AuthorPatrick is just setting out on the journey of becoming a teacher. Archives
November 2017
Categories |
11/6/2017 November 06th, 2017There they are, a group of students with high visibility vests collecting garbage off a beach or the local park. Their movements are slow and the dour looks on their faces exude neither excitement or contentment. A friend strolls by and poses the question: “Whatcha do wrong?” This is just a reanimation of the common mantra, where community service is seen as punishment. Sadly, it seems only inmates and defiled celebrities are accustomed to it, with brief ripples of excitement appearing in the media only with the latter. Perhaps you think my description pessimistic? Well, just wait and see what educationist Eric Sheffield has to say about the shortcomings of community service learning (CSL).
The prevalence of CSL in British Columbia's public school system is minimal. A study undertaken by Brown, Ellis-Hale, Meinhard, Foster, and Henderson (2007) determined that there has been little effort in Canada to coordinate CSL programs or even assess their potential academic outcomes. Indeed, the authors state “we have had only a vague and fragmentary idea of community service and service learning programming as it is practiced in high schools across the country” (p. 1). The picture is quite different south of the border, where the American school system has enjoyed nation-wide initiatives such as Learn and Serve America (www.learnandserve.org) and the Corporation for National and Community Service (www.nationalservice.org). But while there is more prevalence of these programs in the United States, their benefits to learners is a debated topic. Sheffield (2015) is one such thunderous critic. He wonders “how is it that CSL has become the rather mundane curricular add-on typically utilized at P–12 schools, colleges, and universities to support student retention rates, satisfy state-mandated community service hours … rather than a deeply important pedagogy meant to engender personal and communal transformation?” (p. 46). According to Sheffield, there seems to have been a transformation of the original precepts of CSL away from community and towards the individual conducting the service. Indeed, he queries, “why has CSL devolved away from its roots as a pedagogy of status quo interrogation into a pedagogy of status quo maintenance?” (p. 2). Obviously, Sheffield is at odds politically with the current CSL model but he does raise intriguing questions that need examining before such projects begin to appear more widely in British Columbia's schools. The proposed intent of CSL in schools needs to be explored. Are learners engaging in these activities to merely help improve the social fabric of their local community or is there an additional hope that education of the individual will also occur contemporaneously? In my mind, the entire exercise needs to be primarily framed in the learning outcomes of the CSL program. What use is picking up garbage off beaches unless there is a concrete knowledge structure associated with the activity? Concepts such as conservation, recycling, ecological footprint, and more all need to be well and truly cemented in learners minds before they set out. Only with an informational foundation and a created architecture for reflection will this experiential learning evolve into consolidated learning. And yet, even this does not go far enough for Sheffield! An activity such as garbage collection or singing in a retirement home does not constitute effective CSL in Sheffield’s mind. Into this criterion he throws the prefix “radical” in that the “full potential [of CSL] can only be achieved in courageously interrogating the personal and communal status quo via difficult, tragic, traumatic, and catastrophic experiences—those being the ones from which hope is born” (p. 47). Obviously there is little in garbage collection that might cause disequilibrium within students. Additionally, can we expect elementary students to engage in the type of CSL activities that will engender these emotions? How will parents and superintendents react to Sheffield’s hope of “inviting the tragedy of human existence into educational practice with the understanding that personal trauma can transform, and ultimately reconstruct, lovely Knowledge” ? (p. 50). Clearly, Sheffield is orienting his research towards the secondary grades but there are elements of his argument that hold me rapt and could still find effective employment in the elementary level. First though, in order to encounter this uncomfortable material, younger students will need the appropriate mental armor to deal with their experiences. In considering an activity such as the distribution of food parcels to the homeless in downtown cores, elementary students will require the learning of not only a basic survival skill set but also the spatial, economic, and historical geography of the circumstances they are viewing. But I agree with Sheffield, those most concrete memories of any individual, those will residual dexterity, are most often grounded in difficult or uncomfortable circumstances. It is hoped then that in engaging in these uncomfortable experiences or radical community service learning, students will in their discomfort be afforded a learning experience that will not only abide in their consciousness but also prove to be a fountainhead for further questions and interests. Call it a domino effect, where discomfort leads to authentic learning and a re-invigoration of inquiry. In my mind, this could be a very effective tool in any teacher’s kit. References: Brown, S. D., Ellis-Hale, K., Meinhard, A., Foster, M., Henderson, A. (2007). Community Service and Service Learning in Canada: A Profile of Programming Across the Country. Toronto. Imagine Canada. Sheffield, E. C. (2015). Toward Radicalizing Community Service Learning, Educational Studies, 51:1, 45-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.983637
0 Comments
11/6/2017 Process =, <, > Product ?Is process as important as result? Should we entertain the concept that the work involved in creation is as important as the final product? It would seem that for much of human history, it is those who have produced the best that are most lauded. Proven theories, hanging masterpieces of paints and brush, and the perceived success of politicians are all the arenas where output has overshadowed process. Obviously, there is a commiserate relationship between the two in that the extent of the process is visible in the final product. But it is not over-extenuation to declare that the neoliberal, status-quo driven society of North America is fixated on the final product.
There is an overarching opinion that while one might be able to wax lyrically about hopes and plans, even spending hours on the process, it is only the final creation the counts. Perhaps it could be called “the put up or shut up” paradigm. Let us explore this by looking at two inventors. Ask any high school graduate what they know about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. Unequivocally, general knowledge of Edison burns bright while many may only associate Tesla with electric sports cars. It is of little consequence that Tesla envisioned the AC electrical system and was the basis for much of our modern mass communications systems; in the end, the public’s understanding of Edison’s final products surpassed Tesla’s. Here product outshone process. Tesla was so very close to finalizing many of his futurist ideas but fruition escape him and he died a lonely pauper in a shabby New York hotel. How might this outcome have differed if process was as valued as product? A truly successful and sympathetic society might have given credence to Tesla’s ideas and valued his processes despite there being a delay to the final, dazzling trophy. Perhaps a society not so driven by capitalist hunger might have provided Tesla with resources while his own funding faltered. What might our world now look like if Tesla had been enabled to succeed? And it is here, while examining process and product, that the important concept of growth mindset should be addressed. Essentially, the use of the growth mindset in the classroom is an approach where emphasis is placed on process. Rather than awarding and celebrating final products such as grades or superlative assignments, focus is shifted towards the effort required during the process leading to the end result. In other words, intelligence or the ability to achieve it is not set but can be developed. Learners are congratulated on the extent of their effort and begin to envision the potential of their future successes as being reliant on the intensity of their effort. In this way, learners begin to view the possibilities of their own achievements as limitless, dependent only on how hard they are willing to learn. Despite it's ‘in vogue’ quality, the application of growth mindsets within school systems has in fact enjoyed some quantitative research. One important study that should be highlighted was conducted by Claro, Paunesku & Dweck (2016) and involved a nationwide sample of Chilean high school students. In this work, the effects of perceived growth mindsets among learners is compared against both their academic success and socioeconomic backgrounds. As demonstrated by prior research, the aforementioned study reaffirmed that family wealth is a primary determinant of achievement but also that a growth mindset can act “as a buffer against the deleterious effects of poverty on achievement” (p. 8664). Furthermore, it was found that “students in the lowest 10th percentile of family income who exhibited a growth mindset showed academic performance as high as that of fixed mindset students from the 80th income percentile” (p. 8664). This is remarkable and should hopefully have powerful repercussions in current teaching practices across the globe. Another point to consider from the study conducted by Claro, Paunesku & Dweck is the finding that “the lowest-income Chilean students were twice as likely as the highest-income students to report a fixed mindset” (p. 8667). It would seem that this is a case of double debilitation. So, it would appear that students struggling in traditional classrooms are more than likely to belong to a lower socioeconomic order. In practical terms, other than ensuring these students are well-nourished, there is little else a teacher can do to alleviate this circumstance. However, it is well within the grasp of a practicing teacher to stimulate and encourage the development of a growth mindset. And it need not be an effort solely targeted on learners from lower economic means. Indeed, the benefits of such encouragement is a benefit to all. While there are numerous courses of action available to begin implementing this growth in mindset, a departure from fixity needs an engaged process involving the prioritization of self-assessment, formative assessment, and an alleviation from the importance of the final product in learner mindsets. An interrogation of these psychological factors needs to be addressed frankly by teacher and students together. Only then will the classroom and its inhabitants emancipate themselves from the enforced limitations of outside socioeconomic influence. Academic stratification will hopefully dissolve into a community of learners who prioritize process over product, and the rewards should be generous. Reference: Claro, S., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S. (2016) Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 31, 8664-8668. |