When I made the transition from a Language Arts Teacher to teacher librarian there were a lot of perks. The first and most obvious was that I get to spend time reading books--at work. A feat mostly unheard of as a junior high teacher. (No one tells you when you become a teacher your reading-for-pleasure activities are relegated to the summer months.) I also get to buy all of the latest and greatest books without spending my children’s college fund, which is something only my husband can truly appreciate. I spend all day, every day surrounded by books. It is the greatest job ever!
There is one downside that blindsided me my first year as a librarian. The drawback is teaching students without any prior relationship. Of course, it took me a few years to articulate the difficulty. Suddenly, teaching, which had always been relatively effortless to me was a challenge. I struggled with the students and the mini lesson format (20-30 min.), which limited student feedback and assessment. At first I thought it was changing from teaching 9th graders to 7th graders. There are some differences in the two grades--maturity level, ability to understand the abstract, etc., but once I adjusted to the lower grade level, I found myself still struggling with student engagement. I began to realize how important the teacher-student relationship is to my teaching process. My ability to engage with the students in the subject matter suffered when the students were introduced to me and the subject matter on the same day.
I decided to go back and review what I knew about student engagement in an effort to adapt how I was teaching. In his article, “Reaching Those We Teach,” Delisle categorizes “5 Cs of Student Engagement”, which are: control, complexity, common bonds, choice, and caring teachers. In my study I will attempt to address each of these in reference to teaching a mini lesson on web literacy.
There is one downside that blindsided me my first year as a librarian. The drawback is teaching students without any prior relationship. Of course, it took me a few years to articulate the difficulty. Suddenly, teaching, which had always been relatively effortless to me was a challenge. I struggled with the students and the mini lesson format (20-30 min.), which limited student feedback and assessment. At first I thought it was changing from teaching 9th graders to 7th graders. There are some differences in the two grades--maturity level, ability to understand the abstract, etc., but once I adjusted to the lower grade level, I found myself still struggling with student engagement. I began to realize how important the teacher-student relationship is to my teaching process. My ability to engage with the students in the subject matter suffered when the students were introduced to me and the subject matter on the same day.
I decided to go back and review what I knew about student engagement in an effort to adapt how I was teaching. In his article, “Reaching Those We Teach,” Delisle categorizes “5 Cs of Student Engagement”, which are: control, complexity, common bonds, choice, and caring teachers. In my study I will attempt to address each of these in reference to teaching a mini lesson on web literacy.
Control
Delisle cites that the idea of control can be misconstrued in a way where teachers feel students are dictating what they teach, but I think it is best represented in this observation by one of his students.: “In a sense, being creative gets in the way of school in that creative people are forced to choose between creating meaningful things and doing school work” (pg. 64). Many students like to show their creativity and their outside-of-the-box thinking, but when a teacher's assignment doesn't allow individualism the students tune out.
Complexity
I think that all teachers, whether teaching grade-level, gifted, or honors students, struggle with complexity, and in many instances it has nothing to do with the rigor of the subject, especially if they are teaching about technology or the internet. As a teacher, I am a digital immigrant while my students are digital natives. Sometimes it is difficult for me to remember this when speaking about web literacy. At the end of my lesson, I teach the student Boolean Search techniques by googling a subject and teaching them how to refine the search from 20 million hits to around 100 hits. They watch on the projector screen as I do it, and everyone one is engaged. There are audible gasps as I cut the number of hits in half. It is one of the few times the students are taking notes. Complexity is not only about rigor, it is also about teaching the students something with real-world application.
common bonds
Student engagement increase when the subject is something they are all interested in. Something that they can commonly bond over. When I talk to students about academic or credible sources, I tell them about academic databases. One of their favorites is provided by World Book Online, titled “opposing viewpoints”. I have noticed that their common bond when we explore this database is their opinion on controversial subjects. They may not agree, but they collectively love to debate.
choice
In his blog, A. J. Juliani believes that choice “naturally differentiates the learning for every student. It differentiates it through their level of interest and learning preferences.” He continues to explain that through student selection, the teacher is shifting the focus from the teacher and what he/she knows back to the student and what they know/want to know/need to know. In his post, “10 Ways Choice and Differentiation Create an Engaged Learning Experience,” he talks about varied ways that a teacher can allow for student choice in what they learn, how they learn, what technology they use, etc.
In an article that addresses specifically how a student chooses a topic for writing, Chandler-Olcott and Mahar adapt the reading theory, To-With-By, to address teachers’ concerns that adolescent students do not have the ability to effectively select viable subjects. The authors argue that “if we intend for students to be able to handle a range of writing tasks, then they need to have opportunities to have topics chosen for them, to choose topics with others, and to choose topics by themselves”.
In an article that addresses specifically how a student chooses a topic for writing, Chandler-Olcott and Mahar adapt the reading theory, To-With-By, to address teachers’ concerns that adolescent students do not have the ability to effectively select viable subjects. The authors argue that “if we intend for students to be able to handle a range of writing tasks, then they need to have opportunities to have topics chosen for them, to choose topics with others, and to choose topics by themselves”.
caring teachers
On of the students surveyed by Delisle said: “A perfect school day is when what the teachers are teaching is taught in a hands-on manner, not just sitting there while the teacher talks.” Learning must be collaborative between teacher and student and between students. When a teacher takes the time to get to know his/her students and plans curriculum accordingly, the students will respond with interest.
Conclusion
Although everything I read about student engagement was useful and applicable in a regular class setting, I am not sure how much of it will be adaptable to a 20 mini lesson with students who don't know me and who I don't know very well either. As I suspected from the beginning of my research, it is a challenge to teach students without any prior relationship, but it is not impossible. Here are the ways I feel like I can change my lesson structure to encourage student engagement:
- Increase complexity and rigor by having students use search techniques and databases on provided chrome books.
- Allow the students to choose their research topic as they learn to search smarter
- Speak to the students individually as they are completing searching tasks
- Make sure that students are completing internet research tasks to further the project they are working on in class.
- Have students write about what they have learned in the form of a flash draft
References
“10 Ways Choice and Differentiation Create An Engaged Learning Experience for Every Student.” A.J. JULIANI, 7 Apr. 2015, ajjuliani.com/10-ways-differentiate-choice/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
Chandler-Olcott, Kelly, and Donna Mahar. “A Framework for Choosing Topics for, with, and by Adolescent Writers.” Voices From the Middle, vol. 9, no. 1, Sept. 2001, pp. 40–47.
Delisle, James R. “Reaching Those We Teach: The Five Cs of Student Engagement.” Gifted Child Today, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 62–67., doi:10.1177/1076217511427513.
Guinee, Kathleen, and Maya B. Eagleton. "Spinning Straw into Gold: Transforming Information into Knowledge during Web-Based Research." English Journal 95.4 (2006): 46. Web.
Marchetti, Allison. "Three Different Approaches to Flash Drafting." Moving Writers. Moving Writers, 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.
O’Dell, Rebekah. "The Power of Flash Drafting: Less Thinking, More Writing." Moving Writers. Moving Writers, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.
“The Research Behind Choice and Inquiry-Based Education.” A.J. JULIANI, 9 Apr. 2015, ajjuliani.com/research/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.
Chandler-Olcott, Kelly, and Donna Mahar. “A Framework for Choosing Topics for, with, and by Adolescent Writers.” Voices From the Middle, vol. 9, no. 1, Sept. 2001, pp. 40–47.
Delisle, James R. “Reaching Those We Teach: The Five Cs of Student Engagement.” Gifted Child Today, vol. 35, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 62–67., doi:10.1177/1076217511427513.
Guinee, Kathleen, and Maya B. Eagleton. "Spinning Straw into Gold: Transforming Information into Knowledge during Web-Based Research." English Journal 95.4 (2006): 46. Web.
Marchetti, Allison. "Three Different Approaches to Flash Drafting." Moving Writers. Moving Writers, 19 Apr. 2016. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.
O’Dell, Rebekah. "The Power of Flash Drafting: Less Thinking, More Writing." Moving Writers. Moving Writers, 07 Apr. 2014. Web. 03 Feb. 2017.
“The Research Behind Choice and Inquiry-Based Education.” A.J. JULIANI, 9 Apr. 2015, ajjuliani.com/research/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2017.