In asserting that it is the aim of all educational
systems around the world to maximise the learning of every individual, I am
probably not much wrong. In the UK, many
schools articulate their commitment to developing every individual through
making mission statements that promise to “fulfil every individual’s potential”.
But how do we know what is this
“individual potential” and how can we measure if, indeed, it has been
fulfilled? Does “fulfilling potential”
equate to an assumption that ‘potential’ is a finite phenomenon which is fixed
or predetermined? By making such
statements, do we, unintentionally, put a ceiling to learning and achievement?
I have a great deal of admiration for Carol Dweck’s[1] important research
findings regarding motivation to learn and her thinking relating to the effects
of person-praise on future learning, and her idea of “fixed”[i] and “growth”[ii] mindsets. However, when following the ‘growth mindset’
theory, which undoubtedly explains why some students are more successful in
learning than others, I struggle to reconcile the references to “fulfilling
potential”, as in the title of C. Dweck’s book: Mindset: How You Can Fulfil Your Potential, and can only assume
that the notion of “potential” in this context is only used anecdotally.
My thinking is that there is no ceiling to learning
(growth mindset) because there is always that next step to aim for on any
learning ladder. When working with
students, I like to concentrate on building their learning capacity for life,
rather than thinking about ‘fulfilling their potential’ – a notion that can
sound like a cliché and, more importantly, can seem more like a ‘fixed
mindset’, where the fulfilment of one’s potential is projected as something
that can be ‘arrived at’ in the sense of a final destination. And to my mind, this is not how we should see
learning because there is no final destination regarding learning and
achievement, where attitude to learning (growth mindset) is a key ingredient to
success.
In developing new framework for the national curriculum,
it has been reported that ranking of 11-year old pupils in ability bands may be
one way of reporting and monitoring progress.
This is not a novel idea; schools already have their pupils’ baseline
data, which puts them into different ability bands thus giving schools valuable
information regarding their pupils’ different starting points. There is nothing wrong with that, to the
contrary, this provides a springboard for monitoring personal improvement or
setbacks, and is a useful tool for informing intervention where needed. As with any assessment data, it is the purpose for which it is used that is
crucial, not its existence, or the fact that pupils are categorised in ‘bands’
according to their ability levels as informed by standardised assessments. Indeed, University of Durham (CEM)
assessments can assess attitudes to learning – a key piece of information
regarding whether a student’s mind tends to be of a ‘fixed’ or ‘growth’
persuasion.
Where educational systems in some countries put greater
emphases on effort rather than on ability, for example Singapore, China, Korea,
Honk Kong, this works in synergy with the idea of a ‘growth mindset’, where
individuals (learners and employees) believe that effort can bring the desired
results, and this belief motivates them to succeed in problem solving and
building learning capacity for life.
However, the British system has always been driven by the notion of
‘ability’ rather than ‘effort’ and this, based on Dweck’s research, I would
argue can lead to a ‘fixed’ mindset, which is not in tune with effective
personal development or conducive to developing learning sustainability.
As the debate about the new national curriculum framework
continues, we have heard much about the content and little in terms of aims,
purpose and assessment – an integral element of learning – that in the long
run, I believe, will determine the success of the new curriculum in terms of
improving standards and building students’ learning capacity for life. Research-informed, I contend that,
ultimately, success is determined by effective teaching, whatever the content,
and therefore effective classroom practices focused on involving learners in
their learning processes through, for example, sharing explicit learning intentions and success criteria, peer and self-assessment,
are absolutely crucial for developing growth mindsets and self-regulated,
autonomous learners with learning capability for life.
As the curriculum debate dominates educational news, making
comparisons with educational systems abroad, and there are cultural
differences, for example regarding preferences for learning, where in some
cultures students learn best individually and in others co-operatively
(team-work is valued), it is worth considering the impact of these differences
on particular educational achievement and how it manifests itself. Some of the successful educational systems
are characterized by high degree of autonomy and independence regarding decision
making, for example in Finland, New Zealand, Hong Kong or Singapore; there are
also differences in teacher training and selection as well as the value placed on
educational achievement by different societies.
Therefore making direct comparisons can be difficult and it can be
flowed, unless numerous variables are explored.
We should also remember that ‘curriculum’ is not suspended in a vacuum
as it is a part of a bigger picture, which could be best described as ‘learning
and teaching’ in any setting. Therefore the
success in raising standards of learning of any proposed new curriculum will be
unpacked in practice, however, we should be concerned with the proposed
programmes of learning and how they are informed and supported by effective
assessment for moving learning forward.
Ultimately, the evidence of progress will be reflected in assessment
outcomes and this is why there is now a great opportunity to develop an
effective assessment system for feeding forward that would blend high-stake
testing with classroom (formative) assessment for improved progress.
Thus whether we talk anecdotally about ‘fulfilling one’s
potential’ or as I prefer, we refer to ‘building learning capacity for life’,
we are all concerned with learning,
and learning is exactly what we should be concerned with because it signifies
growth, advancement, improvement and development in every sense. We should also be concerned with developing
‘growth mindsets’ for future success
[1] Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: How You Can Fulfil Your Learning Potential. London: Constable &
Robinson ltd.
[i] Fixed mindset is defined as a strong
belief in one’s ability (intelligence) as basis for success, rather than
effort, where individuals tend to hide their mistakes and deficiencies, and
react negatively to setbacks.
[ii] Growth mindset is based on
effort and is focused on learning and achievement.