Day 2 - Growth Mindset is a Lie but an empowering one . . .

Today we learned about growth mindset vs fixed mindset. I heard about this concept before, and most recently in a podcast back in May (Tom Bilyeu interview on Mike Dillard's podcast) where the Tom said the concept of growth mindset is a "lie", but an empowering lie. In that context it was the belief you can achieve/accomplish anything you set your mind to. In the context of math in the classroom, it would be that you are able to improve your mathematics skills. Whereas a fixed mindset would be, some people are good at math, others aren't, and there's not much you an do about it.

We had a great discussion in our group re: the assigned article. One of the points that came up is how to "teach" our students growth mindset, and I brought up the fact the article mentions a website, www.brainology.com, I never looked into it when I read the article yesterday, and the person facilitating the discussion said it was a paid site. However, I think it would be worth the investment, given the effects of having students buy into the concept of growth mindset, or at the very least recognizing whether they are a fixed mindset or growth mindset, and if fixed, how they can switch towards growth. Initially, in my class, I would teach a lesson on fixed vs growth mindset, the first week of class, probably on the second day in addition to reviewing math. Our instructor does this for his classes, and uses a t-chart to show the differences.

Our group also had a great discussion on how grade 8 teachers try to prepare their kids for high school, and do a lot of tests, but that's not necessarily what high school teachers do, although I think it's safe to say the majority do. Even our instructor who has consulted with gr 6/7/8 math teachers said in gr 6/7 they do a lot of cooperative learning structures, but then all of a sudden the grade 8 teachers sit their students in rows and have them do tests, in order to prepare them for high school.
Our instructor mentioned that along the same lines, high school teachers, try to prepare their students for university, by giving many tests, and at the university level, they have to assess using tests, because they have 400 students. However, these profs know that is not what's best for the students.

Our instructor mentioned two profs, one at Brock who uses a portfolio to assess his 1st year calculus students, and one at Simon Fraser who gets his students to redo quizzes until they eventually get it. So this shift is happening at the university level, and eventually if all profs get on board, it will trickle down to high school, and then to elementary (or rather I should say grade 8). Our instructor said he takes up tests and doesn't return marks until after the test has been taken up. So he uses tests as a learning opportunity, as assessment is meant to improve student learning, and if you don't take up the test, there is no point. I shall do the same in my program for gr 8 math, and perhaps not even have the tests count towards report card mark.

We also had a great discussion re: assessment, and Vel shared some good points with us. He personally underscaffolds as a class (just as Marion Small recommends) and just scaffolds individually for what students need. He also mentioned for assessment, and growth mindset, that a student will be allowed to redo quizzes that deviate from the norm, and one "bad test" won't bring down their entire mark. When he consults with teachers, and they have an issue with this, because they say maybe the student is not good at that strand, his answer is first of all, don't teach in strands, rather teach everything in an integrated manner. Second, he will buy that argument for knowledge/understanding, but not for application, thinking/inquiry, and communication because those abilities can improve over time regardless of strand of math being taught/assessed.