Before we began, I was interested in what typically motivated students in school, what degree of autonomy they had, how much time they were allotted to complete projects, and whether they had a sense of purpose in their work (can you detect the influence of Drive here?) I therefore created a "Pre-Survey" to get a better sense of this before starting the 20 Time projects. I then gave a similar "Post-Survey" to determine how much 20 Time changed these views, if at all.
In sum, 20 Time granted students more control over their learning, fostered a deeper understanding of the subject, established a greater sense of purpose, and granted enough time to learn what they deemed important.
There was also a clear change in what motivated them. For typical school projects, 39% of students were most motivated by earning rewards while 38% were motivated to avoid punishments. Only 23% were motivated to learn about the topic or skills for the sake of learning. The post results reveal that 59% of students engaged in the 20 Time project primarily because they were motivated to learn about the topic or skill. Although it is a very small sample size, the jump from 23% to 59% is rather substantial.
Is this definitive proof that 20 Time / Genius Hour projects are always successful? Of course not. It is certainly encouraging, however, to see that students were more motivated and engaged in the learning process. As both research and anecdotal classroom experience can attest, increasing students' motivation is not only half the battle, but often the entire one.
The following table summarizes the results in greater detail for those interested.
Hi Tom,
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of 20% time and Dan Pink's TED talk! Thanks for sharing the research!
Do you think 20% time is better suited for students who are already motivated to learn? Would autonomous/independent learners be more likely to succeed in this model than those who need more hand holding?
I am interested in doing something similar in my class, but I am worried that a majority of students don't know what motivates or interests them, and still disengage. Just as there is some backlash among students toward the flipped model, did you experience any in 20% time?
Thanks!
Dmitry
HI Dmitry,
DeleteTo answer your first question, my experiences lend to a resounding "yes!" Those who already are motivated to learn will perform very well in this environment.
However, I was surprised by how many of those who were clearly just going through the motions in my history class turned it up a notch with 20Time. Many of them were clearly motivated to learn, just not my subject particularly. These are the students that I think 20Time helps the most.
As for those who are not particularly passionate about anything (and unfortunately there will be some), it will take some effort and guidance to get them started. I tried to reframe the project as an opportunity to discover or develop a passion that they did not already have. I won't sugarcoat this though, this was the most difficult part of implementing 20 time.
Regarding your last question, there was actually less resistance to this than flipped learning. Perhaps it is because I introduced this project towards the end of the year in which they learned in a flipped-mastery model, one that already focuses on autonomy, choice, and self-regulated learning.
If you plan on trying it out next year, let me know. I'm always interested in hearing about other teachers' experience with this new approach.
Take care,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete