This posting revisits a
topic that while pertaining to teaching and instruction in general does have a
meaningful impact on civics education.
It is a topic previously addressed in this blog:[1] how people tend to view intelligence. Within this realm, a basic distinction people
make is to determine whether intelligence is an entity by ascribing to entity
theory or is it seen as an attainable quality by ascribing to incremental
theory? Carol S. Dweck and her work[2] has given the professional
educational community a lot to think about through her research on this
question.
To explain, here is an extended quote that summarizes the
two views from the citied, previous posting:
Among students, there seems to be two
overarching held theories as to learning and intelligence. One theory sees intelligence as an
entity. Students who see intelligence in
this way consider it as a given amount; one is born with that amount and the
more one has, the easier it is to learn new material. This view can be described as mostly a fixed,
concrete, and an essential quality of a person’s makeup. One has
what he/she has in terms of intelligence and that’s it.
The other theory explains
intelligence as incremental. This
incremental theory describes intelligence as malleable, willfully changeable,
and dynamic. In other words, a person
can, through effort, become more intelligent.
… One cannot
logically hold these two views of intelligence simultaneously. Intelligence is either fixed or changeable;
it can’t be both. One can hold one view
at one time and later be convinced of the other. But it seems that this is one of those basic
beliefs one holds, either consciously or subconsciously and as such, the belief
can affect what learning activities one is likely to pursue.
It also affects
how one judges others. If a person sees
intelligence as unchangeable, he or she is apt to hold those who exhibit low
levels of intelligence as being highly limited in any efforts they might expend
on improving their positions in life.
Can one change
one’s view of intelligence? To the
degree a person’s view of intelligence is an unconscious belief, an un-reflected
assumption, it would probably take either many indirect experiences to convince
one of changing his/her bias or view or direct instruction that skillfully aims
at changing that view.[3]
In the cited, previous posting, this writer points out that
federation theory would be partial to the incremental theory. After all, by this summary view, one can
readily see that seeing intelligence as a changeable quality it would be a more
democratic bias. It also holds out a
more likely probability that a person can be encouraged to lead a more
interactive life with his/her fellow, federated citizens.
With
this incremental view, he/she sees knowledge – including knowledge about one’s
community – as being able to be understood and worked upon if one only, albeit with
fortitude and tenacity, learns what are the active factors are that affect the
welfare of that community. Therefore,
incremental theory has a more republican sense about it.
But
is there evidence to support how students perform in school given the view of
intelligence they bring to school? Of interest
to the concerns of this blog is research Dweck did with students entering and
performing in middle school. In terms of
the related issue, middle school provides a singular opportunity to test some
of the implications of this two-theory distinction. And it adds an added advantage when it comes
to civics.
Dweck
points out that upon leaving elementary school, an environment in which
students generally accept what is expected of them as defined by the adult
world and enter middle school, students begin to question those mandates. They also leave the comfort of progressing
through the school day with basically the same teacher. At the new school, they begin going from
class to class in which the content of their study becomes significantly more targeted. Math is definitely math; language arts is
definitely language arts, etc.
Of
course, this latter change introduces a higher level of sophistication and any
views one might have about intelligence and the possibility of attaining it
will be influential as to how well one is likely to do. Dweck points out that entity theory steers
the students to seek performances – to demonstrate one’s innate ability – but
at the same time avoid what is perceived as overly difficult challenges; they,
the challenges, might demonstrate that their given intelligence can’t measure
up.
On
the other hand, students who view intelligence in an incremental way, are not
so interested in performance; they want to confront the challenges and if they
do not succeed at first, there are other ways to attain that knowledge. The trick is in discovery those ways until
the learning objectives are met.
The
last point to be made about middle school is that it presents students with their
first formal exposure to civics content.
To that point, schools might give students general messages about good
citizenship and be told stories of how honesty and other good citizenship
values are favorable and are expected modes about how people should act. This is particularly so when it comes to the demands
of being participants in their common social environment of the school.
Through
questioning techniques, Dweck and her team of researchers asked students of
middle schools telling questions that inquired into these students basic
biases. An obvious one: Choose between “‘I usually think I’m intelligent’
versus ‘I wonder if I’m intelligent.’”[4] This question seemly targets the factor of
self-confidence, an often-cited emotional attribute that many associate with
doing well at school and other challenging events. This question is chosen because it leads to
findings one would not intuitively predict.
To
quote Dweck:
Students who came to junior high
school believing in fixed intelligence were at a disadvantage.
[Looking
at grades] … The students with an entity theory showed a marked decline in
their class standing. [This deficit was
not easily overcome.] … What surprised us most was that many students who
showed this decline from high to low academic standing were entity theorists
who had high confidence in their intelligence … [I]n our research we
have seen that within an entity theory, confidence in intelligence does not
always prevent helpless responses to difficulty …
In
contrast, the students with an incremental theory were significantly more
likely to think that maybe their strategies should be revised[,] or their
effort should be stepped up.[5]
This leads to other counterproductive aspects. Those with entity theory view tend to be more
anxious about school; they hold an all or nothing approach. They either have it or they don’t so when
confronted with the new challenges, an anxious time ensues. Incremental theory, in effect, affords those
students a grace period to fail or not do as well. They just need to learn the ropes, apply what
they learn, try again, and repeat that process until success is achieved.
It seems to this blogger, that civics – while often an
eighth or ninth grade subject – can make the concerted effort to instruct
students on this distinction. It can do
this directly as a factor affecting students or as an explanatory factor that
helps them understand some politically related deficiencies political actors
demonstrate. Either way, civics can play
a crucial role in helping students accommodate to the rigors of middle school.
[1] See for example Robert Gutierrez, “Intelligence Is
Changeable,” Gravitas: A Voice for
Civics, July 8, 2016, accessed October 10, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2016/07/intelligence-is-changeable.html .
[2]
Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 2000).
[5] Ibid., 31.
No comments:
Post a Comment