John Seeley Brown's talk, "A New Culture of Learning," pointed out the shift we are experiencing, going into an area of disequilibrium and flux. He bluntly stated, "Basically, if you're not curious, you're screwed!" That really sums up what I feel about some of my students, and it will be the focus of a bit of my research paper. Seeley shares his opinion that devices are "curiosity amplifiers," and as such, we should be encouraging their use. He mentioned the role that study groups, or collaborative learning as I see it, play in leading to knowledge acquisition, stating, "There is no better way to learn than to have to explain to someone else." I wholeheartedly agree, which is why other than assessments, I encourage student collaboration whenever I can.
Howard Gardner's "Five Minds of the Future" presentation detailed a condition known as "about-itis," in which fact-knowing and memorization of data has become confused with actual thinking. For him, thinking is more the act of being able to process, synthesize, and put information together in a way that makes sense for an individual's use of that information. This definitely left me thinking about Common Core and its goals and testing, as compared with the standardized tests we're moving away from.
The always-entertaining Sir Ken Robinson's discussion called "How to Escape Education's Death Valley" humorously pointed out the irony of No Child Left Behind's approach to bridging the achievement gap by simply making all kids show their success in the same way as others, ignoring the individual strengths. He says it is based on conformity rather than diversity. He listed the following three principles for people to flourish: showcasing our diversity, allowance for curiosity, and encouraging creativity. He stated, "Curiosity is the engine of achievement." Again, I thought about some of my students' lack of curiosity about some of the texts we read and tasks I ask them to complete, which furthers my thought about my own practices.
Daniel Pink's "The Surprising Science of Motivation" demonstrated how, despite what we think, research proves that providing extrinsic rewards for work actually works against us, for these rewards simply narrow our focus and restrict our possibilities. He referenced the success of the Google model of 20% time, wherein employees are given that much time each week to dedicate how they see fit. They choose the time, team, task, and technique. This model has led to the production of some of the company's greatest products. Another English teacher at my school uses this model for his "Genius Hour" project, and he sees the engagement from his kids.
Louis Mobley's "Can Creativity Be Taught" details his findings through his own work with IBM. He found that when people are stumped and forced to find a solution, it leads to increased learning. Creativity can also be improved by surrounding ourselves with creative people. Learning more about ourselves can also help. He approached teaching with the idea that no answer/solution was wrong, but rather a building block to something better.
In looking at my own approach, I clearly have a lot of work to do in the classroom; however, I'm taking baby steps in the right direction. I have always said, "I can't teach internal motivation!" What I see, though, is that I can do things differently to pique student interest and curiosity, which leads them to become internally motivated. By allowing my students to choose their own topics and teammates for writing collaborative essays, I'm hoping to engage them and encourage them to ask questions they want to find answers to. Flexibility and time are key, too.