Susan Schar
Teacher Beliefs Statement
Summer 2012
“Every Child Can Learn”
There is so much to the evolution of a teacher’s beliefs. Some can be explained by reflection, and then there are the roles of practice and training within the life of a career. All of these things resolve themselves in a praxis that is constantly changing if it is to be applicable to the learners in the classroom and the practitioner.
As I look back over the last 24 years of teaching I am relieved to say that I still question my assumptions. I have been teaching for some time now (could it really be since 1988!), and I have trained myself to be more flexible in my outlook. Through the years I have used experiential learning theory to further hone my classroom repertoire. This is a four stage process that involves: experience, observation and reflection, abstract reconceptualization, and experimentation. (Ostermann, & Kottcamp, 1993). This is closely related to Rodgers collapse of John Dewey’s six phases into four. (Rodgers, 2002) I am grateful for the last 15 years where my reflection and practice have been much less solitary and where I can now extend my praxis with other professionals.
Rodgers quotes Dewey as asserting that reflection is, “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.” (Rodgers, 2002) If this is indeed the case then further reflection as a young adult teacher showed me the paucity of my experience when I began my career in 1988. Prior to earning my public school license my students and I were largely on our own and, when lucky, under the watchful eyes of amazing master teachers within the buildings where I worked as a substitute or at the private schools where I taught.
Rodgers (2002) and Fecho (1994) define this process between the learner and the practitioner. Rodgers, quoting Dewey, defines this process as an “interaction” that is the first element of experience. Fecho repeatedly defines this as classroom “transactions.” Rodgers goes on to explain that there are both “educative” and “miseducative” experiences. A “miseducative” experience will distort growth and lead the participants in the process down a “callous, insensitive, and generally, immoral direction.” An educative experience is an experience, “that broadens the field of experience and knowledge, brings awareness to bear, and leads in a constructive direction, toward, ‘intelligent action’.” (Rodgers, 2002)
I would argue that both experiences are equally worthy. I found myself able to reflect on many of my classroom experiences since I usually worked per diem. Rodgers alludes to this when she maintains, “The creation of meaning out of experience is at the very heart of what it means to be human.” Rodgers goes further by quoting Aldous Huxley who said, “Experience is not what happens to you, it’s what you do with what happens to you.” (emphasis Rodgers)
More recently, I have been exploring and learning about locus of control, the strengths of the many different types of gifted children, and underachievement. I have been attempting to modify my own maladaptive learning behaviors. (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) These two researchers have found that viewing talent as “something that develops incrementally… [and] leads to more productive learning behaviors.”
An external locus of control can happen in children and adults. This can lead to a decline in self-efficacy where someone feels that they are not responsible for their own success. (Rimm, 2008) The perception becomes that, success, or a lack thereof, is due to a fixed ability that cannot change over time. Dweck calls this a “maladaptive, helpless response.” (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) Individuals can eventually avoid difficult tasks in order to maintain a positive self-cognition. Effectively, an entity, or fixed, view of intelligence, may lead ultimately to failure when that person is confronted with challenging material that they must work through. I would argue further that this reflects on an individual’s conation.
I have also been further exploring the role of adaptability through the theory of a Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, the Revolving Door Model, and the changing intelligences that can manifest and change over time in individuals based on stimuli. (Feldhusen, 1984, 1996; Renzulli, 2009; Sternberg, 1986, 2003; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko, 1996) It is daunting as a teacher to realize, through research and reflection, the immense capacity for change that occurs within the student and teacher through the transactions that occur on a daily basis. A teacher must always question whether they are providing the appropriate learning environment for their learners and walk in that delicate balance of intervention without usurpation.
In more recent years I have come to call this “embedded assessment.” This is really a mindset that I have learned through practice and research within my graduate work. Essentially, this is a means of differentiation on one hand and a way of reinforcing intrinsic motivation on the other. This resembles the Montessori method where a teacher must “prepare the environment.” The groundwork must be laid within the classroom for learners to explore and assess themselves formatively and summatively either independently or with the help of classmates. For example, through small group work, and anchor activities, means of learning are established within the classroom that are self-paced and where the students are capable of their own research and assessment checks.
Dr. Maria Montessori felt that children should learn to accept a “friendly feeling towards error” (Lillard, 2005) Montessori, and Dweck are inspirations for Lillard. She also cautions against a loss of intrinsic motivation as a result of what I would call “miseducative” classroom frameworks.” Education must be incremental and spiraling. Montessori believed that children should be allowed to learn how to correct their own mistakes in the belief that this would foster greater intrinsic motivation as the child learns to work independently. When children have a greater sense of control in their lives and in their classrooms they perform better in school, have greater self-efficacy, and a more positive self-concept. Unfortunately, studies show that teachers, when faced with the fact of standardized testing, become more controlling, and gave students less choice and autonomy. This is unfortunate. A classroom where the children are responsible for the environment and the teacher is the goal-keeper has been shown to be a place where learning takes place. (Lillard, 2005)
Other researchers have further persuaded me that intelligence can be amplified or extinguished by the availability and efficacy of academic programs. Feldhusen puts it succinctly when he says, “As children experience varying environments at school, at home, and in the community, they demonstrate more specific strengths or aptitudes.” (Feldhusen, 1996) He explains that a child may come into school with basic talents, or the talents outlined by Howard Gardner, but that same child can then expand on their basic strengths with the help of motivated teachers. Further questions surround tests and testing and whether they can reinforce a growth mindset or a fixed mindset. (Lohman & Korb, 2006; Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008) Feldhusen and others caution against decided “winners” and “losers” in the identification process. (Feldhusen 1996; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986)
Therefore, a classroom structure that rewards independent work and thinking can allow for many different types of students to flourish. Many intelligences, preferences, and levels of creativity can be accommodated. According to Davis, Rimm, & Siegle (1985), if a gifted program picks children in the top 1% to 5% based on ability tests than the majority of creative students will be missed. These authors maintain that the achievements of highly creative students surpass those of the higher scoring, conforming students. A classroom where high scoring, creative, twice exceptional, and others are all engaged and involved is a classroom where multipotentiality and innovation can be fostered.
Top-tier universities, such as Stanford, encourage and seek out the type of learners that have familiarity with interdisciplinary methods that this type of classroom would exemplify. Usually, multipotentiality is seen as a negative with a learner who is unable to commit or who has not been challenged enough in one area where they can commit to furthering their work in just that area. Perhaps in the past. Today we need innovative learners that can utilize many different strengths and intelligences to solve problems and create solutions. Classrooms have to teach increasingly diverse learners more process and questioning research along with required content.
In addition, a classroom with a myriad of opportunities for research in many domains can apply to many different learning styles and intelligences. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001). Underachievement is usually defined as a gap between a measure of potential and actual productivity. (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 1985) The causes of underachievement are almost too numerous to mention. However, one characteristic of the problem is low self-efficacy which is related to a fixed mindset. A child in a classroom where they can exercise more control may be able to explore their strengths and weaknesses more effectively as recommended by Triarchic Intelligence Theory. (Sternberg, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001) Motivation may be increased due to greater student interest and engagement.
These are all areas that fascinate me and encourage me to partner with colleagues to plan for success. Collaborative airing and critique of reflections by peers is necessary to maintain professional development that is not promoting, “social reconstruction of systemic injustices.” (Fendler, 2003) I would go further that not only is this necessary but it is the only way to achieve substantive progress.
Reflection is critical to this practice indeed, but action is ultimately necessary. This process is cyclical and is necessary to refine growth. This requires an educator to keep trying in their search for better answers and more effective strategies. It was this thinking that lead me from private to public school and then to Montessori. These were all research-gathering missions to find more and more tools to address the needs of an always changing student population. Greater collaboration, and further reflection, can ultimately lead to ever more questions, more research, and greater depth of understanding.
Teacher Beliefs Statement
Summer 2012
“Every Child Can Learn”
There is so much to the evolution of a teacher’s beliefs. Some can be explained by reflection, and then there are the roles of practice and training within the life of a career. All of these things resolve themselves in a praxis that is constantly changing if it is to be applicable to the learners in the classroom and the practitioner.
As I look back over the last 24 years of teaching I am relieved to say that I still question my assumptions. I have been teaching for some time now (could it really be since 1988!), and I have trained myself to be more flexible in my outlook. Through the years I have used experiential learning theory to further hone my classroom repertoire. This is a four stage process that involves: experience, observation and reflection, abstract reconceptualization, and experimentation. (Ostermann, & Kottcamp, 1993). This is closely related to Rodgers collapse of John Dewey’s six phases into four. (Rodgers, 2002) I am grateful for the last 15 years where my reflection and practice have been much less solitary and where I can now extend my praxis with other professionals.
Rodgers quotes Dewey as asserting that reflection is, “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends.” (Rodgers, 2002) If this is indeed the case then further reflection as a young adult teacher showed me the paucity of my experience when I began my career in 1988. Prior to earning my public school license my students and I were largely on our own and, when lucky, under the watchful eyes of amazing master teachers within the buildings where I worked as a substitute or at the private schools where I taught.
Rodgers (2002) and Fecho (1994) define this process between the learner and the practitioner. Rodgers, quoting Dewey, defines this process as an “interaction” that is the first element of experience. Fecho repeatedly defines this as classroom “transactions.” Rodgers goes on to explain that there are both “educative” and “miseducative” experiences. A “miseducative” experience will distort growth and lead the participants in the process down a “callous, insensitive, and generally, immoral direction.” An educative experience is an experience, “that broadens the field of experience and knowledge, brings awareness to bear, and leads in a constructive direction, toward, ‘intelligent action’.” (Rodgers, 2002)
I would argue that both experiences are equally worthy. I found myself able to reflect on many of my classroom experiences since I usually worked per diem. Rodgers alludes to this when she maintains, “The creation of meaning out of experience is at the very heart of what it means to be human.” Rodgers goes further by quoting Aldous Huxley who said, “Experience is not what happens to you, it’s what you do with what happens to you.” (emphasis Rodgers)
More recently, I have been exploring and learning about locus of control, the strengths of the many different types of gifted children, and underachievement. I have been attempting to modify my own maladaptive learning behaviors. (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) These two researchers have found that viewing talent as “something that develops incrementally… [and] leads to more productive learning behaviors.”
An external locus of control can happen in children and adults. This can lead to a decline in self-efficacy where someone feels that they are not responsible for their own success. (Rimm, 2008) The perception becomes that, success, or a lack thereof, is due to a fixed ability that cannot change over time. Dweck calls this a “maladaptive, helpless response.” (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) Individuals can eventually avoid difficult tasks in order to maintain a positive self-cognition. Effectively, an entity, or fixed, view of intelligence, may lead ultimately to failure when that person is confronted with challenging material that they must work through. I would argue further that this reflects on an individual’s conation.
I have also been further exploring the role of adaptability through the theory of a Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, the Revolving Door Model, and the changing intelligences that can manifest and change over time in individuals based on stimuli. (Feldhusen, 1984, 1996; Renzulli, 2009; Sternberg, 1986, 2003; Sternberg, Ferrari, Clinkenbeard, and Grigorenko, 1996) It is daunting as a teacher to realize, through research and reflection, the immense capacity for change that occurs within the student and teacher through the transactions that occur on a daily basis. A teacher must always question whether they are providing the appropriate learning environment for their learners and walk in that delicate balance of intervention without usurpation.
In more recent years I have come to call this “embedded assessment.” This is really a mindset that I have learned through practice and research within my graduate work. Essentially, this is a means of differentiation on one hand and a way of reinforcing intrinsic motivation on the other. This resembles the Montessori method where a teacher must “prepare the environment.” The groundwork must be laid within the classroom for learners to explore and assess themselves formatively and summatively either independently or with the help of classmates. For example, through small group work, and anchor activities, means of learning are established within the classroom that are self-paced and where the students are capable of their own research and assessment checks.
Dr. Maria Montessori felt that children should learn to accept a “friendly feeling towards error” (Lillard, 2005) Montessori, and Dweck are inspirations for Lillard. She also cautions against a loss of intrinsic motivation as a result of what I would call “miseducative” classroom frameworks.” Education must be incremental and spiraling. Montessori believed that children should be allowed to learn how to correct their own mistakes in the belief that this would foster greater intrinsic motivation as the child learns to work independently. When children have a greater sense of control in their lives and in their classrooms they perform better in school, have greater self-efficacy, and a more positive self-concept. Unfortunately, studies show that teachers, when faced with the fact of standardized testing, become more controlling, and gave students less choice and autonomy. This is unfortunate. A classroom where the children are responsible for the environment and the teacher is the goal-keeper has been shown to be a place where learning takes place. (Lillard, 2005)
Other researchers have further persuaded me that intelligence can be amplified or extinguished by the availability and efficacy of academic programs. Feldhusen puts it succinctly when he says, “As children experience varying environments at school, at home, and in the community, they demonstrate more specific strengths or aptitudes.” (Feldhusen, 1996) He explains that a child may come into school with basic talents, or the talents outlined by Howard Gardner, but that same child can then expand on their basic strengths with the help of motivated teachers. Further questions surround tests and testing and whether they can reinforce a growth mindset or a fixed mindset. (Lohman & Korb, 2006; Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008) Feldhusen and others caution against decided “winners” and “losers” in the identification process. (Feldhusen 1996; Sternberg & Davidson, 1986)
Therefore, a classroom structure that rewards independent work and thinking can allow for many different types of students to flourish. Many intelligences, preferences, and levels of creativity can be accommodated. According to Davis, Rimm, & Siegle (1985), if a gifted program picks children in the top 1% to 5% based on ability tests than the majority of creative students will be missed. These authors maintain that the achievements of highly creative students surpass those of the higher scoring, conforming students. A classroom where high scoring, creative, twice exceptional, and others are all engaged and involved is a classroom where multipotentiality and innovation can be fostered.
Top-tier universities, such as Stanford, encourage and seek out the type of learners that have familiarity with interdisciplinary methods that this type of classroom would exemplify. Usually, multipotentiality is seen as a negative with a learner who is unable to commit or who has not been challenged enough in one area where they can commit to furthering their work in just that area. Perhaps in the past. Today we need innovative learners that can utilize many different strengths and intelligences to solve problems and create solutions. Classrooms have to teach increasingly diverse learners more process and questioning research along with required content.
In addition, a classroom with a myriad of opportunities for research in many domains can apply to many different learning styles and intelligences. (Silver, Strong, & Perini, 2000; Tomlinson, 2001). Underachievement is usually defined as a gap between a measure of potential and actual productivity. (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 1985) The causes of underachievement are almost too numerous to mention. However, one characteristic of the problem is low self-efficacy which is related to a fixed mindset. A child in a classroom where they can exercise more control may be able to explore their strengths and weaknesses more effectively as recommended by Triarchic Intelligence Theory. (Sternberg, 2003; Tomlinson, 2001) Motivation may be increased due to greater student interest and engagement.
These are all areas that fascinate me and encourage me to partner with colleagues to plan for success. Collaborative airing and critique of reflections by peers is necessary to maintain professional development that is not promoting, “social reconstruction of systemic injustices.” (Fendler, 2003) I would go further that not only is this necessary but it is the only way to achieve substantive progress.
Reflection is critical to this practice indeed, but action is ultimately necessary. This process is cyclical and is necessary to refine growth. This requires an educator to keep trying in their search for better answers and more effective strategies. It was this thinking that lead me from private to public school and then to Montessori. These were all research-gathering missions to find more and more tools to address the needs of an always changing student population. Greater collaboration, and further reflection, can ultimately lead to ever more questions, more research, and greater depth of understanding.