Motivation: Doing More Harm Than Good?

Our e-class discussion of motivation and reading raises an issue I’ve considered a lot recently. One of my students who I’ll call Duke (if the name sounds familiar, that’s because I also mentioned Duke in my e-class discussion!) is excited to read but unmotivated otherwise. I’m fortunate that his parents are very engaged and interested in helping him succeed as much as possible. Duke works with a tutor afterschool and they are currently reading books from The Magic Treehouse series, books that are highly popular in my second grade classroom but above Duke’s reading level. Nonetheless, Duke’s parents describe how getting Duke to participate with his tutor and complete his homework is a constant struggle.

Our e-class discussion of motivation and reading raises an issue I’ve considered a lot recently. One of my students who I’ll call Duke (if the name sounds familiar, that’s because I also mentioned Duke in my e-class discussion!) is excited to read but unmotivated otherwise. I’m fortunate that his parents are very engaged and interested in helping him succeed as much as possible. Duke works with a tutor afterschool and they are currently reading books from The Magic Treehouse series, books that are highly popular in my second grade classroom but above Duke’s reading level. Nonetheless, Duke’s parents describe how getting Duke to participate with his tutor and complete his homework is a constant struggle.

In order to keep Duke on task in class, Duke’s parents and I have developed a behavior contract. If Duke stays on task throughout the day with minimal interruption for redirection, he earns a Pokemon card. Duke really values Pokemon cards, and since we’ve started this system about a week ago, Duke has earned a Pokemon card every day. I know his parents and I are excited to see Duke motivated to work hard. But I wonder what will happen next year, or when Pokemon cards lose their allure. How can we keep Duke motivated, especially with reading since he’s already one of the lowest readers in my class? Are my good intentions only setting Duke up for disappointment and increased frustration in the future?

The National Association of School Psychologists' brief primer on motivation in early childhood and warns against the use of excessive extrinsic motivators when working with young children. But Duke has clearly struggled to stay motivated; early in the school year when the school’s reading specialist visited my classroom, she noted that “I see nothing’s changed since Kindergarten” as she saw Duke distracting another student. While I think this comment was a bit insensitive, I think it also highlights how students like Duke require creative thinking. At the same time, at what point do extrinsic motivators go overboard? I personally believe programs like DC Public School’s usage of money to motivate students as a part of their Capital Gains program erode at any intrinsic motivation a student may possess (even if some studies find they do work), but perhaps so do Pokemon cards. Over the next school year, I hope to continue working with Duke and his parents so he can be a motivated and confident learner.

The Reality of Centers

Prior to this school year, I put extensive amounts of thoughts into the reading centers I would implement during reading instruction. From substitute teaching and working in summer school, I saw how centers could work well and reinforce skills, and how centers could also function as little more than busywork. I was determined to construct center rotations that were engaging and well-run, reading through Debbie Diller’s Literacy Work Stations: Making Centers Work. Then, like many well-intentioned first-year teachers, I started school, and all my plans flew out the window. I wanted to make centers a part of our daily routine from Day 1; centers did not start until the third week of school. The need for reading testing in the first month of school made it difficult to model and correct behaviors. In short, I have lots of ideas of what I’ll change next year, but the big question is what will I do with my current group of students?

I’m fortunate that I have a great group of students and fairly strong classroom management procedures, so students are open to changes that I make. As guided reading begins, I’m planning on a more systematic and meaningful approach to centers. I still refer back to Diller’s book and the need to limit the number of children at each center. I also consider practice students require—for example, identifying nouns, verbs, and adjectives—and create stations for students reinforce the skills they will need. More than all else, consulting with knowledgeable, experienced teachers is helpful as I learn the most appropriate way to allow students the practice they need. I’m learning a lot by making mistakes—I just learned that a handwriting practice center is a bad idea because students need immediate feedback in order to make changes to their writing. These mistakes continue to inform decisions about literacy stations.

Next year, I think I may take my experience and apply an entirely new approach to reading centers. While substitute teaching, I met a 2^nd grade team that used Gail Boushey and Joan Moser’s The Daily Five. As students rotate through 5 reading/writing centers, students not only practice reading and writing skills, they also practice working independently. One significant advantage as a teacher is that students produce little paperwork—meaning there is less to plan, less to photocopy, and less to grade. This goes against conventional thought that centers need some sort of deliverable, but student independence is emphasized from day one. Regardless of the approach I choose in the future, I’m learning teachers need to be thoughtful and reflective to make centers meaningful.

Yet Another Policy Change?

As a career changer coming to the teaching, I feel especially attuned to conversations surrounding the teaching profession in the public sphere. Accountability drives policy decisions, which seems agreeable on the surface, but stakeholder definitions of accountability vary widely. Teachers are stuck in the middle of this debate, and the history of literacy instruction illustrates the challenges teachers face as the pendulum swings.

Current education policy in literacy instruction stems largely from research conducted within the past 10-15 years. The National Reading Panel worked to compile research findings into a single document, and details the Big 5 components of literacy. Balanced literacy fuses whole language and phonics-based approaches. As research is disseminated, journalists and reporters are also quick to make their voices heard. The NY Times’s Kindergarten Cram describes one mother’s desperate attempt to find a school that does not subscribe to the “push-down” approach so many schools have adopted in response to policy changes.

Teachers are left to sift through the divergent conversations and, using their education and professional expertise, develop developmentally appropriate means of teaching while also preparing students for testing. I think it is up to individual teachers to understand their increasingly complex professional responsibility. I’m fortunate to work in a district with a 90-minute reading block that emphasizes balanced literacy. Such a long time block allows the opportunity to reach each student at their ability level. I believe it’s up to each teacher to consider policy decisions, but also remember the research and best practices they learned in their teacher preparation program and their professional development. I’m learning how resistant many teachers are to training and continued coursework, but building expertise allows teachers to articulate rationale behind teaching practices.

Hello World!

The obligatory "Hello World" post!