Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Learning is for life, not just for school
No amount of skill, talent and innate intelligence can make up for a ready and open mind when it comes to success. Scientific American has pinpointed the formula to true success in most areas of life beyond the immediate confines of educational institutions. It is this: "Teach students to love learning and appreciate effort in achievements, not worship ability, talent or intelligence". A deceptively simple mandate that can be misapplied and yet undeniably rings true.
Richard Branson, the self-made, dyslexic billionaire would approve. 30 years of research to let us know that effort is rewarded and mistakes are just opportunities for learning. Success is due to a belief that anyone can improve through applied effort. Resignation, cynicism and "learned helplessness" are likely the symptoms of a "fixed mindset", in which someone believes they are born one way or another and there is little they can do prevent or change it. In fact, even praising natural skills, innate talents and intelligence tends to instil a kind of apathy towards achieving more. Why bother after all, if these things you are being praised for have little to do with you?
However, a number of questions are thrown up immediately. Does this mean anyone can learn to be good at anything? Is failure always due to a lack of effort or do some people genuinely lack aptitude? Is it therefore valid to force students to keep trying to learn at whatever cost and blame any difficulties on a lack of persistence (whereas formerly it may have been a lack of ability)? Surely some people ARE naturally more gifted than others in certain areas?
The fruit of a midnight debate with my flatmate on this matter (she's a primary school teacher) leads me back to a test I recently carried out at work called StrengthsFinder . The principle of the book is that people do not have innate talent and are capable of constant improvement. However, contrary to the theory put forward by SA, not all areas are liable to be improved equally for every person. Although, we are not "born" talented, by the time we reach a certain age, it is reasonable to suggest that through our experience and the way the synapses have arranged and consolidated themselves in our brain, we are pretty set in our ways. Our strengths are clear. The question is: if our strengths are clear is it not important to also focus on our weaknesses?
The argument put forward by Tom Rath is that there is only limited room for growth in areas of weakness as the effort required to improve is disproportional to the change you are likely to see as a result. On the other hand, focusing on strengths and genuinely playing up to them has the effect of pleasure. Effort applied in these areas actually benefits the person and heightens their enjoyment. Learning becomes fun and inspiring rather than a means to an end. These are the areas in which further development is likely to be most useful as well and are likely to lead to success naturally.
The belief in innate skills is too restrictive and yet the belief that anything is possible for anyone with enough time and effort is also unreasonable. An approach founded on highlighting areas of interest and strength (acquired and improved upon, not something anyone is born with) and developing these fully is likely to lead the greatest satisfaction and natural productivity.
Find an area where applied, continuous effort seems effortless and that should be your area for success. Learning in this field will become a desire, a need and most successes are likely to derive from it.
Richard Branson, the self-made, dyslexic billionaire would approve. 30 years of research to let us know that effort is rewarded and mistakes are just opportunities for learning. Success is due to a belief that anyone can improve through applied effort. Resignation, cynicism and "learned helplessness" are likely the symptoms of a "fixed mindset", in which someone believes they are born one way or another and there is little they can do prevent or change it. In fact, even praising natural skills, innate talents and intelligence tends to instil a kind of apathy towards achieving more. Why bother after all, if these things you are being praised for have little to do with you?
However, a number of questions are thrown up immediately. Does this mean anyone can learn to be good at anything? Is failure always due to a lack of effort or do some people genuinely lack aptitude? Is it therefore valid to force students to keep trying to learn at whatever cost and blame any difficulties on a lack of persistence (whereas formerly it may have been a lack of ability)? Surely some people ARE naturally more gifted than others in certain areas?
The fruit of a midnight debate with my flatmate on this matter (she's a primary school teacher) leads me back to a test I recently carried out at work called StrengthsFinder . The principle of the book is that people do not have innate talent and are capable of constant improvement. However, contrary to the theory put forward by SA, not all areas are liable to be improved equally for every person. Although, we are not "born" talented, by the time we reach a certain age, it is reasonable to suggest that through our experience and the way the synapses have arranged and consolidated themselves in our brain, we are pretty set in our ways. Our strengths are clear. The question is: if our strengths are clear is it not important to also focus on our weaknesses?
The argument put forward by Tom Rath is that there is only limited room for growth in areas of weakness as the effort required to improve is disproportional to the change you are likely to see as a result. On the other hand, focusing on strengths and genuinely playing up to them has the effect of pleasure. Effort applied in these areas actually benefits the person and heightens their enjoyment. Learning becomes fun and inspiring rather than a means to an end. These are the areas in which further development is likely to be most useful as well and are likely to lead to success naturally.
The belief in innate skills is too restrictive and yet the belief that anything is possible for anyone with enough time and effort is also unreasonable. An approach founded on highlighting areas of interest and strength (acquired and improved upon, not something anyone is born with) and developing these fully is likely to lead the greatest satisfaction and natural productivity.
Find an area where applied, continuous effort seems effortless and that should be your area for success. Learning in this field will become a desire, a need and most successes are likely to derive from it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
