The case for cognitive modifiability

So how do we tap into this gold mine of intrinsic motivation, assuming that it is lying dormant in the minds and hearts of our students? Keep in mind that memorization does have its place. It is a valuable tool in acquiring information and is often a prelude to understanding. But as we learned in the last chapter, intelligence is not fixed or static. It is dynamic, flexible, and resilient.

The principle of cognitive modifiability is one that every teacher should understand. When we press on to a deeper understanding of the pressures that face us, we can deal with them more successfully.

The wonderful thing about the mind is that it can be changed. This is also an unfortunate thing, for it can be either sharpened or dulled. Left alone or put with less able minds, it can slowly deteriorate. We know much about learning and thinking from a scientific standpoint because our technology has given us the ability to track the workings of the mind by observing the physical brain.

We have discussed that our experiences shape our minds. Quite possibly our social and educational experiences change the very structures of our brains, although this has yet to be proven scientifically. Dynamic, ever-changing fluid intelligence seems open to change throughout a person’s lifetime. This, as I have said, is both good news and bad news.

Modifiability, or the ability to be changed at a deep, intellectual level, is a uniquely human characteristic. It goes beyond the stimulus-response behaviorism demonstrated by Pavlov’s dogs. Many behaviorists consider biological factors the main if not the sole determinants in an individual’s ability to learn and think.

Clearly, the genetic contribution to our abilities or disabilities is a strong one. However, it is not the only one. There is also the powerful force of human social interaction. Professor Reuven Feuerstein (2006) challenges the notion that the genome explains everything relative to brain functioning. His premise is that social-verbal interactions can moderate or change the power of the genome and lessen its influence on cognitive ability. What an amazing thought! It is my conviction that we would forever teach differently if we believed this. Some of the stressors on our list would be changed dramatically.

The biology of an individual does affect the way he responds to his environment.
For example, a child who is hypersensitive, such as those who are severely autistic, resist touch. Yet there is strong evidence that the cultural environment into which a person is born has the power to change the biological factors. In other words, a sensitive, informed adult can, through specific intervention, gradually influence an autistic child to become less and less hypersensitive. This is the theory behind the statement, “Chromosomes do not have the last word.” The human being can be described as the product of the constant, intense, and dynamic encounter between these two heredities, the biological and the sociocultural. But teachers must understand the role they play in the dynamic change process.

Cognitive modifiability refers to the belief that an individual can be changed structurally—that is, biologically—when a mediator (such as a teacher or parent) stands between the material to be learned and the student and helps to frame, focus, and filter the incoming information. Thus, mediated learning involves the purposeful and intentional positioning of an adult between the child and the stimulus in order to add meaning and relevance for the child. An example of mediated learning as opposed to direct exposure to stimuli follows.

Parents are a child’s first mediators. They are the ones responsible for providing the guided experiences necessary for the child to benefit from a lifetime of learning; in fact, there is some evidence that a low level of mediation in the home can result in certain learning difficulties later in school (Feuerstein, 2007). Examples of effective mediation will be woven throughout this book. The critical aspect of mediation is the constructive use of interactive language.

Many busy parents today find it very difficult to mediate learning experiences. If they knew the power of the verbal exchanges, they might make time to interact verbally with their children in meaningful ways. However, even when there is no parental mediation, teachers can provide these opportunities during the school day. Let’s explore some creative ways to apply the theories of cognitive modifiability and mediated learning in the classroom. Much depends on our ability to question and probe thinking.

Surface versus meaningful knowledge

Surface knowledge may be described as anything that can be programmed into a computer (though our computers have become very clever!) or a robot. It is basically memorization of the mechanics of a subject. It aims for correct performance on a test. Meaningful knowledge, in contrast, is anything that makes sense to the learner.

There is increasing evidence that the brain responds very differently to surface knowledge as opposed to meaningful knowledge. For one thing, the brain strongly resists having meaningless information forced upon it. As Piaget believed, our brains are happiest when they are making meaning. Teachers’ brains respond in the same way. We are happiest when we teach a subject we fully understand. Consider the subject that you do not really understand but have to teach anyway. Because you cannot make meaning from the subject, teaching it creates its own kind of pressure.

The search for meaning is at the very heart of motivation. Students must be inspired to wonder, develop intellectual curiosity, and desire to understand and find answers for themselves. We will talk more about the teacher’s role in this adventure in the following chapters.

The need for meaningfulness

Behavioral approaches have predominated in education for over sixty years. Behaviorism, advanced by Skinner (1938), rests on the theory that rewards motivate effective learning and punishment deters slackers. Schools use rewards, such as good grades or passed tests, to promote successful learning.

However, behaviorist theories ignore the power and vitality within students—that is, their innate capacity to create meaning for themselves. If the goal is simply to pass the test, students look to others, such as teachers or more capable peers, to do their thinking for them. According to Caine, as long ago as 1991 we had an entire generation working for grades and tangible rewards. That has not changed in the years since Caine and Caine wrote that; it may even be worse today. Many students have become unmotivated to seek answers for themselves and therefore are deprived of the joy of personal discovery. That same loss of joy affects teachers.

Piaget (1959) believed that children even from infancy were continually engaged in making sense of things. Truly, we are more than machines responding only to “information in, information out.” Thinking educators understand that the teacher’s role is not simply to put “information in” to students. Rather, teaching is the amazing privilege of allowing learners the wonder of discovering for themselves. How can we do this when we have so much information to cover? Many educational theorists agree that the human brain is at its best when it is thinking creatively. But let’s be honest. Are we a bit afraid of creativity, preferring to stay within the dictates of the textbooks? Do you remember that dynamic unpredictability we discussed in Chapter One? Don’t we prefer the predictable, the book with the answer keys? Let’s dig a bit deeper into the knowledge dilemma. Clearly, knowledge can be acquired in different ways and for different reasons.

Find the Way Out

Let’s return to Aesop. As it turns out, his fables contain nuggets of wisdom that apply to many of life’s pressures. Interesting moral lessons may indeed be found here, but how do they apply to education? For those who feel they are in a virtual pressure cooker as they teach our nation’s children, this fable offers some insights. Are we grooming the outside of the “horse” (our students) through polished performances on tests and neglecting the real “food” of fostering a love of learning? It might be interesting to discuss who is really profiting from the high-stakes testing promoted by our “what-to-learn” culture.

Without being cynical, it is appropriate for thinking educators to ask hard questions of those who form educational policy. In fact, it may be useful to share this fable at a faculty meeting, using the interactive method outlined in Chapter One. Meaningful dialogue goes a long way toward helping us find solutions. Take any one item from the preceding list and spend some time sharing the pressures you are feeling. Perhaps generating a corporate-style list of the pros and cons of high-stakes testing would be helpful. Raising academic standards does not have to mean increased pressure for teachers. Let’s purpose to make meaning of the struggles.

Identify the Pressures

The first step in getting out of the cooker is to take inventory of the pressures you are facing. What are they? I am going to suggest a list, and you decide whether you experience these specific pressures.

• Many students are struggling in the classroom and cannot seem to learn no matter how many ways I try to present the material.
• Behavior problems seem to trump instruction, and I spend my time trying to keep order rather than teaching.
• It seems I am always teaching to the next test rather than actually teaching children.
• There is too wide a gap in learner ability in my classroom, so I am teaching to the middle and leaving out the brightest and the slowest.
• There is such competition for scores that my colleagues guard their trade secrets so that there is little sharing of professional knowledge.
• The administrators are not connected to the real issues in the classroom and have little sympathy for our complaints.
• I feel very alone in my job and wonder often if I am in the wrong profession.

You may have found that you identify with more than one of these pressurecooker issues. Any one of them could cause significant stress, leading you to wonder if an explosion is imminent. Thankfully, there are answers. I will address many of these issues in the pages of this book. Begin by being honest about the pressures you feel, and together let’s explore some solutions.

A Survey

Consider changes that you have had to make in your classroom to accommodate mandatory testing.

• What aspects of these changes have been helpful to you and your students?
• What aspects have been difficult?

It may be helpful to make a list of the pros and cons of the new testing requirements; there will likely be some of both. Then compare your list with a colleague’s.

• Do you agree that there is certain content information that forms the body of cultural literacy necessary for all to know who live in the United States or in any given culture?
• Do you think today’s focus on content knowledge is helpful in building a stronger base of informed literacy for all students?
• Do you feel that the way you are now teaching contributes to increased
  intellectual curiosity in your students?
• Are you able to lead them into the pure joy of learning for its own sake and not simply to perform well on a test?
  
• Finally, think about your own situation.
• When was the last time you personally learned something new just for the fun of it?
• Has your love of learning increased or diminished over the past years?
  Can you identify the causes?

Reflect again on your early schooling when you were gaining information by reading in various subject areas. What sparked your interest or made you want to know more? Did you have any difficulty reading for information? Nothing derails intellectual curiosity more thoroughly than a reading problem. If you did not struggle with reading difficulties, how did you feel about those who did? Our attitudes toward those who have educational challenges are usually formed in elementary school. The challenge of struggling learners remains very much with us today. Does their lack of progress fuel frustration for you?

The Pressures Are Real

In reality, many in school settings today feel the pressure of the “cooker.” We are in a global race, and our educational systems are under scrutiny by the rest of the world. America has always been its own worst critic, and our perceptions of our fragile educational system have fired international criticism. Our global “standings” have taken on political ramifications, resulting in demoralized teachers and forcing many to leave this time-honored profession. Some teachers have recently made these comments:

‘‘I am retiring early primarily due to the manner in which I am
forced to teach and assess.’’ ‘‘I don’t teach much reading anymore: I am too busy testing children.’’ ‘‘We feel we are fleeing a sinking ship, after giving our entire lives to our students and our profession.’’ ‘‘It is a sad way to end a career.’’

The pressures have invaded the classrooms and challenged the status quo. Both methods and methodologies are in question, so that teacher confidence and competence have suffered. As the rest of the world looks on, the internal pressures to perform continue to build.

Yet America still leads the world in two important qualities formed in the schools of our nation: creativity and innovation. I was recently on a train in India sitting opposite two professors from South Korea. In our conversation, they remarked that most foreign students long to attend American universities simply because they encourage student debate, are open to fresh new ideas, and are not overly focused on test scores. If this is true at the university level, an important question to be asked is, “What is happening in our elementary and secondary schools?”

Innovation, a blending of intellect and imagination, has truly catapulted and sustained America’s place as a dominant economic force in the global economy. But China and India are on the move in the areas of technology and manufacturing. A great book that explains this phenomenon is The Elephant and the Dragon by Robyn Meredith (2007). China is turning out an abundance of engineers, and India is excelling in technology. But the Chinese themselves have noted that no one from their country has yet won the Nobel Prize. If we downplay innovation and creative thinking at the expense of performing well on standardized tests, we will not only lose our creative teachers but also lose our credibility as a superpower.

Reflect for a moment on this quote (Caine and Caine, 1991):

‘‘Meaningful learning is essentially creative. All students must be given permission to transcend the insights of their teachers.’’

LET’S GET PERSONAL

Have you sensed rising pressure and stress as you prepare students for tests? It is important to remember that test-taking has always been a stress producer for students and teachers alike. I expect that back in 1952 my teacher, Miss Scott, stressed out on testing days.