Source: New York Times Opinion Section
Title: Should Schools Teach Personality?
Author: Anna North
Published: Saturday, January 10
Editorial’s Central Claim: The author claims that many researchers have thought that personality is more important than intelligence when it comes down to the question of a student’s success in school. It is true though, that some feel this approach could distract policy makers from the problems that actually need attention in their curriculums and systems. North cites a number of researchers who have studied the correlation between a student’s personality traits and their success in the classroom, and many of whom, have varied opinions regarding just how much a students inner characteristics drive their academic initiatives.
Evidence: As mentioned, North pulls from many different sources to write her editorial, and all provide interesting insights into the question of “teaching personality.” She references an Australian psychologist, Arthur E. Poropat, who concluded that both conscientiousness (which he defines as the tendency to be “diligent, dutiful, and hardworking”) and openness within a student are more correlated with a students’ performance than pure intelligence is. He believes that person’s personality can change over time to a much larger extent than that of intelligence which is why he suggests an incredibly strong link between personality and performance. This so called perseverance of the personality-performance link is beginning to be taken as far as teaching classes entitled “grit” during the school day. North cites a school in Perland Texas that teaches a class on this personality trait. The class focuses on teaching kids that those who have true success have a passion for a long-term goal and persevere when the task gets difficult. They focus on people like Malala Yousafzai and others who have overcome immense challenges.
North cites that this focus on character has also encountered criticism and provides some counterarguments to the previously mentioned research. People like Alfie Kohn, a speaker and writer of education argue that traits like grit aren’t always helpful. Kohn believes that an emphasis on children’s personalities could take the attention away from the problems within their schools. He thinks that many people are spending too much time thinking that student need to try harder or improve their attitudes when really the various aspects of the school system itself need to be reevaluated.
Other arguments posed by North say that understanding the personality of a student can help teachers cater their instruction to fit a students needs. Suggestions have been made to work toward helping students find their pathway and interests rather than trying to teach them their personalities. This approach focuses on helping students become “gritty”, if you will, in something they love to do rather than “gritty” under all circumstances. Because, quite frankly, it is hard to be “gritty” and committed to something that you’re is not passionate about.
Opinion/Blog Post?: I agree with this last approach as I think it is somewhere in between. I personally don’t believe a class on various personality traits is necessary to teach students what it means to have perseverance, dedication, grit, conscientiousness, or what have you. However, I do believe that an environment that fosters individual expression and personality application is the best type of learning space. I think our school does a great job of “teaching” grit and conscientiousness in a sort of behind-the-scenes kind of way. I mean, we don’t have any classes on it, but we have a very motivated student body. I think part of that is our community but also the environment that we learn in and the way our teachers allow us to freely express our opinions and viewpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment