S. Keller:
What were you taught about
intelligence? We are
taught that intelligence will predict the students success in learning new
skills and applying these skills for deeper understanding. Intelligence is the
precursor to success in school.
What
do you believe about student intelligence based on your own observations? My varied experiences have as an educator and a
parent have taught me to expect the unexpected. An individual my present
themselves as “intelligent” but often lack the drive to take on challenges
outside their comfort zone. Others that I have labeled as “hard workers” have
gone beyond what I expected due to their commitment to achieve and learn. I
have observed that the ‘intrinsic” love of learning has resulted in meeting the
challenges presented.
I found the
discussion of pre-assessment in this chapter as a useful tool in the classroom
for setting the pace of curriculum delivery. The importance of activating
background knowledge cannot be emphasized too much. You don’t know what you
don’t know. You have to ask the right questions to tap the familiar and
identify where to go from there. Curriculum
compacting is a term I will reference as discussion of pacing guides continues
to be challenged; taking time to target what and how fast the curriculum is provided
is an important consideration.
While earning my teaching degree, I was taught that intelligence levels were fixed at birth, were attributed primarily to genetics, and the intelligence levels of the population were divided into certain percentages on the “Bell Curve”. I also experienced the impact of the bell curve theory in law school. Our final exam was graded on a “bell curve”. In other words, a certain percentage would be A’s and B’s, the majority would be C’s, and then certain percentages for D’s and F’s. Therefore, before the professor even read our papers it was determined a certain number of students would earn C’s or even less!
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that my students are born with a finite, set level of intelligence at birth. Children may start out in Kindergarten with different levels of intelligence (as measure by IQ tests) but I do not believe these levels are fixed. I believe there are many kinds of intelligence and abilities that are not even measured by IQ tests. I agree with Dr. Dweck that intelligence is malleable and can be increased with hard work and self-confidence in one’s learning ability.
I believe the primary influence on student intelligence in the student’s belief in his ability to learn. Other important factors include the student’s desire to work hard, his belief that learning is important, and his home environment. It is frustrating to have a student who wants to learn but is thwarted by his or her home environment. Equally, disheartening is the student who finds learning easy but has no desire to learn – and thus, his or her learning stagnates.
On the other hand, a student who works hard and has the desire to learn, even in the face of a learning disability is one to be celebrated. I recall a student with dyslexia who took two hours to complete her homework where most would take 30 minutes. She was focused, determined, hardworking, and had supportive parents. She earned the highest overall grade in my class that year.
As shown in Carol Dweck’s study, students who learn about the brain and believe the brain is malleable demonstrated positive growth. Again, this goes back to the importance of a student’s faith in their own ability to learn. The fact that 60% of the students entering 6th grade believed that “they were born with specific academic strengths and weaknesses and they could not change” is heartbreaking. Especially when the study showed that 100% of Kindergarten students were of the growth mindset. When children are young every little accomplishment is praised and praised repeatedly. Just think about the potty training routine! Or, how excited we were when our children began learning how to put sounds of the letters of the alphabet together to make words. I think somewhere along the line we stop doing this as children get older. Or perhaps, as the author mentions, it is the value society place on how fast things are completed. We do not expect toddlers to all be potty trained at the same age. We do not get upset if a four year old has not yet learned all the sound blends of letters even if the neighbor’s three year old has already mastered that skill.
But, when the children are older, if they are not “on par” with their peers they may be classified as slow and be given less challenging learning environments. So, if the “major obstacle is how we judge both adults and children by the speed in which things are completed” how do we deal with this problem? How do we deal with the ever increasing demand for “pacing guides” and non-stop testing? How do we grade/reward “effort” and “determination”?
In college I was mostly taught the bell curve and a little about the importance of “firing up the brain” for better retention results. Aside from that, I haven’t really had any formal training on the subject so I never consciously chose a “side” in the debate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, throughout the last nine years of teaching I think I have naturally formed a growth mindset based on my own improvements as a teacher and the growth I see in my students every day. Dr. Dweck’s studies and reports only confirm my belief further. I have seen kids walk in with an “I can’t so I won’t” attitude, but after some time, encouragement and access to the proper skills and resources (based on their initial abilities & growth potential), they start to see that they can do more than they realized. Once they conquer enough challenges, they start to push themselves further, which in turn develops a more positive growth mindset for the future.
I try to promote a growth mindset in my own classroom by giving out monthly “Superstar Awards” for effort and improvement, rather than for simply being “the smartest”. I also give out “Positive Behavior Referrals” for improved effort. In addition, students self and partner assess each other each grading period based on our “5 ‘P’s of Personal Responsibility” (Punctual, Prepared, Participation, Personal Best and Positive Attitude). These “5 Ps” are all effort-based and are rooted in personal choice. This allows students who make a conscious effort to work towards personal potential to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment even if they aren’t the #1 on the grades list. The “I can do this” attitude is essential to developing and maintaining a growth mindset.
My biggest concern with Dweck’s theories and Ricci’s suggestions is that it takes all parties involved to believe in the growth mindset for it to actually work. Yes, I can encourage my students all day long and provide them with the necessary skills and resources for success, but if they (or their parents) don’t believe they have the potential, my efforts seem futile. In addition, while I work with an amazing team of teachers, there are some that will never change their fixed mindset regardless of fact-based research and additional trainings offered. I see that as another roadblock to making this a school-wide transition.
Why are we responding about malleable intelligence and Dr. Dweck's theories about Growth Mindset and Fixed Mindset when Chapter 3 was about Previewing, Pre-assessing, Differentiating Instruction, Content Compacting, Enrichment and Acceleration, and Formative and Sujmmative Assessment????
ReplyDeleteOh well! As Ursula said, I was taught that classroom grades would and SHOULD fall into a Bell Curve, but I never had a professor who assigned grades using that curve. How ridiculous! I think I personally have always had a growth mindset, because that what how my parents raised me. I firmly believe in the "Can do" attitude, and always think of "the little engine who COULD." I have always tried to instill this in my personal children, and have promoted this Growth Mindset in my classroom as well.
Dr. Dweck's research about malleable intelligence, as cited in her 2006 book "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success," not only refers to classroom situations, but to sports and other talents and skills as well. She specifically mentions tennis star John McEnroe, whose fixed mindset was evidenced when he consistently blamed outside forces for his on-court failures. In the classroom, she notes students who struggle to succeed, then grow to believe that they cannot be successful. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as they no longer try and thus are doomed to failure. Her explanation of "risk adverse" students is interesting as well. She notes that there are many high-performing students who have always been told they are "smart." They become obsessed with being seen as smart, and won't take on a task or new skill for fear of losing that "smart" status.
I agree with Heather that we have some teachers at TSMS who have a fixed mindset. If we could do some work to educate our staff about a growth mindset and how to promote it in our classrooms and our school, it would be a great first step. But even with buy-in from the TSMS faculty and staff, we need parents on board. Parents who encourage and push their children to work harder and perform better, rather than criticize their children for their perceived failures. I think we have our work cut out for us, but (here's the growth mindset talking), we can do it!
Reflection
ReplyDeleteLesson 2
Why is differentiated Responsive Classroom important to a Growth Mindset Culture?
This chapter focus goal is how to have a responsive differentiated classroom. One interesting fact that I learned was “front-end differentiation”. It made me look at differentiation in the classroom in a different manner. I definitely like the strategy of pre-assessement with lesson preview. This means that giving the students opportunity to activate background knowledge prior to the preassessment. At first, I thought that it defeats the purpose, but a spark just might be needed to open up what a student really knows. I personally have not used pre-assessments in the classroom mainly because of the pacing guide that I have to follow and what I need to make sure that students need to know prior to taking DA assessments. I like the idea, yet I keep thinking about “teacher appraisal” pressure. It mentions curriculum compacting after review of the preassessment and this makes sense which would give more time to really get deep into content. Using curriculum compacting and content limits of benchmarks would probably give me more time for enrichment and more time for in-depth look at science concepts.
I know that my school will be in the Marzano pilot program and preassessments are part of this pilot. It makes sense to actually front end differentiation based on the preassessment. One interesting point they made was about flexible grouping. Having taught level 1 and 2 students, this was evident in my classroom, but they mentioned even doing flexible grouping in Honors and Advance classes. Now that I think about this, it makes sense. I am guilty of saying “how did this student make it in advance class and next year I am not going to recommend”, this does not fit well with the concept of growth mindset. What I really should have done was flexible grouping because these students have the intelligence, and I must have the mindset that their intelligence is malleable and all that was needed was some differentiation.
One problem I have encountered with rotations and was mentioned in this chapter was what to do with the students who finish early. I like the idea that was mentioned “Anchor Activities” which gives the students opportunity to enrich learning of the content being taught.