Weblog of Wesley Fryer

I’m really interested in hearing more about what it means for students to be doing different things alongside one another, in groups or individually. Sorry for the longwinded reply, but I want to give some context for my question.

As a former Montessori classroom teacher my experience has been that choice is the engine of motivation: choice of what to do, when to do it, where in the classroom, who with, and how (along a spectrum–not necessarily absolute). Just like an adult at work, having a choice (could be a choice of two or three things only) gives ownership and buy-in, and a centered student is more likely to know what is important for them to work on at any time. Having students doing different things alongside each other doesn’t necessarily mean they are choosing their work (they could have been assigned different things in groups), and some may choose to do the same things at the same time. But allowing for students to choose their own work requires the classroom to be set up to allow the teacher to teach small groups or individuals while the rest work on their own choices at their own pace with minimal supervision. The Montessori system provides a structure that makes this easier: the multiage structure means older students can do much of the supervision and some of the teaching; it provides continuity of institutional memory with returning students; and means that teachers know their returning students better which produces greater trust than in a single-year classroom. And Dr Montessori’s famous manipulatives make most learning concrete (the fastest way to abstraction).

Now that I’m in a traditional situation, I’m interested in whether or how much real choice and differentiated activities can be allowed without the Montessori classroom structure. My gut feeling is that without the trust and collaboration that the multiage classroom provides, the kinds of problems I’ve been reading about with webcams will continue to happen with students who need to feel in control of what they are doing.

The “Goomoodleeikiog” technologies make the TEACHER’S life easier and create the possibility for students to collaborate out-of-school and more easily in the classroom. But the technology doesn’t require that collaboration. That has to come from the classroom structure, doesn’t it? It states that students will love working with technology and seems to assume that this cool factor will motivate them. Perhaps…but for how long will the novelty last without the real motivation that choice creates?

Thanks for any enlightenment you can throw my way.