Competition in the classroom

In my schooling I often had a competitive aspect to my learning and desire to achieve. I was, and continue to be grade-motivated, though I am now more interested in the knowledge acquired than I ever was previously. But going back to the competitive drive - is that a good motivation for the classroom? This concept was discussed some last year in a graduate level education class I was in and it was a tangental point raised in a podcast I just listened to, concerning culturally responsive instruction.

In the podcast, Kathy Au tells us of her experience teaching K-2 students who were almost all of native Hawaiian ancestry. As a part of their culture, they were taught by their families to highly value cooperation. These children had struggles being in competitive classroom situations in which students were expected to show their superior intelligence by answering a question first. Kathy Au uses this point to explain that as a part of culturally responsive instruction, a teacher needs to create classroom situations that take advantage of the cooperative abilities and values that the students already bring to the classroom.

In my previous discussions on this topic, and in my own pondering, I wonder if there is a place for competition in the classroom. It is a classic tale of elementary school mathematics that students reflect in horror upon "mad minute math." I am one of the few that enjoyed it, which basically means I was good at math. Otherwise, it was a stressful activity that doubtfully improved anyone's ability or enjoyment of mathematics. If competition in class serves so few students and is despised by the rest, it is pretty clear that it probably shouldn't be included in curriculum.

The goal of any particular lesson is for the student to learn the information and/or process being taught. While there is the need for individual assessment of whether a students did indeed learn the material, why would it matter if that learning was done cooperatively. Additionally, as brought up in a discussion last year - what if a subject finally clicked for a student right after the test? What if at that point, it finally made sense? Should they receive a bad grade if that is what their test reflects? With learning as the goal, I would think not.

What of students though whose primary motivation is competition? Perhaps, they can find their own areas in which to compete even if a teacher isn't providing them. I'm sure some could argue that the world is a competitive place and we should prepare our children for it. However, I don't think that there will be any lack of informal instruction on competition in our students' lives, even if it is removed from the classroom. Though, removing competition from the classroom is easier said than done as it can factor into many areas, such as behavioral management. It is not uncommon to see clusters of students competing with other clusters for points, and thus awards, for exhibiting good behavior. Creating a pervasive environment of cooperation would likely require some in-depth reflection on one's own classroom and practice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, Kathy Au also spoke of pair share and quick share as techniques of culturally responsive instruction. In pair share, students respond to each other about a class prompt before one of them is responsible for sharing it with the class. The next time, the other partner shares. This helps students practice what they want to say in a more comfortable setting and is beneficial for English Language Learners. In the quick share, every student has the opportunity to share very briefly, ensuring that all students have a voice and are not left out or allowed to disengage. I'm particularly interested in the pair share as it allows all students to share their ideas, even if they are not with the entire class.

Digging the bus

I, with a group of fellow pre-service teachers, participated in a literacy dig not unlike that done by the kindergarteners at the donut shop which I mentioned in my last post. We looked as closely as we could into all the literacy going on around us on the city bus. I was in charge of attending to the layout of the place, and all the signs and written text around us, of which there was plenty. Much of the text on the bus is in the form of instructions, cautions, and rules. These signs are also largely present in both English and Spanish.

There were also advertisements across the top of both sides of the bus. Pamphlets were available to those who wanted more information on various city routes. Finally, the same sign was at the front and back of the bus that served to visually reinforce the written rules of what is prohibited on the bus (smoking, food and drink, and the radio.) 

There wasn't very much oral language being used on the bus. The stops were announced but they were largely unintelligible. There were a couple of conversations that occurred, but one finished before the ride was over. The other seemed to between two people who knew each other and they inquired about each other's jobs. Riding the bus is similar to other mass transit I've been on, in that the majority of people keep to themselves. I think there is some unwritten code that people not be too loud on public transit. However, people not knowing each other probably contributes to the silence, excluding the substantial bus noise.

In debriefing with my group, we discussed how there really is quite a bit of information available to the literate and novice bus rider. However, it appears that most people are familiar with the routine on the bus and take little notice of the words all around them. I think a person unfamiliar with riding the bus or a child would be most likely to be curious and take notice of the signs and words on the bus.

Similar to The Donut House article, I think it would be interesting to recreate the bus in a classroom as a means to integrate real world literacy and integrate play. Students could make advertisements for business (real or pretend) of their choosing. They could create their own rules for our in-class bus. I continue to think that couching literacy in play and real life would be an effective means of keeping students engaged in learning.

Engagement

I spent a year working with kindergarten to 2nd graders as a sort of assistant teacher. I had a specific job title, but I don't think it is very descriptive of the work I did. I would teach groups of students, ranging in size from 2 to 24, in areas of literacy, math, and occasionally social studies. Everday I would teach groups from each grade level who were in need of reinforcement or enrichment related to classroom lessons. Based upon this, I would expect that all teachers can relate to the experience of teaching to students who are checked out and distracted - despite being instructed to pay attention!

I know I related to one such account that began an article I recently read about teaching literacy (The Donut House: Real World Literacy in an Urban Kindergarten Classroom by Powell and Davidson.) Reading this article and the introductory anecdote made me consider, why should students pay attention, if we're not giving them any reason to do so? It's not enough of a reason to say that there is a rule requiring attentive listening. This article tells of one effort to give young students a reason to want to be engaged. The reason? Because the lesson was interesting, related to their life, and involved elements of play.

Kindergarteners visited a nearby donut shop and took notes as research into the donut shop they would create in their classroom. The project provided many opportunities for them to learn, dissect, and play with language throughout the process. They wrote letters to stockholders, created labels and props, and had their work catalogued in a book documenting the process which they could read and review. It certainly sounds like a more interesting way to engage with language than a dry lesson.

I wonder however what other literacy teaching and practicing was going on at the same time. I would also be interested in a more detailed account of how the project worked. Was the donut shop integrated into the class learning everyday? What was the time span in which the project took place and how was it ended? Was the donut shop removed at the end of the project? Were there actual donuts for sale at the grand opening!?!

I'd love to see a project like this in action. The writers acknowledge some things they'd do differently the next time, like getting parents more involved, but regardless it seems like a success. The students engaged in literacy and learning in ways that connected to their lives. Hopefully the only time the students checked out, was when they were making a purchase at The Donut House.

Beginning

Welcome to my blog. I am writing here to keep track of what I learn about how children become literate and how teachers can best facilitate that process. I will soon be a teacher myself, and the learning I do and the ideas and research now will impact my own practice, my classroom, and my students. Thanks for joining me!