Final Blog Post
I will remember how James instructs teachers to spark interest in their students. I only hope that I can be successful in the "teacher's art", as James calls it.
"The ingenuity in meeting and pursuing the pupil, that tact for the concrete situation, though they are the alpha and omega of the teacher's art, are things to which psychology cannot help us in the least," (18).
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Activity 7.5
I don't believe that Gladwell agrees with the term "recipe for success". A recipe, by definition, means that written every step has to be followed dutifully in order for the end product to be deemed a success. The metaphor also seems to say that if a person doesn't have, say, all the right ingredients, then success is out of reach.
Rather agree with the recipe metaphor, Gladwell advocates that, while a person can better set up success than others (more opportunity, more money, easier access to education), anybody can be successful by devoting all their time, effort and resources onto their craft. There does not seem to be a particular plan or recipe that will lead to success without fail.
It would seem that Gladwell would agree with Dwek and her theory of malleable vs. fixed mindsets. If a person were to be confined by a fixed mindset, then Gladwell would say that success might be out of her reach. There is no growth there, no striving to complete the her goal. Gladwell would say that a malleable mindset is needed; there needs to be the desire to grow, to continuously learn. This is evidenced by Gladwell's comparison between the Russian proverb ("If God does not bring it, the earth will not give it"), which he describes as "the kind of fatalism and pessimism typical of a repressive feudal system, where pheasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of their own work", and the Chinese proverb "No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days of the year fails to make his family rich" (237-238).
He writes, "Virtually, every success story...so far involves someone or some group working harder than their peers," (239). This seems to support the idea that one has to have the desire to continually get better at their craft in order to be successful.
Gladwell would also agree that a strong sense of self-efficacy is necessary for success.
Gladwell's main points:
I don't believe that Gladwell agrees with the term "recipe for success". A recipe, by definition, means that written every step has to be followed dutifully in order for the end product to be deemed a success. The metaphor also seems to say that if a person doesn't have, say, all the right ingredients, then success is out of reach.
Rather agree with the recipe metaphor, Gladwell advocates that, while a person can better set up success than others (more opportunity, more money, easier access to education), anybody can be successful by devoting all their time, effort and resources onto their craft. There does not seem to be a particular plan or recipe that will lead to success without fail.
It would seem that Gladwell would agree with Dwek and her theory of malleable vs. fixed mindsets. If a person were to be confined by a fixed mindset, then Gladwell would say that success might be out of her reach. There is no growth there, no striving to complete the her goal. Gladwell would say that a malleable mindset is needed; there needs to be the desire to grow, to continuously learn. This is evidenced by Gladwell's comparison between the Russian proverb ("If God does not bring it, the earth will not give it"), which he describes as "the kind of fatalism and pessimism typical of a repressive feudal system, where pheasants have no reason to believe in the efficacy of their own work", and the Chinese proverb "No one who can rise before dawn three hundred and sixty days of the year fails to make his family rich" (237-238).
He writes, "Virtually, every success story...so far involves someone or some group working harder than their peers," (239). This seems to support the idea that one has to have the desire to continually get better at their craft in order to be successful.
Gladwell would also agree that a strong sense of self-efficacy is necessary for success.
Gladwell's main points:
- That a person's willingness to put in the work (his 10,000 hours of effort) into a craft supersedes "talent" or "natural ability". How much effort an individual puts into their circumstances can directly lead to their success or their failure (ie. "the miracle of meaningful work") (269).
- Also, family background and a person's cultural legacy plays a significant role in figuring a person's propensity for success. Environment is a big part of success, even though it is not the only part.
The importance of the environment on learning fits into social cognitive theory. What information comes to a people flows from their surroundings, whether it be what type of schools students are exposed to, which teachers they receive, how their friends and families act, what opportunities are in store, etc. This is what people model their behavior of, according to social cognitive theory. Likewise, it plays a significant role in Gladwell's recognition of achievement. Social cognitive theory and Gladwell's understanding of success are analogous in this respect.
Activity 7.3
I have always been interested in the role of creativity and innovation in the learning processes. It sometimes feels to me like originality or creativity is not as prized as a student's ability to mimic the teacher's lesson strategies or produce vocal or written repetition of material. If a student is supposed to model his thoughts after what material has been presented to him, where lies the possibility for originality? This thought has worried me.
In his article, "But What About that Gigantic Elephant in the Room?", Albert Bandura addresses my fears: "Another misconception requiring retirement claimed that modeling is antithetical to creativity. Quite the contrary. There are several ways in which modeling promotes innovativeness. Modeling novel ways of thinking and doing things fosters innovativeness in others, whereas modeling conventional styles curtails it," (3).
Bandura goes on to describe that students who are exposed to several different models of thought can in fact come up with new, original ideas (3). He credits this process to "selective hybridization", or the ability of a student to select pertinent information from several different models and mold the information into a new existence that fits the individual's purpose (3). This sounds optimum to me, and I would agree that this theory sounds like it fosters creativity; my only problem is that Bandura does not list any examples of this process in practical terms. Can anyone think of one based on their experiences? I can think of a few based on movies, but no real life success stories are coming to me.
Looking unbiasedly, it seems like I am highly influenced by whatever mode of thought is presented to me at the time. For example, when I was introduced to the idea of "new historicism", I believed that all literature should in fact, be discussed in the context in which the author wrote it. I held that view until I came across a professor who believed that literature should be addressed solely as its own entity, separate from the author or the context of the time. I then adopted that belief (this makes me sound a little wishy-washy, though, doesn't it?). After coming across more new-historians, I have found my beliefs to have shifted back to that frame of mind. After making this observation about myself, I am determined to make an effort to discern what I think; I'd like to think that while I prize creativity and originality, it is not out of reach for me.
This reminds me again of the Good Will Hunting clip I posted on my Activity 5.2 blog post. (I'll post it again - watch from 1:10 to see the interaction). The graduate student at the bar with Will (Matt Damon) was doing exactly as I was; he merely encountered a thought process and adopted it as his own. As Bandura would say, the graduate student exemplifies the misconception "that modeling is antithetical to creativity" (3). Will, then, provides the opposition - he represents the possibility to form one's own thoughts based on the provisions of others, the opportunity for originality.
I have always been interested in the role of creativity and innovation in the learning processes. It sometimes feels to me like originality or creativity is not as prized as a student's ability to mimic the teacher's lesson strategies or produce vocal or written repetition of material. If a student is supposed to model his thoughts after what material has been presented to him, where lies the possibility for originality? This thought has worried me.
In his article, "But What About that Gigantic Elephant in the Room?", Albert Bandura addresses my fears: "Another misconception requiring retirement claimed that modeling is antithetical to creativity. Quite the contrary. There are several ways in which modeling promotes innovativeness. Modeling novel ways of thinking and doing things fosters innovativeness in others, whereas modeling conventional styles curtails it," (3).
Bandura goes on to describe that students who are exposed to several different models of thought can in fact come up with new, original ideas (3). He credits this process to "selective hybridization", or the ability of a student to select pertinent information from several different models and mold the information into a new existence that fits the individual's purpose (3). This sounds optimum to me, and I would agree that this theory sounds like it fosters creativity; my only problem is that Bandura does not list any examples of this process in practical terms. Can anyone think of one based on their experiences? I can think of a few based on movies, but no real life success stories are coming to me.
Looking unbiasedly, it seems like I am highly influenced by whatever mode of thought is presented to me at the time. For example, when I was introduced to the idea of "new historicism", I believed that all literature should in fact, be discussed in the context in which the author wrote it. I held that view until I came across a professor who believed that literature should be addressed solely as its own entity, separate from the author or the context of the time. I then adopted that belief (this makes me sound a little wishy-washy, though, doesn't it?). After coming across more new-historians, I have found my beliefs to have shifted back to that frame of mind. After making this observation about myself, I am determined to make an effort to discern what I think; I'd like to think that while I prize creativity and originality, it is not out of reach for me.
This reminds me again of the Good Will Hunting clip I posted on my Activity 5.2 blog post. (I'll post it again - watch from 1:10 to see the interaction). The graduate student at the bar with Will (Matt Damon) was doing exactly as I was; he merely encountered a thought process and adopted it as his own. As Bandura would say, the graduate student exemplifies the misconception "that modeling is antithetical to creativity" (3). Will, then, provides the opposition - he represents the possibility to form one's own thoughts based on the provisions of others, the opportunity for originality.
Activity 7.2
English was my thing. All throughout my undergraduate career and high school before that, I was always extremely successful in English and Literature classes. Nothing but A's. And more so, I knew I was always successful and believed that I always would be.
That's why it was an earth-shattering blow, when, in Spring Semester 2011, I received a C in ENG 335. I still feel a little angry when I think about that class. I couldn't believe it when I got my grade. I got a C?!? My confidence was bruised; I didn't want to tell anyone about this horrible C on my transcript. (I was also a bit dramatic). My self-efficacy was not broken, merely momentarily winded. I came back the next semester with a renewed sense of determination. I made sure that I would not receive a C in an English class again; I knew that it was within my power to succeed. My sense of self-efficacy rallied and I succeeded the next three semesters.
However, this is not the first C I'd received at the University. The semester before I took that ill-fated ENG 335, I received a C in Statistics. And I was fine with it. I hate math and I have never believed that I was good at it. The C in that class, one that I actually struggled to attain, was not a beacon of failure like the C in ENG 335, but rather, a goal achieved. It was a check off the list; no more math in college! I had a weak sense of self-efficacy in this regard and was happy that I passed the class by the skin of my teeth.
My two C's held two drastically different meanings: one stood for devastating failure and the other, happy success. What made the difference? Context. My situation was very similar to the situation Frank Parajes depicts in his chapter "Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence":
"A student accustomed to receiving As on exams in [a] class and subject and who worked hard throughout the term and studied for the exam will view the B in ways quite dissimilar from that of a student accustomed to receiving Cs and who worked equally hard. For the former, the B will be received with distress; for the latter, the B is likely to be received with elation. The student accustomed to receiving As is likely to have her academic confidence bruised; the C-acquainted student is sure to have her confidence boosted. Context is not always everything, but it colors everything," (342).
Because of my strong sense of self-efficacy in one subject and my weak sense in the other, the two identical grades had vastly different meanings and effects on me. The context of each situation "colored" my response to each C.
English was my thing. All throughout my undergraduate career and high school before that, I was always extremely successful in English and Literature classes. Nothing but A's. And more so, I knew I was always successful and believed that I always would be.
That's why it was an earth-shattering blow, when, in Spring Semester 2011, I received a C in ENG 335. I still feel a little angry when I think about that class. I couldn't believe it when I got my grade. I got a C?!? My confidence was bruised; I didn't want to tell anyone about this horrible C on my transcript. (I was also a bit dramatic). My self-efficacy was not broken, merely momentarily winded. I came back the next semester with a renewed sense of determination. I made sure that I would not receive a C in an English class again; I knew that it was within my power to succeed. My sense of self-efficacy rallied and I succeeded the next three semesters.
However, this is not the first C I'd received at the University. The semester before I took that ill-fated ENG 335, I received a C in Statistics. And I was fine with it. I hate math and I have never believed that I was good at it. The C in that class, one that I actually struggled to attain, was not a beacon of failure like the C in ENG 335, but rather, a goal achieved. It was a check off the list; no more math in college! I had a weak sense of self-efficacy in this regard and was happy that I passed the class by the skin of my teeth.
My two C's held two drastically different meanings: one stood for devastating failure and the other, happy success. What made the difference? Context. My situation was very similar to the situation Frank Parajes depicts in his chapter "Self-Efficacy During Childhood and Adolescence":
"A student accustomed to receiving As on exams in [a] class and subject and who worked hard throughout the term and studied for the exam will view the B in ways quite dissimilar from that of a student accustomed to receiving Cs and who worked equally hard. For the former, the B will be received with distress; for the latter, the B is likely to be received with elation. The student accustomed to receiving As is likely to have her academic confidence bruised; the C-acquainted student is sure to have her confidence boosted. Context is not always everything, but it colors everything," (342).
Because of my strong sense of self-efficacy in one subject and my weak sense in the other, the two identical grades had vastly different meanings and effects on me. The context of each situation "colored" my response to each C.
Activity 7.1
These are the factors that I believe are most influential to learning. When I was brainstorming, I couldn't help but think about the story of Johnny from Module 1. As a class, we listed several reasons (formalisms, I now know them to be called, since we had no basis for them) for why he was experiencing difficulties. These listed reasons, even if they didn't apply in the Johnny situation, did, however, illustrate our understanding of the factors believed to be most influential to learning. I found it slightly difficult to distinguish personal factors from behavioral factors.
Environmental Factors
These are the factors that I believe are most influential to learning. When I was brainstorming, I couldn't help but think about the story of Johnny from Module 1. As a class, we listed several reasons (formalisms, I now know them to be called, since we had no basis for them) for why he was experiencing difficulties. These listed reasons, even if they didn't apply in the Johnny situation, did, however, illustrate our understanding of the factors believed to be most influential to learning. I found it slightly difficult to distinguish personal factors from behavioral factors.
Environmental Factors
- Primary needs - Food, water, shelter, etc.
- Family Support/ Parents - Absent or abusive parents may prove detrimental to learning, while caring, involved parents may foster learning
- Family Environment
- Socioeconomic level - If the student is worried about money issues at home, then her ability to learn may be jeopardized. Likewise, if the student does not have to worry about money issues, her focus can be shifted entirely to learning.
- Peers - Students are strongly influenced by their peers; if a student's peers view learning as stupid, there is a good chance that the student could be persuaded to believe that as well.
- School Philosophy - Whatever the school's philosophy or thought process on learning is, it is bound to affect the learning processes of its students.
- Comforting Learning Environment - if the student feels comfortable, then she may learn easier.
- Teachers - Teachers are part of the learning environment. Simply put, some teachers are better than others; teachers students come into contact with are going to influence their learning process.
Behavioral Factors
- Determination
- Self-Regulation
- Attention
- Perseverance
- Attendance - If a student chooses not to attend school, his ability to learn from the classroom is greatly effected.
Personal Factors
- Intelligence
- Personality traits
- Motivation/Determination
- Self-Regulation
- Attitude/Willingness to learn
- Information Storage/Recall
Monday, July 16, 2012
Activity 6.4
I like Kegan's assertion in his chapter about Jackie, a woman featured in Kathleen Taylor's study of adults reentering schools. Jackie, who professed new found confidence and self-assurance after returning to school, developed what Kegan termed as "self-authorship, of becoming the definer of one's acceptability," (301). I would very much like to become the definer of my own acceptability - to be perfectly happy with my own existence separate from any other individual. However, I'm having a hard time believing that this state of "self-authorship" is a permanent position; it would seem to me that some people would feel more confident or self-assured in some situations or years of their life than others.
I can't imagine that once achieved, self-authorship is unchangeable. It is not a permanent characteristic, like the color of your eyes, but an active choice of world perception. Certain issues will appear, as issues always do, but it will be an active choice to remain confident and stable in my own shoes. But no matter how self-accepting I wish to be, I want to allow those around me (if they choose ) to lend a helping hand in my life. After all, being self-accepting and owning self-authorship doesn't mean advocating self-isolation.
As for Power's chapter, it reminded me strongly of Rosen's article from Week 4, The Myth of Multitasking. All of the busy, busy, busy modern day problems (and modern day solutions: multitasking) can be eased by simply relaxing. Chilling. Taking a walk out doors without the cell phone. My boyfriend is an RA at a state sponsored camp that requires that all campers give up their cell phones during the entire day. The campers may use them at night and only in their rooms. I thought that the rule was oppressive and was happy that my boyfriend was still allowed to use his cell phone whenever he wants. But, when I said that to him, he merely shrugged and said, "It's not really a big deal. By the third day, the campers never even miss them."
I was slightly shocked. Not because of the fact that their cell phones weren't missed, but because the opportunity to call anyone at anytime was not missed. The connectivity to everyone in their contact lists was not missed. Whoa. What?
"Wouldn't they want to be able to call the people they miss at anytime?"
My boyfriend replied, "We are trying to teach them to experience what is happening right now."
And apparently, after three days, the campers love it.
I like Kegan's assertion in his chapter about Jackie, a woman featured in Kathleen Taylor's study of adults reentering schools. Jackie, who professed new found confidence and self-assurance after returning to school, developed what Kegan termed as "self-authorship, of becoming the definer of one's acceptability," (301). I would very much like to become the definer of my own acceptability - to be perfectly happy with my own existence separate from any other individual. However, I'm having a hard time believing that this state of "self-authorship" is a permanent position; it would seem to me that some people would feel more confident or self-assured in some situations or years of their life than others.
I can't imagine that once achieved, self-authorship is unchangeable. It is not a permanent characteristic, like the color of your eyes, but an active choice of world perception. Certain issues will appear, as issues always do, but it will be an active choice to remain confident and stable in my own shoes. But no matter how self-accepting I wish to be, I want to allow those around me (if they choose ) to lend a helping hand in my life. After all, being self-accepting and owning self-authorship doesn't mean advocating self-isolation.
As for Power's chapter, it reminded me strongly of Rosen's article from Week 4, The Myth of Multitasking. All of the busy, busy, busy modern day problems (and modern day solutions: multitasking) can be eased by simply relaxing. Chilling. Taking a walk out doors without the cell phone. My boyfriend is an RA at a state sponsored camp that requires that all campers give up their cell phones during the entire day. The campers may use them at night and only in their rooms. I thought that the rule was oppressive and was happy that my boyfriend was still allowed to use his cell phone whenever he wants. But, when I said that to him, he merely shrugged and said, "It's not really a big deal. By the third day, the campers never even miss them."
I was slightly shocked. Not because of the fact that their cell phones weren't missed, but because the opportunity to call anyone at anytime was not missed. The connectivity to everyone in their contact lists was not missed. Whoa. What?
"Wouldn't they want to be able to call the people they miss at anytime?"
My boyfriend replied, "We are trying to teach them to experience what is happening right now."
And apparently, after three days, the campers love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)