She received both her MA and PhD from Berkeley in Education in Cognition and Development/Education, Math, Science, and Technology.
Britte’s interest in the flow concepts centers more about the match between cognitive abilities and the challenge of the task. Britte elaborates,
"This is Vygotsky's ZPD. The point for me was about learning as a flow activity more than straight on motivation. Since then, I have continued to study how to connect to student's personal experiences, interests, etc. to create a more meaningful (and I guess arguably) motivating learning experience in classrooms. This is the mission of LIFE - the center that I am a part of."
For more information, check out the Learning in Informal and Formal Environments (LIFE) Center.
While working at SRI - Stanford Research Institute, Britte’s research strives to make help make homework that is engaging socially!
Britte chose the Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi article because it connects flow to learning experiences -- as formalized in a pedagogical approach. She feels that teachers would see the relevance of the ideas in practice. She also feels that the connection between flow, motivation, and learning is fairly explicit.
Discussion Article
Rathunde, K. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students' motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education, 111, 341-371.
31 comments:
Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. It seems that flow occurs when the level of demands/challenges meet skill level… how much is interest a part of this? I can see matching a student’s skill level to a challenge (an assignment, group activity) but am not sure how interest plays on this. Presumably, unless they have some intrinsic or extrinsic motivation a student won’t attempt the challenge and thus will not be able to derive pleasure or enjoyment from it and won’t realize flow even if the formula of skill and demand level is right on. It seems that a middle school Montessori classroom, on average, offers more of an opportunity (at least from this article's perspective) to engage a student's interest than an average middle school classroom.
I have question about the Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi article. While I am very intrigued by the work of Csikszentmahayli, I wonder whether anyone else was "bothered" (for a lack of a better word) by the sample in the two studies? In both studies the schools were described as: modern, attractive school environments; small to moderate size; roughly 15:1 student/teacher ratio; suburban neighborhoods. Participants were described as >72% white; high SES; high parental involvement; >81% intact families; high parent education levels. How can we generalize from this very privileged population. It was stated and is well recognized that the rhetoric of school reform outpaces empirical research. The outcomes of the study suggest that the tenets of Montessori philosophy provide a learning environment that increase student experiences of the flow condition. But I question whether we replicate those conditions when the vast majority of our schools as well as the student and families do not enjoy the same privileged life. The conditions that create intrinsically motivating experiences for such an affluent, well-educated, and well-connected population may have vastly different manifestations for average middle school students in the average, underfunded, over crowded, middle school context. In this way, I do not think that SES was controlled. Is it just easier to be motivated and experience flow when you have everything at your fingertips??? Hmmm...
It is a great pleasure to have you take the time to help us further understand Flow and its connection to education.
Over time, children experience a lack of autonomy according to Miserandino (1996) and based on Spinath and Spinath (2005) there is a decrease of competence beliefs especially in later years (e.g. middle school). In this article, Erikson, Simmons and Blyth, and Steinberg are cited claiming that, “young adolescents want to exercise more choice and autonomy” (p. 343). Can you describe the effects of autonomy and competence beliefs for students within Montessori settings at the middle school level?
Furthermore, David Kahn associates normalization to Flow theory and the theories of Dr. Montessori. Can you further describe the connection of normalization to the Montessori-based middle schools? What connection to self-regulation do normalization and Montessori have?
The article mentions that the typical middle school is more rigid, with tighter rules, an emphasis on control, and few opportunities to exercise freedom of choice and self-direction. I have similar thoughts to Mary in that the participants in the study were from middle to upper class communities so would this "climate" that is described as being ideal for middle school students be advantageous for students that come from low SES, disadvantaged communities?
Hi everyone. Thank you so much for the warm welcome. As I have been working on responses to your questions, I've realized that I want to address common themes that each of your are pointing to. I'll be online later today to post, but wanted to let you know why I've been silent :)
More soon...
Britte
Thank you for responding to our questions!
Creating a developmentally appropriate learning environment for middle school students make a whole lot of sense! Why wouldn’t we want to create environments that support effective learning skills (“knowing how”) and leads to motivated, knowledgeable, effective contributors to our society?
I searched the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development website but didn’t find the rubric on middle school reform you mentioned in your study (p. 344). I did find “Preparing Adolescents for a New Century” within Great Transitions for middle school reform and later found the Calif. Dept of Education program, Taking Center Stage’s 12 recommendations and their efforts to promote excellence in middle grade education.
Where can I find the rubric? Does the rubric address these needs? I am interested in how the middle school education and experience can be designed to respond to these needs.
The article by Rathunde and Csikszentmihalyi was excellent. It was a surprise to my wife and me that early childcare theories can be extrapolated to higher education levels. But, then, why not?
My understanding of the Montessori method is that it is very single student oriented. As practiced in this area, the students are encouraged to explore quietly as individuals. Not that this had to be incorporated in the middle school environment. If so, this seems counter to the current ideas that for middle school age children and older, social efficacy becomes a crucial factor in their development.
An alternative method to Montessori, also Italian by birth, is the similar Reggio Emilia method that does foster group activities and social development. Would this method have been a better model to use, perhaps? I can find, however, no mention of any successful attempt to extrapolate the methods of Reggio Emilia to higher education levels.
Amy asks whether interest can affect the possibility of flow experiences other than in motivating students’ choice of activities and if not, what does that mean for classrooms that don’t explicitly try to tap into students’ interests the way Montessori does.
I don’t think there is a patent answer to this question and at least in my field, there is a lot of work being done to try and understand the role of student interest. So, here I will comment a bit and hope to start a conversation that might bring out either practical or theoretical points.
The main issue around interest, for me, is whether or not a student can recognize an activity or an aspect of an activity as involving skills they believe they have. Interest and prior experience will help determine how students perceive certain activities and will affect how they orient/define/structure their engagement in an activity. If a student can hone in on aspects of the activity that they recognize as something they have done before, like, etc., even assigned activities can provide an engaging experience.
While the specifics of degree of challenge and ability are crucial, so is students’ level of engagement. I can imagine students having the right skills to tackle a task that is ‘just challenging enough’ but not even noticing that a task is available to them!
There is an anecdote a colleague likes to use an example that is very illuminating. A student he visited at home was involved in her family’s perfume production home business. She, her parents, and her grandparents worked together at night and on weekends to mix perfumes that they would sell. The student was known to be systematic and creative at home. However, at school, during a chemistry lab that had many of the same task features as the perfume mixing done at home, this student was uninterested in participating and evaluated as not interested in science.
There seems to be an increased effort on the part of educators to find ways to not only include students’ interests where possible (assigning tasks that are more open-ended), but also to include students’ backgrounds more generally. The goal recognizing diverse cultural perspectives, is to help to make salient the similarities of activities students engage in or, more simply, make the purpose of school activities for future learning and work more obvious to students.
What strategies might be useful for engaging student interest/backgrounds in time-constrained classrooms??
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Britte
Dear Dr. Cheng
Is there such a thing as a golden mean of educational research? I am constantly troubled by the fact that academia is turning out endless numbers of research papers based on studies that seems ignore very important variables. My question
is, that can a research study no matter how exploratory in its nature allowed to omit variables that are inherent to both private and public education without risking to become non-relevant?
The fact that parents justify, make financial investment, etc., to pay and send their children to private Montessori schools to me creates a context that should not be allowed to ignored. For example, the adult support, which is so crucial according to Lerner (2003) on page 344, is likely to be effected by the family’s investment into private education. Just as the socioeconomic status of the Montessori children is likely to create normalized topics of personal interests, that is fairly easy to accommodate. But to return to my point, isn’t time that scholars do more that just write up their omitted inconvenient variables in the limitation section of their research.
Mary and Navdeep ask about the role of SES in this study and in the theory more generally; certainly the article can not speak to this issue. My take on this is that students tend to vary from one another with respect to their learning styles regardless of SES. I would tend to believe that the rigidity of middle school described in the article is not great for students at any level of affluence. That being said, the question of what ‘else’ students are doing outside of school that might help or hamper their efforts to be successful in non-ideal school settings becomes crucial. Students whose abilities and confidence are developed out of school will certainly have more opportunities to learn and to feel good about it. The converse cycle where students’ are not achieving and opting out of school is apparent in high-school drop out rates.
In my response to Amy, I mention research and educational innovation where the focus is on trying to connect students’ school and non-school learning experiences as a way of tapping into interest when curriculum can leave little room for modification, let alone student choice of activities. There is a belief among researchers that this perspective is an equitable approach to involving all students and may, in fact, help students develop a view of themselves as engaged in learning and successful in multiple contexts, thereby improving students’ attitudes of self-efficacy. Flow experiences or experiences that elicit positive affect, engagement, and motivation should be possible for all students if we specifically attend to connecting school and non-school experiences.
However, students whose non-school learning experiences are not scaffolded by adults (and this is not just determined by SES although obviously having more resources is always going to help), may have a more difficult time identifying informal activities as valuable for school and vice-versa). So, it would be especially important for these kids to have school experiences that help them make these connections. Hope springs eternal.
A bit of background. I should probably mention that this push to address kids’ whole selves (and students’ perceptions of their whole selves) is motivated by several factors. One is the issues discussed, here, equity and more directed efforts to address diversity in classrooms in a way that enhances learning. Another is the question of how to prepare students for the demands of the evolving workplace where workers continue learn on the job and success is determined by one’s ability to find necessary resources. Third is the growing belief that learning (and working) is best thought of as happening among networks of people and resources; this implies that learning is coordinated (or experienced) by students across all settings (school, after-school, museum, tv and other media, home, etc). Instruction, therefore, can’t be maximally effective in the isolation of the classroom.
There’s a lot more to say on these topics, but I want to get more thoughts from others, so I’ll end this here, for now ☺
To answer Jozsef’s question: No. There is no gold standard. Depending on the journal or book or conference, criteria of quality vary widely. Moreover, different methods are deemed applicable for answering certain types of questions posed at various stages of theory development, as Jozsef points out.
I wonder, if the shared concern about SES question speaks more to my choice of article than to the value of Flow? As the topic for this week’s discussion was Flow (with a capital ‘F’), I was glad to find anything that spoke to motivation and a classroom setting at the middle school level, to be honest. But, I do share the concern about what value we ascribe to it as educators, given the sample studied. I think, however, that it might be interesting to call out specific limitations.
Are there aspects of the theory that are applicable despite the flaws of this particular study? Can we not see this as supporting our arguments about curricular reform for all or is the idea of implementing similar ideas in low SES school settings simply not feasible? If the latter, why?
Dionne,
The original report you’re looking for must be purchased. This isn't my work, so I don't have a copy that I can send, but you might be able to find it in your library.
An executive summary is available here:
http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/prevention/turning.html
Also, a quick web search turned up this article that discusses the report. I haven’t read it, so I don’t vouch for it’s contents, but it seems to cite a lot of the info from the report.
http://www.nmsa.org/portals/0/pdf/publications/On_Target/middle_or_high/middle_or_high_6.pdf
Hope this helps,
Britte
Dr. Cheng,
Thank you for your very thoughtful responses. I had asked one of the questions pertaining SES. I cut and pasted a portion of your response that prompted me to reflect more about my question.
"...Are there aspects of the theory that are applicable despite the flaws of this particular study? Can we not see this as supporting our arguments about curricular reform for all or is the idea of implementing similar ideas in low SES school settings simply not feasible? If the latter, why?"
In response to your question, thank you for asking me to think beyond the article. While I was particularly bothered by the sample used in the study I do believe notion of trying to infuse more aspects of flow theory into educational reform is valid regardless of SES. That being said, I do think SES comes into play in that the high SES students described in the article (and in general) may porportionately have greater opportunities for flow experiences outside of the classroom through music lessons, vacations, elite sports, art classes, enrichment camps, cultural exchange programs, etc. These experiences provide opportunities for both flow as well as perhaps enhancing the development of intrinsic motivation. Students who have experienced a greater number of flow experiences may be more able to replicate/cultivate similar experiences in the context of school and classroom settings (regardless of the fact that school is set up as a reward/punishment environment and regardless of true interest in the content/curriculum being studied).
It is for this reason that I think we need to look at SES. How do students who have not had as much access to flow experiences recognize the opportunity in the context of a classroom? How can teachers foster flow experiences within the realm of required content?
I have recently finished reading Flow: The Pyschology of Optimal Experience by Csikszentmihalyi. I think it is a wonderful book. Anyway, it seems as if there is quite a bit of overlap among the conditions of flow (flow blueprint), learning to be an autotelic self, and the elements of enjoyment. Some of the common elements include 1) well defined goals; 2) a clear task; 3) skill development; 4) immediate/continuous feedback; 5) increased challenges; and 6) total immersion in activity. While it is incumbent upon a teacher to incorporate these aspects into the learning environment I wonder if the subject of relevance needs to be addressed? It seems as if most of the flow experiences described (in the text & article) were in the context of activities that had relevance for the participant whether it be hobby, job, sport.
I think school reform needs to examine the topic of relevance across all levels of SES. And doing so through the lenses of the Montessori experience does not fulfill this requirement.
I welcome your thoughts...
Dr. Cheng,
I think Mary kind of covered most of your questions so I just throw in my two cents into her pile. You asked if “Can we not see this as supporting our arguments about curricular reform for all or is the idea of implementing similar ideas in low SES school settings simply not feasible? “
Well, the theory and the research does supports curriculum reforms, but, in my opinion both past and current curriculum in public schools are only mirroring the organizational and structural make up of the public school system. Just as the curriculum in Montessori schools are the reflections of that system. Which is why they were able to develop and adopt a new curriculum for middle schools, a demographic that was far beyond the scope of Maria’ Montessori’s efforts.
I also have similar feeling about networks learning. I am a big fan of Sugata Mitra’s Self-organization in educational settings theory but ,the whole in the wall experiment although confirmed that learning takes place no matter what is the SES, also relied on a major “institutional” investment, the computer. Again, what was proven is that learning is universal, however, the computer, the curriculum is sanctioned by the organization that is in charge therefore reflection of the institutional structure.
And at last, I don’t think it is your selection that caused this uproar over SES, rather (in my opinion) the way the authors used Flow theory to make their case.
Having read numerous motivational research papers this semesters it seems to me that everyone was following the norm. A fact, that is likely the cause behind my zealous criticism of the Csikszentmihalyi paper ( and many others).
Hopefully, we as a group will get more tame with other e-scholars as time goes by. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to answer our questions and comments and being the first scholar on the blog.
Hi Britte!
I can’t help but to reflect upon my school district’s practice of using standards based report cards with Below Satisfactory, Satisfactory, and Outstanding anchor points for the various standards addressed. The district uses these types of report cards for k through 6. They are trying to get the middle school on board too. I understand that the normative feedback is not going to help the students’ motivation, but do these types of grades make a difference for them in terms of motivation. We notice that the time that they get to us in the middle school, they have no idea of what an A means. For all they know an A means awful while an F means fantastic. However, the parents are relieved that the students finally earn grades that they understand. The article mentions that one aspect of motivation involves not providing mandatory grades. It seems worthwhile not to provide grades as a type of feedback because it appears to influences flow. Yet, we know that the colleges don’t want to shift to this type of assessment for admission processes. How do you think your research or projects that you have worked on measuring the flow of students who were raised on standards based no grades report cards and standards based grades report cards in a normal (non-Montessori) setting would address this issue?
Hi Dr. Cheng,
Thank you so much for participating in this discussion with our class.
This study was published in 2005, since then has there been any additional research done in the area of motivation in middle-schools? More specifically, what are the current curriculum implications of studies such as this one? At this point, in your opinion, does research in the area of student motivation help to support curriculum reform in public middle schools in the Bay Area?
I'd like to learn more about "spontaneous student concentrations" as they relate to assessing student motivation in Montessori Schools. Can you recommend relevant research studies in this area to increase my understanding?
Thank you again for your time.
Hi Dr Cheng,
My family was part of an educational experiment in the late 90's in Celebration, FL that tried to reinvent public education. Celebration is a proto type community just outside the gates of Disneyworld. Disney wanted to create Walt's Experimental Community of Tomorrow and they had extra land. They wanted to reinvent all parts of the community including the school. Working closely with Auburn University, they structured the school with Montessori type principles in mind. No grades, project driven, individualized curricula, etc. 100 kids of K - 8 were assigned to a neighborhood that had 4 teachers and a couple of aids. Half of the students were from Celebration and half were bussed in from outlying areas. The school was built for Neighborhoods with a large gathering area and breakout rooms for math, science, etc.
Ultimately the school format failed. The number one reason was teacher fatigue. Trying to develop individualized programs for each kid and providing feedback without the convenience of grades was overwhelming. Also, unlike kids who are brought up in Montessori Schools many of the students, particularly the students who were bussed in,
lacked the focus and dicipline to be able to handle the academic freedom.
It was unfortunate because some of the students really thrived. The focus of the school was developing a life long love of learning. A noble goal but one that the students and to some degree, the teachers, were not ready for.
Have you seen any examples where Flow type emphasis has been successfully implemented in a
public school setting?
mark
Britte: Thanks so much for contributing to our class. My name is Mathew Mitchell and I'm the instructor for this course. I'm really staying in the background and letting you and the students take over in terms of this discussion. There's a few more questions that will be arriving from other students over the next few days. But already it's obvious how much you've added to our ongoing and evolving course dialog. Many many thanks for your thoughtful contributions!
Hello Dr. Cheng,
Thank you for participating in our class discussion.
I found the article to be interesting, however as a instructor in a school of nursing, I had difficulty generalizing the findings to my student population.
I was wondering has anyone explored the question of how enrollment in Montessori programs impacts student success in college?
Dr. Cheng,
I found the article you suggested us to read very interesting and thought it was great that you chose one you weren't necessarily the author of. I taught in a Montessori preschool for 2 years and was amazed at how bright the children were. They were very engaged or what I can now called in flow. I had the opportunity a few times to help out at the elementary Montessori class on the same campus. I was amazed at the alternative approach to learning in the elementary setting. I can see the benefit that choice has on even the elementary classroom (teaching in a traditional 3rd grade class). I can also see how choices can be especially important in middle school. My question is if there has been research on student moving from a traditional classroom to a Montessori classroom or vise versa? Do the students prefer one type of school over another? If Montessori philosophy is beneficial to middle school aged children, can the philosophy be incorporated at that age, or does it need to be taught from preschool? Sorry I had so many questions. I look forward to your responses.
Dr. Cheng-
You mention the importance of "students’ level of engagement. I can imagine students having the right skills to tackle a task that is ‘just challenging enough’ but not even noticing that a task is available to them!" You also ask "What strategies might be useful for engaging student interest/backgrounds in time-constrained classrooms?"
We see all around us children being engaged in video games (much to the chagrin of their parents), striving to ever higher and higher levels of greater difficulty. Video games seem to induce 'flow' to millions of people. So what can be done to create a learning environment (perhaps virtual) that will engage a student as a video game does but make it 'just challenging enough' and the student not notice that it is academic work, but rather highly engaging and interesting?
Mark mentions an experiment he participated near Disneyworld that tried to create individualized instruction for students that ultimately led to burn-out and fatigue of the teachers. Perhaps, as technology continues to improve, we as educators will be able to create virtual worlds that will be challenging for students and allow them to progress at their own paces, that has feedback built into them, and allow exploration along a myriad paths of discovery. I can envision a virtual world that connects to the Internet that, properly vetted and filtered, would engage and enable students to tackle tasks of increasing complexity, that helps them learn about science, math, problem solving, even philosophy. The classroom experience would, perhaps, be the place for scaffolding before engaging in a virtual reality of learning.
Creating such a place would take a lot of time and effort, but the rewards may be well worth it.
Hi Britte,
Thanks for taking everyone's questions and being our group's visiting scholar. I had some questions about flow and computer-assisted learning because I think it is possible to use adaptive computer programs to make learning challenges match student ability and help them enter a flow or flow-like state while learning.
Along the lines of stimulating flow experiences, I have had some experiences this year that make me want to link video games, computer-assisted learning, and flow. I reviewed a 2008 article by Keller and Bless where they used Tetris in adaptive and non-adaptive situations. I teach using an adaptive computer-assisted learning program called ALEKS and while some of my students (and some of their parents, too) report flow experiences while using the program, others report anxiety and/or frustration. Something I am wondering about with the program and comparing it to tetris (which has many levels, which may or may not have consistent differences in difficulty between levels), is whether or not there have been studies in flow using computer-assisted learning--and furthermore, whether or not there have been studies in how to gauge the difficulty spacing for game levels to make sure that changes in task difficulty do not take the participant out of the flow channel. Are you aware of any such studies?
Finally, I was wondering if there would be anything interesting and worth asking my students who are continuing to use ALEKS this year in chemistry. I have the ability to survey them and do other things to find out how the program is working for them, and possibly to gauge their flow experiences, etc.
Thanks,
Shannon
Keller, J & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: an experimental approach to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 196-209.
More information on ALEKS is available from:
http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks
http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks/overview
http://www.aleks.com/about_aleks/research_behind (This link includes a pdf file explaning the research behind ALEKS in non-technical language. There are also links to lists of research articles on ALEKS and Knowledge Spaces.)
"What strategies might be useful for engaging student interest/backgrounds in time-constrained classrooms??"
Dr. Cheng,
Thank you for all those thoughtful comments. I was thinking about the above question you asked in response to my post and this is something that comes up with classroom teachers so often. I know I use questionnaires, but they only get to some students, and they don't always elicit the detail a teacher wants or needs to address true interests. I also make an effort to reach out to parents in the beginning of the school year and those phone calls do give me a very quick picture of home life. It's one more piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the full picture. I think conversation and class discussion are another way into gauging personal interests. And finally, I feel that feedback from students after projects or major units helps tap into what worked for them and why.
Amy-
What do you do with the information you gather about our students? Does it help you get to know them better so you can better respond to them in class? Are there ways you incorporate students' interests in class activities?
Would love to know how this information helps you!
Well, I try to incorporate the information in activities, but also just in creating a good working relationship with my students. When I read their personality profiles I make comments (with questions) and hand them back... this way the student knows I've taken what they said seriously, and if they are comfortable they can respond. I have had some come up with paper in hand and talk to me about some of my questions. For instance, if one of them says that in their free time they like to dance I might write, "Me Too! I love to swing dance and I love to watch Flamenco dance. What kind of dancing do you like best? What music do you use? Do you take classes or is it more of a free time activity?" This way the student and I have a dialogue and many times they continue it with me. Sometimes not. And, I try to keep track of that so I can work on building a dialogue with the ones that do not come over to me on their own.
I think the way this information helps me better respond to them in class is mostly due to a better comfort level. The better you know someone the better the conversation. But, I have not yet mastered incorporating the students' interest in actual curriculum. Notice I say "master..." I have attempted and succeeded on occasion. Many activities I do offer choice and creative input which often times elicits student interest. One example of this is a final project I offer after reading a novel. I have the students pick 5 of 15 items that each allow for creative though and expression (ie., write a poem about the setting in a chapter, write a letter from a particular character in his/her voice, draw a moment from the book...). These ask the students to go beyond the basics, but they do have guidelines. In this way I allow for their interest, but I am not using their interest I already know about to design the project. If I knew a particular student interest I could try to tie it into this, even by asking them to design one of the projects themselves perhaps.
In English/Language Arts we have a few assignments in line with CA state standards that are personal reflections which allow students to express their interests. Again, this does not guide the activity.
Finally, I do listen to student requests (which assignments they prefer, why, which games they like to play, why a test works or doesn't) and by the end of the semester I like to try to merge what's working and ditch what isn't. I should think this relates to interest... it's certainly curriculum driven, but taps into student receptivity.
Does this answer your question?
Terry,
I’ve only looked at Reggio-Emilia from a superficial level, so my experience is limited here. I did some investigation into the method as I chose a preschool for my son, but also because of their commitment to connecting to kids’ interests. It seems to me to be a fantastic way to teach at that age. But, I’m not at all surprised that the method isn’t used at higher levels since Reggio couldn’t claim to adhere to accountability systems. So, I would assume that doing this study at the middle school level limited the researchers choices for setting. Montessori is, as far as I know, the most common non-traditional setting to work in that at least claims to adhere to some sort of shared framework.
In practice, if not also in theory, Montessori pays some attention to the skills and knowledge kids need to acquire at different levels of the schooling system, but Reggio makes no promises that any set of content will be covered. I will also admit my personal bias that Montessori is at its best at the preschool level for the same reason (that after 5th grade content reigns supreme) and because most of us need lots of practice learning-to-learn in the more structured settings of high school and beyond.
-Britte
Quoting and responding to Mary’s and Jozef’s follow-up to my question re: their concern about the limits of the study given the SES of the sample:
“ I do think SES comes into play in that the high SES students described in the article (and in general) may porportionately have greater opportunities for flow experiences outside of the classroom through music lessons, vacations, elite sports, art classes, enrichment camps, cultural exchange programs, etc. These experiences provide opportunities for both flow as well as perhaps enhancing the development of intrinsic motivation. Students who have experienced a greater number of flow experiences may be more able to replicate/cultivate similar experiences in the context of school and classroom settings (regardless of the fact that school is set up as a reward/punishment environment and regardless of true interest in the content/curriculum being studied).”
I agree that high SES parents and schools have more resources to put in front of kids to build on their interests and abilities. That being said, I think it might be helpful to try and think of flow not as something that switches off and on, but as something that can more or less be a part of an experience.
How about high-flow and low-flow experiences? Which experiences do you have on a regular basis are clearly low-flow and which have more flow-like characteristics? For me, driving is high-flow. It is very enjoyable and I experience highly-focused attention on clear goals. Some meetings I have are high-flow involving high-challenge, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, etc. Low-flow for me could be any of a number of writing projects that are currently overwhelming and not well defined in their scope. If we can think more of a continuum-of-flow of activities we participate in, then high SES kids aren’t more likely to experience flow than low SES kids. And, therefore, flow isn’t necessarily related to elite or enrichment activities, merely how we orient ourselves to our activities.
Replicating flow. This is an interesting idea. Kids construct informal theories/ideas about high-flow experiences, but can they cultivate flow experiences in the context of school for themselves – and if so, is this ability related to SES? My thought on this is that kids whose parents teach them to be sensitive to their learning/enjoyment of experiences will be more likely to know when flow is at play and what kinds of activities ten to produce flow for them.
Kimi-
Interesting question. And, I think your questions point to the broader issue of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation – specifically how schooling overall places emphasis on extrinsic outcomes and teaches kids to do the same. Flow, and the desire to achieve it – or at least the desire to participate in activities during which we experience flow – is entirely intrinsic. In school, the lucky kids whose intrinsic goals align with (at least some) extrinsic goals are golden, but what about those kids who intrinsic goals do not align with any of the goals of schooling?
Lessons that purposefully incorporate kids various interests maximize the chance for flow. This is one of the goals of work like the LIFE Center, to understand how to bridge school and out-of-school in ways that encourage not only intrinsic motivation, but build on knowledge students have from out-of-school experiences.
Mark-
What an interesting experience to have had! From my experience and yours it is clear that all this change will be slow in coming. However, there is an increasing awareness that students need to be prepared for an ever-changing 21st century workplace – where both teachers and students need to be schooled, trained, and ready for an environment like the one you describe. The need to develop ideas for curriculum design and assessment that are not drawn from old frameworks and are appropriate for a new context goes unanswered. We know what we want learning to look like, but its not clear how to make that happen using some new ideas and some old. Research is definitely moving us forward – as is the work from places like science museums, after-school programs, etc. But, the point I hear in your comment is that all aspects of the schooling system need to take on a refocus, not just the physical setting and the curriculum, if change is to succeed and sustain.
Stephen-
Gaming is big these days in education research and as you say, much can be learned here about engagement and motivation. As are virtual environments. One of the issues with Second Life (a virtual world like the one you describe) is that it is almost impossible to properly vet and filter public spaces.
However, we can take some of the features of these kinds of environments and design around those. For instance, in some of my current work in LIFE, colleagues and I are designing homework activities that allow kids to chat (only with each other) and put their avatars to the test in a science gameshow (feel free to email me for more info - or ask Kimi, we used the software in her classroom last spring). I realize this falls short of your vision, but I wanted to point out that not only are your ideas great, they are a shared vision in educational technology research!!
Shannon-
Great connection -- gaming and adaptive models. I'm sure game designers have got the difficulty level models down pat. As Stephen mentioned and as you point out, games are highly engaging and high-flow for the vast majority of people who play them. What do they know that we don't?
Here's an article I found when thinking about your question. Heavy on the tech. Best part of it is an extensive bibliography.
W. Westera, R.J. Nadolski, H.G.K. Hummel, I.G.J.H. Wopereis
Serious games for higher education: a framework for reducing design complexity
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (vol. 24, no. 5, pp420-432). 2008.
Thinking about your students, I'm not sure they would be articulate the kinds of information that would help us think about how to tweak any particular system. Although it might be illuminating to learn more about which students persevere despite anxiety or frustration and why.
Thanks for the wonderful contribution!
Post a Comment