|
0 members (),
289
guests, and
23
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,157
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2,157 |
I would have to assume that in Dweck's world the gifted child in suevv's example would be given appropriate work the next day and have a chance to be "Child 2" and receive praise. The problem as we all know (and stated above), is that that isn't usually the case. It all boils down to - how do you ensure that ALL kids have the appropriate work so that they are able to develop a growth mindset?
I think that until they've tried to actually differentiate for an HG+ kid in a normal classroom they honestly think that it can be done and they all drink the differentiation kool-aid. In our case they photocopy a worksheet one grade level ahead, send the kid off to the corner to teach it to themselves and then pat themselves on the back for their amazing differentiation. That isn't even close to enough for these kids. To be totally honest the huge majority of elementary teachers simple don't have the math background to be able to do much else. They simply follow the text book/curriculum and stay one lesson ahead of the kids. They lack the bigger picture or the depth themselves to be able to branch out and do something a little different. What elementary teacher has a good enough grasp of math 3, 4 or more years ahead to teach it and yet that is what some of these kids need. What elementary teacher has enough of a math background to know some things that AREN'T in the curriculum that could provide some useful tangents? Mastered addition and subtraction? Let's try that in binary, now octal, now hex, now whatever base you want to make up. That just isn't going to happen. I agree with this. Our district is all about the "personalized learning pathway" and they even pride themselves on "cluster groups" but is it meaningful? Nope. I'm so sick of the word "differentiation". DS had a teacher in first grade who sat with him each day teaching him that "harder work" but she said it was difficult. DS was still on his own a lot, and he became frustrated when he got stuck and there was no one to help. So a question for Carol Dweck is how do you get high effort from the kids with much higher than average achievement levels when there is no way a teacher can manage to teach to 30 different levels in a classroom, for 30 different kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Some may say that reframing failure as "not YET" and a valuable opportunity to learn begins to sound like the repetitions-to-mastery approach of Competency Based Education (CBE) ... hopefully an important difference would be that while mastery (regardless of number of repetitions or length of time to achieve mastery) may be intended to make all student accomplishments seem indistinguishably the same among students of the same chronological age... that "growth" mindset would keep students moving forward upon mastery (not waiting for others to catch up) so that each student is working at their ZPD and effort-praiseworthy level rather than being grouped by age. It would be great if the adopters/implementers of both CBE and growth mindset would create flexible cluster grouping of children by ability and readiness in each subject, regardless of "grade level" or chronological age. (So-called cluster groups within a grade-level or classroom may be so small as to be meaningless, serving to isolate students rather than providing curriculum and instruction at the challenge level or ZPD.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Possibly it is time to consider worst-case-scenario?
What would that be?
Because Dweck shares that she was a gifted child, had teachers with a fixed mindset, and had developed a fixed mindset herself, it is possible (and I would consider it worst case scenario) that mindset would be used to stereotype all gifted as having a fixed mindset and the host of negative characteristics which come with that label; This could be used to justify closing any achievement gaps and/or excellence gaps by capping growth of students at the top... essentially stating that the gifted blocked their own progress due to a supposed fixed mindset. In this way mindset could become part of the anti-gifted backlash.
Appropriate placement of students at an effort-praiseworthy level of curriculum and instruction in their ZPD may be key to precluding this worst case scenario from occurring.
This has been expressed in other words upthread, but seemed worth repeating tied to the concept of worst case scenario for our gifted kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 647
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 647 |
I think I would ask Ms. Dweck how she could improve upon her book. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 381
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 381 |
In this way mindset could become part of the anti-gifted backlash. Precisely my point. This, coupled with the otherwise laudable Social Emotional Learning curriculum (in which PG/2e kids quite often struggle mightily at even the lowest ZPD), provides a powerful one-two punch in the gut to my little guy on a daily basis. Oddly, the only place "smart" comes up is when he gets in trouble. As in, "you're smart enough to know better." Sigh. Possibly this reflects an undesirable expansion of the role of schools in raising children rather than educating them. But that's probably another topic! I do hope we get to hear what Carol Dweck has to say about her theory in the context of a frustrated, academically under-challenged kid. Please do ask the question if you get a chance, and let us hear what she says!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313 |
Eco, that's kind of where I started. But I wouldn't get a helpful answer! Asking instead, as indigo suggested, what recent research and observations have shown (in a nutshell) might be, um, less insulting and get me an open and honest response, and maybe even an exchange of ideas. Indigo, your idea that Dr Dweck's early experience colors her view of all gifted children as having a fixed mindset, makes me think that perhaps indeed she hasn't completely overcome it herself. Perhaps that's what bothers me when I read the book. Suevv, the presentation isn't for a while yet. But I'm starting early on thinking about it because it's summer and I have some brain cells handy, and because I want to go through all the thought iterations from blunt to considered to outraged to researched to, eventually, a selection of questions that will elicit meaningful responses. It's good to have something to obsess about This interchange is very helpful, and indigo has given me some great ideas, perceptions, and language to consider. I like your question, I imagine she has heard it from parents of such children in other communities, and will try to word it so that she would answer in a new way. I look forward to others' ideas, as well!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
In this way mindset could become part of the anti-gifted backlash. Precisely my point. It took me a while to get there. Now in this thread it is all laid out... the good and the bad, the questions and the red flags to watch for. Oddly, the only place "smart" comes up is when he gets in trouble. As in, "you're smart enough to know better." Sigh. Some may say this appears contrived to create a negative association with the word smart, when the word is apparently used in a context of shaming a child. Truly heinous. Possibly this reflects an undesirable expansion of the role of schools in raising children rather than educating them. I personally find that to be an undesirable expansion, and believe the line may be a fuzzy one at best, depending upon the family's confidence in their own ability to raise their child(ren). I do hope we get to hear what Carol Dweck has to say about her theory in the context of a frustrated, academically under-challenged kid. Please do ask the question if you get a chance, and let us hear what she says! There is enough material here, that even if an opportunity does not present itself to pose questions in person, it may be well worth drafting a letter to her. The author bio in the back of her book mentions Stanford, and a quick web search shows contact info for her at Stanford. PS. I would still ask her to autograph my copy of her book. The revelations of mindset provide another tool... like other tools it can be used to build or dismantle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313 |
I will certainly ask her to autograph it, if she can find space between my scribbled notes.
Dr Dweck has mentioned a high school in Chicago that uses a "not yet" approach to grading. I have been unable to find references to such a school or any details on her website, though I did find one vaguely similar in Baltimore. (I see an opportunity to improve my search skills. Growth mindset!) Does anyone know the Chicago school she may be talking about, or know of a school that uses the "not yet" grading approach?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Not finding the name of the Chicago high school which uses the "not Yet" grading. This article from 2010 mentions the school, not by name. I'm wondering whether the school has continued to utilize that approach now that 5 years have passed... if so, one would anticipate more media coverage. My thought at this point would be to add it to list of questions to ask the author, in a letter, and see what response you might get... possibly even prior to her presentation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I would ask her, "What's it like down in the rabbit hole?", though I don't know that it would receive a favorable response.
Like many philosophies, the growth mindset idea is quite useful. And like most philosophies, even the quite useful ones, dogmatic adherence to them in all situations leads one down the metaphorical rabbit hole. For instance, John Locke had a great many good ideas, but even in his own writings he'd explore the application of one of his ideas, and then pull himself up short, because he noticed that the next logical conclusion was going to fly against all good sense. He simply refused to follow those ideas down the rabbit hole. Others came after him who did, and the result of that work was a rejection of rationalism altogether, leading to highly-influential, highly-destructive philosophies from the Romanticism and German Idealism movements to take its place.
For her part, Ms Dweck seems particularly eager to follow her own ideas down the rabbit hole, supporting them against good sense wherever they are in conflict. That's a shame, because much like rationalism, the growth mindset has its place, and a valuable role to fill. By being her own philosophy's worst enemy, she risks having it subjugated to far less beneficial ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
