Waiting on Superman is a documentary that describes the education system in the United States. The documentary does not hesitate to criticize the system, which is why it has received so much criticism from teachers' unions and related groups. The documentary follows different children from across the country who are trying to get into the some of the experimental schools that are having great results. If they do not get into one of the schools, they will go to a public high school. The movie defines most public high schools in the inner city as "drop out factories" which is exactly what they are. Students go there and many are gone before their sophomore year. The children in the movie want to avoid this fate but they must be selected from a lottery system in order to go to one of the nicer schools. The documentary uses a series of interviews with leaders on both sides of the argument to provide the viewer with a clear picture of the current situation.
This documentary ties directly to Gladwell and Dweck. It is relevant to Gladwell's book, Outliers, because it proves that for some of these kids, their future depends on luck. If they do not get their name drawn or their number selected, they will probably not graduate high school or if they do they will not receive a quality education. This means that an extrinsic force has prevented them from achieving their full potential. The movie also relates to Dweck's book, Mindset, because the teachers of the teachers' union have a very fixed mindset. They are not doing their jobs properly and they take it personally when people call them out on it. Not all teachers are bad. Some are extremely motivated and talented. Others choose to do the absolute minimum to get by and that's the attitude they instill in their students. The movie shows how a leader in the Washington D.C. area tried to make changes that were proven to be productive but was blocked by the teachers' union.
This documentary also relates to the gender divided classroom argument. Many of these successful schools try controversial tactics such as gender divided classrooms and have success. The movie proves that, to make a positive change, you have to step on some toes. In this case, the teachers need to swallow their pride and do their job correctly.
I completely agree with this documentary's points. I have not experienced one of the drop out factories. I went to a school known for high test scores and low drop out rates. Even there, some teachers were definitely not up to par. Some were lazy, not helpful, or even uncaring. This was a ta school that had a great tradition of excellence. I cannot imagine what it would be like in the really bad schools. I feel that big organizations like the teachers' union have way too much power and are prohibiting the system from making positive changes that will protect this country from becoming a bunch of uneducated dropouts.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Argument FOR Gender-Divided Classrooms
It is no secret that American children are quickly falling behind in comparison to children of other developed countries. Why is this? There is no one size fits all answer to this question but gender divided classrooms provide one alternative that is definitely worth trying. Gender divided classrooms provide many advantages that children simply cannot receive in a co-ed classroom. This is not to say that the gender divided classroom idea is perfect, however.
The group that is arguing for gender divided classrooms has decided to base our argument around data that was obtained in a survey that was given to middle schoolers from three local districts. These surveys show that most children believe that boys and girls think differently and that girls feel less confident in math and science fields. Each of these points will provide a basis for support for our claims. The fact that the children themselves believe that boys and girls learn differently should be a clear sign that they feel like they could learn better in classrooms containing students of only their gender/ Then, the fact that girls are less confident in math and science shows that something is being lost at some point in the education system. Girls are not innately less confident than boys just like boys are not innately better at science and math. In articles that we will use for support, it states that boys tend to get more attention in primary school because they tend to act out. Therefore, the teacher may feel like they need to try harder to keep the boys' interest. This causes them to come up with lessons that seem very interesting to boys. If the genders were divided, the girls could learn a lesson that was tailored to their learning style and would therefore become more confident.
However,m it is necessary to keep some classroom coed. Boys and girls need social interaction with each other during their development in order to have social skills. One solution our group will offer is that classes can be separated Monday through Thursday but then be together on Friday to make sure that both classes are going at the same pace and allow the children to mingle. Also, not all classes would be divided. Only the STEM classes, the ones that show a difference between males and females would be divided.
Gender divided classrooms provide a solution to a problem that is plaguing America. According a video that we will present, students in gender divided classrooms have done better on standardized tests than those in coed classrooms. As more studies are done, more proof is brought forth that supports the idea of gender divided classrooms. The solution that we will offer may not be perfect, but if some experts in the field of education and psychology were to build from it, the children of the United States could catch up with those of other countries.
The group that is arguing for gender divided classrooms has decided to base our argument around data that was obtained in a survey that was given to middle schoolers from three local districts. These surveys show that most children believe that boys and girls think differently and that girls feel less confident in math and science fields. Each of these points will provide a basis for support for our claims. The fact that the children themselves believe that boys and girls learn differently should be a clear sign that they feel like they could learn better in classrooms containing students of only their gender/ Then, the fact that girls are less confident in math and science shows that something is being lost at some point in the education system. Girls are not innately less confident than boys just like boys are not innately better at science and math. In articles that we will use for support, it states that boys tend to get more attention in primary school because they tend to act out. Therefore, the teacher may feel like they need to try harder to keep the boys' interest. This causes them to come up with lessons that seem very interesting to boys. If the genders were divided, the girls could learn a lesson that was tailored to their learning style and would therefore become more confident.
However,m it is necessary to keep some classroom coed. Boys and girls need social interaction with each other during their development in order to have social skills. One solution our group will offer is that classes can be separated Monday through Thursday but then be together on Friday to make sure that both classes are going at the same pace and allow the children to mingle. Also, not all classes would be divided. Only the STEM classes, the ones that show a difference between males and females would be divided.
Gender divided classrooms provide a solution to a problem that is plaguing America. According a video that we will present, students in gender divided classrooms have done better on standardized tests than those in coed classrooms. As more studies are done, more proof is brought forth that supports the idea of gender divided classrooms. The solution that we will offer may not be perfect, but if some experts in the field of education and psychology were to build from it, the children of the United States could catch up with those of other countries.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Should Schools Consider Gender-Divided Classrooms?
Neither Malcolm Gladwell or Carol Dweck go into great detail about this issue in their respective books Outliers and Mindset. However, each provides some important details that can be combined to create an argument for gender-divided classrooms. Gladwell brings up the issue of students being discouraged by math while Dweck brings up the fact that women have been underrepresented in science fields for a long time. Separately, these ideas do not mean a whole lot when considering the gender-divided classroom issue, but together they show that gender-divided classrooms may be a good idea.
Gladwell says that many students will not spend more than two minutes working on a math problem before giving up on it (Gladwell, 2008). How is this relevant? Teachers only have so much time to teach a given topic before they must move on to something else in the curriculum. What if some of the countless studies regarding differences in learning styles between males and females are actually true? The teacher cannot possibly have enough time to teach the required material from both perspectives in a normal school. Some special schools, like KIPP, are focused on helping all students so the teachers there would have time to thoroughly cover a topic (Gladwell, 2008). In the normal schools, you could almost say that each gender is getting half of the education they need. They are taught the very basic concepts but the applications cannot be taught in a way that is tailored to their particular learning style. If boys and girls were separated, especially in the elementary years, they could get a very solid foundation in all areas of their education.
Dweck brings up the point that women are not encouraged to study science and math and are, in some cases, even, discouraged (Dweck, 2006). This is extremely important. Why are a lot of girls not interested in science or math? I have trouble believing what Dweck says about stereotype pressure. I don't think that girls feel pressured to do better on a math test because they are girls (Dweck, 2006). However, I feel like the differences can be linked to a similar idea to that discussed in the last paragraph. What if math and science were not taught in a way that was appropriate for females' learning styles? Once again, this is based on speculation that there are actually differences in learning styles between genders. If they are not given education in a way that is beneficial, then girls are less likely to be interested in math or science unless their parents or a role model are in a math or science field. If the genders were divided, then the females could be taught by female teachers who would probably know better ways to make material interesting to other females than male teachers would. The same goes for males in the fields that they are not usually interested in, like art.
Another very valuable aspect of the gender-divided classroom is the fact that the genders would not have each other to distract them. Boys and girls distract each other in class. It's no secret. If they are attracted to someone of the opposite sex in the class, they are not going to give the lesson their full attention. If the classes were divided, the classroom could be reserved for learning instead of flirting.
I believe that the gender-divided classroom idea is one that should be tried in schools. It allows for each gender to have lesson plans crafted for their learning styles and also keeps them from distracting each other. Then, the education system may see an overall increase in success rates and the gap between the two genders would be lessened even more.
Gladwell says that many students will not spend more than two minutes working on a math problem before giving up on it (Gladwell, 2008). How is this relevant? Teachers only have so much time to teach a given topic before they must move on to something else in the curriculum. What if some of the countless studies regarding differences in learning styles between males and females are actually true? The teacher cannot possibly have enough time to teach the required material from both perspectives in a normal school. Some special schools, like KIPP, are focused on helping all students so the teachers there would have time to thoroughly cover a topic (Gladwell, 2008). In the normal schools, you could almost say that each gender is getting half of the education they need. They are taught the very basic concepts but the applications cannot be taught in a way that is tailored to their particular learning style. If boys and girls were separated, especially in the elementary years, they could get a very solid foundation in all areas of their education.
Dweck brings up the point that women are not encouraged to study science and math and are, in some cases, even, discouraged (Dweck, 2006). This is extremely important. Why are a lot of girls not interested in science or math? I have trouble believing what Dweck says about stereotype pressure. I don't think that girls feel pressured to do better on a math test because they are girls (Dweck, 2006). However, I feel like the differences can be linked to a similar idea to that discussed in the last paragraph. What if math and science were not taught in a way that was appropriate for females' learning styles? Once again, this is based on speculation that there are actually differences in learning styles between genders. If they are not given education in a way that is beneficial, then girls are less likely to be interested in math or science unless their parents or a role model are in a math or science field. If the genders were divided, then the females could be taught by female teachers who would probably know better ways to make material interesting to other females than male teachers would. The same goes for males in the fields that they are not usually interested in, like art.
Another very valuable aspect of the gender-divided classroom is the fact that the genders would not have each other to distract them. Boys and girls distract each other in class. It's no secret. If they are attracted to someone of the opposite sex in the class, they are not going to give the lesson their full attention. If the classes were divided, the classroom could be reserved for learning instead of flirting.
I believe that the gender-divided classroom idea is one that should be tried in schools. It allows for each gender to have lesson plans crafted for their learning styles and also keeps them from distracting each other. Then, the education system may see an overall increase in success rates and the gap between the two genders would be lessened even more.
Dweck, C. S. (2006) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Print.
Gladwell, M. (2008) Outliers:The story of success. Hew York: Little, Brown and Company. Print.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Are Girls Different Than Boys?
Wow...how can anyone possibly answer this question fully? Boys and girls are definitely different in many aspects of life. As far as education goes, i do not think they are that different. Malcolm Gladwell references gender divided classrooms in his book, Outliers, but he does not advocate for one side or the other. Carol Dweck discusses the differences in gender very briefly in her book, Mindset, but she also does not show strong leanings towards one side of the issue. However, the ideas they base their respective books on can be used to examine the issue of possible differences between males and females.
Gladwell says that some people get special opportunities because they are outliers. In other words, they had some special set of circumstances that allowed them to get ahead of everyone else (Gladwell, 2008). A difference along these lines can arise between boys and girls only if a teacher is sexist or something to that effect. It is no secret that some children have harder home lives than others. The ones with the easier home live with parents that encourage learning and productivity will, more than likely, have an advantage in school. However, this does not happen based on the child's gender. If a teacher picks favorites that are all of one gender, then one could make the argument that this gender, whether it be male of female, had a slight advantage. Most teachers do not do this, though.
Dweck's book focuses on people's mindset and how it affects their lives. The fixed mindset causes people to dwell on failures while the growth mindset allows them to use setbacks as challenges and learning experiences (Dweck, 2006). Once again, a child's home life and upbringing will play a major role in determining which mindset the child employs. This does not vary from one gender to the other either. For these reasons, I do not believe that an accurate generalization can be made about males and females and any differences between them in education.
In the article I got for class ion Wednesday, the author brings up a very interesting point. The author, Kenyon Wallace, argues that boys have a disadvantage because of the images of "cool" that are provided by pop culture (Wallace, 2010). I believe that if any differences do exist between boys and girls, they are caused by thins like this. Wallace says that boys do not feel encouraged to be smart, but instead strive to be a gangster (Wallace, 2010). This statement really caught my attention because I can see this in today's school system. Another common stereotype is that girls should not be super smart. I know many girls who will act dumb even though they are quite bright. I guess this is a way of getting attention or casting the aura of disinterest in education that teenagers seem to love. To me, these are the main causes for differences that may arise between boys and girls. The differences show themselves in boys or girls who try to be "cool."
Neither Gladwell or Dweck goes into detail about gender differences. However, a huge debate regarding the possibility of gender-divided classrooms exists. While some scientific differences may exist, there are too many studies that contradict each other and I can't force myself to believe any of them. When scientists come out with solid proof of differences in the minds of boys and girls that can be repeatedly tested, I will begin to believe that a difference is naturally there. Until that point, I believe that the only differences that may exist are caused by society's view of what people should be like.
Wallace, K. (2010, October 16). "A class of their own; Schools hope single-sex
education will help boys excel." National Post, p. A12.
Gladwell says that some people get special opportunities because they are outliers. In other words, they had some special set of circumstances that allowed them to get ahead of everyone else (Gladwell, 2008). A difference along these lines can arise between boys and girls only if a teacher is sexist or something to that effect. It is no secret that some children have harder home lives than others. The ones with the easier home live with parents that encourage learning and productivity will, more than likely, have an advantage in school. However, this does not happen based on the child's gender. If a teacher picks favorites that are all of one gender, then one could make the argument that this gender, whether it be male of female, had a slight advantage. Most teachers do not do this, though.
Dweck's book focuses on people's mindset and how it affects their lives. The fixed mindset causes people to dwell on failures while the growth mindset allows them to use setbacks as challenges and learning experiences (Dweck, 2006). Once again, a child's home life and upbringing will play a major role in determining which mindset the child employs. This does not vary from one gender to the other either. For these reasons, I do not believe that an accurate generalization can be made about males and females and any differences between them in education.
In the article I got for class ion Wednesday, the author brings up a very interesting point. The author, Kenyon Wallace, argues that boys have a disadvantage because of the images of "cool" that are provided by pop culture (Wallace, 2010). I believe that if any differences do exist between boys and girls, they are caused by thins like this. Wallace says that boys do not feel encouraged to be smart, but instead strive to be a gangster (Wallace, 2010). This statement really caught my attention because I can see this in today's school system. Another common stereotype is that girls should not be super smart. I know many girls who will act dumb even though they are quite bright. I guess this is a way of getting attention or casting the aura of disinterest in education that teenagers seem to love. To me, these are the main causes for differences that may arise between boys and girls. The differences show themselves in boys or girls who try to be "cool."
Neither Gladwell or Dweck goes into detail about gender differences. However, a huge debate regarding the possibility of gender-divided classrooms exists. While some scientific differences may exist, there are too many studies that contradict each other and I can't force myself to believe any of them. When scientists come out with solid proof of differences in the minds of boys and girls that can be repeatedly tested, I will begin to believe that a difference is naturally there. Until that point, I believe that the only differences that may exist are caused by society's view of what people should be like.
Dweck, C. S. (2006) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Print.
Gladwell, M. (2008) Outliers:The story of success. Hew York: Little, Brown and Company. Print.
Wallace, K. (2010, October 16). "A class of their own; Schools hope single-sex
education will help boys excel." National Post, p. A12.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
He Said, She Said
Many connections can be drawn between Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell, and Mindset, by Carol Dweck. Each book discusses success and the ways in which people go about achieving it. Gladwell says that success, while requiring effort, is also highly dependent on a certain set of circumstances (Gladwell, 2008). Dweck, on the other hand, agrees that succes requires effort, but feels that it is also a result of a person's mindset (Dweck, 2006). Both authors agree that a person must work hard to be successful, but they disagree on one major point. Where Gladwell sees success as being dependent on outside forces, Dweck sees success as being dependent on internal ideas.
Gladwell spends the entirety of his book discussing a bunch of unique circumstances that have helped people become successful. He refers to time of birth in the year, year of birth, and other peculiar situations (Gladwell, 2008). He goes into detail about how all of these people had to work a great deal to achieve the level of success they have, but he also provides a set of coincidental circumstances that helped each person. This differs greatly from Dweck's way of thinking.
Carol Dweck also wrote a book about success but focused more on a person's mindset. Dweck says that people can have a fixed or growth mindset, and those with the fixed mindset are much less likely to be truly successful (Dweck, 2006). She provides a multitude of real world examples that most ordinary people can relate to. This is another way in which her book differs from Gladwell's. Gladwell focuses on billionaires and professional athletes while Dweck focuses on the "average joe's." Dweck does agree with Gladwell regarding the amount of effort required for success. While Gladwell gives a number,10,000 hours, Dweck simply says that people cannot hope to achieve success by coasting (Gladwell, 2008). It is precisely this, Dweck says, that keeps those with the fixed mindset from reaching their full potential (Dweck, 2006).
All of this aside, the big question still remains. What is success and how can a person be judged as successful or unsuccessful? Every person has a different idea of success. Neither Gladwell's book or Dweck's book give a clear definition of success. I believe that this is because every single person will have a different interpretation of what is successful. It comes back to mindsets. A fixed mindset person will see success as being better than everyone else and getting recognition. A growth mindset person will see success as putting forth maximum effort and learning from any setbacks that may occur (Dweck, 2006). Both of these books discuss success but no one can really say what success is.
I feel like both authors are correct in a way. Gladwell presents compelling arguments but there is no way of knowing if his statistics are biased. Dweck also presents a powerful point, but the same can be said of her studies. Psychology is such an unclear field it is hard to say when a test gives truly accurate results. I believe that both authors would agree with each others ideas in a way. However, they definitely disagree on some ideas also.
Dweck, C. S. (2006) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Print.
Gladwell, M. (2008) Outliers:The story of success. Hew York: Little, Brown and Company. Print.
Gladwell spends the entirety of his book discussing a bunch of unique circumstances that have helped people become successful. He refers to time of birth in the year, year of birth, and other peculiar situations (Gladwell, 2008). He goes into detail about how all of these people had to work a great deal to achieve the level of success they have, but he also provides a set of coincidental circumstances that helped each person. This differs greatly from Dweck's way of thinking.
Carol Dweck also wrote a book about success but focused more on a person's mindset. Dweck says that people can have a fixed or growth mindset, and those with the fixed mindset are much less likely to be truly successful (Dweck, 2006). She provides a multitude of real world examples that most ordinary people can relate to. This is another way in which her book differs from Gladwell's. Gladwell focuses on billionaires and professional athletes while Dweck focuses on the "average joe's." Dweck does agree with Gladwell regarding the amount of effort required for success. While Gladwell gives a number,10,000 hours, Dweck simply says that people cannot hope to achieve success by coasting (Gladwell, 2008). It is precisely this, Dweck says, that keeps those with the fixed mindset from reaching their full potential (Dweck, 2006).
All of this aside, the big question still remains. What is success and how can a person be judged as successful or unsuccessful? Every person has a different idea of success. Neither Gladwell's book or Dweck's book give a clear definition of success. I believe that this is because every single person will have a different interpretation of what is successful. It comes back to mindsets. A fixed mindset person will see success as being better than everyone else and getting recognition. A growth mindset person will see success as putting forth maximum effort and learning from any setbacks that may occur (Dweck, 2006). Both of these books discuss success but no one can really say what success is.
I feel like both authors are correct in a way. Gladwell presents compelling arguments but there is no way of knowing if his statistics are biased. Dweck also presents a powerful point, but the same can be said of her studies. Psychology is such an unclear field it is hard to say when a test gives truly accurate results. I believe that both authors would agree with each others ideas in a way. However, they definitely disagree on some ideas also.
Dweck, C. S. (2006) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. Print.
Gladwell, M. (2008) Outliers:The story of success. Hew York: Little, Brown and Company. Print.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
"Success is the Disease of Me"
Malcolm Gladwell uses the entirety of his book, Outliers, to show that success is the result of special circumstances that allow a person to have an advantage over others (Gladwell, 2008, p.24). Therefore, I feel like Gladwell would have mixed feelings about the phrase "success is the disease of me." On one hand, a disease is usually brought on by a certain set of circumstances happening in the right order at the right time. On the other hand, disease has very negative connotations that imply a bad condition. Gladwell would probably agree with the first statement but disagree with the second one.
The first statement refers to success and disease being a result of several circumstances that happen in the appropriate ways. Gladwell points out several situations in which a person became successful due to a large amount of work and some special circumstance that allowed them to get an advantage. Disease works in a similar way. For a person to contract a disease, they must be exposed to the microbes that causes the disease, allow the microbe to enter their body, and the antibodies must be unable to stop the disease before it spreads. The likelihood of all of these happening is low but still very possible. In this context, the ideas of success and disease are quite similar. They require quite a bit of good (or bad) fortune.
However, the word disease implies that success is a bad thing. While some people may say that success leads them to do things they shoud not, most people wou8ld not say that success is bad. Most would agree that it is quite the opposite. In today's society, the word disease has extremely negative connotations. The prefix dis- usually means not and when added to the rest of the word, it basically says not ease or no ease. Success may not be easy to attain but, in this sense, the ease refers to feelings after success is attained or not attained. It's quite a complex way of thinking about the idea of success but I feel like Gladwell would understand and agree with these ideas.
It could be argued that Gladwell would completely disagree with the idea of success being a disease. He may reject this idea of success being a disease because humans naturally strive for success but definitely do not strive for disease. However, I believe Gladwell would take a deeper thought process than this. He would consider both sides of the issue instead of just thinking about one and saying that that is the explanation.
The phrase "success is the disease of me" would evoke mixed feelings in Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Outliers. He would agree that success happens by chance, with some hard work too, but would not agree that success i8s a bad thing. The interpretation of this phrase depends somewhat on the person's mindset. If they had the fixed mindset that Carol Dweck describes in her book Mindset, a successful person could say that success is a disease that makes them have to try harder top prove themselves worthy (Dweck, 2008, pg. 35). The growth mindset would not see success as a disease but would instead see it as a way to be challenged by newer, better things (Dweck, 2008, pg. 35). I doubt Gladwell thought much about the mindsets when writing his book but his writing tends to lean towards the fixed mindset. He says that some people are destined to be successful, which is definitely a fixed mindset idea. Therefore, it is possible that Gladwell would strongly agree with the phrase "success is the disease of me." It all depends on the way he interpreted the meaning and how deeply he thought.
Dweck, C. (2008) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. 35-38. Print.
The first statement refers to success and disease being a result of several circumstances that happen in the appropriate ways. Gladwell points out several situations in which a person became successful due to a large amount of work and some special circumstance that allowed them to get an advantage. Disease works in a similar way. For a person to contract a disease, they must be exposed to the microbes that causes the disease, allow the microbe to enter their body, and the antibodies must be unable to stop the disease before it spreads. The likelihood of all of these happening is low but still very possible. In this context, the ideas of success and disease are quite similar. They require quite a bit of good (or bad) fortune.
However, the word disease implies that success is a bad thing. While some people may say that success leads them to do things they shoud not, most people wou8ld not say that success is bad. Most would agree that it is quite the opposite. In today's society, the word disease has extremely negative connotations. The prefix dis- usually means not and when added to the rest of the word, it basically says not ease or no ease. Success may not be easy to attain but, in this sense, the ease refers to feelings after success is attained or not attained. It's quite a complex way of thinking about the idea of success but I feel like Gladwell would understand and agree with these ideas.
It could be argued that Gladwell would completely disagree with the idea of success being a disease. He may reject this idea of success being a disease because humans naturally strive for success but definitely do not strive for disease. However, I believe Gladwell would take a deeper thought process than this. He would consider both sides of the issue instead of just thinking about one and saying that that is the explanation.
The phrase "success is the disease of me" would evoke mixed feelings in Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Outliers. He would agree that success happens by chance, with some hard work too, but would not agree that success i8s a bad thing. The interpretation of this phrase depends somewhat on the person's mindset. If they had the fixed mindset that Carol Dweck describes in her book Mindset, a successful person could say that success is a disease that makes them have to try harder top prove themselves worthy (Dweck, 2008, pg. 35). The growth mindset would not see success as a disease but would instead see it as a way to be challenged by newer, better things (Dweck, 2008, pg. 35). I doubt Gladwell thought much about the mindsets when writing his book but his writing tends to lean towards the fixed mindset. He says that some people are destined to be successful, which is definitely a fixed mindset idea. Therefore, it is possible that Gladwell would strongly agree with the phrase "success is the disease of me." It all depends on the way he interpreted the meaning and how deeply he thought.
Dweck, C. (2008) Mindset:The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books. 35-38. Print.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. New York: Little, Brown and Company. 20-30.Print.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Being a Natural
In the book Mindset, Carol Dweck describes a natural as a person who can do great things, such as play sports, "without trying" (Dweck, 2008 p. 83). She goes on to say that naturals do not really exist but those who are "naturals" are actually the products of hard work and hours of practice. If I had to pick something that I was a "natural" at, it would probably be math. However, like Dweck says in her book, I can attribute my math skills to a great deal of practice in my young childhood.
Ever since the third grade, I have been in the highest level of math class that my school system offered. In third grade, a class of students was given fourth grade level work and this trend continued through high school. There, I took the hardest math class that the school offered and got an A and then got a 34 on the math portion of the ACT. It probably sounds like I'm bragging but I am really just trying to show why people considered me a natural. In reality, my math skills were mainly from the extra practice I had as a young child. Math intrigued me and my parents encouraged me to learn as much as I could. As a result, I was always ahead of the school's curriculum. I know that if my parents had not encouraged me and the teachers had not been willing to give me different work, I probably would not be a "natural."
Some people may say that I am just blessed with some unfair math advantage. I've been told that the amount of time it takes me to figure out math problems is insane. However, I strongly believe that the only reason I am the way I am is because math interested me and my parents strongly encouraged me to learn as much as I could as quickly as I could as long as I was retaining the material. I believe that proof for my claims lies in my math experience in the last couple years. Since starting calculus, I have had trouble seeing the real world applications of it and therefore did not try as hard in class. When I learn something, I like to be able to connect it with a time that I will use it in my life. Calculus does not have a good connection,. I did not try as hard and now I would say I am an average calculus student.
Dweck says that naturals do not have to try to accomplish anything and can still be great. I don't see how this can be true given my personal experiences and all of the examples she provides. A natural is actually a person that has interest in a topic or activity and then practices that activity a great deal and slowly develops talents. The ideas of a natural seems to be a fixed mindset excuse for things. For example, that person did better than me because they are naturally good at that subject. I'm naturally bad at it. This allows the fixed mindset person to have a reason for their failures and blame them on some other cause.
Dweck, Carol. Mindset:The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books, 2008. 83-91. Print.
Ever since the third grade, I have been in the highest level of math class that my school system offered. In third grade, a class of students was given fourth grade level work and this trend continued through high school. There, I took the hardest math class that the school offered and got an A and then got a 34 on the math portion of the ACT. It probably sounds like I'm bragging but I am really just trying to show why people considered me a natural. In reality, my math skills were mainly from the extra practice I had as a young child. Math intrigued me and my parents encouraged me to learn as much as I could. As a result, I was always ahead of the school's curriculum. I know that if my parents had not encouraged me and the teachers had not been willing to give me different work, I probably would not be a "natural."
Some people may say that I am just blessed with some unfair math advantage. I've been told that the amount of time it takes me to figure out math problems is insane. However, I strongly believe that the only reason I am the way I am is because math interested me and my parents strongly encouraged me to learn as much as I could as quickly as I could as long as I was retaining the material. I believe that proof for my claims lies in my math experience in the last couple years. Since starting calculus, I have had trouble seeing the real world applications of it and therefore did not try as hard in class. When I learn something, I like to be able to connect it with a time that I will use it in my life. Calculus does not have a good connection,. I did not try as hard and now I would say I am an average calculus student.
Dweck says that naturals do not have to try to accomplish anything and can still be great. I don't see how this can be true given my personal experiences and all of the examples she provides. A natural is actually a person that has interest in a topic or activity and then practices that activity a great deal and slowly develops talents. The ideas of a natural seems to be a fixed mindset excuse for things. For example, that person did better than me because they are naturally good at that subject. I'm naturally bad at it. This allows the fixed mindset person to have a reason for their failures and blame them on some other cause.
Dweck, Carol. Mindset:The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books, 2008. 83-91. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)