Findings
1. Both choice and structure lead to higher motivation
In my phase one implementation, my first finding was that students wasted a lot of time. The result of a lack of structure was, for some students, a means in which to become somewhat lost I believe. While I was attempting to generate motivation using collaboration, I was missing a key component that I have mentioned in the literature review. The transition from direct instruction to facilitated instruction was abrupt and I missed what Wiggins and Mctighe warned of, one of the things to look out for; leaving out the coaching role of a teacher. As they also point out, teachers often stay with one style because it is comfortable. In the first implementation I also didn't take what John Dewey stated about including pre-and post reflection in the right way. Well at least not in my opinion. While I did have students engage in reflection before and after during the first phase, it was for my benefit, not theirs. I was hoping to attempt to create a better scenario and thus forgot that, for the students, having pre, post, and intermediate reflection along with overt roles, led to a structure that found them present within it all times. Those of the most interesting and exciting findings, in fact, I had from phase two, revolved around the motivation that my students exhibited through the process of this project. One of the implementations that I wanted to put in place was that of having the students choose what they were going to study and how they were going to organize and present their big projects. In a finding by Patall, Cooper, and Robinson, 'The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings, studies indicated that offering choice "...enhanced intrinsic motivation, effort, task, performance and perceived competence, among other outcome." Further, as Dewey points out, motivation is even stronger when students actively reflect their ongoing work and situation. What I saw in real life day to day practice was closely on target. Two of the groups I watched more intently during this process showed a specific increase in motivation to accomplish a higher quality in task when they were not only able to choose their overall group subjects but also their individual roles within the collaborative process. Other groups, for whom daily meetings and verbal and written reflection were common place, also showed great increases in teamwork and motivation. In these cases, the students spent more time on the early discussion of what they would study and who would study what for presentation.
Further, I, by giving each of the groups established roles they must choose to occupy, they were able to avoid the confusion of what was expected of each. In phase one I had given rather detailed instructions for completing the work but left out the expectations one has within the confines of their individual roles. In phase two I offered not only the choice of how to complete the project but more importantly offered a collaborative vehicle in which to complete work. Each student had to act as the leader in one smaller project, one small cog if you will in the overall piece of machinery, with one student selected to be in charge of everything. The result of this hierarchy was delightful as most student groups began to take the roles they chose very seriously. This wasn't a case where the teacher had specified what had to be done and how, seen as a task rather than a personal project but instead, students were able to dictate what they studied and how they presented based on a group consensus. Very happily, I observed students discussing and debating facts and saw real ownership come from both the editors and the leads of each project. From my journal of events I wrote at one point: "Day Three: Students back in the classroom. Group workday. 1. Editors meeting with me went well, watching them meet with their own staff brings a huge smile to my face- they seem to be taking this role very seriously. Observations: majority of the groups are highly engaged and working on their projects by dissing their own various focuses and describing how they need help. Active discussion and sharing is taking place! How awesome is this! Editors and leads are acting like experts with a mission."
The inclusion of choice and a structured organization of positions were profound on their motivation to produce a work that really meant something to them. From start to finish, the students looked less like they were working on a groan-inducing set of tasks than it did a personal work that they were all trying to be proud of.
2. Being a facilitator encourages more meaningful learning
During the first phase the focus was on a collaborative written project. I was doing quite a bit of teaching about collaboration, the subjects, and even writing itself. In this next phase I stepped back and attempted to become a facilitator for their learning. I started each day with an all class one minute discussion of what would be expected of them for the day, what I had noticed needed working on and, new materials that the class and/or I had found to aid them. I then held a meeting with the editors to give a general focus for what they should be expecting from their groups. I did this to intentionally put a bit of a buffer between the work my students were doing and my role as a teacher.
What I found was that students seemed to work more closely with each other and me when I took on the role of facilitator for their projects. While I was still in the authority position, and the expectation of completed tasks were generated by me, when I worked with them as someone who was trying to ensure they produced the best personal and group projects, I saw more meaningful learning. On one occasion, and as an example, several of my students who were working on WWII aspects of their projects came to me at the beginning of the class and told me that they had shared work they had done in our class with a group of visiting middle school students as that were prospecting the high school. I was excited that my students had done this because it showed that they were sharing work that they were proud of. It was so meaningful to them that they took it outside of the classroom as a representation of what they were doing.
3. Student ownership leads to a high degree of engagement
One of the aspects of phase two that I felt was a big a-ha moment was with the overall ownership of the projects the students had. In phase one, students were given a writing task to do collaboratively. I had set the parameters, given them areas to study, and dictated how to write the essay in a rather strict format. In this case, I gave them much more leeway in subject, allowed them to determine who would handle what aspects of the project and gave them the choice who would take on what roles, aside from the editor, so as to play to their strengths. The change from phase one to two was dramatic in many ways. Students not only worked on getting the basics of their portion of the project done but also attempted to continually increase all aspects of what they would produce. I gave them the format of creating their own newspaper and allowed them to be creative as long as they had the basics. For the majority of the students, realizing that this was their project from start to finish and that I would be here to advise, when needed, changed the class disposition. That they were able to choose the subject, artwork, and format, make up and subjects of their paper had the effect making it their own. Because of this, I had students coming into the classroom in their groups during lunch and meeting at the local libraries to work on their projects over the weekends.
1. Both choice and structure lead to higher motivation
In my phase one implementation, my first finding was that students wasted a lot of time. The result of a lack of structure was, for some students, a means in which to become somewhat lost I believe. While I was attempting to generate motivation using collaboration, I was missing a key component that I have mentioned in the literature review. The transition from direct instruction to facilitated instruction was abrupt and I missed what Wiggins and Mctighe warned of, one of the things to look out for; leaving out the coaching role of a teacher. As they also point out, teachers often stay with one style because it is comfortable. In the first implementation I also didn't take what John Dewey stated about including pre-and post reflection in the right way. Well at least not in my opinion. While I did have students engage in reflection before and after during the first phase, it was for my benefit, not theirs. I was hoping to attempt to create a better scenario and thus forgot that, for the students, having pre, post, and intermediate reflection along with overt roles, led to a structure that found them present within it all times. Those of the most interesting and exciting findings, in fact, I had from phase two, revolved around the motivation that my students exhibited through the process of this project. One of the implementations that I wanted to put in place was that of having the students choose what they were going to study and how they were going to organize and present their big projects. In a finding by Patall, Cooper, and Robinson, 'The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: a meta-analysis of research findings, studies indicated that offering choice "...enhanced intrinsic motivation, effort, task, performance and perceived competence, among other outcome." Further, as Dewey points out, motivation is even stronger when students actively reflect their ongoing work and situation. What I saw in real life day to day practice was closely on target. Two of the groups I watched more intently during this process showed a specific increase in motivation to accomplish a higher quality in task when they were not only able to choose their overall group subjects but also their individual roles within the collaborative process. Other groups, for whom daily meetings and verbal and written reflection were common place, also showed great increases in teamwork and motivation. In these cases, the students spent more time on the early discussion of what they would study and who would study what for presentation.
Further, I, by giving each of the groups established roles they must choose to occupy, they were able to avoid the confusion of what was expected of each. In phase one I had given rather detailed instructions for completing the work but left out the expectations one has within the confines of their individual roles. In phase two I offered not only the choice of how to complete the project but more importantly offered a collaborative vehicle in which to complete work. Each student had to act as the leader in one smaller project, one small cog if you will in the overall piece of machinery, with one student selected to be in charge of everything. The result of this hierarchy was delightful as most student groups began to take the roles they chose very seriously. This wasn't a case where the teacher had specified what had to be done and how, seen as a task rather than a personal project but instead, students were able to dictate what they studied and how they presented based on a group consensus. Very happily, I observed students discussing and debating facts and saw real ownership come from both the editors and the leads of each project. From my journal of events I wrote at one point: "Day Three: Students back in the classroom. Group workday. 1. Editors meeting with me went well, watching them meet with their own staff brings a huge smile to my face- they seem to be taking this role very seriously. Observations: majority of the groups are highly engaged and working on their projects by dissing their own various focuses and describing how they need help. Active discussion and sharing is taking place! How awesome is this! Editors and leads are acting like experts with a mission."
The inclusion of choice and a structured organization of positions were profound on their motivation to produce a work that really meant something to them. From start to finish, the students looked less like they were working on a groan-inducing set of tasks than it did a personal work that they were all trying to be proud of.
2. Being a facilitator encourages more meaningful learning
During the first phase the focus was on a collaborative written project. I was doing quite a bit of teaching about collaboration, the subjects, and even writing itself. In this next phase I stepped back and attempted to become a facilitator for their learning. I started each day with an all class one minute discussion of what would be expected of them for the day, what I had noticed needed working on and, new materials that the class and/or I had found to aid them. I then held a meeting with the editors to give a general focus for what they should be expecting from their groups. I did this to intentionally put a bit of a buffer between the work my students were doing and my role as a teacher.
What I found was that students seemed to work more closely with each other and me when I took on the role of facilitator for their projects. While I was still in the authority position, and the expectation of completed tasks were generated by me, when I worked with them as someone who was trying to ensure they produced the best personal and group projects, I saw more meaningful learning. On one occasion, and as an example, several of my students who were working on WWII aspects of their projects came to me at the beginning of the class and told me that they had shared work they had done in our class with a group of visiting middle school students as that were prospecting the high school. I was excited that my students had done this because it showed that they were sharing work that they were proud of. It was so meaningful to them that they took it outside of the classroom as a representation of what they were doing.
3. Student ownership leads to a high degree of engagement
One of the aspects of phase two that I felt was a big a-ha moment was with the overall ownership of the projects the students had. In phase one, students were given a writing task to do collaboratively. I had set the parameters, given them areas to study, and dictated how to write the essay in a rather strict format. In this case, I gave them much more leeway in subject, allowed them to determine who would handle what aspects of the project and gave them the choice who would take on what roles, aside from the editor, so as to play to their strengths. The change from phase one to two was dramatic in many ways. Students not only worked on getting the basics of their portion of the project done but also attempted to continually increase all aspects of what they would produce. I gave them the format of creating their own newspaper and allowed them to be creative as long as they had the basics. For the majority of the students, realizing that this was their project from start to finish and that I would be here to advise, when needed, changed the class disposition. That they were able to choose the subject, artwork, and format, make up and subjects of their paper had the effect making it their own. Because of this, I had students coming into the classroom in their groups during lunch and meeting at the local libraries to work on their projects over the weekends.