A Stake in the Ground

For whatever reason I had difficultly "getting into" the readings for this week. The topic was good and I don't think that they were a particularly difficult read so maybe it was just the timing, as there was a lot going on in my life this past week. At any rate I had to read my article a couple of times to get through it.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13 (1), 1-14.

Characteristics of Learning and Design-based Research:

I like these statements from the abstract concerning learning, "A fundamental assumption of many learning scientists is that cognition is not a thing located within the individual thinker but is a process that is distributed across the knower, the environment in which knowing occurs,and the activity in which the learner participates. In other words, learning, cognition, knowing, and context are irreducibly co-constituted and cannot be treated as isolated entities or processes." I like this concept as it considers learning as a whole. And so, "As such, learning scientists have found that they must develop technological tools, curriculum, and especially theories that help them systematically understand and predict how learning occurs."

So then, "Design-based research is not so much an approach as it is a series of approaches, with the intent of producing new theories, artifacts, and practices that account for and potentially impact learning and teaching in naturalistic settings. Design-based research is not simply a type of formative evaluation that allows learning scientists to better understand the ecological validity of theoretical claims generated in the laboratory. Design-based research, as conceived by Ann Brown (1992), was introduced with the expectation that researchers would systemically adjust various aspects of the designed context so that each adjustment served as a type of experimentation that allowed the researchers to test and generate theory in naturalistic contexts."

Designed-based Research versus Formative Evaluation:

Barab and Squire point out that, "At first glance, design-based research closely resembles formative evaluation methodologies. Both are naturalistic, process-oriented, iterative, and involve creating a tangible design that works in complex social settings. The process of conducting a formative evaluation—articulating goals, operationalizing measures, examining a phenomena and understanding the consequences of its use (both intended and unintended)—is quite similar to many design-based research studies. Indeed, design-based research has been justifiably criticized for being little more than formative evaluation, even ignoring some of the recent advances made in formative evaluation. What separates design-based research in the learning sciences from formative evaluation is (a) a constant impulse toward connecting design interventions with existing theory, (b) the fact that design-based research may generate new theories (not simply testing existing theories), and (c) that for some research questions the context in which the design-based research is being carried out is the minimal ontology for which the variables can be adequately investigated (implying that we cannot return to the laboratory to further test the theoretical claims). The goal of Barab and Squire, as applied researchers engaged in doing design work, is to directly impact practice while advancing theory that will be of use to others."

They go on to discuss that, "Design-based research involves more than simply describing the design and the conditions under which it changed. Cobb et al. (2003, p. 10) suggests that “design experiments are conducted to develop theories, not merely to empirically tune ‘what works.’” diSessa and Cobb (this issue), along similar lines, argue that design-based research should involve theory work, treating the design platforms as contexts through which theory may be advanced. This type of work is iterative in nature, with the long-term commitment being to continually refine theoretical claims so as to produce what diSessa and Cobb refer to as “ontological innovations.” They suggest that design-based research allows for the production and testing of theory that can be used to generate, select, and validate specific design alternatives; revealing how various designs predicated on different theoretical assumptions are differentially consequential for learning. In this way, the validation of a particular design framework is not simply intended to show the value of a particular curriculum but results in the advancement of a particular set of theoretical constructs. Another core challenge in carrying out design-based research arises given the oint role of the researchers as designer and researcher. Design-based researchers are not simply observing interactions but are actually “causing” the very same interactions they are making claims about. Barab and Kirshner (2001) wrote: The goal of these researchers/educators/designers moves beyond offering explanations of, to designing interventions for. In fact, and consistent with pragmatists such as Dewey, Pierce, and James, to some degree it is the latter functional constraint that constitutes what is a useful explanation of. (p. 4)"

I found this to be interesting and a good point to consider that, "Researchers working in schools often face difficult ethical choices. Do they stand idly by and watch a teacher struggle to use their curricula, or do they intervene providing additional support? Do researchers share stories of struggling students with teachers and allow them to change instruction accordingly, or do they play a “hands-off” role, minimizing their impact on classroom practices?" So the point being is should you observe the natural occurrences or intervene occasionally when needed.

Mindset: The New Psychology of Success

Tonight I was reminded of this book based on the research of Carol S. Dweck. I think that a lot of the questions asked about what should we teach and when should teach it can be answered by the mindset topic. I didn’t want “to go there” in class tonight as we would have digressed more than usual. However, I think that if educators concentrate more on building “growth mindset” children and students, then the content will not be some much the issue as we will be developing continuous learners that know how to reflect, think, and learn. Most of this post is from an investigation paper I wrote after reading this book.

Why do some people appear to be more motivated to learn while others appear to lack motivation? Is it motivation based or ability based? Is intelligence, ability, and capability something that one is born with or is it possible to acquire these traits? Carol S. Dweck, Ph.D. has approached this topic with extensive research and presents some compelling results in her book, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success."

Carol Dweck’s twenty plus years of research indicates, “the view that you adopt for yourself profoundly affects the way that you lead your life.” (Dweck, 6). There are two mindsets that one can have; the fixed mindset or the growth mindset. The fixed mindset is based on the premise that you have only a certain amount of intelligence, personality, and character. This “carved in stone” mindset leaves the individual to constantly try to prove himself or herself over and over (6). Conversely, the growth mindset promotes the belief that your basic qualities and abilities can be cultivated through ones efforts (7). We all have different strengths, weaknesses, and abilities. However, we can “change and grow through application and experience” (7).

Some of the attributes of the two mindsets:

Fixed Mindset:
*Seek the safe, sure, thing
*If something is too challenging lose interest
*A non-leaner
*View failures as catastrophic
*IQ is fixed; it is all you will ever have
*Your character and personality is what it is
*Must “BE” already; expect ability to “show up”
*Defeated or destroyed by one low score or poor evaluation
*I failed = I am a failure
*Success and failure defines you
*Effort is for people with deficiencies and is a sign of weakness
*Lose confidence when fail at something and stop trying or make excuses

Growth Mindset:
*Stretch yourself
*Thrive on challenge
*A learner
*See failure as an opportunity to learn and get better
*Intelligence can grow
*Character and personality can change
*Becoming is better than “Being”
*Challenged and learn from low scores or poor evaluations
*I failed = I will get better
*Not defined by accomplishments or lack of accomplishments
*Admire effort regardless of accomplishment
*Confident in success and failure

Having the growth mindset as an educator, as well those that you instruct, will result in an approach that “everyone can learn and improve”—thus resulting in the igniting of minds (195). Consider the following statements. Do you mostly agree or disagree?:

1. Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can’t change very much.
2. You can learn new things, but you can’t really change how intelligent you are.
3. No matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.
4. You can always substantially change how intelligent you are.

1 and 2 reflect the fixed-mindset and 3 and 4 the growth-mindset.


What about personal qualities? Again mostly agree or disagree?:

1. You are a certain kind of person, and there is not much that can be done to really change that.
2. No matter what kind of person you are, you can always change substantially.
3. You can do things differently, but the important parts of who you are can’t really be changed.
4. You can always change basic things about the kind of person that you are.

1 and 3 reflect the fixed-mindset and 2 and 4 the growth-mindset.

Although you can be a mixture, most people will lean one-way or the other. Your mindset of intelligence or personality will affect how you approach mental ability situations and those that involve personal qualities (13).

This book is filled with numerous academic, business, and sports examples that demonstrate both mindsets. Each mindset is its “own world” and vastly shapes ones life and others that one will be associated with. One world is about validating yourself by proving that you are smart or talented. The other world is about stretching yourself to learn new things and continually developing. Benjamin Barber, an eminent sociologist, once said, “ I divide the world into learners and nonlearners” (16).

So when do the two mindsets begin? Babies don’t appear to be worried about making mistakes as they develop, rather they embrace each new learning opportunity, That is until the reach a point where the are able to evaluate themselves. In Carol Dweck’s research they observed four year olds working on puzzles. When the choice was given to either redo an easy jigsaw puzzle or attempt a harder one, something interesting happened. The children with a fixed mindset stuck with the safe ones resisting the option of making mistakes. However, the children who displayed the growth mindset embraced the challenge and continued to seek more challenging puzzles. So the conclusion was that the fixed mindset children wanted to make sure that they succeed, but the growth mindset children wanted stretch themselves to become smarter (17).

So when do you feel smart? Is it when you are mistake free or is it when you are learning? For the fixed mindset person it is all about perfection now, but the growth mindset is about facing a challenge and making progress.

Why does it matter which mindset that you, your students, or children have? Dweck’s book is filled with the negative results of CEO, athletes, musicians, etc. that had potential that was limited by the fixed mindset. Those that were “naturals” failed, but the “average” men and women who confronted challenges and setbacks with hard work and dedication prevailed. The growth mindset people exemplified the 1960 quote “becoming is better than being” and went from ordinary to extraordinary.

So this sounds great but how do we change ourselves and develop others into the growth mindset? One thing we can’t do is lower standards in order to boost self-esteem. When studying the “great teachers” the common belief was in the growth of intellect and talent and a fascination with the process of learning (189). “Do teachers have to love all of their students? No, but they do have to CARE about every SINGLE student.”(190). Benjamin Bloom’s study of 120 world-class athletes, artists, and academia’s, revealed a fascinating consistency. The first teachers for most of these people created an atmosphere that was “I’m going to teach you rather than I am going to judge your talent.”(191).

Some attributes of growth minded teachers:
*Create an atmosphere of affection and deep personal commitment to every student
*To challenge and nurture
*To teach students to love learning and to learn to think for themselves
*Tell the students the truth and then give them the tools to close the gap
*Leading the students to grasp that school is for them- a way to grow their minds
*Promote the concept that it is about practice and learning, not smart and dumb
*Continue to learn with and from the students
*A deep desire to ignite the mind of every child

The growth mindset is based on the belief in change (207). Carol Dweck was a fixed-mindset person who has transitioned to a growth-mindset. There are many examples of people who have transitioned to the growth-mindset. The change is not about “picking up a few pointers here and there”, rather it is about “seeing things in a new way” (238). It is about changing from a “judge-and-be-judged framework to a learn-and-help-learn framework” (238). The change requires a commitment to growth, which will involve plenty of time, effort, and mutual support (238).

Carol Dweck asked, “Did changing to a growth mindset solve all of my problems? No, But I know that I have a different life because of it—a richer one. And that I’m more alive, courageous, and open person because of it.” (239).

Closing questions to consider (238):
What are the opportunities for learning and growth today? For myself? For the people around me?

Resource:
Dweck, Carol S. Ph.D. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House