Shenk asserts that so-called child prodigies did not necessarily demonstrate any real innovation in their fields; for example, Mozart was a "prodigy" not for composing brilliant new pieces but for mastering technical aspects of music and being so far ahead of other kids his age. In a more modern day example, students selected as gifted at a California school did not go on to do anything extraordinary with their lives. By contrast, a few kids not selected for the program went on to win Nobel prizes. "'There is the disappointing sense that they might have done more with their lives,'" laments David Henry Feldman (91). Shenk goes on to explain that people who are taught to believe in natural intelligence "are less intellectually adventurous and less successful in school" compared to those who believe in improvement (98). With this in mind, do you think that encouraging successful young students is harmful to them? How does the praising environment that they are then exposed to affect their development in GxE, as compared to students who are not told that they are exceptionally naturally gifted from a young age? What distinguishes child prodigies who do not go on to success from those who do, like Yo Yo Ma?
Vivian Wang, vivian.wang9895@gmail.com
I disagree that encouraging successful young students is harmful to them. While Shenk is correct in saying that a set mindset leads to people who ""are less intellectually adventurous and less successful in school," it depends on the form of encouragement given to them (98). Plasticity is changed through gene expression, which ties into regulation because the body responds to environmental factors by turning genes on and off to regulate the body to cope with the stimulus. Even then, Shenk goes on to say that plasticity is "every human brain's built-in capacity to become, over time, what we demand of it" and it guarantees that "no ability is fixed," which means it is "virtually impossible to determine any individual's true intellectual limitations, at any age (36). The body is constantly changing and even those with a set mindset will experience development, albeit differently from those with a growth mindset. Students should be praised and have the ability to experience a wide range of emotions in order to cope with them rather than have emotional issues later when faced with a new problem. It is very unwise to only teach students a "good" and "bad" perspective where good = success and bad = failure as it is detrimental to their learning. There are extremes in both cases where too much encouragement or too little can be given. In the case of too much, Columbia psychiatrist Peter Freed discusses the Britney Spears Syndrome, which is “a clear model for how the narcissistic parent injures a child’s sense of self by attaching high achievement to love” (http://www.babble.com/kid/child-development/4-ways-child-education-development/). This ties itself with ecology with the learning technique of conditioning in which "a behavioral process whereby a response becomes more frequent or more predictable in a given environment as a result of reinforcement, with reinforcement typically being a stimulus or reward for a desired response" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/131552/conditioning). Specifically, this conditioning offers a stimulus, or reward, after the subject performs an action. However, it is mainly successful with animals (like dogs and how they could be taught to salivate at the ring of bell because they associated it with being fed) and shouldn't be used on humans because it requires a stable environment, which the real world lacks.
ReplyDeleteStudents come to only associate success with praise and are appalled by failure, usually opting to deny it, suffer emotional distress, or even outright ignoring difficult challenges in exchange for easier ones. It creates the downfall of those with set mindsets because from a young age, they have been imprinted with negative connotations with failure (in this case, anything less than the standards of an authority figure). From budding athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury to failed child stars to the gifted students who didn't win Nobel prizes who could have "done more with their lives," too much encouragement stifles the drive to experiment, to fail and learn from that, and ultimately, to handle the real world where the environment is constantly changing (91).
(Diana Liao - dianaliao3@gmail.com)
This isn't to say too little praise is good either, because parenting does matter as seen with a 77% higher rate of school drop outs in homes where students found a lack of communication or stimulation with parents or family members (326). In fact, studies show that with the proper amount of interaction, any child can be successful. In a study performed, adopted children who originally came from broken homes had IQs of 105 compared to non-adopted children with 90(http://www.education.com/reference/article/effects-heredity-environment-intelligence/?page=4). But where did this difference come from? The adopted children were sent to homes of middle-class families where parents had IQs averaging 118–121, but the key point was interaction: the foster parents talked with them, helped them, and went through failures and successes with them rather than ignore or blame them. Even in The Genius in All of Us, Shenk discusses how genes are affected by the environment and the model of GxE, which means that parents who stimulate and help their child deal with issues rather than condition them with success or failure, allow for the best growth mindset.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't anything such as a "natural gift," but it is actually the difference a younger child has among their peers due to the societal norms. No one is born to play the violin like Mozart or dribble like Yao Ming. Instead, it is their parents and other environmental factors that stimulate them and drive them to perform better and improve. In fact, Mozart wasn't considered a prodigy because of his music writing abilities until he was much older; it just so happened that he was a rarity because he was very young and could play very well (due to much practice and influence from his family of musicians). As for Yo Yo Ma, he is distinguished from failed child prodigies simply because of his "rage to master." Even as a child, from his parents influence, he knew he would go into music, but instead of being forced to play the violin, he told his father, "I don't like the sound violins make, I want a big instrument." And when he was told he couldn't change his decision, Ma insisted, "I will play it, I won't change my mind" (95). Ma understood what he wanted and what he would have to do to achieve his goals - he didn't have unrealistic expectations set up for him, nor did he allow anyone to control his choices. By using a growth mindset and his own free will, he enabled himself to pursue the cello, which made him happy - he found his "success." Yo Yo Ma didn't have to conform to predetermined standards of success, but instead, created his own and it is that resilience that enables children to become prodigies rather than child prodigies who go on to find themselves in a rut when they run into problems.
(Diana Liao, dianaliao3@gmail.com)