AuthorPatrick is just setting out on the journey of becoming a teacher. Archives
November 2017
Categories |
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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |