This article was downloaded by: [141.214.17.222]On: 17 October 2014, At: 10:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

The Power of Why: Connecting Curriculum to Students' LivesJoy Egberta & Mary F. Roeb

a Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman,Washington.b School of Teacher Education and Leadership, Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and HumanServices, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.Published online: 27 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Joy Egbert & Mary F. Roe (2014) The Power of Why: Connecting Curriculum to Students' Lives, ChildhoodEducation, 90:4, 251-258, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.2014.933665

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2014.933665

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

July/August 2014 / 251

by Joy Egbert and Mary F. RoeJoy Egbert is Professor, Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education,

Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.Mary F. Roe is Professor and Head of the School of Teacher Education and Leadership,

Emma Eccles Jones College of Education and Human Services, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.

The Power of whyConnecting Curriculum

to Students’ Lives

© A

aro

n A

mat

/sh

utt

erst

ock

Student disengagement can be a major impediment to effective student learning. When parents and educators cannot provide adequate reasoning to explain the value of what is taught at home and in school, students can lose their motivation to learn and be engaged in classroom activities. In

this article, the authors explain the importance of teacher reflection and identification of students’ stances and thought processes in making robust decisions around classroom life. Reflecting on

or reasoning about the lessons taught, and the questions asked or left out of the curriculum, can

help students engage with the curriculum and thus improve their achievement. The authors

use examples to show how authentic reasoning may address students’ need to understand and appreciate the worth of the curriculum and the

concerns of the larger community.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

252 \ Childhood Education

Student: Why do we have to know the capitals of the Canadian provinces? This is so boring.

Parent: I’m not sure. Why don’t you ask your teacher? Student: I did. He said because it’s part of the curriculum. But that’s

not a good reason, and I don’t want to memorize them!

Over the years, many students have voiced questions and concerns similar to the ones above. When students question instructional decisions—wondering, “Why do I need

to know how to write a persuasive essay?,” “Why do I have to work with these students on this task?,” or “Why can’t I learn about this topic a different way?”—the answer is often, “Because . . . it’s in the curriculum,” “. . . it’s on the test,” or “. . . that’s the way it is.” These answers do not help students understand the importance of the learning intention to their lives, thus creating an unintended barrier to student achievement. When students don’t understand the reasons for learning tasks and don’t have a chance to connect with authentic implementation, they may disengage. When students are not engaged, they cannot learn. Teachers can be more prepared for students asking “Why?” if they first ask themselves that question. Teacher responsiveness and authentic reasoning can help students make connections to the curriculum, and thus help them to achieve. In the long run, this process can help educators address achievement gaps and underachievement in schools. Although many intervening variables are possible and the process is not necessarily linear, a simple graphical representation of what we call “The Why Cycle” is shown in Figure 1. We propose the importance of asking and answering both teachers’ and students’ whys in school-based settings. We discuss three areas linked to the why cycle: (1) current issues with student achievement, (2) the importance of student engagement, and (3) moving toward why, which might be the most crucial question in education.

Current Issues WIth student AChIevement

Student academic achievement is a constant focus of parents, administrators, politicians, news media, and a variety of other stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders express concern over low student performance on high-stakes tests and unfavorable international comparisons (see, for example, National Center for Education Statistics, 2010; Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010). Dissatisfaction with the current system is also fueled by achievement gaps between various ethnic and socio-economic groups (Hernandez, 2011; Lavin-Loucks, 2006; Lee & Burkam, 2002; National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). Desire to address these issues quickly turns attention to teachers and the role they play in solving (or, some would claim, exacerbating) problems with student achievement (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). All kinds of solutions to the “student achievement problem” are being offered by people both inside and outside of the educational community. From value-added performance assessments such as standardized tests (Broatch & Lohr, 2012), to “flipping” classroom instruction (Bates & Galloway, 2012), to selecting “teacher proof” instructional programs (as if there were such a thing) (Russell, 1997), the search for a single, simple solution is well-funded and well-publicized. Some solutions to student underachievement, generally those proposed by non-educators, place teachers in the role of technicians who should be able to implement a set curriculum in a standard way and make it work—a recommendation that has been consistently invalidated for more than a decade (see, for example, Apple, 2001). Other solutions favor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2014 / 253

Figure 1

using commercially published text materials or software programs that claim to lead to high achievement for all students in spite of who the teacher is, what Hargreaves calls “renting a standardized vision” (as cited in Sahlberg, 2010). The emphasis on high-stakes test scores leads others to recommend a test preparation emphasis and curriculum shifts to “the basics.” However, each of these proposals has unintended consequences that must be considered (e.g., Johnson, Johnson, Farenga, & Ness, 2005), including a distancing between students’ lives and the school curriculum and the impact on student interest in school tasks (Jackson, 2011; Ma’ayan, 2012). We take a different approach, one that considers teachers as experts whose professional decision-making should be nurtured rather than dismissed and that strives to engage students in every part of the curriculum. The struggle to discover what teachers might do to strengthen their practices and affect student achievement leads us to help teachers answer those crucial questions that start with “Why?”. For example, why do teachers choose task X over task Y? Why do teachers allot instructional time for a specific activity or combination of them? Why are specific topics and themes part of the curriculum, and others not? Why

are specific tools chosen for tasks? Answering questions like these forces teachers to come up with rich explanations for their choices; it also allows them to explain their reasoning to caregivers, politicians, administrators, colleagues and, most important, students. This deeper level of understanding about the specific components of a teacher’s classroom can support the development of responsive, engaging tasks that connect to students’ lives and the resulting higher student achievement (e.g., Wilhelm & Novak, 2011).

the ImportAnCe of student engAgement

Understanding task engagement and its relationship with why is a critical first step. A growing body of research supports the importance of student task engagement for learning and achievement (e.g., Afflerbach, 2012; Marzano & Pickering, 2010; Meltzer & Hamann, 2004). Evidence suggests that learners who are more highly engaged in a task show higher achievement than less engaged learners (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, Falik, & Rand, 2006; Shernoff, Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003). Overall, engagement in classroom tasks also seems to be a significant predictor of continuing motivation and classroom performance.

Teacher responsiveness

(answering “why?”)

Students andteachers ask

“why?”

Students’achievement of

task goals

Students’engagement in task

Students makeconnections to

curricula and task

The Why Cycle

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

254 \ Childhood Education

Second, and equally important, task engagement is something that teachers can directly influence. Teachers cannot change students’ backgrounds or abilities, and they do not often have a say in what goes on in students’ daily lives outside of class. However, they can certainly make choices in their classrooms that determine whether students will be engaged in specific activities. What is task engagement? Task engagement can be defined as deep emotional and cognitive involvement and active participation in a task (Chapman, 2003; Lin, Hong, & Huang, 2012). Research links many elements to task engagement, but consistently stresses the notion of a responsive classroom (e.g., Marzano & Pickering, 2010), which includes:

• Opportunities for collaboration and interaction with an authentic audience (Egbert, 2008)

• Authentic connections between tasks and students’ lives (Meltzer & Hamann, 2004)

• Authentic, multidisciplinary tasks (Lin et al., 2012).

The word “authenticity” appears often in these elements. To some educators, authentic means presenting information that exists in the real world in the shape in which it exists there. While that is an important aspect of authenticity, “authentic” for us is more student-centered. It implies that whatever the lesson topic, theme, grouping arrangement, or materials, students perceive them as real and useful to them in their lives outside of school; for example, they are part of their goals, addressed to their interests, and/or work at their level of challenge. The focus on why is directly linked to the concept of authenticity—students are looking for authentic answers to their questions about their classrooms. When the connection to students’ lives is made authentically, students tend to be more engaged. To reiterate, engagement can determine achievement (e.g., Klem & Connell, 2004).

movIng toWArd WhyHow do we move teachers to think deeply about seemingly unsolvable problems of achievement and solutions for overcoming them? How do we encourage teachers to

reflect on their everyday decisions rather than giving in to the calls for an easy, standardized solution? How do we figure out how to respond to students to make their learning more authentic and thereby engaging? We focus here on a singular feasible recommendation: Look at why. While we certainly do not claim that this is the only solution to problems of education, we believe every classroom can benefit from this focus.

Support for Promoting Why We are not alone in recommending that why become central to teachers’ work. For example, James Herndon (1968), in his classic text, The Way It Spozed To Be, focused on why when his students talked about “the way it is” as an excuse for maintaining previously unchallenged practices that did more to harm them than to promote their academic growth. As another example, throughout her distinguished career, Dolores Durkin consistently prompted teachers to consider why they do what they do. As she advised in her introduction to her text, Teaching Them to Read (2004), “ ‘Why am I doing what I’m doing?’ is a question that teachers must constantly ask if they hope to improve what they do to help all students learn to read” (n.p.). Spielhagen (2011) questioned why algebra is offered to a select few students—a practice that has stark consequences for students who are excluded from this possibility. She collected classroom data to advocate for algebra’s wider availability. Rose (2009) uses the title Why School? to identify and critique many aspects of schooling that deserve a close look. He explores high-visibility topics that range from the definition of intelligence to the challenges and consequences of standardized testing. Finally, Ayers and Ayers (2011) promote a pedagogy of questioning and the role of why within it. For them, why creates an obligation to analyze and perhaps change the many taken-for-granted aspects of teaching. When we talk about why, we are not just suggesting teacher reflection (e.g., Dewey, 1910; Schon, 1983), as many others have. We want more. We want teachers to offer a rationale for any decision that might arise from reflection—to struggle with why. However, embracing why will not come easily. We consider Jordan, Kleinsasser,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2014 / 255

and Roe’s (2014) “essences of teaching” as important understandings for asking why and acting upon the answers. They propose three essences: 1) realizing the repetitiveness and rethinking behind good decision-making, as opposed to adopting a singular and right way that never changes; 2) grasping the benefits of maintaining a beginner’s mind as opposed to an expert’s assuredness; and 3) welcoming uncertainty as part of a teacher’s life. Teachers who exhibit the first guideline would refrain from an automatic use of previous activities as well as a dogmatic adherence to a specific pedagogical orientation. Nothing would be sacrosanct. The second guideline would promote a teacher’s continued learning—regardless of experiences or years teaching. Finally, a teacher would welcome uncertainty as learning opportunities, rather feeling frozen or fearful when those uncertain moments occur. By adapting this mindset, teachers can work toward developing a more clear focus on student engagement and focus on student needs and preferences.

Student Lives Are Central In spite of all the literature recommend-ing that classrooms be student-centered, observation shows that they generally are not. In addition, classroom tasks do not typically consider students as individu-als. Teachers would most likely agree that they desire to understand their students as people, and rightly so. Such understanding can help teachers develop authenticity in their classrooms. Smith and Wilhelm (2002) noted some young men’s belief that “read-ing don’t fix no Chevies,” and so they did not value it. In another example, Au (1980) looked closely at students’ participation in discussions and identified the importance for teachers to use the same interaction pat-terns as those used in local communities. When teachers made this shift, student par-ticipation and achievement improved. In his work with 5th-grade students in Chicago, Brian Schultz (2008) found that a curriculum centering on a problem that directly affects students and triggers their genuine interest can promote “spectacular things [to] happen along the way.” In addition, teachers who connect new learning to students’ backgrounds can

increase student comprehension (Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009; Ziori & Dienes, 2008) and support what educational psychologists (Goldstone & Day, 2012) call “far transfer,” or the ability to use learning in new, unfamiliar situations. In other words, making connections can provide students with greater opportunities for achievement both inside and outside of school, in both the present and the future. However, the many challenges that teachers face often lead them to set aside their intentions to understand, involve, and respond to students. They come to see their initial hopes as out of reach and beyond their control. We would want them to ask why this might be so.

We see the inclusion of why as a key to maintaining a focus on students. For example, assessments can offer a first step in understanding students. As teachers select and use assessments, they would not select one tool or assemble a package of assessments for mass use. Instead, they would carefully ask, Why am I using this assessment with this student? If an assessment is mandated, the question might change and become, Why does this assessment matter and how can I use it advantageously? When turning to a guiding purpose for teaching specific material, a consideration of students would again occur. These questions might arise: Why would I hold this goal for this student? Why would I exclude students from establishing their goals? Why does this combination of goals matter at this time and for this student? As these questions are answered and choices made, the teacher (again by including students in conversational exchanges) would turn to specific classroom events and perhaps ask questions in response to those voiced by students: Why did I limit the options that students had for completing a product? Why did Juan not submit his work and why did his parents not return my call? Why did I do this event as a

Students are looking for authentic answers to their questions about their classrooms.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

256 \ Childhood Education

whole class activity instead of using small groups? Why did I use multiple modes of assessing my students but return to a single mode of response when I evaluated them? This inclusion of why sets aside things we might think we know about students in favor of inquiry—the simple process of asking questions to generate information. The point is not to make judgments. The point is to examine, interrogate, and ultimately have identified the students’ thinking and stances and tap into them to create robust reasons for the many decisions surrounding classroom life. In the end, every query that a teacher poses places the student as the important respondent for each question.

Giving the proper attention to why may seem overwhelming at first in terms of time and effort. However, many classroom questions will be relatively easy to answer. For example, in a unit on directions, the teacher can help students see that they need to know directions so that they can get around—for example, younger students by following street signs as they walk, perhaps, and older students by following compass directions or wise use of a GPS system while driving. Answering other types of whys can quickly become second nature. If this is done, students are less likely to ask why they have to do something and instead ask, “When do we get to do it again?”

In ClosIngTo help readers understand these points, we conclude by sharing four classroom scenarios based on a compilation of real settings, curricula, tasks, and people. The teachers in these complex classrooms exemplify a variety of teaching contexts, student populations, and challenges. They converge around a shared intention to insert why into their thinking and decision-making.

Sharon teaches 2nd grade at an urban elementary school. Her students come from diverse cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This experienced teacher continues to expand her professional horizons in order to create a learning environment conducive to her students’ learning. She holds membership in several professional organizations and attends their regional and national conferences when possible. Her classroom library is replete with a wide range of reading material and numerous spots where students can work individually or collectively. She regularly examines the activities she assigns her students and collects data to better direct her instructional choices. Her grade level colleagues consider her a valued member of their data analysis group, as she shares her procedures and their outcomes with them on a monthly basis. She continually emphasizes inclusion of students in her process. For example, she enjoins her young charges as co-creators to translate the standards expected for them to learn and her to facilitate into productive classroom events. She pays careful attention to these young students’ questioning, the many whys that come to their young minds, and addresses them carefully. Tom teaches upper elementary grades. He uses student interests to direct his problem-solving orientation and integrated approach to student learning. Like Sharon, his school is situated in an urban area. His students are predominantly from working-class families, with a wide mix of cultural orientations. While Tom’s role as teacher in this classroom is clear, his students understand that their voice matters. Together, they select important problems for their attention. For example, when students expressed concerns about student lunch menus; limited playground equipment; and reduction in time spent with art, music, and physical education specialists, they formed groups to deepen their understandings of these issues, formalize some recommendations for them, and present their suggestions at a school board meeting. In becoming more problem-based and student-centered in his everyday classroom events, Tom makes sure that he does not overlook his responsibilities to address local and state standards. David teaches at a suburban middle

Engaging students leads to student achievment and helping them connect their learning to their lives is engaging.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

July/August 2014 / 257

school. He cares about his students and is very active in school events and opportuni-ties beyond the classroom. Recently adopted standards in his state have greatly changed the professional development offerings pro-vided by the district as well as the expecta-tions for his classroom activities. Like many teachers, he struggles to keep his curriculum in tune with his tech-savvy students and their fast-paced world. Dropout rates con-tinue to rise and funding continues to fall. He realizes the importance of including his students in classroom decisions and respect-ing the questions they ask. He finds his at-tention to the why cycle to be an important addition to his pedagogical processes. This attention, driven by his students’ questions and emphatic support, has included a recent push to allow students to bring personal digital assistants (PDAs) to school. He looks forward to the many advantages and learn-ing opportunities that this shift will allow. Also a middle school teacher, Elizabeth considers the worlds of the young adolescents she teaches to be simultaneously challenging and enthralling. A mix of backgrounds is represented in her rural classroom—farming families, mining families, and families of white collar workers who commute to a town an hour drive away. Her school prides itself on the availability of smart boards for each classroom and the improved performance of its students on the state-mandated test. Elizabeth capitalizes on her small community setting to know parents, shopkeepers, and local office holders. These stakeholders help her address the many why questions that come her way from students, and also understand the concerns of the larger community. When several students and their parents questioned a school mandate to administer a standardized test on a weekly basis, a practice that she, too, questioned, she was able to use their concern to leverage a reduction in the frequency of this event. She feels that the personal bonds she has created serve her and her students well and believes that her responsiveness to the queries about her classroom choices and especially her classroom assessments contribute to a sense of camaraderie across constituencies—including students. Previously, we discussed what many stakeholders perceive as problems with

education and presented some proposed solutions. We also suggested an alternative based on two ideas: engaging students leads to student achievement and helping them connect their learning to their lives is engaging. These ideas led us to conclude that why is important. When we can explain to students how knowing the Canadian provinces, or memorizing in general, or writing a specific type of essay is important to their lives as they perceive them, they are more likely to be engaged in doing those things. This approach is not a panacea, but it has a basis in research and is feasible and important. Why not give it a try?

References Afflerbach, P. (2012). Understanding and using read-

ing assessment K-12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the right way: Mar-kets, standards, God, and inequality. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Au, K. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91-115. doi:10.1525/aeq.198011.2.05x1874b

Ayers, R., & Ayers, W. (2011). Teaching the taboo. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bates, S., & Galloway, R. (2012). The inverted classroom in a large enrollment introductory physics course: A case study. The Higher Educa-tion Academy. Retrieved from www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stem-conference/PhysicalSciences/Simon_Bates_Ross_Galloway.pdf

Broatch, J., & Lohr, S. (2012). Multidimensional assessment of value added by teachers to real-world outcomes. Journal of Educational and Be-haioral Statistics, 37(2), 256-277.

Chapman, E. (2003). Alternative approaches to assessing student engagement rates. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(13), 1-12.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Company.

Durkin, D. (2004). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.

Egbert, J. (2008). Supporting learning with technol-ogy. New York, NY: Pearson.

Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., Falik, L., & Rand, Y. (2006). The Feurerstein instrumental enrichment program. Jerusalem, Israel: ICELP Publications.

Goldstone, R. L., & Day, S. B. (Eds.). (2012). Intro-duction to new conceptualizations of transfer and learning [Special issue]. Educational Psy-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4

258 \ Childhood Education

Children’s Active Learning Through Unstructured Play in Malaysia

chologist, 47(3), 14 Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How

third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Available at www.aecforg/-/media/Pubs/Topics/Education/Other/Dou-bleJeopardyHowThirdGradeReadingSkill-sandPoverty/

Herndon, J. (1968). The way it spozed to be. New York, NY: Boynton/Cook.

Jackson, Y. (2011). The pedagogy of confidence: Inspiring high intellectual performance in urban schools. New York, NY: Teachers Col-lege Press.

Johnson, D. D., Johnson, B., Farenga, S. J., & Ness, D. (2005). Trivializing teacher educa-tion: The accreditation squeeze. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Jordan, M., Kleinsasser, R., & Roe, M. F. (2014). Cautionary tales: Teaching, account-ability, and assessment. The Educational Forum, 78(3).

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relation-ships matter. Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Lavin-Loucks, D. (2006). The academic achieve-ment gap. Available at www.thewilliamsin-stitute.org

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequal-ity and the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Lin, H., Hong, Z., & Huang, T. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25-42. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.551430

Ma’ayan, H. D. (2012). Reading girls: The lives and literacies of adolescents. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. (2010). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the needs of adolescent English language learn-ers for literacy development and content area learning, Part 1: Focus on motivation and engagement. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results (NCES 2011-455). Wash-ington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do. Student per-formance in reading, mathematics, and science, Vol. 1. Paris, France: Author.

Rose, M. (2009). Why school? Reclaiming educa-tion for all of us. New York, NY: The New Press.

Russell, S. J. (1997). The role of curriculum in teacher development. In S. N. Friel & G. W. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on our work: NSF teacher enhancement in K-6 mathematics (pp. 247-254). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Sahlberg, P. (2010). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schultz, B. D. (2008). Spectacular things hap-pen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shnei-der, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology, 18(2), 158-176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860

Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don’t fix no Chevies: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, ME: Heinemann.

Spielhagen, F. R. (2011). The algebra solution to mathematics reform (completing the equation). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teach-ing gap: Best ideas from the world’s teacher for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading compre-hension. Reading and Writing: An Interna-tional Journal, 22, 85-106.

Wilhelm, J. D., & Novak, B. (2011). Teaching literacy for love and wisdom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ziori, E., & Dienes, Z. (2008). How does prior knowledge affect implicit and explicit concept learning? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6(4), 601-624. doi:10.1080/1747021070125537417

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

141.

214.

17.2

22]

at 1

0:05

17

Oct

ober

201

4