There are many theoretical perspectives on this question, ranging from expectancy-value theory to future time perspective and self-determination theory. The age of the students also plays a major role as younger children have more difficulty connecting with the instrumentality of content. These complexities aside, teachers have a clear and important role in helping students understand the "why" of their studies. The question is how is this best done with elementary, middle, high school and university students? How should our approach change in fields like math or physics, compared to fields like geography or history, and native or foreign language studies? Finally, how do our approaches change across different cultures?
The approach I have been using in various math classes and other settings is to talk explicitly about the brain and lead everything back to some kind of brain-based benefit. Even though I (all of us) really don't know much about how the brain does what it does. This technique is inspired mostly from Carol Dweck's Growth and Fixed Mindsets, conceptualizing the brain as a muscle. If we have a clear image of what's happening in our brains on the day-to-day scale (even if that's not an accurate or precise image), facing challenges seems more worthwhile.
Why learn how to write essays? Because it changes how your brain organizes ideas. Why learn about history? Because the brain learns through finding patterns, and history teaches our brains about patterns in people's behavior. This helps us predict how groups of people might behave in the future. Why learn math? Oh, well math, that's the greatest brain exercise of all. It expands your ability to hold information in your working memory (if that's a real thing, which nobody knows). Working memory is the mechanism by which you hold information in the present moment. The more information you can hold at any given time, the better you are at solving all kinds of problems.
The approach I have been using in various math classes and other settings is to talk explicitly about the brain and lead everything back to some kind of brain-based benefit. Even though I (all of us) really don't know much about how the brain does what it does. This technique is inspired mostly from Carol Dweck's Growth and Fixed Mindsets, conceptualizing the brain as a muscle. If we have a clear image of what's happening in our brains on the day-to-day scale (even if that's not an accurate or precise image), facing challenges seems more worthwhile.
Why learn how to write essays? Because it changes how your brain organizes ideas. Why learn about history? Because the brain learns through finding patterns, and history teaches our brains about patterns in people's behavior. This helps us predict how groups of people might behave in the future. Why learn math? Oh, well math, that's the greatest brain exercise of all. It expands your ability to hold information in your working memory (if that's a real thing, which nobody knows). Working memory is the mechanism by which you hold information in the present moment. The more information you can hold at any given time, the better you are at solving all kinds of problems.
I think this is a common obstacle that educators face while teaching students since most of them don't like what is taught for them. The first step to solving this problem is to find a connection what is being taught for the learner and his/ her interest.
All three suggestions are great: real life examples, self-improvement, and connecting to students' prior interests.
My experience is that some teachers are good at making these kinds of connections but others have difficulty making a convincing case to students.
What about instructional tools like embedding the importance of tasks right into the learning materials within textbooks (e.g., Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens & Sheldon, 2004) or encouraging students to construct their own reasons for engaging with class contents (e.g., Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks & Harackiewicz, 2010 ).
These kinds of teaching tactics have been successfully employed in research, but have not seen widespread use in classrooms.
I wonder how well these approaches would be received by teachers and how practical they would be at different levels, in different fields and in different cultures.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 880-895. doi: 10.1037/a0019506
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., & Sheldon, K. A. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
Ooh I like that, having an assignment for students to explicitly think about and describe possible benefits to learning X. Then taking all their answers, in a group discussion find the patterns, the bigger themes.
Yes to all. When my kids were in middle school, all of their textbooks had side bars that gave real world examples of how the information was useful, e.g. other areas of study, professions and careers, daily life tasks, health and wellness, etc. Very explicit. Still, I don't think that was enough because they were passive receivers of more "stuff."
Active engagement through inquiry includes students in the conversation from the get go. Reflect on the questions students' often ask, i.e. "why do we have to know this or what is this good for?" Teachers can be the initiator of those kinds of questions (guided inquiry). Responses are not wrong rather followed by continued genuine inquiry which requires skill, presence, and most importantly, curiosity. In turn, this stimulates students' thinking and curiosity. It may take older students a while to participate probably due to past conditioning, i.e. not afforded many opportunities to really question/challenge in a safe and supportive environment. When they catch on, it takes off like wildfire. It becomes of personal interest - they have a voice and a forum for expression. Debates may even emerge. This is good thing. Now the opportunity opens for more discourse, research, projects, collaboration, cooperation, presentations, etc. Students are no longer challenging the teacher or perhaps not even the subject matter. They are, however, challenging themselves and each other. Student's have taken ownership and that's when the "good stuff" happens.
I have been successful using this strategy with young children. I may pose a question as a provocation. I respond to their questions with a curious, and often times, guided inquiry which scaffolds their thinking processes. I never give answers because I trust in their knowing. They just don't know that they know yet it surfaces every time in this process.
I am confident that these kinds of strategies can move forward up the ladder through a wide angle lens and a little creativity. Curiosity, wonder, imagination, and critical thinking lead to exploration, discoveries, learning, problem solving, and innovation. Educators that model these elements lay a foundation for all that is possible regardless of ages, stages, fields of study, or culture - in my opinion. The caveat - educators have to be willing to take the plunge, relinquish control, and trust in the process.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education