MODULE 2

 

Concept 1: Evolution of Intelligence

Summary:

    In chapter 4, Woolfolk looks at intelligence; its evolution as a concept over time, its historical implications, and what intelligence, and particularly IQ, mean for teachers. She says on page 125 that “The most widely accepted view today…is that intelligence, like self-concept, has many facets and is a hierarchy of abilities…” Intelligence is not, and never has been, one thing, and it’s important for us as teachers to recognize our students’ intelligence in its many forms. Pertinent to this is the idea of cultural biases in our measuring of intelligence; Woolfolk says on page 130 that, “Whether IQ tests should even be used with ethnic minority-group student is hotly debated.” Later, in the “Guidelines: Interpreting IQ Scores” section, Woolfolk discusses how even on “unbiased” tests, minority students and non-native English-speaking students tend to score lower (p. 131). What we know, what students know, and what we choose to test for are all influenced by our ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and as educators we need to understand that what white Westerners may deem as a signifier of intelligence may simply be cultural knowledge or culturally-relevant skills in the West, not universal standards of knowledge or skill.

Reflection:

    I appreciated Woolfolk’s acknowledgment of intelligence as a concept in flux; we don’t understand much of it, and what we do understand is constantly being re-evaluated. There are many different ways of looking at intelligence, and while there are factors underpinning a more general notion of it, how we measure those skills, and what those measurements can actually tell us, especially in more practical terms of predictors of success and learning strategies, is still up for debate. I liked that Woolfolk addressed the ways that measurements of intelligence have been used to marginalize, but I wish that Woolfolk had gone into more detail about the history of these abuses, because they truly cannot be overstated, and their implications continue today. It was only in the past few months that the NFL agreed to make changes to their concussion payout process, which had discriminated against Black players by assuming that because Black players started with a lower cognitive ability than players of other races, their dementia was less likely to be linked to their football career, therefore entitling them to a lower payout. It’s important for teachers, especially white teachers (which, Woolfolk has noted in previous chapters, make up the overwhelming majority) to understand how deeply-rooted, widespread, and harmful bias in our widely-held views of intelligence are.

    During my placement in the fall, I worked with a student from Ecuador who helped me understand how a cultural disconnect between the dominant and minority cultures might impact a student’s performance. I observed the class on Veterans Day, and the Ecuadorian student very clearly did not understand what all of the fuss was about. The videos and stories about military families and memorials simply did not connect with her, as she had no family members in the American military, and had not grown up with the military-reverent culture that we do here—in fact, because her family had to leave Ecuador and seek asylum as a result of political upheaval, her associations with the government and military may have been very different from one of her white, suburban American classmates with grandparents, aunts, and uncles in the armed forces. She struggled with the reflection/connection written assignments for the lesson, writing very little, and grew disinterested with the thank-you letter that she was asked to write to American soldiers. Just looking at her assignments, it would seem her ELA skills were lacking, when really, she was asking to make connections to a concept that was entirely alien, and potentially even harmful, to her.

    I believe that to appropriately and effectively support my students’ learning, I need to avoid content that excludes or invalidates their backgrounds and experiences. My assignments should always be inclusive enough to be applicable to every student, because they should focus on those broad underpinnings of intelligence rather than more specific, culturally-based skill sets that not all students share. This means that I will need to be reflective of my own biases, and how those biases may be almost invisible to me because they blend so completely into the dominant culture. I agree with Woolfolk that another way to minimize the potentially harmful effect of labeling intelligence, especially through IQ scores, is to be intentional with their usage and mindful of what they actually tell us. IQ, and even other standardized measures of performance, only speak to school performance. Innate ability is far more difficult to assess, and my time and energy would be better spent supporting student growth to work in areas of both strength and weakness than scrutinizing scores.

Concept 2: Dialects and Linguistic Diversity

Summary:

 In chapter 5, Woolfolk discusses the development of language, language differences, and teaching language in a culturally responsive way. She says on page 193 that to teach successfully in a linguistically diverse classroom, “First, [teachers] can be sensitive to their own possible negative stereotypes about children who speak a different dialect. Second, teachers can ensure comprehension by repeating instructions using different words and by asking students to paraphrase instructions…” Because a teacher has no control over the differences between their own dialect and their students’, making room for student voices and dialects can create an environment where linguistic differences are welcome, and validating students by working together to ensure that communication is effective. Later, on page 196, Woolfolk says that “some researchers project that by 2030, about 40% of all the students in pre-kindergarten through high school will speak limited English.” If we are going to effectively reach our students, we have to be prepared to embrace linguistic differences and commit to building new communication strategies. 

Reflection:

I agreed with Woolfolk that one of the best ways to connect to students, especially minority and EL students, is through connecting with their families and communities. Families are an invaluable resource for supporting and encouraging students; by developing a relationship with a student’s family, teachers can better understand that student and tailor support that will fit their needs. I think that families also, by and large, want to be involved in their children’s academic lives, and have a lot that they can bring to the table. During a teaching institute last summer, one of my mentor teachers told me that she asked her Spanish-speaking students’ families to send in the labels from canned food in their kitchen for a project about food from each of her students’ cultures, and the families were delighted. My mentor said that more cans and labels came in than she could have possibly used, and her students’ families reached out to her to ask if they could help with any other projects. 

In an art class, I think that there is a huge potential to get families involved with small exhibitions, recreating family portraits through drawing, painting, or collage, using things from home for sculpture or collage, and so much more. In my K-12 experience, my peers seemed to enjoy talking about their heritage and family traditions regardless of their cultural background, and I think that incorporating it into the classroom creates space to celebrate that diversity and learn from each other. Building relationships with families and communities also provides resources for supporting EL students, as teachers can work with parents to introduce more heritage language activities into the classroom, and providing ways to study or practice English at home. 

When working with students and families with limited English, a lot of pressure can come back onto students, as they become the main communicators between their parents and an English-speaking world. I think that engaging with families directly and working to establish sustainable communication will ease this burden on students, and show there’s nothing wrong with not being able to speak English. One of my Latino friends told me once that he worried that people thought his parents were stupid because of their limited English, and it was frustrating that they weren’t able to show how articulate and knowledgable they were to people who didn’t speak Spanish. Working to have a relationship with families, to listen and learn, communicates that you respect and value them. 

I also appreciated Woolfolk’s suggestions for respecting dialects in the classroom. For a long time, and in many places, even now, standard English was considered to be the correct form of English. Dialects, especially those used by communities of color, were viewed by white people as speaking sloppily and incorrectly, associating dialects with inferior intelligence and linguistic ability. However, many dialects, like AAVE, have consistent grammatical rules that users have to know and understand to speak correctly–they are alternative forms of English, not mistakes. My eighth grade Writing teacher was also one of my first black teachers, and he spoke in AAVE during class. His lesson plans and instructions were written in standard English, so this was not simply because he didn’t know how to speak standard American English (most members of marginalized communities understand how to conform to the dominant group) but because he chose to speak in the form of English that he preferred. Despite his class being energetic, informative, and fun, some of my white peers complained that he was unprofessional, and didn’t know what he was talking about. I had a close relationship with this teacher, and knew that he was actually a  highly trained instructor who had completed prestigious education programs, and was close to finishing his doctorate in an education field. The only reason that my peers could have possibly had for thinking about him this way was his dialect. To combat this idea that non-standard English is unprofessional or wrong, we have to validate our students’ dialects as a perfectly acceptable alternative. At the same time, though, I agree with Woolfolk that teaching other dialects and standard American English is helpful in setting them up for success. Unfortunately, not everyone will be as informed about different English dialects as they should be, and there are still many settings where standard English is more or less required.

Concept 3: Gender Bias

Summary: 

    In chapter 6, Woolfolk explores diversity and culture, with particular attention to gender and sexual orientation. On page 242, she says that, “Even though children’s books now have an equal number of males and females as central characters, there still are more males in the titles and illustrations.” Representation is a tricky issue, because bias toward the dominant group is so deeply entrenched that even when a more diverse range of people are “present” their representation isn’t always positive, or even truly visible.Even if more female characters are included, they may not be realistic enough for a female audience to relate to, or they may simply be relegated to a token place in the narrative. Later, on page 243, Woolfolk says that “In the past 10 years…educators have raised questions about whether schools are serving boys well…One explanation for why boys struggle is that the expectations of schooling do not fit the way boys learn.” Boys are socialized to be more assertive, or even more aggressive, than their female peers, but classroom environments generally do not tolerate this kind of behavior. Shouting out, getting out of your seat, and talking over others is frowned upon, and boys are punished in school for behaviors that are rewarded in other parts of their lives. 

Reflection:   

I appreciated how Woolfolk brought attention to the way that gender bias negatively affects both girls and boys in schooling, but I wish she had gone further in explaining how the same sexist systems that put women and girls down are also to blame for harmful expectations for men and boys. The pressure for boys to assert their masculinity in unhealthy ways is caused by a social prejudice against traits that have been assigned to girls, like being expressive, gentle, and quiet. If femininity, and more “feminine” traits, weren’t looked down upon, boys may have fewer issues learning to be less aggressive. Aggression, rebelliousness, and dominating others are valued as part of masculinity for their distance from feminine traits, not necessarily because they are valuable themselves. Positive traits like being assertive, active, and independent are not the same as aggression, rebellion, or being domineering, and they require a certain spirit of respect and gentleness that is often relegated to women, and is conflated with passivity or weakness. In order to treat boys and girls fairly, we need to recognize that when we expect boys to be aggressive, we are not only setting them up for failure by punishing those same behaviors in the classroom, but we’re reinforcing prejudices against girls, too.

    In my placement last semester, there were a few students who struggled with waiting to be called on before speaking, and talking over each other. The teacher frequently admonished boys for this behavior, and had a policy of either silencing or ignoring students who spoke out of turn. However, because when girls talked without raising their hands, the teacher often let girls talk out of turn. I remember standing behind two boys who tried to talk without being called on, and when the teacher ignored them, I reminded them that she wanted everyone to raise their hands. However, immediately afterwards, one of the girls spoke out of turn, and the teacher responded positively. The boys muttered to each other, “It’s only us who get yelled at for talking.” My teacher interpreted the boys’ behavior as aggressive, while the girls were seen as making a valid contribution to the conversation. Because girls are assumed to be passive and gentle, their behavior is rarely interpreted in any other light. Because boys are assumed to be boisterous and difficult to control, teachers are quick to see their behavior as disruptive, and shut them down before they feel they are losing control of the class.

I think to be equitable teachers, we need to recognize both the socialization that influences our students, and how our own socialization can lead us to see our students only through our own preconceived notions. Boys do tend to be more assertive and aggressive, as they are taught to behave this way, and girls do tend to learn to be more passive and expressive. We can push back on this by encouraging our male students to be gentle and to become comfortable with expressing emotions, and making space for our females to shine when they may not feel comfortable standing up for their own ideas and achievements. At the same time, though, we need to be careful to not view our male students as only aggressive, and our female students as only gentle. Girls are just as capable of aggression as boys, and ignoring those behaviors harms other students–especially if these prejudgments lead us to ignore male victims of bullying or teasing, because “a boy could never be picked on by a girl.” In the same vein, boys are just as capable of respect and kindness as girls, and we enable harm when we allow them to push others around because “they can’t help it.” Bias is harmful to everyone, and reflective, equitable teaching demands that we recognize that it exists, and work to check it.