EducationNews.org

by John Jensen, Ph.D.

            A few years back when I was working with middle school students, I asked 60 of them if a learning contest would motivate them to study harder. In the design I explained, 1) their sustained mastery of points of knowledge that comprised the content of all their courses, 2) would earn them chances in a drawing, 3) for cash prizes.  80% of the group said that this would motivate them to study harder.

            Since the US system hasn’t yet agreed on how to touch off inspired learning, there may be room yet for a novel angle. I propose a learning contest in a particular design.  

            As I’ve argued on other occasions, the start has to be valid learning that's actually sustained. We want learning designed from the start in a way that students don’t immediately drop it, and we want to be able to separate one increment of learning from another so that we know what’s sustained and what isn’t.

            This is easy to do if we accept a tiny measure of discipline, which is for students to write out what they know. Having in hand a hard copy of specific knowledge makes it possible to ask a question about it and determine if the answer is complete. Tests in general presume that 1) we studied this, and 2) here‘s a question about it, but they serve learning poorly of the original material remained vague in students' minds. On most tests, answering a question earns a student one point, and if there are several distinct parts, a point may be awarded for each part.

            Two criteria make a contest possible. 1) A hard copy of a correct and complete answer is needed. A way to think of this is one student making a cheat sheet about a test and passing it on to another unfamiliar with the subject. Note how complete the answers on it would have to be to enable the second student to score 100%  2) The second criterion is mastery of the answers that were previously defined in hard copy.  Mastery here means only the ability to explain the answer correctly at any time in the future.  These two criteria--hard copy and maintaining the ability to explain it--comprise what a student claims to know at any time. Because they specify and deepen learning, these two features make learning effort so much more successful that a contest may not appear needed. It may, however, bring excitement to learning, giving it the energy of a game. An unobtrusive but powerful effect is likely to be unifying peer relations around acquiring permanent knowledge.

            Entries are prepared as follows:1) In every subject, teachers guide students in identifying the knowledge from the course that’s most important to retain permanently (while also pointing them to additional learning they might wish to include). 2) This is summarized piece by piece into questions and answers in the way that a test essay question would address an issue, perhaps with several sub-points in proper sequence.   Teachers determine or verify the number of points of knowledge in a given answer. 3) The written questions and answers that that student knows are gathered into a single notebook or document.  4) A cumulative, total count of the number of answer points the student claims to know is added up. (For many examples of determining points of knowledge, request a free copy of my book below).  It's important to note here that all students can enter regardless of their quantity of learning, and  are eligible to win any prize drawn.

            Students’ claimed scores are then sent to contest headquarters by the due date.  1) Teachers submit their students’ names, list the total score of each, and retain possession of students’ documentation of questions and answers claimed. 2) Contest volunteers assign one chance per every ten answer points to each student so that a student claiming 300 answer points would have 30 chances entered. 3) A record of student names and the numbers of the chances submitted for him/her is kept. Beside Joe Smith’s name might be the numbers 351-366, indicating that chances bearing those numbers were assigned to him and placed in a drawing bin. 

            The drawing itself is done publicly with maximum media attention which raises the significance of the event for everyone.  The number of chances are drawn up to the number of prizes available, and a few alternates drawn also. The numbers are checked immediately against the list of names, and names announced. 

            What happens next is an important affirmation for students and a quality check on the process.  What’s just occurred is that identified students, verified by their teachers, have claimed mastery of answers to specific questions, and the questions are known.  For the sake of possible personal gain and recognition, they have said “I know this stuff.” 

            The logical response of the community is “Okay, great.  So tell us!”  You'd want maximum exposure of winners on local radio/TV news and talk shows, newspaper interviews, and public speaking before local organizations about knowledge they claim to know. This might be preceded by contest organizers themselves verifying winners‘ competence to handle questioning. Since it‘s been previously claimed, there‘s no unfairness, no surprise.  If questioning exceeds their claimed knowledge, they are right to say “I didn‘t study that far.” Because they’ve practiced it, they should know what they know. If they don‘t, this is the opening for alternates. If a student doesn't know what he claimed, the contest committee can award his prize to another. Even a single instance of this is likely to have a bracing effect on all participants, sending the message that genuine mastery and truthfulness about it are expected.

            The contest is a way for the community to celebrate learning and affirm that it be genuine and deep.  It can be an occasion for students to learn an array of easily-recalled knowledge from direct experience and the contributions of community members. The quality checkpoint on the validity of any learning is just that a teacher sign off on it as appropriate for the student (special eds can participate) or for his/her grade level, and that it be specified in writing, practiced, and maintained later. Students probably from fourth grade up would benefit, with drawings once or twice a year, as in December and/or June. The design arranges for students to gain confidence with their knowledge first privately by explaining it to practice partners, and then publicly if called on. 

            Two questions remain, one about math and the other about prizes. 

            Math as presented and tested in schools tends heavily toward students solving a problem laid out by a teacher or text.  Organizing the problem, in other words, rests in another's mind, and the teacher selects the end of the sequence as the piece the student must know. This can eliminate the crucial early stages of figuring out what the issue is.  We need to instruct students in a slightly larger field. A good model to follow is what a teacher does to present and explain a new math concept. Instead of remaining satisfied with a single series of calculations, we want to stimulate student thought to align as much as possible with the real world.  This (in a teacher‘s presentation and hence a student‘s answer) may comprise 14-16 independent points of knowledge that, in a student‘s notebook, might answer one question: “Explain long division.”

            The answer can include the following, with a point for each separate increment requested: 1) Define the term. 2) Give three examples of situations when long division might be used (a point for each example).  3) How does one set up a long division problem?  4) What are the steps in the problem-solving sequence? (a point for each step).  5) Demonstrate with three examples (a point for each example). A standard relevant at every level of math instruction is “What would a teacher say in giving a comprehensive explanation of this?” Divide such a narrative into steps as one would to place it on a comprehensive examination.

            About awarding prizes, I believe that a district diverting even the salary of a single teacher's aide into a prize fund would galvanize student interest and effort. A parent group could demonstrate the process in a modest way, setting up a contest for one class with private contributions. Once it was clear that the design stimulated student interest, the district could implement it to more classes.   

            The size of the prizes themselves is up to those administering the contest, but my hunch is this: I suspect that while a few large prizes would attract attention, they also  run the risk of creating envy and disappointment. We want the prizes large enough to stimulate interest, but small enough to expand the sense of reward as widely as possible and not cause discord. You want winners in every possible class to stimulate later effort. Perhaps polling students or discussing the issue among teachers would help determine a good level. My preference is for a single $500 prize to focus of attention, and then dividing the remainder of the pool into prizes of $50 each. It’s reasonable also to enter a whole class’s total count so that prizes are awarded to the class rather than individuals. This could enhance the sense of teamwork in learning and utilizing the prizes won, but it’s less fair when a few students are hard workers and others aren‘t. Separate grade levels can have their own contest, but with small numbers at first, a district might place all entries (grades 4-12) in the same drawing. 

            An observant administrator will note in the contest rules a criterion for valid learning that can simplify and ground assessment. We discard approximate learning, anything that’s achieved by guesswork, clues, or hints, or that is not maintained. Every teacher knows already that it’s impossible to test for everything students are learning. We don’t need to (and can’t) measure everything, but what we do measure needs to correlate with valid learning. By declaring that “anything at grade level that’s learned and maintained is a valid increment of this student’s knowledge,” we ground our assessment in a common reality. 

            Learning that’s written down, organized, mastered, and retained is valid learning. With the help of the contest in reaching the last qualifier--retained--we change the quality of education.

            John Jensen is a licensed clinical psychologist and author of The Silver Bullet Easy Learning System: How to Change Classrooms Fast and Energize Students for Success (Xlibris, 2008).  He welcomes comments sent directly to him at jjensen@gci.net, and will email a copy of his book in ebook form to anyone upon request.