Giving students a range of tasks to choose from is one of the most effective approaches to education. Such an approach seems to be radically different from another just as popular framework, which is challenging students. A person being challenged to find a solution often finds themselves struggling and continues their pursuit out of interest or principle. Contrastingly, a person provided with a choice is empowered to collaborate and is encouraged through empowerment, not contest. However, despite the apparent difference, the two frameworks are in perfect match with each other.
At this, the idea of constructing knowledge collectively with the students can sound daunting for many teachers. Indeed, the very idea of it subsumes that the educator gives up the idea of “I versus them” or even “myself and them” in favor of collaborative knowledge pursuit. The practice appears to be relatively novel, considering that the perceived role of the teacher has been establishing itself for centuries as that of a director, a person in charge of everything, the highest authority a student can possibly encounter. Although the age-long suppositions seem to be hard to shake off momentarily, the situation is changing before our eyes as the classrooms become more and more inclusive and fit to the students’ needs. The process of simply stuffing the students with knowledge was strongly opposed by many authoritative authors advocating for the social nature of any learning and saw it as a dialog between the educator and the student (Paul & Elder, 2014). At the same time, it would not be reasonable to entirely pass on the control to the students. As said, the conceptual framework of collective knowledge construction presumes a collaborative approach, which is one of the fundamentals of nursing practice.
Wiggins (n.d.) encourages the teachers to ask the students what they think is effective for them and what is not. A common barrier some teachers might face is that questioning the students supposedly implies the teachers’ incompetence and undermines their authority in the students’ eyes – which is not the case, as a matter of fact. An acquaintance of mine, and a skilled educator, once shared her experience of saying “I do not know” to the students for the first time in her teaching career. She feared the words would make the students lose respect and motivation, but the results were quite contrary to what she anticipated: the question she could not find an answer to provoked an active discussion. By the end of the conversation, she inquired whether anyone was motivated to learn more about the subject, and all students raised their hands.
The idea of asking the students about their interests is consistent with what can be learned from the previous modules, specifically pertaining to the practice of formative assessments. Such assessments do not have it as their purpose to estimate what the students have learned and compare it to the standard academic performance, but rather, to receive their feedback and adjust the instruction accordingly (Lambert, 2012). Formative assessments come in many forms but at the baseline, they are the teacher’s way of asking the students whether they are interested or have any improvement suggestions. Indeed, there might be a disparity between what the teacher thinks interests the students and what actually interests them. Which, in turn, stipulates the necessity for such assessments, or simply asking the students to share their thoughts.
The students’ voices can also help the educator determine exactly what motivates them – which is critical, considering the importance of motivation in the education process. This idea deserves to be discussed in more detail. A theory proved by MIT researchers and in subsequent investigations elsewhere suggests that there is a significant difference between what incentives work best for each type of performance. Mechanical (physical) performance improvement was evidenced to excel to the maximum when a maximum incentive was offered. Contrastingly, people seem to lose their ability to think in complex conceptual frameworks when offered an equally valuable incentive (The RSA, 2010). Instead, the best motivators for cognitive performance appear to be autonomy, mastery, and purpose requirements of every individual. The first one is based on the human desire to direct themselves in their conduct. The second one is what makes people act out of the necessity for individual achievement and overcoming challenges that matter to them personally. The final one explains why people take up a task with a view other than material profit. The theory is much-studied by economists and approved as viable, wherefore it can be perfectly applicable to nursing education.
Autonomy is one of the prime standards of nursing practice, which has been proved to lead to workplace satisfaction, reduction of errors, and enhanced client outcomes (The RSA, 2010). The ability to guide themselves while working, therefore, is a key to a healthy job environment. In an education setting, it is just as critical to develop as it stimulates academic inquiry. There is a number of strategies and techniques to provide the students with autonomy while at the same time keeping the instruction process under control. One such strategy is forming (or allowing the students to form) task force teams and give them a specific topic to collectively study and present.
Mastery, the urge to get better at what one does, pertains directly to the professional excellence imperative – and academic excellence within a scholarly setting. The desire to master a particular skill (such as hand-crafting or playing an instrument) can be at times irrational, and yet it is driven by the same mechanism that helps students to shine during their study years and as professionals (The RSA, 2010). The role of a nurse educator, at that, is to offer the students a variety of choices they can pick from, based on what interests them most, and upscale it to perfection. This idea is inherent for student-centered approach to education, and it presupposes that the educator is ready to listen to the students’ opinions. A good way to start is to refrain from drudgery, which only tires the brains.
As to the purpose motivation factor, the educator’s task is to single out the students intending to serve a higher purpose and motivate those who are unsure. Their role, at this, is to inspire them to adopt the values of the community they are going to work in.
To reiterate, giving the students voice and choice is practice that delves deep into the students’ psychology and provides them with the most optimal set of motivators – or lets them choose what motivates them most optimally. A collective experience such as this is likely to upgrade the instruction to a higher level, which is especially relevant in the context of our practice.
References
Lambert, K. (2012). Tools for Formative Assessment. Orlando, FL: OSPC Curriculum Services.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). How to improve student learning: 30 practical ideas (3rd ed.). Tomales, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
The RSA. (2010). Rsa Animate: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Web.
Wiggins, G. (n.d.). Giving Students a Voice: The Power of Feedback to Improve Teaching. Web.