Yep, life'll burst that self-esteem bubble

[trumptman]

Pop goes the self-esteem (http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2005-02-15-self-esteem_x.htm)

This struck me as an interesting article. Especially since I had just had a conversation with my administrator not too long ago about some of the terrible grade inflation occuring at our school in the grade below the one I teach.

My school has a very large number of minority students, we are 56% hispanic, and 24% black. Even though our school has raised its test scores 50 API points in the past few years, many of these students still do not test as showing basic or advanced on their ability levels with regard to reading and math.

I see this in my own class when I constantly encounter students at the beginning of the year who cannot reliably add or subtract to 18 using even their fingers, and who do not have their multiplication tables memorized in any manner. The reading program we use for assessment showed the average reading level of my class as being at grade level 2.6 at the beginning of this year. (That would be second grade sixth month) I teach fourth grade for those that don't remember which would be 4.0 on this test.

Yet I look at the grades of these students from the prior year, and watched these same teachers award similar grades this year and I see the type of nonsense illustrated in the article above. Roughly half the students were on the honor roll (no grade lower than a B) yet they could barely read, write or add. Worse of all, they feel no concern about their own lack of ability nor any inclination to change what had previously been so "successful" for them. (I don't care what the kid's prior grade was, if they can't read for example, it wasn't a success.)

I remember instances close to those related in the article in my adult life as well right after college. There were plenty of people who had become very good at the little game we all call education. They knew just how to butter up their professors, knew just how to sound the correct political themes to insure tke highest grades, etc. Grade success though isn't life success and in this instance even their real successes were sort of false since they weren't truly based off an ability to perform.

However something very disturbing happened to most of these types after graduation. They simply couldn't get over the fact life is not the same sort of game. They seemed to limp back to some sort of campus limbo where they weren't quite adults, but really wouldn't leave school entirely yet. To me the success they had previously experienced was false. Now they were left with the problem of having to learn how to really perform.

I don't really know how to fix such problems or if they are just the facts of life in matters such as these. The certainly can happen in business settings as well but relating them to younger people and schools is probably easier for the crowd here to absord and identify with. So what are your thoughts of false success, self-esteem and so forth?

Nick

[groverat]

I think the success of programs like Sylvan make it pretty clear how to fix the problem. More personal interaction with each student and more focus on what they need and how they learn.

Letting kids coast through accomplishes nothing but to process them like products on an assembly line.

[stupider...likeafox]

This bit jumped out at me:

"I often get students in graduate school doing doctorates who made straight A's all their lives, and the first time they get tough feedback, the kind you need to develop skills," says Deborah Stipek, dean of education at Stanford University. "I have a box of Kleenex in my office because they haven't dealt with it before."

So this is Stanford, which is a very good school, yes? And these are grad students, so they've already got a (good) degree and are going for a doctorate, yes? In other words these guys are the best of the best, but now they've reached their level and are no longer the big fish in a small pond they find it tough (kind of like an academic peter principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle)). Surely that should be obvious to a Dean of Education? After all, stretching bright kids sufficiently is a major problem in education today. (Also, any Yanks want to estimate the level of debt for a Stanford grad student?)

That gave me the wrong vibe, and the rest of the article is just so much yadda, yadda, kids today, don't know they're born, blah, blah, blah good old days nonsense. What exactly is the constructive take-away point of this article? That intentionally destroying children's self-esteem is the way forward? That wussy liberals got it 'wrong' again?

[Towel]

It's pretty sad if you make it through college without your abilities being stretched even a little bit. I see that as reflecting more on the motivation of the student than the failings of the college. Especially for the types of students at the types of institutions who would wind up in grad school at Stanford. That's just a sad waste of what should have been a good education.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
That gave me the wrong vibe, and the rest of the article is just so much yadda, yadda, kids today, don't know they're born, blah, blah, blah good old days nonsense. What exactly is the constructive take-away point of this article? That intentionally destroying children's self-esteem is the way forward? That wussy liberals got it 'wrong' again? The article did have that feel, but there are some important ideas buried in there. It's absolutely true that people used to believe, and many still do today, that if you raise self-esteem, other good things will follow. And it seems pretty clear today that artificially raising self-esteem is actually a bad thing. The best way to raise self-esteem is to challenge people and let them actually succeed. Some honest feedback is necessary.

Here's the best review of the research on this topic. It's mentioned in that USA Today article.
Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles? (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/4_1.html)

[Scott]

I was living in Chicago when the public school system there ended "social promotion". Social promotion was sending a kid to the next grade even though they had largely failed and were not ready. The result was high school teachers trying to teach junior high material and junior high school teachers trying to teach grade school material. The kids were just passed though the system with the notion that they would pick it up sooner or later.

When that ended the kids had to pass a basic skills test to move on to some key grades. There were a lot of kids failing. The local news showed video of kids crying outside the schools. A lot of kids had to go to summer school. If they didn't pass they were not allowed to go on. After some rough years most kids pass on time.

There was another article I read (don't ask me to find it) about kids that graduated from CPS at the top of the class and went on to college. A lot of these kids weren't ready and they couldn't understand why. After all they were the valedictorian of their well blow average school. Their academic skills fell short of what was expected in these little colleges outside of Chicago.

[Ebby]

I'm 23 and I know EXACTLY what they are talking about. I totally agree.:\

[Scott]

Originally posted by Ebby
I'm 23 and I know EXACTLY what they are talking about. I totally agree.:\

WOW that was a really good post Ebby. I like the way you used the italics and the all capitols to emphasize your point. Very good;)

[Ebby]

:lol: /Wipes Pepsi off screen

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Scott
WOW that was a really good post Ebby. I like the way you used the italics and the all capitols to emphasize your point. Very good;)

/ponders if correcting the fact that Scott has switched capitol for capital will crush his ego for life and render him a wretched homeless shell of a man.

:lol: :p

We need a kissing smilie dammit!

Nick

[Scott]

Originally posted by trumptman
/ponders if correcting the fact that Scott has switched capitol for capital will crush his ego for life and render him a wretched homeless shell of a man.

:lol: :p

We need a kissing smilie dammit!

Nick

Naw that boat sailed a long time ago. When I proofread real work I have to use that method where I read a paper backwards. Otherwise I end up speeding though each sentence and not catching any errors.

[e1618978]

I had that "ego crushing" experience when I left university with my B.Sc. in computer science to enter the working world. I don't think that the problem was "false praise" - I think it was a mismatch between what the university taught/expected and what the working world required.

It took me three years to get re-trained through hard knocks - if I didn't graduate in a boom time (1990), I probably would have been fired. PhDs have an even harder time re-adjusting, in my experience, because they keep trying to change the working world to match the university.

[Yevgeny]

Well, let me chime in give my large experience in this area. I have much to say.

Let me preface this: Both my parents are teachers. My mom was a NEA union rep. My girlfirend is a speach pathologist at a title 1 school (lots of poor students, English not the primary language). I know about five other teachers.

The self esteem self help stuff described in this article is true, esp. here in CA, and all that hubub about the good old days is also true. There was a marked change in CA's education policies from the time I went to elementary school (the early 80s) to nowadays. One of my teacher friends incessantly complains about this because his students can't read or do any math, but are passed from grade to grade. He is told by his principal to encourage the kids parents to exempt them from standardized testing (parents can request this in CA).

Much of this self esteem nonsense is aimed at minority students and actually is a large handicap in their lives. Soft racism just lowers the standards for them, makes them feel better and then when they get into the real world they (as well as non minority students who get sucked into false self esteem) fall ontheir faces. It is really ugly to see because someone gets psychologically shattered.

I saw some of this towards the end of my undergrad years. Some students would break out in tears when they did poorly on a CS exam even though they tried hard. One group of students complained that their group lab which would crash when you launched it got a zero score because "we worked hard" to which the TA responded "it crashed on startup- it is unusable and I can't grade it".

Self esteem is good but if it is based on a false sense of esteem in yourself then you are going to crash and burn when you meet the real world. In the end, real challenges when successfully met will generate real esteem.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by e1618978
I had that "ego crushing" experience when I left university with my B.Sc. in computer science to enter the working world. I don't think that the problem was "false praise" - I think it was a mismatch between what the university taught/expected and what the working world required.

It took me three years to get re-trained through hard knocks - if I didn't graduate in a boom time (1990), I probably would have been fired. PhDs have an even harder time re-adjusting, in my experience, because they keep trying to change the working world to match the university.

What school did you go to?

At my university (UCI), TA's could yell at students if they weren't up to stuff. I was once in a discussion group where the TA yelled at the whole class because they were trying to get a nicer TA to set the specs for a project (quite a no no). Weak students literally were trimmed out of the courses in the first year.

Here's a dialog I was in on when a Professor's office hours switched from his intro to comp sci class to the lab class I was in (Compiler project course).

Weak student: "Mr K. I have some more questions to ask!!!"
Prof K: "It is Doctor K. and my office hours for your class are over. I need to help my project class students"
Student in project class: "you can answer his question, we have time to wait"
Prof K: "Oh don't worry about him, he is going to fail anyway, what question do you have?"

All this sounds mean, but it helped to prepare me for the real world of software development.

I don't know about your thoughts regarding PhD programmers. On the eight programmer team I am on, five programmers have PhDs and they generally do quite well with the work place. Then again, most of them are well out of school and have been in the workplace for some time.

[Yevgeny]

Originally posted by Scott
WOW that was a really good post Ebby. I like the way you used the italics and the all capitols to emphasize your point. Very good;)

3v3r g37 4 p4p3r in l337 sp33k?

One of my old roomates was a high school english teacher. My advice to him was to consistently fail his students.

When I have kids, they won't get any tv. I haen't watched tv in seven years and haven't missed it one bit. Ok, the military channel would be cool ;)

[Carol A]

As a jr. high teacher, I *never* give false praise. Ever. It would very quickly ruin my credibility with my students. Their trust and confidence in me are based on my reliability as a source of information, and on my ability to be a fair and wise instructor.

I do give praise, but only when it's well-deserved. When possible, I like to praise a student so that the whole class hears my positive remarks. I especially enjoy giving kudos to students who don't normally get them...but, again, only when the compliments are well-deserved. There is plenty of good to find in every class, and I am a firm believer in recognizing and articulating points of merit whenever possible. I don't mean I dole out a constant stream of praise. It's nothing like that. Just whenever it's merited.

At the end of the year, I give out six awards in each class. I mention right off that I'm giving out six awards, and someone always says, "You mean everybody doesn't get an award?" Those awards then become extra special, because there are only six.

I think building student esteem is absolutely critical. But I think it is most wisely done by bringing them along with graduated challenges, toughening them up, gradually increasing the difficulty level of work. I try to build success, not failure, into my program, because I really do care about my students and want the best for them. After all, they are 12 years old, and just starting jr. high.

So, I ease them into the rigorous requirements that I will be giving them. I tell them ahead of time how things will be, so that they are prepared. Some writing I grade for content only. Other writing I tell them I will be grading with a fine-toothed comb for grammar, spelling, expository essay structure, etc. I make them do three drafts, two handwritten, the final typed.

I require them to read and pass Accelerated Reader (computerized) tests on three books of outside reading per quarter. But even if they have straight "A's" in the gradebook, they can't get an "A" on their report card unless they have three books passed. I make this *extremely* clear from day one, and no one gives me any flack about it. I make sure the parents are well-informed about requirements, so that they are the ones getting on their kid's case about getting his reading done at night. Most importantly, I try to make sure that every kid has the right books to read, for his ability and interest level.

Then I publish the number of books passed by the top 20 students each month in the school-wide newsletter. This fact alone causes kids to read WAY more books than required, like 24 rather than 12. They become quite competitive about their totals in the newsletter. heh.

The absolute best thing is when I can turn kids who hate to read into voracious readers. I can't tell you how rewarding this is. Often they are the students who have a record of failure through the grades, who feel totally negative about school. It takes me months to accomplish this. I am very patient. But I usually succeed in the end.

Then those students get praise from me, from their parents, and the glow from themselves for making a significant change in their lives. Honestly, teaching can be a wonderfully exciting job. :)

Sorry I got carried away with all this, but student self-esteem has been a major concern for me for a long time. It has to be based on reality and on their honest achievement. My role as a teacher is to find ways to bring about the change and extract the effort from each student. Bringing about success is truly an art. Bludgeoning them with failure doesn't do the trick any more than inundating them with false praise.

[midwinter]

I don't praise my students. Ever. Usually I just sneer at them and do a lot of eye-rolling when they say anything. I do my best to make it clear up front that they are empty vessels to be filled up with my far, far superior knowledge of, well, just about everything. ;)

[BRussell]

There's a lot of interesting research on the effects of praise. Here's a good review. (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:4wha_ICPE5QJ:www.unm.edu/~fv3003/310%2520fall%2520readings/praise_Lepper.pdf) Lesson: It's very complex, and simply saying "always use praise" is not going to have the effects people think.

Here's one issue that I think is pretty interesting. Praise for effort is thought to be better than for ability. So after a success, it's bad to say "you're great, you're wonderful" and better to say "you really tried hard" or "you really enjoy that don't you." The reason is that praise for ability gives kids the view that success is a trait that some people have, rather than something that can be achieved with enough effort. That makes failure hit even harder. Praise for effort encourages (jargon alert!) a mastery orientation, where the goal is to develop skills, whereas praise for ability encourages an outcome orientation, where the goal is simply to succeed.

I think the outcome orientation creates things like the so-called cheating culture (http://www.cheatingculture.com/). People just want to be wealthy or successful or whatever, and it doesn't matter how they do it or whether they deserve it. I think it's a problem in our culture, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's partially due to constant trait praise.

[Yevgeny]

I find it interesting that nobody is making a defense of how self esteem is currently used n schools.

[stupider...likeafox]

What about the three posts above yours?

I'm confused by this 'anti-self-esteem' attitude, probably because I'm an outsider to the US education system but self-esteem, to me, is critical to education. "Self-esteem" in the US education system seems to translate as lying to the children about their (lack of) progress. If actual self-esteem is the goal then that seems counter-productive, not to mention stupid.

But I hesitate to believe it's actually true. It reminds me a lot of the anti-PC backlash and I'm wondering how much is real and how much is just echo-chambered into existence. That article certainly didn't have anything coherent to say but seems to have got heads nodding about how those crazy liberals in education are stuffing things up because they're trying too hard to be nice and inclusive and welcoming to foreigners and perverts and retards and ruining it for all the smart, middle-class, straight, white kids in the process.

Sounds like the same kind of nonsense that gets thrown about by policticians in the UK to appeal to voters. Naturally these policies are not based on any kind of research or understanding of education, so anything that *appears* to be a soft option gets thrown overboard as part of the back to basics approach, regardless of its actual effectiveness.

So in the states is there some official policy to lie to kids? If not then why are these teachers doing it, and how do they get away with it? Why aren't they following the examples given above and building real self-esteem?

[Scott]

In Europe do the kids' football games have scores and end with a winning team and a losing team?

[shetline]

Originally posted by e1618978
I had that "ego crushing" experience when I left university with my B.Sc. in computer science to enter the working world. I don't think that the problem was "false praise" - I think it was a mismatch between what the university taught/expected and what the working world required.
I'm really happy that I'd had the experience of doing professional software work before and during college. I realized when I graduated with my BS in computer science that I was surrounded by people who had no idea what they were in for out in "the real world", that the programs they struggled to turn in for their class assignments were mere toy programs, even the stuff they were working on in their senior year, leaving most of them well short of having the skills needed to do anything very useful for any employer, not without a lot more training.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Scott
In Europe do the kids' football games have scores and end with a winning team and a losing team?
No. 'Europe' is a dark place. Here in 'Europe' we don't let our children play sports. We sit our children in unheated classrooms and teach them Esperanto.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. 'Europe' is a dark place. Here in 'Europe' we don't let our children play sports. We sit our children in unheated classrooms and teach them Esperanto.

Do you have a real answer or are you just being an asshole, aka yourself?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
What about the three posts above yours?

I'm confused by this 'anti-self-esteem' attitude, probably because I'm an outsider to the US education system but self-esteem, to me, is critical to education. "Self-esteem" in the US education system seems to translate as lying to the children about their (lack of) progress. If actual self-esteem is the goal then that seems counter-productive, not to mention stupid.

But I hesitate to believe it's actually true. It reminds me a lot of the anti-PC backlash and I'm wondering how much is real and how much is just echo-chambered into existence. That article certainly didn't have anything coherent to say but seems to have got heads nodding about how those crazy liberals in education are stuffing things up because they're trying too hard to be nice and inclusive and welcoming to foreigners and perverts and retards and ruining it for all the smart, middle-class, straight, white kids in the process.

Sounds like the same kind of nonsense that gets thrown about by policticians in the UK to appeal to voters. Naturally these policies are not based on any kind of research or understanding of education, so anything that *appears* to be a soft option gets thrown overboard as part of the back to basics approach, regardless of its actual effectiveness.

So in the states is there some official policy to lie to kids? If not then why are these teachers doing it, and how do they get away with it? Why aren't they following the examples given above and building real self-esteem?

There isn't a policy to lie to kids, it is more background stuff that ends up being attacked as lowering self-esteem. For example there are schools that have gotten rid of valedictorian in their graduating classes. Many elementary school teachers are encouraged to give many non-academic awards to insure every child get something. (Something I have refused to do and have personally encountered)

There are educational movements to abolish grades, testing, pretty much anything that measures performance.

Why do teachers do it? Well it is presented as being good for children and any contrary action, of course becomes harmful for children. Also the real actions to build self-esteem require real action and real growth. You tell me which is easier to do, tell everyone they are improving and great or being honest and generating resentment, risking attack for actually expecting something, etc.

Worse still isn't the latter even harder when plenty of people decide to do the former?

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. 'Europe' is a dark place. Here in 'Europe' we don't let our children play sports. We sit our children in unheated classrooms and teach them Esperanto.

Look, leave your stuffed animals and the closet out of this.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. 'Europe' is a dark place. Here in 'Europe' we don't let our children play sports. We sit our children in unheated classrooms and teach them Esperanto.
I believe that being cold is important for the proper pronuciation of Esperanto -- at least if you want to sound like a native. ;)

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by trumptman

There are educational movements to abolish grades, testing, pretty much anything that measures performance.


I take it you are aware that most of these movements (the stuff I'm aware of at least) are against these things because they negatively impact learning, rather than because it's unfair to tell 'stupid' kids "hey, you're stupid". I just want to emphasise that it hurts the learning of the kids that get good grades too.

They are therefore attempting to follow the complicated, counter-intuitive path to better education that you say is too difficult for building actual self-esteem.

So it's interesting that you bring it up as an example of the easy-way-out, cop-out mentality when, in the UK at least, that kind of mentality is personified by people pushing for more and more tests (to the extent that there is barely any time left to teach). The only apparent theoretical basis for this is "if it doesn't hurt, it's not doing you any good".

[trumptman]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I take it you are aware that most of these movements (the stuff I'm aware of at least) are against these things because they negatively impact learning, rather than because it's unfair to tell 'stupid' kids "hey, you're stupid". I just want to emphasise that it hurts the learning of the kids that get good grades too.

They are therefore attempting to follow the complicated, counter-intuitive path to better education that you say is too difficult for building actual self-esteem.

So it's interesting that you bring it up as an example of the easy-way-out, cop-out mentality when, in the UK at least, that kind of mentality is personified by people pushing for more and more tests (to the extent that there is barely any time left to teach). The only apparent theoretical basis for this is "if it doesn't hurt, it's not doing you any good".

The reason they "negatively impact learning" is because objective measures can make people feel bad. The types of things they want them replaced with are subjective and thus, no one ever need feel bad.

It is possible to attempt to test simple rote learning without actually checking for true knowlege and understanding. That is something that we have to be on the lookout for and discourage in tests, but to claim the opposite, that self knowlege is the only true knowlege is just as wrong.

Nick

[Anders]

I have never had anything but realistic teachers and my work have been praised when it deserved it and also criticized when it was not up to standard.

But most important I have had teachers I treated me as an equal human being, as an equal discussion partner who might not know as much as them but sometimes do. The grading side of the teacher-student relationship has never been as important to me as the "insightful discussion partner" relationship. Dialog is always the way ahead.

One example: I am taking a course in the department of law this semester ("philosophy of law at the beginning at the 21st century"). I study sociology and here that education is known as very theoretical and law a practical education and the course is the most theoretical offered in a long time at the institute. But still I was surprised when one of the students asked what words empirical and induction meant and their relationship. The professor didn´t lift an eyebrow but explained it to her and gave her a few other related fundamental academic concepts he thought it was a good idea for her to know :D. But he did it in a non-patronizing way and I am sure that she nonetheless had felt that there was something very fundamental she had missed. It can be made clear without losing the equal communication between two humans

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
The reason they "negatively impact learning" is because objective measures can make people feel bad. The types of things they want them replaced with are subjective and thus, no one ever need feel bad. I think there is a kernel of truth in that though. If you buy the idea that a "mastery orientation" is better than an "outcome orientation," I can see how attaching a lot of importance to grades would be a bad thing. But if you're going to reduce the importance of grades, you have to raise the importance of mastery, and I'm not sure how you do that.

A related issue is this "multiple intelligences" thing. Apparently many teachers are being told to see kids who have trouble with math or reading as just having different intelligences. Whatever that means.

For example, I heard a story about a class that was learning about the Mississippi river, and some kids simply played in some mud. They supposedly had "tactile" intelligence, and they would supposedly learn better from that. Other people are supposedly "visual" and so maybe they can't read but they can look at pictures.

I don't know, there may even be some truth in it. But the fact is, reading and math are the only ways that many ideas can be communicated. If you start to treat playing in the mud as equally valuable to reading and writing, you're in trouble, IMO.

[Anders]

Tests in k12 was a big issue at the last election here. Danish student have shown mediocre abilities in math, reading and science compared to other countries while being better at co-operating in problem solving test. The way to improve the scores according to our government is tests, tests, TESTS. But as one of our more bright politicians (and a teacher herself) said, pigs don´t get fatter by being weighed. Instead trust the teachers. They can spot who needs more support to not be left behind. Listen to them, take them serious and use the necessary funds to get the weak students up to level. Not by telling that they are okay but that its okay they are not at the same level as their co.students, because now it is spotted something can be done for it.

[Anders]

Originally posted by BRussell

For example, I heard a story about a class that was learning about the Mississippi river, and some kids simply played in some mud. They supposedly had "tactile" intelligence, and they would supposedly learn better from that. Other people are supposedly "visual" and so maybe they can't read but they can look at pictures.

I don't know, there may even be some truth in it. But the fact is, reading and math are the only ways that many ideas can be communicated. If you start to treat playing in the mud as equally valuable to reading and writing, you're in trouble, IMO.

Of course if used as an excuse its a pitfall. But people have different ways of organizing complex ideas. I have learned that I grasp ideas better if I can represent them spatial than linguistic. It also means I am able to see connections that linguistic dominant thinking are missing and also the other way around.

I have a hard time grasping Foucault because I cannot "translate" his complex ideas into something spatial while system theory like Luhmann (who many find impossible to comprehend) is like second nature to me because I can create a multi-layered "map" of his concepts and the linking between them.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I think there is a kernel of truth in that though. If you buy the idea that a "mastery orientation" is better than an "outcome orientation," I can see how attaching a lot of importance to grades would be a bad thing. But if you're going to reduce the importance of grades, you have to raise the importance of mastery, and I'm not sure how you do that.


I fully agree with your statement. Mastery doesn't have to equate to grades. In my dream school there wouldn't be grades, just mastery and when you show mastery at one level, you are allowed to move on to the next, independent of subject and age. I certainly wouldn't made the measurements of mastery a year long either, more like month blocks.

I don't think schools quite know how to do that. The concept of having teaching standards and getting the students to know them to mastery is actually quite a recent thing. The grades are part of the history of school that parents understand though. They are sort of part social, part performance, part effort and part progress. The report cards I fill out for students have a grade for reading, but then a huge number of boxes under the grade where I can indicate progress toward mastery of standards.

A related issue is this "multiple intelligences" thing. Apparently many teachers are being told to see kids who have trouble with math or reading as just having different intelligences. Whatever that means.

For example, I heard a story about a class that was learning about the Mississippi river, and some kids simply played in some mud. They supposedly had "tactile" intelligence, and they would supposedly learn better from that. Other people are supposedly "visual" and so maybe they can't read but they can look at pictures.

I don't know, there may even be some truth in it. But the fact is, reading and math are the only ways that many ideas can be communicated. If you start to treat playing in the mud as equally valuable to reading and writing, you're in trouble, IMO.


Please understand in advance that when I criticize that lesson, I am not criticizing you. Piaget said that children (and adults) build cognitive structures/mental maps for understanding and responding to how things work in our world. Gardner holds that multiple intelligences are sort of different tools that we can use to build those structures/maps. We all will likely tend toward our favorite tools, but the more tools we have and use, the better we are likely to be with our building and understanding.

Most schools teach by basically lecturing at the kids and showing visual examples. The primary reason for this is that it is cheap and fairly effective. However it is not effective with all student on all concepts. The contention is that if you can bring more "intelligences" to work in building an understanding, the higher the probability of getting a good understanding.

I'll give you a couple examples of this that I have seen personally. My son is halfway through kindergarten and is already reading second grade material. This is pretty impressive in and of itself but the more confusing thing is that no one has shown him how to read. As a teacher, I have noted that my son has what I consider to be an exceptional ability to note relationships between items. I suspect he learned how to read because he has been taking violin lessons since he was three, understood the print relationship there and adapted it to the letters and sounds he already knew. Reading music and reading print are very similar in many regards but he also has an exceptional ability to see relationships and did not need them demonstrated in order to read. Now most people are really only taught two print relationship models as children, letters and numbers. My son has three print models already, letters, numbers and notes.

The letters for example might only be taught by a teacher holding up a letter and reciting it, singing some songs, etc. However the first time my son learned a print relationship, it require him to not just see it or say it, it required him to move his fingers as well. The increased number of senses and print relationships likely increased his chances of success with each one independently.

An example for myself was in college I was training to make my ear hear the distance between two notes accurately for transcribing music. I was practicing a lot of interval training but was having a horrible time with two intervals, a tri-tone and a minor 7th. I couldn't tell them apart very accurately when listening because to me, they sounded the same. I talked with someone else about this and they casually mentioned that a tri-tone is the middle of an octave. I realized I was attempting to understand the note relationships using sort of the harmonic overtones and the amount of agreement or dissonance in them. That worked very well for most things, but adding an understanding of the number relationship here within an octave made my accuracy 100%.

I think the main concept though is to add more tools instead of just using a bigger hammer on the kids. Less sophisticated understandings lead to what you mentioned above though.

Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
The contention is that if you can bring more "intelligences" to work in building an understanding, the higher the probability of getting a good understanding. I completely agree. I think that having multiple ways of learning things is really important. In memory, they call it "laying down multiple retrieval paths." The more ways you learn something, the easier it is to remember. If you have both a visual and a verbal representation of something, you can more easily retrieve the information, for example. That's really fundamental stuff.

However: I'm not as plugged in to what's going on with this whole "multiple intelligences" thing in education as you probably are, but my impression is that it seems to be going much further than that.

The basic premise - that people vary on skills other than the "g" intelligence-type skills like verbal, math, and logical reasoning - is so obvious that it's barely worth mentioning. Of course some people are more athletic than others, and some people are more personable, some people are better artists, musicians, etc. Of course. People vary on just about every imaginable trait.

Where I have a problem is if they say that these different "intelligences" are all equal, and especially if they say they're all equal for academic purposes. Language and math are the best way for many complex ideas to be conveyed - for some, they're the only way.

That's not to say that dyslexics or math-o-phobes are worthless people or something. They may have other skills that are even more important in life, and can contribute fully to society. But academically, they're not going to do as well, because you need those skills to deal with the kinds of complex ideas that are such a fundamental part of education in our society. We shouldn't change our educational system so they get As just like the kids who are good at math and language.

I also wonder if these multiple intelligences are really un-correlated. My hunch is that people with high musical intelligence also have high mathematical or verbal intelligence, for example. I even bet that social skills are associated with academic skills, despite the stereotypes of the math nerd and the dumb-but-popular kids.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by BRussell

That's not to say that dyslexics or math-o-phobes are worthless people or something. They may have other skills that are even more important in life, and can contribute fully to society. But academically, they're not going to do as well, because you need those skills to deal with the kinds of complex ideas that are such a fundamental part of education in our society. We shouldn't change our educational system so they get As just like the kids who are good at math and language.

...

I also wonder if these multiple intelligences are really un-correlated. My hunch is that people with high musical intelligence also have high mathematical or verbal intelligence, for example. I even bet that social skills are associated with academic skills, despite the stereotypes of the math nerd and the dumb-but-popular kids.

One point to remember is that academia has never been, and certainly is not now, the primary and sole goal of education. Such concepts as employability are often stressed now. The fact that people are being told they are stupid (quite literally true of dyslexics until fairly recently) because they don't fit into some arbritrary 'academic' mold when they can go on to be highly succesful businessmen or 'artists' is absurd. ('Artists' sounds like a total fuzzy-lef, cop-out until you realise the amount of money, never mind global mindshare, that the UK and US make from cultural outputs like music, design, fashion and film. Emphasising the UK's design and art output in business terms was a big part of the recent Cool Britannia campaign)

...

I believe that the whole point of the research into multiple intelligences is to prove that they are uncorrelated. Because if they all were correleted then that would be support for the contention that there is only one measure of intelligence ('g'). If, on the other hand, math and music correleted highly then there would be a math-music intelligence rather than 2 seperate math and music intelligences. When someone proposes their own list of intelligences (and there are a few different ones) they are therefore saying: these types of intelligence do not correlate with each other, and would be expected to back that contention up in some way.

Again this radical and interesting appoach to education is somehow being cast as an attempt by fuzzy academic liberals to pander to the 'numpties' (as we call them round here) at the expense of the 'smart' kids (where the whopper of an assumption is that 'smart' = able to excel in the traditional educational establishment that emphasises and privileges rote remembering, essay writing, memorisation of counter-intuitive spelling and grammar rules, being lectured at, and reading text over other skills, even those that the standard man in the steet identifies with 'intelligence' e.g. creativity, unorthodoxy, 'wisdom', people skills, linking of disparate concepts, never mind other 'intelligences' such as physical grace, empathy and control of their own mental/emotional state)

[midwinter]

The other thing to keep in mind is that there is a great deal of money to be made through the kind of remediation that often has to take place in the guise of "opening the uni's doors to everyone."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
One point to remember is that academia has never been, and certainly is not now, the primary and sole goal of education. Such concepts as employability are often stressed now. The fact that people are being told they are stupid (quite literally true of dyslexics until fairly recently) because they don't fit into some arbritrary 'academic' mold when they can go on to be highly succesful businessmen or 'artists' is absurd. If by academia you mean working in education as a teacher or professor, of course not. But overwhelmingly, at least in the US, academic skills are taught in schools, not vocational skills or other life skills like social skills.

I believe that the whole point of the research into multiple intelligences is to prove that they are uncorrelated. Because if they all were correleted then that would be support for the contention that there is only one measure of intelligence ('g'). If, on the other hand, math and music correleted highly then there would be a math-music intelligence rather than 2 seperate math and music intelligences. When someone proposes their own list of intelligences (and there are a few different ones) they are therefore saying: these types of intelligence do not correlate with each other, and would be expected to back that contention up in some way. Yup, exactly, that's the point of multiple intelligences. If all these different "intelligences" load on the 'g' factor, it's kind of pointless. And yet, my impression from reading about this stuff is that there's very weak evidence these are truly separate factors, and there's some good evidence that most of them do load on 'g.'

Again this radical and interesting appoach to education is somehow being cast as an attempt by fuzzy academic liberals to pander to the 'numpties' (as we call them round here) at the expense of the 'smart' kids Yup, I think that's exactly what's going on. :)

I'd put it less bluntly though. I think we've run into this problem with testing where some groups reliably don't do as well as other groups, where it's largely genetic (on an individual level), where the differences aren't due to test bias, and where the tests really are quite predictive. We don't like that reality. So we come up with these good-sounding theories like multiple intelligences to try to get around the reality of what we've found.

[stupider...likeafox]

By my reckoning:

don't change schools to pander to people with other ('lesser') intelligences

+

all intelligences correlate to 'g'

+

[unspoken assumption] traditional academic success measures 'g'

=

lack of academic success means you are stupid (at everything), so learn to deal with it (Mr Einstein, Mr Branson etc. ad nauseam)

(or, perhaps more charitably, if you drop the unspoken assumption = "academic success is utterly meaningless unless your intended contribution to society is to sit and pass lots of exams and recite lists of context-less facts from memory for the rest of your life")

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by trumptman
The reason they "negatively impact learning" is because objective measures can make people feel bad. The types of things they want them replaced with are subjective and thus, no one ever need feel bad.


Just to be clear, my objection to summative tests (especially when undue weight is placed upon them) is that they encourage people to learn how to take tests, how to cram, how to pass, how to get by. Does anyone remember when New York Taxi drivers were all getting MSFT certified at the height of the dot.com craziness by cramming study guide books? Short term learning is a common moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard) in such educational situations.

Just as sale commissions are supposed to encourage good salesmanship, but often lead to people having inappropriate high-margin items foisted upon them (to the level that many stores, including Apple I think, proudly proclaim that their staff are *not* on commission).

Similarly tests change what they seek to measure. This is doubly true when, as in the UK, the very same results are used to judge both the pupils, and the teachers effectiveness i.e. your students did well, therefore you must be a good teacher/ a well run school. (Yes, this is supremely idiotic, and encourages schools to actively exclude any difficult/poor children, but if my four years of accountancy taught me anything it is that lots of confusing numbers == unquestionable truth to many people, no matter how shady the methods used to arrive at these numbers and associated claims. See the Megahertz Myth for a simple analogy)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
By my reckoning:

don't change schools to pander to people with other ('lesser') intelligences

+

all intelligences correlate to 'g'

+

[unspoken assumption] traditional academic success measures 'g'

=

lack of academic success means you are stupid (at everything), so learn to deal with it (Mr Einstein, Mr Branson etc. ad nauseam)

(or, perhaps more charitably, if you drop the unspoken assumption = "academic success is utterly meaningless unless your intended contribution to society is to sit and pass lots of exams and recite lists of context-less facts from memory for the rest of your life")

• all intelligences correlate to 'g'

This is an empirical question, but the evidence is still out. My guess is that most of the multiple intelligences that Gardner and others talk about do correlate pretty highly with IQ. Most of Gardner's evidence that they're orthogonal comes from anecdotal evidence and extreme cases like savants.

• [unspoken assumption] traditional academic success measures 'g'

That's not an unspoken assumption, it's the basic idea behind IQ - to measure academic skills and predict academic success.

• don't change schools to pander to people with other ('lesser') intelligences

This is really the key premise. The reason I think it's a bad idea is that it is bad for the kids themselves. The kid left to play in the mud simply isn't going to learn as much as the other kids. Pandering is never a good thing.

I guess I'm just not sure what schools would look like if they fully accepted this idea that we should teach to these different skills or intelligences equally.