Digital Dappolone :: Chemistry Starts Here

home | about | chemistry | professional | projects | conversation | resources | reading | contact || courses

Can A Leader Pass on His Own Changes in Perception?
by Mike Dappolone, 2010

“…the view you adopt for yourself profoundly affects the way you lead your life." -- Carol Dweck, Mindset, 2008

The quote above comes from the book Mindset by Carol Dweck. In that book, Dr. Dweck explains her theory of the two mindsets that people can have – “fixed” and “growth.” In effect, the fixed mindset is closed-minded, that people in this mindset believe that their skills and the skills of others are based on inborn talent or are otherwise fixed and finite and cannot be changed or expanded. This mentality creates a need to prove oneself – to everyone, and constantly. “If you only have a certain amount of intelligence, a certain personality, and a certain moral character – well, then you’d better prove that you have healthy dose of them” (Dweck, 2008).

In contrast, people with the growth mindset believe that fate does not control their destinies, and that skills and talents, even new ones, can be obtained, refined, and perfected. Essentially, knowledge and intelligence are limited only by the drive of the individual. In Dr. Dweck’s words (2008), “The growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things that you can cultivate through your efforts.”

“Creating, Imagining, and Innovating” is the Habit of Mind that serves as the theme for this paper (Costa and Kallick, 2000). I have discovered that the abilities to be creative, to imagine new or better things, and to think “outside the box” are critical to determining the best courses of action when approaching concerns and problems with my school building. In many cases, I’ve learned that participating in these activities force me out of my comfort zone (or what I thought was my comfort zone, more on that below). Many of my preconceptions and, frankly, narrow-minded perspectives about the way people think and learn and about how they build their skills and achieve great things have changed in the eight short months since entering the Aspiring Leaders’ Program.

Much of the reading I’ve done in the past few months has had a profound effect on my thinking – and on the actions I’ve taken as a result. Then I read Dr. Dweck’s book, I could feel things beginning to change in my mind. I happen to believe that it’s possible to have a fixed-mindset about some things and a growth-mindset about others, and which is subject to which is rooted in an individual’s unique training and experiences. Up until very recently, for example, I had something of a poor opinion of art, music, and drama education in high schools – in effect, I had a fixed mindset. From my journal:

Being the left-brainer chemistry teacher that I am, I’ve always had some difficulty finding the “relevance” in music and theatre and art classes. After all, you can’t cut down theatre and build houses with it, and you can’t cook art and feed a family, so I had [more than] a little trouble accepting the quantity of resources spent on those programs.

In retrospect, I am ashamed that I was this closed-minded. This speaks to the dramatic changes that I’ve experienced in the last few months. My appreciation for art and music and creativity and imagination have increased exponentially, and, more importantly, so has my understanding of why creative thinking and the arts are so influential on students learning in general. This is in large part to readings like Mindset and Sir Ken Robinson’s The Element, a book about how finding one’s passion is what really makes a person shine, and how that passion is frequently not in one of the traditionally stressed academic subjects, like math or reading.

In The Element, Dr. Robinson says that the “…definition of imagination is ‘the power to bring to mind things that are not present in the senses’” (2009). In my teaching discipline (chemistry), the very root of the investigations we perform are observations – only those things that are observed can be considered when formulating or proving a theory, and philosophy and even logical supposition is frowned upon. However, many disciplines, such as art and music, thrive on intuition and would not be the same without them. Since music is a human invention, its existence requires the power of imagination and creativity. I don’t mean to suggest that creativity and imagination have no place in science, just that it is technically possible to pursue scientific inquiry without much of either. The understanding that some students rely on these traits every day to drive their learning makes me aware of the likelihood that they are many teachers that think and work the same way, an important consideration when I, as a school leader, determine how best to continue their development.

At the beginning of the program, my personality profile indicated that I am an ENTJ (I always have been). That “J” stands for “judging,” and I have lived up to that label with great gusto. I’m a “big-picture” thinker – my bachelor’s degree is in chemical engineering, a field that requires big-picture thinking at its core. When I sat in on student attendance reviews in early March, I got an interesting look at myself. In my journals, I presented some questions that I would have answered very judgmentally in the past:

Why do groups of teenagers cut school to play online video games for twelve straight hours? Is it because they’re raging against the establishment? Is it because they aren’t intelligent enough to succeed in school?

“Those kids are losers.” “Those kids are unmotivated.” “They aren’t interested in learning and that’s okay because the world needs unskilled labor.” These are the types of excuses for this behavior that I might have been tempted to accept. Dweck says that students can choose to transcend these behaviors. James Raffini, on the other hand, in Winners without Losers, says that we can’t influence students’ intrinsic motivation, but can only find a way to play to their interests. I addressed this in my journal:

Dweck says that motivation, talent, and expertise are learned behaviors. Raffini says otherwise. So which is it? I think it’s both. I think there are just some things people will never be good at because their hearts just aren’t in it. I might be able to learn to be a good technical player of tennis, but since I think it’s boring (and if I continue to think it’s boring), no amount of practice will make me love it. I’m really good at taking out the trash on time – I hate doing it.

But the fact of the matter is that students are human. Also from my journal:

The problem is simply that every student is different and every one has different interests. I’ve said this before – no amount of research and theory can every account for the dynamics of any given classroom.

As I said, I would have once dismissed such students as unmotivated or poorly behaved and left it at that. But as a school leader, it simply isn’t tolerable – maybe even ethical – to simply accept that these students are disposable. It was my shift to the growth mindset that makes it possible for me to make this realization now. That evolution is apparent in a later entry in my journal, when I consider how to “rescue” these students:

…there’s no rule that says teachers can’t talk these kids and find out what motivates them, then try to find ways to incorporate those things into the classroom. There seems to be an unwritten rule that every student in a class has to do the same work on the same things; why not let students pick a topic that’s meaningful to them and let them figure out how the coursework applies? There’s the autonomy component. Want students to really get into their work? Challenge them to become better at what they’re doing, to show improvement over time by revisiting their old work. There’s the mastery component. And can students apply their work to the real world? Could they even, optimistically, go into business or sell their ideas (or at least find a college really interested in their work)? There’s purpose.

So the question remains – if I have been able to shift my perceptions, my thinking, and understand why it is so important to be creative, imaginative and innovative, how, as a school leader, do I foster the same thinking in others?

The short answer is professional development. The teachers that have put their faith in me as their leader will benefit greatly from the changes in perspective I have experienced. It’s possible that many of them have already had these experiences, and that many of them are already aware of the importance of creativity, imagination, and innovation in their classroom praxis. But reinforcement through structured, meaningful professional development, I believe, is the key to the continuous improvement of teachers.

In Teaching Science in the 21st Century, Rhoton and Shane (2006) state that there are three points that professional development must address to improve student learning. The first of these blends nicely with this Habit of Mind, Drs. Dweck and Robinson’s work, and my own experiences. This point is that professional development must “Consider and apply knowledge about human learning and the change process.” My revelations about imagination and creativity will turn out to be critical in my design and implementation of professional development. At this point in my own development, I can shamelessly admit that I honestly don’t yet know exactly how to address these new traits in addition to all of the traditional requirements of professional development. The one thing I do know is that fostering a growth mindset in teachers (and, ultimately, in students) will be the key to our success.

That task will require that I continue to be proactive about my own education. I welcome the challenge that it offers in the future.