Is self-esteem earned or ascribed?

I think treating self-esteem as an ascribed status benefits no one.  It isn’t something that you are born with and carry throughout your life.  Self-esteem varies from task to task, from interactions with peers and authority figures and is a constantly changing status throughout your life.  If it was something you either had or you didn’t then people with high self-esteem would never face any doubt about their own abilities or self-worth, and low self-esteem people could never meet any challenges laid out before them – and this just isn’t the case.  The danger in assuming self-esteem is an ascribed status is that individuals with low self-esteem are doomed to have it forever and will constantly see this view reinforced when comparing themselves to the perceived ascribed statuses of others even if it doesn’t necessarily reflect reality.  Self-esteem is a result of what we have done and is very much an earned status.  In an article for the Los Angeles Times titled Self-Esteem is Earned, Not Learned Mike Schmoker makes a great point about fostering self-esteem in education:

“Like it or not, self-esteem is very much a function of such unyielding realities as what we can do, what we've done with what we have and what we've made of ourselves. And so the school--with every effort toward sensitivity, compassion and encouragement--should reinforce this, while cultivating ability, talent, decency and the capacity for sustained effort, the belief that you get what you pay for” (Schmoker, 1989).

It is not enough for a school to foster self-esteem by telling a student to feel good about themselves, or to tell them they are successful because this fosters a false sense of self-esteem which can easily dissipate the next time a student faces any struggle or conflict.  This doesn’t mean that it is fully up to the student to take charge in developing self-esteem, rather we should be giving them the tools to develop a sense of self-esteem through success and encouragement.  Focus on the positives and help them improve in areas of less confidence.  According to Carl Rogers in his essay Teacher effects research on student self-concept a student displays fewer disruptions, showed increased levels on tests of self-concept and made great gains on academic achievement if taught by teachers who had greater empathy towards, respect for and valued the opinions of their students (Rogers, n.d.).  The key lies in developing students that feel as if their opinion is valued, and this will help them see their own worth.

Rogers, C. (n.d.). Teacher effects research on student self concept. Handout from EDU 6526, Seattle           Pacific University, Feb. 24, 2017

Schmoker, M. (1989, October 7).  Self-Esteem Is Earned, Not Learned.  Los Angeles Times.  Retrieved        from http://articles.latimes.com/1989-10-07/local/me-394_1_esteem-earn-learned.

How does one take into account to student personalities and emotions?

We don’t teach in a vacuum. Students don’t walk into the classroom perfect blank slates waiting for us to fill in with knowledge. They are thinking, feeling human beings that bring a whole host of emotions and personalities that affect how well they learn. These factors may be constant or vary from day to day depending on the student in question. The question is, how do we account for the feelings of our students?

They key lies in building an “atmosphere of empathetic communication” in which the student feels safe to express these feelings (Joyce, pg. 289, 2015). By showing their emotions and giving their thoughts and opinions free from judgment, the student is able to join their teacher and peers in a community of open communication. Ideas and learning can flow more freely in such an environment. Students are nurtured to become confident free thinkers with thoughts that matter and have an impact on the world. This the goal of Carl Rogers’ nondirective teaching model which postulates that “positive human relationships enable people to grow, and therefore instruction should be based on concepts of human relations in contrast to concepts of subject matter” (Joyce, pg. 285, 2015).

This means the teacher needs to take on the role of a facilitator or guide for the student rather than a decision making, distant authority figure. The first step is to get to know your students through observation and conversation so you can recognize their individual personalities and notice when something is amiss. A great deal of empathy and genuine interest is required on the part of the teacher. There needs to be a lack of judgment or moralization – a student needs to trust the teacher enough to be able to express themselves. The educator then helps the student to work through their thoughts and assist them in clarifying why they are thinking or feeling the way they do. The teacher needs to take themselves out of the equation and make every effort to see things from the students point of view (Joyce, pg. 289, 2015). When employing this nondirective method one has to focus on listening rather than trying to identify and solve the problem for the student. Growth and learning only occur if a student is able to work through their thoughts and feelings on their own.

It really comes down to creating an environment where the student feels comfortable expressing their views and feelings about a topic, be it personal or academic, and the teacher guides them towards a better understanding and helps them find their own path to a resolution of some sort. This open dialogue is also immensely helpful in helping the teacher to design specific lesson plans for the individual geared to what works best for them. Most importantly we don’t want our students to “suffer in silence” because that can lead to a spiraling negative effect wherein the child doesn’t seek the help they need from their educator and problems learning at school multiply.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2015). Models of Teaching. Boston: Pearson Education. Ed. 9.

Are values caught or taught?

The idea that values are caught, not taught, has a profound effect on our lives as educators.  We can teach children lessons on respect, honesty, generosity, kindness and forgiveness, but unless we as teachers are prepared to embody those same virtues we can hardly expect the students to.  Children don’t respond well to the adult command “do as I say, not as I do.”  Students need to see their teacher as a role model that embodies the types of behaviors they wish to emulate.  It really goes back to the strength of constructive teaching methods and the benefits of visualizing, discovering and exploring.  The children need to experience good morals in their day-to-day life in order to fully grasp the lessons.  It is impractical to think that we can espouse the benefits of good behavior when we don’t model that behavior in class.  These lies just serve to plant a seed of mistrust and can undermine your good work as an educator across the board.

I think most values education should take place in the home, with a child’s family.  However, with working parents and long school days we can’t overlook the fact that a child may very well spend the majority of their day with their teacher in the classroom community.  This community can and should be a microcosm of the larger society they will be interacting with, and as such it is important that teachers strive to develop people of good character.  Even though values education may not lend itself well to a lecture on what it means to be a “good” person I still think it is important that it is addressed directly, and modeled daily.

This sounds easy enough on the face of it, but since different values are held in higher regard than others depending on the culture or community in question, it can be in truth quite difficult.  Some of your student’s families may value cooperation and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, whereas others may value competition and individualism.  Virtues like honesty, generosity and respect outlined earlier are relatively universal – others not so much.  This is why I think it is critical for a teacher to not only be involved in their community, but really get to know their students and their families on a personal level to better understand where everyone is coming from.  It not only helps you to become more knowledgeable, but helps to build a level of trust with the parents which will make them more comfortable with you helping them to shoulder the load of values education.

Does constructivism promote academic excellence?

I have been giving this a lot of thought recently.  I am just starting out on this path to become an educator, and as such have no classroom experience with which to realistically base my answer - all I can offer is my opinion on the matter.  If we judge academic excellence by test scores, then I suppose my answer would be no.  The constructivist approach with its emphasis on building knowledge through exploration and democratic cooperation does not lend itself to the rigors of testing.  I don’t see how a student could possibly learn all the things necessary to achieve high or even passing scores on tests given that constructivism seems such a slow process compared to lectures and text followed by memorization.  Allowing students to follow their own inclination, even if responsibly directed by a skilled teacher, seems like it would result in some of the “drier” subjects like math and history to be neglected.

I understand why teachers are reluctant to make the change from a more traditional approach to a progressive one.  It involves a lot more effort on the part of the teacher to find the best way to steer learning in the classroom.  A lot more planning has to go into the lessons, and the instructor has to be adept at reading their students and responding to their questions with appropriate nudges towards the answer.  It also flies in the face of years of schooling tradition which they themselves underwent.  I know that it is difficult to conclude that your own personal education is lacking in some way.

So, by all conventional measure constructivism does not promote academic excellence.  However, I think academic excellence is what happens when knowledge is retained and can be utilized for the good of society.  I don’t remember many of the facts I learned in school.  They were put into my short-term memory, and since the knowledge wasn’t used, it faded.  Facts are not as useful without concepts to ground them.  It seems to me that maybe it is more important to have depth of knowledge rather than breadth.  I think a constructivist approach with a focus on concept formation and discovery, coupled with direct instruction for those subjects that benefit from it the most, can be a powerful tool indeed.  I don’t see it working well unless there is a fundamental change in standardized testing.   The focus on measuring a teacher’s effectiveness through test scores means that any progressive approach could result in teacher terminations.  Constructivist teaching is difficult to assess in such a simple, straight forward manner.  I don’t know how it can work unless embraced by the entire educational system, which I am learning, is very reluctant to change.  I hope to see constructivism being used in more classrooms in the future because any approach which stimulates curiosity and can be both effective and fun is a practice I want to adopt.