........................................................................E N G L I S H L E A D E R S H I P Q U A R T E R L Y

2

Urbana, Illinois 61801-1010.Annual membership in NCTE is $50 for

individuals, and a subscription to English Leadership Quarterly is $25 (membership is a prerequisite for individual subscriptions). Nonmembers and institutions may subscribe for $75. Student and emeritus subscriptions are $12.50 (plus $25 for NCTE membership). Single copy: $18.75 (member price, $6.25). Remittances should be made payable to NCTE by check, money order, bank draft in United States currency, or credit card (call NCTE toll-free at 877-369-6283).

Communications regarding orders, sub-scriptions, single copies, and change of address should be addressed to English Leadership Quarterly, NCTE, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1010 or sent via email to orders@ncte.org. Communications regard-ing permission to reprint should be addressed to Permissions, NCTE, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1010 or sent via email to permissions@ncte.org.

NCTE’s website: www.ncte.orgEditor: Oona Abrams. NCTE Editing and

Production: Pamela A. Crews. Designer: Pat Mayer.

Copyright © 2015 by the National Council of Teachers of English. Printed in the U.S.A.

The Conference on English Leadership (CEL) of the National Council of Teachers of English is an organization dedicated to bring-ing together English language arts leaders to further their continuing efforts to study and improve the teaching of English language arts. The CEL reaches out to department chairs, teachers, specialists, supervisors, coordinators, and others who are responsible for shaping effective English instruction. The CEL strives to respond to the needs and interests germane to effective English instruction from kinder-garten through college, within the local school, the central administration, the state, and the national level.

It is the policy of NCTE in its journals and other publications to provide a forum for the open discussion of ideas concerning the content and the teaching of English and the language arts. Publicity accorded to any particular point of view does not imply endorsement by the Executive Committee, the Board of Directors,or the membership at large, except in announce- ments of policy where such endorsement is clearly specified.

English Leadership Quarterly (ISSN 1943-3050) is published four times a year in August, October, February, and April for the Conference on English Leadership by the National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 W. Kenyon Rd.,

What learning experiences stand out as particularly memorable from your years

of formative and summative as-sessment? Perhaps, like many, you cast your mind back to the victories you experienced in those years: the persuasive speech about a topic in which you felt wholly invested and rehearsed endlessly, earning you top marks, the hard-won A– your essay proposing a renewal of the school’s community garden received after countless revisions and meetings with your biology and writing teach-ers. Possibly you focus instead on the last days, when you appreciated the myriad strengths you had honed over the years and acknowledged the areas in which you planned to improve.

Or perhaps you take a step back and examine the connections you forged to the learning itself: the

Genius Hour: Critical Inquiry and DifferentiationElaine Simos, Downers Grove North High School, Downers Grove, Illinois, joined NCTE 2000, joined CEL 2011

sociological analysis of hip-hop music your history teacher fostered or the culminating project in your literature class that asked you to create your own literary movement, complete with poetry and short fiction. No mat-ter the specifics of memory, one simi-larity defines each recollection: the learning that remains simultaneously vivid and relevant to you remains that which was most differentiated to your unique needs. It empowered you to build upon your own interests in constructing a critical response in both the process and the production of that learning’s undertaking.

Why Genius Hour?

The curricular concept underlying Ge-nius Hour embodies an optimal learn-ing relationship: students embracing their own power and responsibility in the learning process work in conjunc-

tion with educators who can facilitate and guide that learning to ever-great-er heights. In the Genius Hour model, instructors allocate a portion of class time—often the 20 percent that gives the approach an alternate name (20% Time)—for student exploration of a self-selected and/or given topic. Stu-dents turn to an array of sources in the course of their explorations and consider the topic from a wide variety of angles before synthesizing all of their research into a central under-standing. This culminates in a final product, project, or other such arti-fact, that is shared with the class and potentially the larger school commu-nity (Kirr, 2014).

A significant body of research sup-ports the need for the increased focus on differentiation that is fostered by the Genius Hour model. Student interests, both existing and burgeon-ing, are brought to the forefront of the classroom when a differentiated model is implemented, allowing teachers to “use time flexibly, call upon a range of instructional strate-gies, and become partners with their students to see that both what is learned and the learning environment are shaped to the learner” (Tomlinson, 1999). Accordingly, learning strategy implementation can be targeted to each individual’s needs and strengths (Wormeli, 2007).

The strong level of engagement fostered by critical inquiry stems from the essential truth asserted by Carol Kuhlthau, Leslie Maniotes, and Ann Caspari in Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century (2007) that “in-quiry learning engages, interests, and challenges students to connect their world with the curriculum.” Further, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Asso-ciation Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ) clearly emphasize the role

ELQ-Aug-2015.indd 2 8/5/15 8:58 AM

August 2015 3

of critical inquiry in the secondary classroom; the correlation between an increased focus on critical inquiry and its natural connection to differenti-ated instruction highlights the need for learners who are able not only to produce the “appropriate” artifacts of learning, but also to independently design or direct their own learning in a manner which builds upon their unique strengths and areas for devel-opment.

Genius Hour in the High School

Daniel H. Pink’s 2009 book, Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, examines the role of stimulus in determining successful enterprises in business and school, further asserting in a discussion of self-sufficiency that “encouraging autonomy doesn’t mean discouraging accountability.” Throughout the pro-cess of designing a structure to frame student exploration in an initial implantation, Pink’s assertion reso-nated. In partnership with colleague Christopher Bronke of the English and Communications Department at North High School in Downers Grove, Illinois (C. Bronke, personal commu-nication, February 24, 2014), I created a spreadsheet in Google Drive to promote both student ac-countability and independence (https://goo.gl/a3Ylzp). Throughout the research process, students record-ed their inquiry process on the Google Spreadsheet; prompts such as “Why did you visit this site or resource?”, “List a 3–4 word summary of the page,” and “What did you gain from this site or resource?” were concise and designed to further the students’ research process.

Four classes eventually partici-pated in the pilot and beta tests of the Genius Hour program. In these senior-level AP English Literature and Composition courses, the starting point for the Genius Hour work was a small group study of literature circle texts highlighting the use of dystopia in literature.

Clusters of students reading texts

such as Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, Margaret Atwood’s The Hand-maid’s Tale, and George Orwell’s Brave New World investigated top-ics as widely varied as the scientific causes for the devastation portrayed in a novel to the complex web of allu-sions employed by an author in con-structing a work, exploring questions or ideas in the course of this Genius Hour work that were inspired by their texts. Students recorded their explorations on a Google Spreadsheet shared with the instructor.

The process was, at times, uncom-fortable for learners, who expressed varying degrees of security with the Genius Hour model; Jamal (all stu-dent names are pseudonyms) noted, “I was overwhelmed with the amount of freedom of knowledge and per-sonal choice I was given. . . . I finally allowed myself to . . . uncover new questions I had. . . . Eventually, I began to recognize that my searches all have a connection of some sort” (2015). In a variation on the original implementation plan, the students’ work was further differentiated through careful instructor interaction with each individual’s learning needs (see tabs at https://goo.gl/a3Ylzp). The teacher’s interaction with each student’s inquiry work was char-acterized by parallel research and predictive suggestions based on the widely varying research avenues each student pursued during the Genius Hour sessions. Alexia, for example, was inspired by The Handmaid’s Tale to explore the relationship between matriarchal societies, motherhood, and modern-day culture. Recommend-

ing and providing resources regarding the institution of patriarchal roles in society at varied points in history provided balance to her inquiry pro-cess and prompted her to ask ques-tions that further refined the research question she was developing.

An important aspect of the stu-dents’ experience with the Genius Hour Project stemmed from the use of cooperative learning. Incorporating this learning process allowed stu-dents to work within “a paradigm of learning that requires subdividing the classrooms and putting kids to work in active, flexible, inquiring, hands-on teams” (Harvey and Daniels, 2009). Students were grouped according to text and/or research avenue; group members had their own individual sheet on the primary Google Spread-sheet on which they recorded the date, the source examined, the im-petus for that examination, and the overall findings fostered by that source (https://goo.gl/a3Ylzp).

Peers then commented on the direction of group members’ research and considered patterns that seemed to be developing in the course of those explorations. Students responded positively to direct feedback from peers. Fatima remarked,

It was extremely helpful when my group mates commented on my prog-ress and asked important questions for me to consider . . . [and] allowed me to receive suggestions from people look-ing at my exploration with different perspectives. While I really appreci-ated receiving suggestions from others, I also found it helpful to comment on others. Even though our group had the same author, our explorations were wildly different. (2014)

Peer interactions provided learners with experience not only with the skills of critical inquiry, posing cen-tral questions, developing research plans, collecting and synthesizing in-formation, but also with the develop-ment of the vital skills of evaluating researchers’ credibility and argu-ments. The instructional model also integrated a series of metacognitive checks throughout the Genius Hour

Students’ work was further differentiated through careful instructor interaction with each individual’s learning needs.

ELQ-Aug-2015.indd 3 8/5/15 8:58 AM

........................................................................E N G L I S H L E A D E R S H I P Q U A R T E R L Y

4

The students quickly realized that the Genius Hour process had by no means ended with the presentation of their work.

process. Student, peer, and instructor feedback was incorporated both via individual conferencing and the use of Google Forms (found at https://goo.gl/Vhy0s6). Learners were able to utilize these varied types of feed-back as they created their final proj-ects and developed their reflections about the process, the product, and their own learning.

Subsequent to the research phase of the model, students began to develop syntheses of their inquiries, considering the directions of their ex-plorations and translating them into products including project pitches and reviews of literature. Mariana commented on realization that her inquiry process had, in fact, led to a central conclusion that she ultimately turned into a statement about the role of poetry in the modern world:

The initial research log filled out car-ries a distinct flow of thoughts as it is read from top to bottom. It starts with the idea of the monster in The Picture of Dorian Gray and ends with the question of whether rap is poetry. Two ideas that seem unrelated are united by the thread of my research. I looked at this thread as a whole when crafting my initial pitch for the project. (2015)

Students created and/or conducted Genius Hour projects that were shared with the whole group in brief (five- to seven-minute) presentations. Not surprisingly, products ranged considerably, reflecting students’ dis-tinct interpretations and understand-ings of the topics they had refined and also focused upon furthering their individual skill sets: students’ original musical compositions set to a backdrop of digital storytelling, scientific analyses of climate change and subsequent effects on human life, digital public service announcements considering the roles of bystanders and victims during wartime.

The role of the teacher during these presentations was complex: I crafted in-depth analyses of the

culmination of these varied inquiry strands while simultaneously fa-cilitating peer feedback systems via Google Forms. Each project was unequivocally characterized by the passion of students who valued a learning process based on their unique learning styles and needs and driven by their individual authentic interpretations of the power of lan-guage in all its forms. I found myself amazed by the creativity and the nu-anced thought processes the presenta-tions ably represented and knew that this work should continue.

Students provided feedback on their peers’ work and incorporated this feedback into their own final reflections about the inquiry study they had conducted over the course of the semester. The students quickly realized that the Genius Hour process had by no means ended with the pre-sentation of their work; indeed, Frank noted, “Following the presentation, one may have felt that the learning was over, yet I soon discovered this was not the case. In fact, I may have learned more about my own topic af-ter I had presented than in the weeks and months leading up to the final project.” (2015)

Reflections

Ultimately, the student performance levels demonstrated irrefutably a cen-tral truth: Genius Hour work builds investiture in the learning process by meeting students at their own level and empowering them to surpass that level every step of the way. The words of the students themselves provide

the greatest motivation to an instruc-tor to embark on the challenge and the promise of incorporating differen-tiated, critical inquiry into the class-room. The reflection of one student, Tomas, echoed the words of many others: “[The Genius Hour project] was a fantastic use of time in the classroom for me . . . [and] also al-lowed me to gain different perspec-tives about my book and the way the author viewed the events of 1945. It also allowed me to gain more back-ground knowledge about subjects I was not particularly well-versed in. . . . Overall, the genius hour was fantastic way for me to learn more” (2014). ●

Join the conversation: @DGNLitCoaches #geniushour

References

Harvey, S., and Daniels, H. (2009). Inquiry circles in action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kirr, J. (2014). Proceedings from Playdate 58 literacy blizzard. Downers Grove, IL: District 58.

Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L., and Caspari, A. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social stud-ies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ela-literacy.

Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wormeli, Rick. (2007). Differentiation: From planning to practice, grades 6–12. Portland, MN: Stenhouse Publishers.

ELQ-Aug-2015.indd 4 8/5/15 8:58 AM