Validate - it's great!

It is no secret that a great deal is expected of schools. Our curriculum documents overflow with worthy content - and even some content that is perhaps less worthy.  Even if the teaching of academic skills and knowledge were all that was expected of schools the task of the teacher would be daunting. However, all educators know that much more is expected of teachers than “merely” teaching content matter.  Teachers are also required to nurture their students in areas other than the strictly academic.  

There is an almost universal belief that self-esteem and success at school are linked. Surprisingly, there is actually some debate about this - the impact of high self esteem on school success is, statistically speaking, only weakly positively correlated. (Those wishing to peruse the evidence for such a claim may like to follow this link.)    However, even if this is true and self esteem is not strongly related to academic success, the question should be asked - does it need to be? Isn’t having students feel good about themselves a valid end in itself - rather than simply a by-product of “achievement”?

There are many that think so.

For the sake of avoiding repetition of previous blog posts I will refrain from discussing the vexing issue of schools actively contributing to low student self esteem by an excessive emphasis on test scores, the requirement for standardised rates of progress, the “everyone must learn the same material” issue - regardless of student interest, and the whole “school as factory” model of education in general.

Fortunately, making students feel good about themselves isn’t always hard. Simply smiling at a student, knowing them and treating them as an individual rather than a learning profile may be all that is required.  Effective teachings strategies provided by the US based National Drop Out Prevention organisation to enhance student self esteem include;

·         knowing the students as individuals

·         greet students by name and useing it often

·         individualise instruction as much as possible

·         view mistakes as learning experiences

·         individualise instruction

·         avoid using grades to separate or categorise students

·         group heterogeneously and

·         create a sense of group and cohesiveness amongst the class

(Those interested in reading further for more recommendations and discussion should click here.)
In other words - having an interest in students as individuals and providing an instructional program based upon their needs is likely to lead to enhanced results - and if it doesn’t actively increase academic results directly it is likely to make the process more enjoyable for all concerned.  Even the sceptics have been unable to provide evidence that making students feel good about themselves decreases achievement.
To remind ourselves just how important it is to have a healthy sense of self esteem I’d recommend watching this video - “Validate”.  It  is a coffee-break length video of the “feel good” genre - and it doesn’t mention schools at all.  However, it is well worth watching - and considering the impact of our actions and comments beyond the realms of academic learning.  The impact of a meaningful compliment or observation can have a significant impact on our students … and our colleagues.





(Those wishing to explore the impact of emotional considerations on student performance are invited to click here to view an earlier blog dealing with Alfie Kohn’s “Feel - Bad Education”.  
Those wishing to explore the impact of mental attitude on student performance are invited to click here to view an earlier blog dealing with Carol Dweck’s “Growth Mindset”.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you enjoyed this video you might enjoy one with a similar "feel good" theme here.

The learning tour of PISA

The word of education is awash with data – particularly testing results. While I personally have significant reservations about both the use and usefulness of much of this data, due to a combination of   the harm it can do to students, teachers, parents and schools as well as the often unsound assumptions upon which it is based, it has to be acknowledged that not everyone shares my views.  However, I will  put my concerns aside  for the moment and share this video explaining the biggest number cruncher of them all – the PISA testing program.  It is done in the style of the poplar RSA Animates series  and surprisingly, despite being essentially an advertisement for PISA,  it is entertaining ... and also contains some thought producing insights – hence the posting here.

Most educators are familiar with the Programme for International Student Assessment – otherwise known as PISA.  Some may not be aware that PISA was actually conceived and is managed by the OECD – the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.  It often passes unnoticed that this body is not primarily concerned with education.   As well as providing a vehicle by which the school systems of  participating countries can be ranked,  PISA  has made some observations based upon educational practices and results from around the world.

Many of these are now entrenched in the educational psyche – for example,  girls tend to outperform boys all over the world in literacy while the reverse is true for mathematics.   An equally “obvious” fact, but one which  is significant to have confirmed at this level, is that home background is a major influence on student success.  It is nice to have this confirmed by PISA (given the economic slant of the OECD) – perhaps people will bear this in mind when evaluating school performance.   

There are other “obvious” findings that it is pleasing to see confirmed – that students with fewer books at home are less likely to read.  An associated fact presented in the video is that children from “advantaged” families hear 30 000 000 more words over the course of their school years than students from “less advantaged families” ; you read correctly - 30 million.  The impact of this upon literacy performance need not be expanded upon here.   The fact that a conservative organisation like the OECD confirms the impact of home background on student success is significant – and well worth remembering during the next phase of “teacher bashing”.

Some other areas mentioned in the video include;

·         Early tracking (aka “streaming”) of students is NOT associated with higher PISA scores.

·         Having students repeat grades is NOT associated with higher PISA scores.

·         The “best” teachers tend to gravitate towards the “better schools” – meaning those students who need educational support the least get the best educators (a serious omission here for me was the absence of a definition of what constituted the “best” teachers – but, definitions aside, this is a significant statement).

·         All students, regardless of socio-economic backgrounds CAN perform at high levels when given the opportunity.

Perhaps the most interesting observation mined from the PISA data set  was this observation – that students from “less advantaged areas” that attended schools situated in “more advantaged areas” tended to do as well as their classmates.   Let’s unpack this a little – in this video PISA confirm that home background impacts significantly on student learning...but then indicate that students from “less advantaged” areas  can outperform their neighbours and match their  more advantaged classmates by attending school in more “advantaged” areas.   If this is true, and given the statistical rigour of PISA I’d suggest that, numerically at least ,this is a valid finding, then schools need to examine how this is possible.  The implication is that schools may be doing things that counter unhelpful social issues.  

It is tempting to assume that the schools in “advantaged areas” are doing things that do not occur in “less advantaged areas”.  If this is true then the solution is obvious – mimic the practices of advantaged schools.  However, this is simplistic – there are high performing teachers and outstanding educational practices in “less advantaged” areas which do not produce the same test performance as their more wealthy equivalents.  

Perhaps we should consider some of the non-tangibles of teaching and education – things that PISA can’t measure. Why are these students attending schools “out of area”?  Does this display some perception and ambition on the part of the parents? Is this transmitted to their children? Is this reflected in the work habits of the young people concerned?  So... following this train of thought,  do  the statistical findings of PISA support the wide spread “truism”  that family values and attitudes towards education are key variables  determining success at school?  Is achievement more to do with attitudes than with ability?

The video runs for about 12 minutes – but the contemplation of the issues it raises will last much longer.

(Anyone interested in  pursuing the notion that achievement is more to do with attitude than ability might like to visit my July 4^th post “The more I practice the luckier I get. Mindset – Carol Dweck”.  Either go to the July archive folder or click here.

“The more I practice the luckier I get.” Mindset and Carol Dweck

Psychologist Carol Dweck has given the educational community one of the most positive educational concepts yet to be developed – mindset. Like many good ideas it is deceptively simple – but the implications for schools are profound. Quite simply, mindset is the belief that ability is not fixed – that people can acquire new skills through targeted effort and practice. Simple.
We accept this belief in sport all the time – we are all familiar with the story of basketball hero Michael Jordan who was dropped from his high school varsity team and wasn’t recruited by his first choice basketball college. So he practised ... and practised...and practised...until he became Michael Jordan – rated on the NBA website as the greatest basketball player of all time. The history of sport abounds with such stories. Not everyone becomes a Michael Jordan – but all can improve beyond their initial modest abilities. We expect our athletes to spend hours in training and practice in order to improve. Yet when it comes to mental potential and abilities we adopt a different view.
Despite the fact that I.Q. is a largely discredited concept, many children are labelled with a number or evaluation term – often the result of a single test. This label tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy . That score dictates the way we see the student – and, worse, often comes to be seen as an accurate reflection by the student himself. This attitude is often expressed by students as “I’m smart” or “I’m not as clever as...”. According to Dweck this attitude is simply wrong. Within reason, mental ability is not fixed – just like sporting abilities and physical skills, mental aptitude can be improved.
“People are, to a large extent, in charge of their own intelligence. Being smart – and staying smart – is not just a gift, not just a product of their genetic good fortune. It is very much a product of what they put into it.” – Carol Dweck. (To see a brief interview with Dweck who explains the theory and provides some of the evidence for it click here.) Dweck contrasts “growth” mindset with “fixed” mindset. The two world views differ significantly in the way that they respond to the world. This unattributed graphic provides a quick overview:

The notion that intelligence itself is not fixed, that it can be improved by effective teaching and that a growth mindset can result in significant improvement in performance by students, should be celebrated by both educators and students. Central to Dweck’s concept is that schools should stop concentrating on achievement (ignoring the huge side issue of exactly how that achievement should be measured in the first placed) and concentrate on identifying the actual learning that has taken place – and then attributing that learning, not to genetics, but to effort. (So, you scored 87% on the maths test? Did you work hard? No? Well, where is the credit in that? So you scored 58% on the maths test – when you often fail such tests. Great – you must have worked hard. Where specifically do you think you can continue to improve?) According to Dweck teachers need to emphasise the effort made by students and concentrate on the improvements that they make rather than their grades if we want to promote self-motivated learners with resilience and self-confidence. (This echoes the writing of the iconoclastic Alfie Kohn who is scathing about the inappropriate measures of success endorsed by schools- usually done with good intentions. Kohn maintains that traditional “grading” of student work actually limits student performance – including that of the high achievers. See the article section of his website for further readings http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.php .)
For teachers in the classroom it is reasonably easy to implement the “growth mindset” approach in the classroom. Dweck’s book and website (http://www.mindsetonline.com/index.html) offer ideas on how this can be done – but really, it isn’t that difficult – once you are in the right mindset yourself.
So, it seems that it doesn’t matter if it is on the basketball court or in the classroom – student performance level is NOT fixed – students can all get better at virtually anything – with effort, persistence and self belief. As the saying goes... “The harder I practice the luckier I get.”
Postscript:
The quotation used as a title for this blog is attributed to many people – but, after a little research, it seems most often attributed to champion golfer Gary Player. However, there is an even earlier attribution, ironically to another golfer - to 1961 PGA golf tournament winner Gerry Barber.

Credit:
Infographic: http://mindmapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mindsets.jpg