Talent Plus Tenacity

A distinctly American storyline is that a person can become anybody they wish. The only limits are the lack of initiative and persistence. While a certain amount of raw talent is valuable, the key to success is an individual’s willingness to press forward and upward. What then distinguishes successful from less notable individuals is largely a matter of resolve, grit, and energy. This is said to be the American Dream. Unshackled from your relatives or your past, each person is able to make themselves into whoever they wish. Frederick Douglass described such a person in his essay “Self-Made Men” which is quote below:

Self-made men are the men who, under peculiar difficulties and without the ordinary helps of favoring circumstances, have attained knowledge, usefulness, power and position in the world. Men who have learned from experience in the hard battle of life the best uses to which life can be put and the best that can be got out of life in this world. … They own nothing to wealth, inherited or to early and approved means of education. They are what they are, without the aid of many of the favoring conditions by which other men usually rise to distinction in the world.

The Frederick Douglass Papers at the Library of Congress: "Self-Made Men." Address before the Students of the Indian Industrial School at Carlisle, Pa. - Folder 5 of 16.

Douglass depicts the self-made individual as someone who has not received special favors in order to become powerful and successful. Such a person has only him- or herself to thank for their successes. They rely upon their own pluck and the wisdom gained from experience in order to become great. There was no head start provided to such individuals. Nothing special in terms of dollars or training propelled them. The spark, the fuel, and the guidance that controlled the trajectory is entirely their own. Others may achieve success because it is handed to them. The self-made person had to use his or her own hands to grab opportunities, rely upon their head to make wise choices, and depend upon their heart from which they derived the desire and commitment to success.

The master narrative claims of success as due to one of two causes: being given the power by inheritance (and hence unearned) or creating one’s own success by combining talent and tenacity. This storyline offers hope to those who were not blessed at birth with wealth or privilege. Becoming successful is not restricted to those who were lucky to be born into the right circumstances. Instead, we can make our own luck. Success in terms of power, position and prestige are won by those who have earned it. According to this storyline, the winners have become such because of their own merits, not because someone handed the prize to them for an arbitrary reason. The corollary moral of this storyline is that those who are not successful find themselves in those conditions because they did not apply themselves. Whatever talents they might have held were not appropriately and earnestly applied. Otherwise, success would have been attained.

Such a master narrative works well for those who are born to success and/or have not had barriers placed in their paths. Further, this storyline is reinforced all of the time: athletes who persist through injuries, tycoons who rose from poverty to great wealth, and politicians who were raised in working class families and became world leaders. "There," we can say, "is someone who worked really hard and succeeded." The counter-story which is rarely heard is that those who may have worked just as hard may not have succeeded. By linking success to tenacity, we can attributed lack of success to laziness. Therefore, we can justify the historical failures of a gender, an ethnicity, or a nationality to that simple equation. The tragic result is that this myth places full responsibility upon the individual -- and effectively absolves anyone from being responsible for anybody else.

looking hard at ourselves

Having confidence as a teacher while also recognizing our shortcomings is a true challenge. We don't want to be so certain about our capabilities that we stop learning. On the other hand, we don't want to be incapacitated by our uncertainties. Overconfidence can blind us but doubt can also cripple us. In thinking about teaching to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students, it is necessary to consider our presumptions. We know that's not easy but the problems with not recognizing such possibilities may result in teaching that is not fair for all children. Dr Felicia Moore wrote about this in a recent article:

Getting preservice teachers to reveal, confront, and discuss their cultural biases is not easy because challenging assumptions and beliefs, making ideological shifts, or constructing new cultural models are difficult. If assumptions and biases are not challenged and changed, then these ideas may impede democratic and just teaching practices for all students (p. 88, Felicia Moore, Preparing Elementary Preservice Teachers for Urban Elementary Science Classrooms: Challenging Cultural Biases Toward Diverse Students).

Her study documented the difficulties her future teachers had with their perspectives about CLDs. Their reflections revealed an awareness that they harbored biases that arose from their upbringings.There was genuine pain embedded in the confessions of guilt. It hurts to know that one has been using biased views -- and after having already worked with students, there is a concern that those biases may have interfered with the quality of teaching provided to children.

The only way out of such discomforts and dilemmas is to accept its reality and choose to move forward committed to not perpetuate those mistakes. This is crucial stage in become a more mature and compassionate teacher. James Baldwin acknowledges how much hurt we feel when we find out how wrong we have been. The key becomes using this new knowledge to act in new ways:

In great pain and terror one begins to assess the history which has placed one where one is and … attempt to recreate oneself according to a principle more humane and more liberating; one begins the attempt to achieve a level of personal maturity and freedom which robs history of its tyrannical power, and also changes history.

As teachers we are told to recognize and embrace the backgrounds students bring to our classrooms. We are not supposed to do much more than simply tolerate those differences. We are to see those as resources upon which new discoveries and understandings can be created. We should allow ourselves that much, too. We are products of our environment and that may include carrying around incorrect beliefs and assumptions about people whose backgrounds differ from ours. Letting go of old ideas can be nerve-wracking and confusing. On the other hand, if we have had access to fresh ways of thinking about teaching science to culturally and linguistically diverse students but we do NOT change our perspective, then we are acting in ways that are not only ingorant but potentially negligent.

discovery and discomfort

Several philosophies of learning value being confused. John Dewey emphasizes uncertainty as a starting point. Jean Piaget wrote about disequilibrium as a powerful force. And conceptual change theory takes advantage of the confusion when considering competing ideas. Even the old-fashioned idea hierarchy of needs of Maslow could be used to justify creating discomfort in students: because we have needs we must fulfill, when safety, belonging or self-esteem are threatened, we work to regain those -- and along the way we might learn something important.

There is a real danger here. We can make our students unmanageably uncomfortable and lose their trust. On the other hand, what if your students learned from multiple experiences that they CAN persist (within your care) when they are faced with discomfort? How powerful they would feel when they are genuinely successful rather than being told how great they are. And the sense of accomplishment might not always be because they were 100% accurate in what they did -- but they made it and are more wise because of it. I'd put my student teaching experience as one example of this.

Since discomfort is a prerequisite for discovery, I wonder about using this to help an organization to learn. Suppose a teacher education program is talking about revising itself. How might those who are finishing that program provide insights -- especially by taking advantage of discomfort? Recognize that defensiveness is not the attitude we would want to encourage. Instead, how might information be gathered that would rattle people's assumptions.?For example, what about being prepared for diversity: could "data" be assembled that makes leaders uncomfortable as a precursor to changing the program's design? This takes learning beyond the classroom. But it might prevent the next generation from feeling cheated by what they didn't learn.

lenses and mirrors

Writing scientifically is not always the same as writing well. Sadly, using literary flourishes are actively discouraged in scientific writing. The reason this is unfortunate is because metaphors are so powerful. For example, the use of lenses to describe observations is extremely helpful for authors and readers. One reason I appreciate this metaphor is that it illustrates that we see is influenced by our preexisting views. This could apply to predictions about pendulum behaviors. And we are aware that what we expect from students can also be what we end up believing is true. By suggesting that we look at our world through lenses, we can recognize the role that perspective has upon observations.

Especially when discussing about education it becomes important to rely upon metaphors to describe our thinking. All of us are acquainted with reflection in education. Using the idea of a mirror can enrich this idea. First, a mirror can allow us to see ourselves from the perspective of an outsider. Second, using a mirror allows us to see what surrounds us. Third, mirrors can be curved so that the object we see looks different. Car mirrors sometimes say that objects may be closer than they appear. Mirrors then become an interesting metaphor for looking at ourselves.

Similarly, filters can be used as a metaphor for looking at the world. Filters can be used to block certain wavelengths with Polaroid lenses as a great example. What becomes crucial in such circumstances is recognizing that our filters are in place. Otherwise we might believe we are viewing certain schools and some students as the way they "really" are when, in reality, how we seem them is being colored by the perceptual lenses we have been using. In the best of circumstances, we can come across a reading that helps us realize that an optimistic perspective about urban schools is not a foolish lens or filter to use. And when we look at ourselves in the mirror and consider who we might be if we choose to become an urban teacher then we see things in ways that expand our vision and broaden our perspectives.

a counter-narrative

Despite the many discouraging messages, it is essential for those who teach science to hold onto their idealism. Sometimes, though, our hope and faith becomes stronger when there is evidence to support our views. For example, while we might want to accept the idea that students, of all backgrounds, can learn science if it is taught in appropriate ways, having more than a vision seems necessary. In addition to moral or ethical commitments to teaching science to every child, most of us appreciate information that provides a more solid foundation than hopefulness.

We frequently hear stories of "failing schools" and all the associated problems that come with those institutions. Unfortunately for the novice teacher, the supposed common sense of schools that serve culturally and linguistically diverse populations has take on a life of its own. What this leads us to is not just individual anecdotes (e.g., "Hartford students did badly on the science test") but that this becomes The Big Story. As with most powerful stories, there are actors and a setting and a storyline. For schools in Connecticut that struggle to educate all children, this storyline is full of unexamined assumptions. For example, when a school is in trouble it is implied that this happens because of students who are ethnic minorities. This has become a meta-narrative that we may accept as true. The more we hear these stories, and not only from the media but also from other people, we may start to believe that there is some truth that resides just below the surface.

To combat these misleading messages is more complicated than simply pointing at the issues. A strong meta-narrative must be undone through a competing story — a counter-narrative. A group called the Education Trust has provided us with one example. According to that group's Sept 12, 2006 press release: "The Education Trust is co-hosting a Capitol Hill Event today with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), and Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) that features African-American educators who have successfully used standards and accountability to improve teaching, motivate students and faculty, and raise achievement in their schools." At the core of this document are examples that disprove the claims that certain students are pre-disposed to fail in school:

The report, Yes We Can: Telling Truths and Dispelling Myths about Race and Education in America, soundly rejects the myth that low academic achievement is inevitable among children of color and students from low-income families and provides examples of high-minority and high-poverty schools where children perform at high levels.

Such a document helps us to create a counter-narrative. In light of the examples and exhortations in this report, we can find ways to hold tight to our convictions. While the answers may not be 100% clear, this document offers evidence that our belief in every child being able to learn science is reasonable and worth fighting toward. You cam download Yes We Can by clicking on the title … or using this link http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/DD58DD01-23A4-4B89-9FD8-C11BB072331E/0/YesWeCan.pdf

experiences and activities

On Week Two, I included in the agenda a John Dewey quote that I failed to expand upon. In retrospect, it seems a very odd contrast with the Roth and Garnier article. So I'll use this space to explore the contradiction. On the one hand, Dewey claims that direct contact with objects and phenomena is absolutely essential. His use of "empirical" is not meant to imply that an experiment takes place. Instead the understandings that develop must be provable and verifiable by using real objects and not just appeals to authority. Notice that he does not say that this only applies to elementary school or that high school kids are beyond this. In fact, at the end of that quote he indicates that children and scientists all need time with unfamiliar objects just to fiddle.

The TIMMS video study uncovered an interesting consistency within science teaching in the United States. Compared to other countries, the US science lessons are full of activities. That would seem to make John Dewey happy. But the problem is that teachers treat activities as if they are sufficient on their own. The problem is that just messing about will not encourage all students to learn the science. What Dewey was advocating was to start with activities — but not stop there. He saw contact with objects as the first step, not the only one. The TIMSS Video Study reveals the importance of having a step that comes after the first one.

U.S. teachers have gotten the message that hands-on science activities are important. The next step is to help teachers learn how to select, sequence, and link those activities to content ideas so that students understand important science concepts (including ideas about the nature of scientific inquiry).

For those of us who want to be viewed as advocates for quality science teaching, our actions will speak volumes. And I believe that there is value with being consistent whether the science content is being taught in a kindergarten classroom or a graduate course. Step Zero is deciding on the learning goal. Step One is finding ways (and allowing sufficient time) for learners to have direct contact with the materials. Step Two is help make the connections between the hands-on experiences and the bigger ideas. This leap from concrete to abstract seems to be what is working well in other coutnries. Finally (but I'm geting ahead of myself) there should be opportunities to apply these newly formed understandings to fresh situations. More on that step in the very near future.

self-reflexivity instead of reflections

Pity the preservice teacher: always being told to reflect but without knowing exactly why. In truth, the whole idea behind reflection was to encourage professionals to contemplate their work. But as with too many good ideas, reflection has become a routine and ritual that has lost its original purpose and value. What was supposed to be an intellectual activity and disposition has dissolved into a standardized writing assignment.

It is important to uncover our preconceptions about education. Self-reflexivity gives us the opportunity to disclose our view to ourselves. In the process, it advances us toward more professional behaviors. For example, I have been struggling to understand my views about non-Western science. Some people advocate for alternative ways of allowing students from other cultures to identify with science. They suggest that this could be accomplished by using the label "indigenous science" to signal the difference. On the other hand, there are others who have suggested that attaching science to other perspectives is a bad idea. In a sense, adding "science" implies that other worldviews are not as legitimate as science.

If we treat science as a way of knowing then it may not be necessary to position it so it seems superior to non-scientific ways of understanding the world. To be sure, science is very inadequate for answering important questions. For example, why is Into The Mystic such an amazing song when nobody seems to know what the lyrics mean. I doubt science can help me with that puzzle. But how can I find imagine science being taught so that it is made accessible to all types of students from a wide variety of backgrounds … without suggesting that scientific ways of thinking are superior?

Somehow I suspect that I won't be able to resolve this from my office. On the other hand, I doubt I can figure this out simply by immersing myself in science classrooms. It seems that the best combination would be a little bit of both: working with diverse students as they learn science AND spending considerable time and energy being self-reflexive about those events.