan for change sounded like a good one.
So far in this discussion of Charter Schools, we have highlighted the autonomy that a school’s charter provides. As we continue this discussion, I think it pertinent to accept this autonomy as a clear benefit of Charter Schools, but the important question to consider is What is being done with this autonomy? In January of 2008, Crenshaw was inducted into a pilot Innovation Division and was granted a large degree of autonomy from LAUSD. As part of applying for this autonomy, Crenshaw had submitted a proposal for transforming the school into several SLCs. In other words, Crenshaw was seeking autonomy from the larger school district with express purpose of restructuring into smaller schools.
Since leaving LAUSD, I have been working at a small Charter School managed by Green Dot Public Schools. Green Dot is a CMO (Charter Management Organization) in its ninth year of existence that has already established itself as a successful model for education reform. This year, three Green Dot Public Schools were recognized by the California Department of Education as California Distinguised Schools. Some attribute Crenshaw being granted its autonomy to the recent Green Dot takeover of LAUSD’s Locke High School in Watts.
Green Dot is very clear about the success of their schools. From the beginning, Green Dot has operated under The Six Tenets of High-Performing Schools. When asked, “What will you do with your autonomy,” this was Green Dot’s response. Number One on this list is, Small, Safe, Personalized Schools.

Why Small Schools?
I recently went to my mailbox on campus to discover a nice, glossy publication by the School Redesign Network at Stanford University, entitled Redesigning Schools, What Matters and What Works: 10 Features of Good Small Schools, by Linda Darling-Hammond. Of these 10 features, I would separate them into two categories: 1) those that are immediate advantages of a small school and 2) design aspects that can be easily implemented at a small school. Here I will focus on the immediate advantages.
a Small Learning Community
Anyone who has done serious study within a learning cohort can attest to the importance of forming a close-knit community around learning. An obvious advantage of a small school is that it is small. The school I teach at is in its third year of existence and currently has less than 400 enrolled students. Next year, we will be a complete ninth through twelfth grade high school and will have about 550 students. For many Americans, 550 students is the size of their graduating class. At a school this small, it is possible for everyone to know everyone else.
Continuous Relationships
Effective small schools are not only designed to support relationship; they are also structured to allow these relationships to develop over time.
Linda Darling-Hammond, Redesigning Schools
Having a small school allows the school to foster strong relationships amongst students, parents and teachers. Here we emphasize the community aspect. Some schools adopt advisory programs, in which students are literally paired with a teacher through their four years of school, to help foster this sort of relationship. The size of the school and programs such as advisory also help to foster parent outreach. It is feasible for advisory teacher to contact 3o parents and for a parent coordinator to contact 500. This sort of outreach is not possible at a larger school.
Collaborative Planning & Professional Development
Going from a staff of more than 150 and a department of more than thirty to a staff of twenty and a department of four, perhaps the single largest change I noticed was in the Professional Development I received. Where as in in a large district school, Professional Development largely focused on logistics with the occasional safety training thrown in, at a small school it became possible for Professional Development to focus on actual pedagogies. Our school has this year taken on the goal of developing our teaching of vocabulary. It is a modest goal, but even this would prove difficult at a much larger school. In the Math Department, this year we have focused our energy on the problems faced teaching Algebra I. Having a small department makes the implementation of large scale changes such as double-blocking feasible.
Democratic Decision-Making
This may be the most crucial aspect of small schools. Indeed, at Crenshaw, a desire for democratic decision making was the very impetus for the move toward the change. Dr. Darling-Hammond spells out the benefits afforded to small school in terms of decision making. First amongst these, is the proximity to the classroom of the decision making. In this way, “decisions are made by those who best know students and their needs”. Second, is the fact that the school is governed by the faculty. This is, in fact, one of Green Dot’s Six Tenets: 3. Local Control with Extensive Professional Development and Accountability. According to Green Dot, “local control works in Green Dot’s school model because schools and all stakeholders within them are held accountable for student results.” Finally, Dr. Darling-Hammond emphasize the importance of student and parent involvement in school decision making. In this way, “students develop new skills and learn to be responsible members of a democratic community.” This also helps to foster ownership of the community around the school.

Switch to our mobile site