Flow in Education

 My experience with flow is deeply associated with music. As a musician of 15 years, drumming is the only creative outlet in my life where I regularly am able find meaningful, creative challenges that inspire my best. In drum circles, I experience the timelessness that Csikszentmihaly associates with flow. Also, because I believe in my ability to create the rhythms I want, my consciousness is focused entirely on the ‘what’, not the ‘how’.  

Earlier in this semester, I had learned about Csikszentmihaly’s ‘flow-state’ while writing about authentic assessment. I hadn’t come across any satisfactory definition (for authentic assessment) in the literature, and so proposed (to myself?) that it be “any assessment in which students have the opportunity to demonstrate the full depth of their ability and knowledge.”. This reminded me of my own experiences with flow-states, particularly as a drummer. I know that the most ‘authentic’ demonstration of skill and capacity happens when I am in ‘flow’, and so was wondering how this might apply in education. Undoubtedly, it would be desirable to help students enter flow-states (for individual work, group work, or assessments). I was able to identify (as we did in class) that as a teacher, we can help students enter flow by giving them challenges proportional to their skill. I also found several resources which explain the importance of ritual when entering flow. This struck me as a less obvious way we might help students: by helping them intentionally create rituals to enter flow-state.

During class, I found it interesting the difference between Liljedahl and Csikszentmihaly’s flow diagrams. Namely, Liljedahl’s diagram suggests that flow can be achieved at all skill levels, while Csikszentmihaly’s diagram implies that flow is only possible with a high degree of skill. Does Liljedahl not believe ‘Apathy’ is possible? How do we characterize this ‘low skill’ zone where Csikszentmihaly believes we cannot achieve flow? 

Intuitively, I believe Liljedahl’s diagram is most accurate. For example, as a novice musician, one will often find that even with 'low' skill, there are some songs you can play. Playing songs is deeply engaging and allows ‘low skill’ musicians to enter flow. Consider ‘low skill’ mathematicians, mountain bikers, readers… the more I think about it, the more ridiculous is the idea that low skill disqualifies one from access to flow.

I posit that there is a dimension of engagement that is not quantified in these diagrams. When skill and challenge are high, engagement is somewhat implied. However, if skill is low and an appropriate challenge is presented, I posit that engagement determines whether or not someone can enter flow. Consider someone learning to read. When deciding what book (challenge) to offer them, we can find several which are appropriate. So how do we choose? We offer them the book with the most engaging content.

I’m deeply interested in how to enrich my teaching practice by intentionally cultivating a classroom in which ‘flow’ is common. I expect it will be a source of inquiry later in the year.