The Elephant Has Come Home to Roost

Milton Chen's second part of his article on Carol Dweck, et. al. came out a couple days ago. I commented on the first part earlier.

Chen interviewed Dweck through email, and asked what teachers and parents could do for their children. Dweck offered several suggestions. I want to focus on what I see as the real transformational piece of information: Convince the child that their brain is not finished making connections. This information has been around for a long time, because I have always chosen to work with middle school kids because I believe it is "our last, best chance to make a positive difference in the lives of kids" is how I have put it since the late 1980s before I was in education. I worked in ministry then, and the research (though I don't know who provided the research) then stated that the brain grows the fastest and makes more neurological connections from birth to two years. The brain never again makes as many new connections as the first 3 years of life, but the years of a child's pre-adolescence present the second-best time for new connections in the brain to be made.

Our nation spends millions on pre-K, nursery school, and commercials telling parents how important it is to read to kids. We have had Pampers provide classical music CDs in their packages. But of all kids, who are the ones who receive the least attention? The middle school child. They are Jan Brady, caught in the middle of the all-important SAT high schoolers, and "let's do it for the children" elementary kids. But, the brain makes the greatest and most new connections from 0-3 years old and 11-14 years old (give or take a year or two).

The 11-14 year olds are the kids with whom no one wants to attach themselves. As a group, they are rebellious, ungrateful, and seeking independence and identity. Who wants to help this kind of kid? Not many...not enough. I look forward to reading Dweck's work to see what she offers for the kid in the middle.

Chen provides the resources:

The results of their study are being published in a Child Development article titled "Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention." Dweck also wrote a book last year called Mindset: The New Psychology of Success.

How Do You Test An Elephant?

No, the answer is not carefully. The response is, "Why would you test an elephant?" There may be sound reasons to test elephants for disease, scientific research, or perhaps some other necessary purpose. But...why?

Over the past couple of years, Edutopia (a publication of the George Lucas Foundation) has become one of my favorite magazines to read. Ironically, it is because I find myself in disagreement with some of the thoughts spewed forth. But that's why I like it...it makes me think. Now I do not always disagree with the contents either. It presents material that is worthy of thought, and I guess that is why I enjoy the magazine. AND, it's free to educators. Thank you Star Wars.

In a February 28, 2007 article, Don't Weigh the Elephant - Feed the Elephant, Milton Chen refers to some new work conducted by Carol Dweck of Stanford, Lisa Blackwell of Columbia, and Kali Trzesniewski of Stanford. Their work is published in Child Development and was recently featured on NPR. These credentials mean something to most people, but surely someone has completed some research indicating that research can support anything.

Anyway, Chen reports a couple of interesting things:

• Dweck's study suggests that teaching kids (especially in the middle school years) that their brains are constantly making new neurological connections as they make their brains work, these students are more likely to become successful in their studies, no matter what the subject, but especially in math. Students focus on their brains growing instead of learning the material. Another metacognitive theory in the making?
  
• In a separate story, used as his introduction, Chen tells of a colleague who was in India and after a brief discussion on national testing in the U.S., the Indian educator replied, "Here, when we want the elephant to grow, we feed the elephant. We don't weigh the elephant."

So I have some reactions. First, the elephant analogy, while interesting falls short for me. Come on India - go further! I am seeing...

• elephant = American students
• weighing = testing
• feeding = curriculum

Our students being the elephants is fine with me.

Weighing our students is testing our students. The Indian educator suggests that weighing the elephant isn't necessary. I'm one of the cynics who thinks testing is more about money for test publishers, and power for politicians, and little else. But, I still think if the elephant is being fed but appears to not be gaining weight, the first step in diagnosis can be weighing it to get a baseline. If it is underweight, then dietary supplements can be used to see what helps the elephant grow. If one thing doesn't work, then you try something different. But how do you know if the elephant has gained weight from the supplement without weighing it in the future? So we are still stuck with testing. Weighing is not equal to testing in the U.S.: it is a tool (however faulty) to determine if weight has been gained.

Feeding, or food, is the curriculum, I suppose. This is the debate point! Perhaps Chen will conquer this in his next article. At this point the only thing I see that he points to is Dweck's metacognitive philosophy. The curriculum will not matter much, because if students focus on their new neuron sparks they make while trying to learn even the boring stuff, they will learn even the boring stuff, because they imagine their brains growing. The results in the article were too short term for me. Even I can influence (bribe) a kid to learn something for a single test.
-------------------------------
Dweck's study has me concerned for one reason. The fact that it is quickly revealed that math scores are the area impacted most raises a red flag to me. We are so math-centric in our country right now, that if a new study does not increase math scores it is nothing more than a fringe report. I find extreme brain activity in the process of writing; more than I ever would trying to learn math. I am constantly bringing together thoughts that seem disconnected to most people in order to make meaning of the things I observe. I think I still make a few new connections each year, but never from math.

Increase Math Scores is the key phrase to gain attention for "new" research. So I'm a bit skeptical at this early stage.

-------------------------------
Scattered Ramblings:

Elephants are herbivores--big herbivores, but I would like to think our kids could get more selection from curriculum than a pre-meal salad. Where's the meat & potatoes?

We are still stuck in the "smart kids know answers" mode, instead of the "smart kids know how to ask questions, and where to find answers." We are not producing life-long learners, nor is that truly our goal in the U.S. We are, however, creating kids who will be able to compete in any number of trivia games...maybe as early as 5th grade!
-------------------------------

So, why would you test an elephant? Not to help it grow, but determine if it has grown at a healthy rate. My concern is once we determine that the elephant isn't growing, what new food will we provide? If we continue to feed it what did not help it grow, why would we continue to feed it food that will not make it grow?

Will the new food be nothing more than metacognitive philosophy that most of the teachers will not understand? No disrespect intended, but metacognition is not a hot elective for education courses in undergrad, and it is a little deeper than any continuing education course will handle.

See, I told you Edutopia makes me think!