Plot Twist: It's Series 1.5 - What Year 4 Taught Me About Flow

In 2024, I asked thirty Year 4 students what was stopping them from focusing. They didn't mention the work. They didn't mention each other's behaviour. They listed assemblies, Harmony Day, incursions, bell times — and their own friends. Then they told me exactly what to do about it. This episode is about what happens when you let students diagnose the conditions of their own learning, what Flow Theory says about why they were right, and what one honest conversation in a three-way conference revealed about the tension every student navigates between belonging to their friends and becoming their best learning self.

Connect with me and join the conversation by contacting me on LinkedIn. 
Share theories and understandings, viewpoints and perspectives - I want to know what shaped you as an educator.

Want to help keep this work going?
Your support helps Kurt and his small research team continue creating meaningful, practical content for educators. Or perhaps you simply want to buy him a coffee to say thanks for the chat. You can do that here.

Take the next step — connect with Kurt on LinkedIn and be part of the ongoing conversation.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:01

In this episode, we're going to look at what Year 4 taught me about flow. There's eight conditions of deep engagement tested against one middle classroom, three very honest stories, and of course a group of students who diagnosed their own learning. In 2025, I asked my 30 Year 4 students what was stopping them from focusing. They didn't mention the work, they didn't mention each other's behaviour. They listed assemblies, special community events, incursions, bell times, and of course their own friends. Then they told me exactly what to do about it. This episode is about what happens when you let students diagnose the conditions of their own learning and what flow theory says about why they were right. Ah g'day, fancy bumping into you here. Just one quick thing before we get started. If you find yourself nodding along, pausing to think, or sharing this with a colleague, that's what this podcast is all about. If you do enjoy it, feel free to share it, leave a review, or subscribe where you get your podcasts. It genuinely helps more people find the work and lets me know what's resonating. You can also connect with me on LinkedIn. I always appreciate hearing your thoughts and reflections. And if something here really lands and you feel like shouting me a coffee, there's a link in the show notes. Alright, let's get into it. Series 1.5. The messy research leading to season two. A quick note for listeners. This episode includes honest reflections on system constraints, colleague practice, and the gap between educational theory and institutional reality. It is offered as a professional reflection, not a judgment of individuals navigating a very complex set of conditions. I want to start with a question I asked a year for class in term one of 2024. It had taken me almost a term and a half to get them settled, focused, and working in a way that felt like genuine learning rather than managed compliance. And I wanted to understand why it had taken so long. So I decided to ask them. Not a survey, not a formal assessment, but just a conversation. I simply asked, what has been getting in the way of your focus this term? And I expected them to say each other. The noise, the hard work, the things students usually say when you ask them why they're not concentrating. But what they actually said instead, it stopped me completely. We had the start of year assemblies, we had special day celebrations, there was incursions, bell times, and of course interruptions from their friends. Everything on that list, except the last one, was a system decision, a school decision, a mandated or culturally expected interruption to the learning day that nobody had ever asked the students about. And the last one, their friends, turned out to be the most interesting of all. Because when I asked them why they didn't just move away from the distraction, the answer was not what I expected. They didn't move because they were afraid of upsetting their friends or afraid of losing them. These were nine and ten-year-olds who had correctly identified the precise tension between social belonging and learning conditions, and had sacrificed the second for the first. Not because they were lazy, but because belonging felt more urgent than flow. In 1990, Milhaile Chiksen Mihai published what would become one of the most influential psychology books of the 20th century. Flow the psychology of optimal experience. The central question was simple and profound. When do human beings feel most alive, most focused, and most genuinely themselves? The answer, consistent across painters, surgeons, chess players, rock climbers, and yes, eventually students and teachers, was this not when life is easy, when we are working at the edge of our capability on something that matters to us. He identified the eight conditions that when present simultaneously reliably generate that state. I want to go through each one, not as a checklist, but as an honest audit of my own classroom, because the gap between the theory and the practice is where the most important learning lives. So let's look at condition one, and this condition is called clear goals. Flow requires knowing precisely what you are trying to do, and here is the distinction that I think matters for teachers. A learning intention, like we are learning to write a persuasive text, meets the curriculum requirement for clarity, but it does not create a goal in Chick San's Mihai's sense. A goal in his sense is something that the learner can evaluate in real time. Something they can hold in their mind while working and ask, Am I moving towards this or am I moving away from it? I'm trying to make my arguments so convincing that someone who disagrees with me would have to stop and think. Now that is a goal that you can work towards and check yourself against while you're writing. The difference between these two formulations is the difference between compliance and flow. In my classroom, I've worked to shift from teacher-owned goals to student-informed ones. Students engage with rubrics, pre-assessment, peer discussions, and they find their own words for what success looks like. It's time consuming to teach. It's genuinely difficult when colleagues in prior years haven't built the same system, but the return on investment is not marginal, it's transformative. Next is condition two that's immediate feedback. Flow requires knowing in real time how you're going. Not when your marked work comes back. Not at the end of the term, but while you are in the work, you're working away, getting things done. This is where I've had to confront something uncomfortable about my own practice. The feedback that I was most proud of, the detailed, thoughtful, individually tailored comments I'd spent hours writing, was almost entirely retrospective. It arrived after the learning moment had passed. And retrospective feedback, however carefully generated, cannot generate flow. What I've moved towards is designing feedback into the task itself. Success criteria that students can check against while they work. Peer structures where a partner is reading as you write, rubrics used during the process, not after it. The teacher's role shifts, and this is the reframe I want to name explicitly. From provider of feedback to designer of feedback systems. That shift changes everything because a feedback system works even when I'm not on that side of the room, even when I'm with another student, and even eventually when I'm not in the room at all. And then there's condition three, which is challenge skill balance. This is the most famous condition and the most frequently misapplied. You see, if a challenge exceeds skill, the result is anxiety. When the skill significantly exceeds challenge, the result is boredom. Flow lives in the narrow channel where they are in dynamic balance. The word dynamic is critical. That channel moves as the skill develops. What produces flow today may produce boredom in a fortnight, which means differentiation is not something you add to a lesson, it is how the lesson is built, and it requires knowing your students well enough to pitch the challenge at the edge, not on the floor, not at the ceiling, but the edge for each of them. But what I've learned is that the most important differentiation is not in the task level, it is in the identity narrative. A student whose narrative says, I am someone who figures things out, experiences a challenging task, completely different from a student who says, I am someone who struggles here. Same task, same challenge level, completely different relationship to it. Which means the H in Thrive, high expectations with meaning, cannot be separated from the I, identity and narrative. You cannot pitch the challenge correctly for a student whose identity narrative tells them challenge is evidence of inadequacy. Let's step into condition four, the sense of personal control. Flow requires agency, the feeling that your choices matter, that you are shaping the outcome rather than being shaped by it. And here is where I made a significant mistake early in my career, and where I think progressive education has sometimes overcorrected. I gave students choice, lots of choice. Choice of partners, topics, formats, working spaces, and I called that student agency. But not all choices led to learning. Students do not always choose what helps them to learn best. Social dynamics, confidence levels, honest misconceptions about their own need can lead to choices that reduce focus and challenge. The student who chooses to work with their best friend because they feel safe, but then can't concentrate because their friendship is more interesting than the task has made a completely rational social choice that undermines their learning. What I've moved towards is bounded choice, structured options that maintain cognitive demand while still promoting ownership. The unit provides direction. The student provides the pathway. Within the structure, genuine agency is not only possible, it is more powerful than unlimited freedom, because it operates within the conditions designed for success. Let's have a look at conditions five, six, and seven. Concentration, loss of self-consciousness, and transformation of time. I'm going to take these three together because in my classroom they are undermined by the same thing, the institution. Concentration requires uninterrupted engagement. Loss of consciousness consciousness, sorry, requires a space where performance anxiety is low. Transformation of time, the sense of being so absorbed that hours feel like minutes, requires sustained depth that the bell cannot cut short. And schools, by design, interrupt all three constantly. Assemblies, days of celebration, incursions, announcements, mandated KLA timings, the recess bell, oh now it's lunch. My year four class named every single one of these, not as complaints, but as data. They had correctly identified that the structural enemies of their own flow, and you know what? They were right. For one year I experimented with teaching whole half days of English, and then the next day was maths, rather than fragmenting each day into the prescribed KLA blocks. The difference in depth and momentum was observable. When students built understanding across an extended period, the momentum had compounded connections formed that couldn't form in 40 minutes. And when I had to interrupt, or when the bell forced us to transition, students reported losing not just time but understanding. The thread that they'd been following had disappeared. This raises a question, and I want to ask it out aloud because I think it needs to be asked. Do we need to rigidly follow mandated KLA timing suggestions when our own observed data tells us that students are in a deep or deeper flow under a different structure? I'm not suggesting that we abandon the curriculum. I am suggesting that coverage without depth is not actually coverage, it is the appearance of coverage. And the difference for a student trying to build a genuine understanding is enormous. Okay, so let's move on to condition eight. And condition eight is intrinsic motivation, the final and most foundational condition. Flow is generated by activities that are worth doing for their own sake. Not for the grade, not for the merit certificate, but because the engagement itself is the reward. In my classroom, rubrics are the primary tool I use to make intrinsic motivation possible. Not as an assessment instrument, but as learning tools. They provide a visible pathway for growth, allowing students to see where they are and what comes next. When students understand how to use them and the time's been taken so that the understanding has been explicitly taught, which is where most teachers give up, rubrics become the most powerful driver of self-directed learning I have ever encountered. Because they answer the question that intrinsic motivation requires. Not what did I get, but where am I? And oh, what do I do next? The unit provides direction, the rubric shows the path, and the student walks it. Flow is not a mood, a teaching style, or something that happens when students are having fun. It is a precisely prescribed state with eight specific conditions, all of which can be deliberately designed for. The unit provides direction, the student provides the pathway, huh? And the teacher designs the conditions that make the journey possible. Okay, so I want to tell you about a three-way conference that changed how I think about the relationship between belonging and learning. It was term one back in 2024, nearing the end of the term, in which I had students leading a substantial choice, a choice of partners, working spaces, and learning approaches. I believed in that choice and I had argued for it with colleagues, and I thought it was the right thing. So when we did our three-way conferences, I asked a student what could I do to help him more in class? And he looked at me and he said, assigned seating. I reminded him gently and curiously that he and his peers had pushed back when I'd first tried the assigned seating. That they told me it wasn't fair and that they learned better with their friends. And he gave me this sheepish-looking smile in front of his parents, and then he said, Yeah, but that's because I didn't want to upset my friends. I like them, but they distract my learning. So it turned out that this student had known for most of the term what he needed to do to learn well. He had chosen not to ask for it because asking would have disrupted the social belonging that he was protecting. He had traded his becoming for his belonging. Not irrationally, not lazily, but with complete awareness of what he was doing and why. So you see, in the next few three-way conferences, I asked the same question. And what could I do more to help? I would ask. And in every three-way conference that term, an overwhelming number of students gave the same answer, assigned seating, and many of them were for the same reason. They knew what they needed, they had been unable to ask for it publicly because the social cost they felt was too high. The three-way conference, private, relational, and very direct, created the belonging condition that made the honest answer possible. So I assigned seating deliberately and with care. I sat students with complementary strengths, not just academic ones. I told each student who they were sitting with and why. Not as a management decision, but as a design decision. First, you have to be aware that students really understand their strengths and their weaknesses. You need to be aware of what their goals are and who they work best with. So you could have conversations like this. Hey Sam, I know you're really struggling with your multiplication, but did you know Johnno is strong with multiplication? And I know that's something you're working on, so Johnno, you could give him a hand. And you know what, Sam, you bring something to the table that could support Jono. Johnno, you sometimes feel a little bit like you're lacking in confidence in group conversations, don't you? Well, you guys aren't here by accident, you're here to work together. Sam, you can help Johnno build his skills, and Johnno, you can do the same for Sam. You're here because you both have something to offer each other. So this change in the room was not immediate, but it was sustained, and students made new connections, some that have lasted beyond the year at school. They learned through the experience of being deliberately placed, what conditions actually supported their learning, and that knowledge, that self-awareness about who they need to work with to do their best, that's one of the most important things that I could give them. The student who chose friends over focus was navigating the exact tension Pears and Flear described. Belonging traded for becoming. Three-way conference created a safe space for honesty. The assigned seating created the conditions for both. The lessons were delivered, the tasks were set, and the students were left to get on with it. What I noticed watching the class, comparing what I saw with what I saw in rooms that were designed differently, was that the students didn't value the work. They did what they had to, the minimum that would satisfy the requirement. But they didn't do any more. And here's what I think was happening. The minimal design in the lesson design yielded minimal engagement from the students. Not because the students were bad, not because the teacher was lazy, because the conditions for flow were not present. There were no clear personal goals, just teacher-owned learning intentions. There were no embedded feedback, just the teacher's corrections after the fact. There was no sense of personal control, just tasks to complete. And intrinsic motivation, the engine of genuine engagement, had no fuel to run on. As a collaborative hub teacher that year, I had the opportunity to deliver lessons across our classes designed for collaborative discussion, shared thinking, rubric-guided self-assessment. And my colleague noticed. They engaged with the approach. They began to see the difference in students. They named it explicitly. The power of designing lessons for deeper engagement. The power of success criteria. The shift from task completion to genuine thinking. I thought the change had taken root. When I worked alongside them many years later, the old routine had returned. Straight from the syllabus, some differentiation, described by some as lazy teaching. When I asked about it, the response was honest and revealing. I'm paid to teach, not design lessons. Someone else in the department should be doing that. I've thought about that sentence a lot since I've heard it, and I want to be careful about how I respond to it. I respect this colleague, and I don't think it came from laziness. I think it came from a system that had made the easier path available again. The suggested units, then someone's made TPT resources. You could buy pre-built slide decks, all of them communicating quietly and consistently. And this is where some teachers mistake their job as simply delivering. And when the system sends that message loudly enough and for long enough, even teachers that know better can start to believe it. Not because they've forgotten what they've learned, but because the conditions that that sustained the learning, the collaboration, the shared reflection, the designed accountability of the hub model were no longer present. This is the most important lesson I draw from that experience. And it's a lesson about frameworks, including Thrive. Insight is not enough. Understanding is not enough. Even genuine change in practice is not enough if the conditions that sustain the change are not deliberately designed for. You cannot design for student flow without designing for teacher flow. And you cannot design for teacher flow without designing the professional conditions, the collaboration, the reflection, the time, and the genuine intellectual engagement with practice that makes sustained quality teaching possible. That is a leadership responsibility, not a personal one. The colleague who slid back did not fail. The system failed to maintain the conditions that sustained their growth. Insight without design support returns to baseline. That is true for students, and it is equally true for teachers. Let's explore time, design, and the uncomfortable truth about professional learning. I'm going to say something that I know some listeners will push back on. There is a reoccurring conversation in schools about time. Not enough time to plan, not enough time to differentiate, not enough time to design the kind of lessons that generate flow. And I understand that conversation. The workload in schools is real. The pressures are real. The complexity of what teachers are being asked to do in the classrooms for the well-being, in administration, in communication with families. Look, it's genuinely significant. But I want to offer a different frame because I've also observed what happens when teachers are given more time. And the honest answer is it does not always produce more quality. Time without design is not a solution. It is a different kind of problem. What produces quality is not more time, it is clear thinking about how the time available is used. And I think the most honest conversation our profession can have right now is not about how to get more time, but about what we choose to do with the time we already have. I'm genuinely excited about the tools that are becoming available that change this conversation entirely. There's AI tools that work with teachers' own student data, their assessment results, their observations, their knowledge of individual needs to help design richly differentiated learning sequences aligned with syllabus content. No generic resources designed for nobody's class in particular, but resources designed for your class, your students, your context. And that is the conversation I think education needs to be having about time. Not more time, but better use of it. With tools that help us work with our own data rather than someone else's templates or ideas. Because here's what I know from almost 30 years in education. The teachers who generate flow in their students and in themselves are not the ones with the most free periods. They're the ones who are the most intentional about design. Who treat every lesson as a problem worth thinking about carefully, who see their professional role not as delivery but as architecture. The unit provides the direction. Hey, but you the teacher, you design the path. Okay, so let's think back to year four. Back to the beginning. I want to come back to that year four class because they're the ones that told me that assemblies, celebration days, and bell times were interrupting their flow. The ones who asked me to design their seats because their friends were too important to risk losing, but also too distracting to sit next to. They were nine and ten years old, and they had done something that most professional learning conversations about flow never do. They'd applied the theory to themselves without knowing the theory, without reading anything from Chicks and Me Hiley, without a framework or an acronym or a professional development session. They had simply been asked the right question in a room where it was safe enough to give an honest answer. And I've asked that question of students every year since, and I find the response is so similar each time. This is the deepest lesson of this episode. Flow theory gives us a precise research-based framework for understanding what deep engagement requires. Eight conditions, each one with a classroom translation, each one designable, but the conditions themselves are not the work. Creating the room where students can tell you what they need and trust that you will hear it and act on it. Well that's that is the work. Everything else follows from that. I have one question that I want to leave you with this week. If you ask your students honestly, not in a class survey, but in a quiet, private, genuinely curious conversation, what is getting in the way of your deepest focus? What would they say? And what would you be prepared to change if they told you the truth? In the next episode, we bring self-determination theory into direct conversation with flow and build the complete theoretical architecture that sits underneath every element of Thrive. It is the episode where the whole framework becomes undeniable. So until then, keep growing your flow and fight your glow.