From Problems To Strengths

I think I get the concept of flow, but I think Nakkula and Toshalis contradict themselves with the reference to the lack of women in science careers.  They write "we must nurture the high-end skills just as we must help students develop in areas of relative weakness".  Well, which one is it?  Focus on what students do best and develop those skills (leading to flow) or strive to encourage students to be well-rounded?  They write on page 70, "Given that highly successful careers in the sciences, for example, require strong early foundations in math and science coursework, it would seem imperative that girls who ultimately pursue this direction would need intense early focusing in these subjects.  Can one invest deeply here while also developing strong skills in the arts, in athletics, and in the humanities?"  Ok, so they understand that they seem to be contradicting themselves....and they offer an answer on the next page: "the experience of skill development in one area can provide the motivation and the modeling needed to apply one's efforts in other areas.  That is, the experience of building skills builds confidence and a sense of competence.  The more confident and competent we feel, the more likely we are to venture into new learning activities."    Makes sense.  If you're really really good at something, then you supposedly have the confidence and competence to do other things well.  N & T call this phenomenon (on page 72) learning how to learn.  They offer Lorena's story as an example of the relationship between flow and possibility.  Through hard work, Lorena becomes a confident and competent rower, and this confidence and competence spread to her writing in English class.  But I have a problem with this...people only have a finite amount of energy and time (as N & T mention), and I'm skeptical that Lorena would be able to handle much more than rowing and writing essays (and she already kind of liked English to begin with).   Throw all the other school subjects into the mix, and I'm just not convinced.  And I think N & T sort of cop out by writing that students with confidence and competence in one area are "more likely ...to venture into new learning activities."  Maybe I'm being negative, but their explanation just doesn't sit well with me.  Throughout my graduate school experience, the "theory vs. practice" gap has certainly closed, but this "skill as a possibility" section reminds me that the gap is still there to a degree. 
I actually like and agree with the idea, but I wish N &T applied it to learning a few things well over the course of a lifetime--I think that's more realistic. I don't know.  Chapter four just didn't do it for me.  

A day later...


So I changed my mind a little bit after reading about Lorena and her science fair project partner Steve in chapter 5.  I guess N & T were not necessarily saying that students will achieve flow in all areas of school if they've achieved it in one, but when students have a knack for something, and it's recognized by an educator and fostered, the students can apply the same mindset to help them succeed (not necessarily excel) in other areas. 

N & T write in chapter 5 that individuals can't reach optimal development alone, and that relationships are key to the process.  The individual, along with her peers, parents, teachers, and community members are a team, and the success of the individual and the team are very much interwoven together.  This idea is not limited to cognitive development (Vygotsky).  Sullivan's work shows that self-understanding and self-esteem are also promoted interpersonally.  The question is whether or not the importance of relationships is stressed by teachers in the classroom in order to optimize student development. 
I think I had a big "zoom in" moment.  I've been thinking all along that forming relationships means getting to know a student really well--like, more than just a student .  But after reading chapter 5 (specifically the section "Educational Mentoring" at the end) I realize that relationships can simply mean that the student and teacher trust and respect one another. 

"...I feel like a bond between us and that helps me focus.  I'm like, 'oh he respects me, I'm gonna respect him by paying attention in his class and doing awesome.'"

This is a quote from my "Interview with an adolescent" and sounds a lot like Antwon at the beginning of chapter 5.  I keep thinking that I really need to get to know this student better, but maybe the relationship we have already is what he needs to learn in my class.  Maybe just acting like a "decent person", and modeling that behavior for the students is what builds relationships.  If this is the case, teachers can spread their time and energy over a larger area and reach far more students.  I find this incredibly refreshing and feel a bit like a weight has been lifted. 

Did I zoom in too far?  Ben, tell me I zoomed in too far.