Struggle Power

Are you familiar with the principle of "productive failure"?  I read the following  article on a blog I follow:  Bigger Gains for Students who Don't Get Help Solving Problems.  What a cool idea... let kids struggle and figure out stuff on their own!  We want to do what 's best for our students, but what if what is best is to allow them to struggle?

The article discusses students working on math problems, but the concept transcends the content.  

 
Americans don't like failure.  How many times have you heard, "Failure is not an option"?  Too many American parents don't like to see their children struggle and they go to great lengths to protect them from any sort of struggle, pain, or disappointment.  I wonder what might happen if we were able to shift our paradigm to accept that struggle produces growth.  It's that butterfly thing... if you don't allow the butterfly to build its strength as it struggles to escape its cocoon, it may be never strong enough to fly.  If you want to read more about Western v. Eastern cultural perspectives on struggling click here.  They are quite different.

Edison's view of failure.

Embrace Discomfort!  I served on my district's science curriculum committee for many years and I brought that phrase into our work as our group struggled together to incorporate the Next Generation Science Standards into our own thinking and into our course structure and curriculum maps.  We both experienced and embraced a lot of discomfort, let me tell you!

The article I referenced brought many educational connections to mind as I read.  Struggling to put something together without help isn't just something husbands do because they don't like to read directions, it's a critical component of constructivist theory (Piaget).  When you make meaning on your own it is deeper and longer lasting.  I think back to a student teaching experience I had (shout out to District 112's awesome Angie Lawrence) with a levers and pulleys lesson.  Students "explored" (edu-speak for play) with the various pieces and constructed things that could lift other things.  They gave each of the pieces of their structures a name and all the groups shared with the big group what they did and what they called it.  Only later did we "teach" the basics of a lever and pulley system.  The learning was actually deeper for students because they'd already had hands-on experience with the pieces and understood the basics of how the systems worked.

When students have to struggle with something that is truly beyond them, when they cannot make progress on their own, they may simply shut down and stop trying.  The opportunity to learn is lost.  This is where the notion of "scaffolding" comes in.  Expert teachers and coaches know their students well and understand where their zones of proximal development lie (Vygotsky).  These teachers are able to provide the appropriate amounts of help and encouragement that give the students just enough of what they need in order to keep going.  Students combine what they learned through their own struggle with the scaffolding the teacher provides and they move forward in their learning.

Growth Mindset brings all of these ideas together (Dweck).  When you have a growth mindset you see struggle as an important part of learning.  In fact, you may see learning itself as something that only happens when you engage in struggle.  When you have a growth mindset you come to see failures the way Edison saw them, as opportunities for learning.  When you have a growth mindset you understand the power of the word "yet".  "Yet" speaks to possibility.  "I don't know it... yet."  "I can't do it... yet."  "Yet" implies that whatever it is, it's on a continuum and I'm moving toward it.

As teachers, we often talk about setting up our students for success.  How about setting up our students for struggle?  If we understand that struggling leads to learning, then let's create the kind of learning opportunities for our students that allow them to struggle successfully.  In doing so, we will make sure that our students - like the butterfly - are strong enough to fly.

Backseat Teachers

A friend sent me a very thought-provoking  blog post recently about teachers.  In "The Teachers", the Sarah Blaine chronicles her own experience as a teacher.  It was short.  However, what she says about her decision to become a teacher and then leave the profession is compelling.  But what she further says about what those who are not educators think they know about teaching should be required reading for the very people who won't read it.  You know them, they're the ones who "know" what teachers do.

Oh for the love of SCIENCE!

When exactly did it become socially acceptable to reject science?  Why does a certain political party, closely aligned with and bolstered by a particular religious ideology, not only reject science, but spend time, effort, and a whole lot of money trying to convince the general public that some scientific evidence is bogus?

"Global warming is a hoax."  "You can't believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time".  This kind of stuff is seen on TV and read in newspapers all the time here in the United States, but you don't see it as much in other countries.  To me, it begs the question,

"What is the connection between anti-science rhetoric and statistics that show American students falling behind students in other parts of the world when it comes to science?" 

I just don't get it.  I can understand how the oil, gas, and coal industry would be upset to say goodbye to their huge profits as people turn to renewable, cleaner forms of energy.  And I can understand how politicians who are in the pockets of the oil, gas, and coal lobby would continue to do their bidding against what seems reasonable in terms of conservation, sustainability, and reducing the use of fossil fuels.  But I don't get why religious people fall in line with the climate-change deniers. 

It's probably because I am more of a big picture person when it comes to spirituality.

There are plenty of reports out there that offer a variety of reasons why American students are falling behind students in other countries when it comes to STEM subjects.  Frankly, most of them blame the American educational system, or blame teachers, but consider this for a moment.  

Science is the first discipline in that acronym.  With the huge push toward STEM in American education in recent years, why would the U.S. lag behind?  I wrote a blog post about the PISA results in which I tried to offer some perspective after the U.S. found itself in the middle of the pack.  Good old American ingenuity, creativity, entrepreneurship are not tested on the PISA.  Along with Diane Ravitch and others, I believe that because of this we should take the overall results with a grain of salt, but again, what about the science part of STEM?

We want - even expect - American students to lead (or at least be competitive) globally when it comes to STEM, yet I think schools and teachers are hindered by the anti-science folks in our midst.  These people are actively working against us.  Turn on FOX for a moment and you will hear politicians and religious leaders vehemently denying the science that supports climate change and global warming.  In another segment you will hear someone trying to convince listeners that the "theory" part of the theory of evolution means "kinda, sorta, maybe like a guess".  Add this to the fact that many of the companies that supply textbooks to schools all over the US are located in Texas which seems to be a hotbed of anti-science folks.  Many schools are now using online or web-based text resources, but if the same people who were responsible for publishing the print-based resources are in charge of the web-based ones, whose views are being represented?

Science cannot tell theology how to construct a doctrine of creation, but you can't construct a doctrine of creation without taking account of the age of the universe and the evolutionary character of cosmic history."

~ John Polkinghorne  ~

I really resonated with the blog post linked here: Science, Religion, and Climate Change: The Dangerous Corruption of American Education.  I don't have any problem accepting  science and believing that somehow God has a hand in it.  My husband is an Episcopal priest and teaches theology at the University of St. Thomas.  His classes include a wide variety of students, many whom have no Bible knowledge at all and some who have fundamentalist evangelical backgrounds.  Many of the latter are taught to believe the Bible word for word and have absorbed enough of what they heard from the pulpit to think that the earth is only 6000 years old.  UST is a Roman Catholic institution, and my husband spends time with students in class discussing the official Roman Catholic stance on evolution: that it is  possible to accept the theory of evolution and believe in the Bible.  

That's pretty much how I think about it too.  If the world began with a big bang, why not believe it was God who said Go?  Scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution, why not believe that this all fits into God's grand design.  If the earth is a gift from God, why don't we want to take better care of it?  When scientific evidence is pretty clear that human behavior is causing climate change, why are there people who deny it and work against science?

It shouldn't have to be "all or nothing".  I accept scientific evidence for what it is, and I believe in God.  There is harmony here.