Monday, March 23, 2020

Curiosity and Equity

Our nation is in the midst of an equity crisis and has been for some time now. Statistics for graduation, post-high school access, employment, incarceration, and government assistance all demonstrate the crisis. It is not an ability crisis, not an effort crisis, not an innate intelligence crisis. It is an access and opportunity crisis created by the systems we have in place.

What, you might be asking, does this have to do with curiosity? I once heard a speaker talk of “the equity of an excellent education.” Education cannot alone solve systemic racism, homelessness, or wage gaps, but it can help to close inequities such as test scores gaps, college access gaps, and as a result, many of the other gaps listed above.

Before we go any further, I want to make sure that we agree on one thing. ALL students deserve a great education (which I have argued must include a healthy dose of curiosity-inducing activities) and all groups of students are equally capable given the same tools and experiences.

Since you’re still reading, I’m assuming that you don’t disagree with that statement. But before we can delve any deeper, I want to make sure that we have the same base knowledge at our disposal. I will put a link to some pertinent research below. It is an incredibly interesting (and sobering) read. But if you’re busy and you trust me to summarize it accurately, I will do so below the link.

https://www1.udel.edu/educ/whitson/897s05/files/hiddencurriculum.htm

Jean Anyon, an educational researcher, found that educational outcomes across schools with varying economics deviate in well-known and predictable patterns. No surprises. Dr. Anyon set out to determine what explains these discrepancies. Most people have their hypotheses, but Dr. Anyon visited a large number of schools across the entire spectrum of economic demographies.

Dr. Anyon concluded that it is not the physical school buildings, not the bell schedules, not the years of experience of the teachers, not how prestigious the teacher’s university was, but instead the specific strategies that the teacher uses to instruct students. What struck me in reading the description of the strategies being used is how as she climbed the economic ladder of schools, the strategies got more and more curiosity-laden. Not only are students of poverty being robbed of these excellent learning opportunities, but also the long-lasting effects that we have spoken about in previous posts.

The research suggested that teachers may believe that students who are experiencing poverty must perform foundational, rote activities before getting to curiosity-igniting tasks later. Often, the lessons never get to those high levels of curiosity and then it becomes a vicious cycle resulting in a lack of curiosity resulting in disadvantages lasting many years. The teachers of affluent students skip right over the foundational lessons and jump straight into the rich, curiosity-inducing tasks right away.

Another researcher, Martin Haberman, took this study one step farther and made a list of common strategies that he saw at urban schools:
• Giving information,
• Asking questions,
• Giving directions,
• Making assignments,
• Monitoring seatwork,
• Reviewing assignments,
• Giving tests,
• Reviewing tests,
• Assigning homework,
• Reviewing homework,
• Settling disputes,
• Punishing noncompliance,
• Marking papers, and
• Giving grades.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1570/2df70734cb15a165c988db86c68d9759528a.pdf

Notice how none of these activities were included in the introductory blogs explaining what curiosity-rich instruction looks like.

Schools that are igniting student curiosity are giving their students lifelong advantages. My experience has shown me that these same schools that are less likely to be using curiosity-inducing strategies in class are also less likely to have debate teams, participate in Academic Decathlon, offer advanced STEM coursework, compete in the science fair, provide opportunities to express artistic abilities, arrange internships for students, or offer courses in computer programming, robotics, and engineering. A study by the Kapor center found, “Low-income schools are 4x less likely to offer AP Computer Science A courses than high-income schools.” The lack of curiosity strategies in the classroom compounded with the lack of curiosity activities outside of the classroom likely explains a portion of the achievement gap that we are seeing.

The Cure for Boredom blog is an attempt to give teachers the tools to increase the amount of curiosity in ALL classrooms. The ideas do not necessarily cost any money and will work with every student. There are also solutions outside of the classrooms as well. Twelve years ago, I noticed that only affluent students whose parents were professors, doctors, or scientists were winning at high-level science fairs. I wanted to put the "fair" in science fair, so, I began a Science Fair Expo in my county where I arranged for more than 30 science professors and professional scientists to sit in a room and meet with any student to discuss their projects and potentially be invited to work in the scientist’s lab. Attendees come from diverse backgrounds and help level the science fair playing field. Hundreds of students per year have attended the event for the last 10 years helping to level the playing field. The movie Spare Parts also told the true story of a high-poverty school being very successful in robotics competitions. An Arduino nano clone costs $4 and allows students’ computer programming to come alive in the real world building 3-D printers, robots, and much more, launching their curiosity and building useful skills.

Research shows that curiosity-inducing activities have enduring effects on academic achievement and this lack of opportunity certainly contributes a portion to achievement gaps. This is an equity issue, an access issue, and a fixable issue.

What is your school currently doing to give all students opportunities to participate in curiosity-inducing activities?

Sunday, March 15, 2020

Curiosity Research Part 2: Curiosity and IQ

In Major League Baseball, the median ranked player (according to fantasy baseball rankings) made $3.25 million dollars last year (Leury Garcia). The player at the top 22nd percentile (Shin-Soo Choo) made $21 million and the player at the bottom 22nd percentile (Sam Gaviglio) did not receive a contract offer in 2019. The average adult male is 5’10” tall. An adult male at the top 22nd percentile is over 6’1” tall and the bottom 22nd percentile 5’7” tall.

Why do I tell you this? I’m trying to instill that a difference of 0.8 standard deviations is a significant difference. What if I could tell you that researchers found something that could increase a 3-year old’s IQ by 0.8 standard deviations or 12 IQ points? You’ve probably already guessed what it is.

In, “Stimulation Seeking and Intelligence: A Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Raines, Reynolds, Venables, and Mednick (link below) tested both the intelligence and curiosity of nearly 2,000 three-year-olds. They used a modified test appropriate for the age group using block stacking and visual tasks instead of reading and math problems like a typical IQ test. Then, they waited 5 years and tested the students again.

You’ve probably already figured out what they found. They found that 3-year olds showing high levels of curiosity (“high stimulation-seeking”) had IQs 12 points higher than their low curiosity counterparts and did better in school and had higher reading levels as well when they were 8 years old. Twelve IQ points puts those kids at the top 22nd percentile in intelligence if they began exactly average.

The effect size was between 0.5 and 0.77 which is significantly high. In Visible Learning, John Hattie considered anything above 0.4 to be significant. Researchers consider 0.5 to be medium and 0.8 to be high. An effect size of 0.8 means that 79% of the high curiosity group scored higher on IQ tests than the mean of the low curiosity group. If there was no relationship, one would expect a 50% rate.

This change of 12 points is important. An IQ of 100 is considered average and 115 is considered mildly gifted. In Curiosity Research Part 1, we found that another study found that infants whose curiosity was stoked outperformed their peers in school up to 15 years later. Since researchers have estimated that 50% of intelligence is inherited, that leaves another 50% that is fluid and impressionable. Curiosity Factor #1 and Curiosity Factor #2 each laid out some simple, no-cost tweaks that can ignite curiosity and igniting curiosity can have a lasting impact on a student’s intelligence.

Keep coming back to the blog for more of these research-based tips to ignite curiosity. Post your ideas in the comments section below how you’ve used these tips in your classroom.

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-824663.pdf