We’ve all (hopefully) heard about the amazing advantages that having a growth mindset can afford us.
As a teacher of adults, her article was interesting because it’s geared at the K-12 setting, in which students = children and adults = teachers and administrators. For me, the categories are not so neat, but her points hold true regardless.
What I really enjoyed about this article was that she discusses a workshop that Australian business professor Peter Heslin runs for business leaders that focuses on mindset. It appears to be based on a peer-reviewed article by Heslin and Lauren Keating. She shares four reflection activities from Heslin’s workshop that sound really useful:
Reflect on the real-world ramifications of your mindset.
Reflect on how a former weakness turned into a strength, and perhaps even more importantly, consider what made this happen.
Reflect on mindset by writing a letter of advice to an employee whose skills need improvement.
Reflect on a time someone exceeded your expectations of them. Did your low expectations hold them back?
I’m putting it on my calendar to go through these reflections myself. I’m completely confident that the exercise will be worth my time. I’m not completely confident that what I write will be blog-worthy, so I’m not sure how/when/if I’ll follow up in this space. Do let me know if you decide to tackle these reflections too!
Renner starts out talking about educational psychologist David Kolb’s theory. I guess Kolb has to be on my ed psych list now because I can’t really handle his premises, at least in their truncated versions in this book. I highlighted it on the syllabus for future study.
I have an issue with the idea that since learning is governed by a person’s needs and goals, educational objectives must exist in order for “the process of learning” to not be “erratic and inefficient.”
A need and a goal are different; this appears to treat them as the same thing.
Learning does not have to be of constant intensity to be effective. In fact, I’ve experienced the opposite.
There’s nothing wrong with not learning as quickly as humanly possible.
I don’t believe that specifically enumerated objectives and “erratic and inefficient” learning are mutually exclusive, which is what this summary implies.
Renner says that in his Learning Style Inventory (LSI), Kolb groups learning behavior into “four statistically different styles.” Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance of the field, but this phrase is too vague for me to have any use for it. I get that the phrase implies that quantitative research has been done, but come on. Impressing me by saying “look! research!” isn’t enough. Anyway, the categories are:
Converger – unemotional, likes things, likes to apply ideas practically
Diverger – imaginative, likes people, likes multiple points of view
Assimilator – logical, likes to make theories
Accommodator – intuitive, likes people, likes to test theories against reality
I can’t decide if I’m a Diverger or Accommodator. Since I can see it either way, I’d probably test as a Diverger.
Renner says that the purpose of having this model is not to typecast people, but to help with “needs analysis” for lesson and course planning. Later on, almost as an afterthought, Renner mentions that Kolb lists four abilities all students need for effective experiential learning. These closely parallel the above groupings: have an experience, think about it from many points of view (Diverger), tie experiences to theories (Assimilator), use those theries to solve problems (Accommodator, Converger). I’m surprised he didn’t more explicitly tie these together.
Even without making this connection, Renner does specifically say that the purpose of these groups isn’t to typecast people, but to help understand students’ needs for course and lesson plans. It comes across as a fluffy disclaimer, but I still appreciate the point. It’s about identifying which strategies tend to feel best to a learner, not giving learners an excuse to hide from certain skills. (One of my pet peeves is when people use their classification-of-the-day as a wall, proclaiming they “can’t” do a certain thing because they’re This Type of learner. It’s one thing for self-proclaimed “visual learners” to take meeting notes using graphic organizers; it’s another for “visual learners” to refuse to have a conversation about something.)
Overall, it was pretty fluffy. I have to say, it seems likely that Renner faced the choice of either providing a cursory and inadequate introduction to Kolb’s work or not mentioning it at all. I think it’s significant that Renner decided to include it. The more I think about it, the more I think it’s important to take a closer look at Kolb’s LSI.