Article from The Atlantic

I keep mentioning this article in my classes, and I suppose I should probably leave a link to it so I can find it later, when I want to refer to it again (as I'm sure I will).

http://www.wendymogel.com/articles/item/how_to_land_your_kid_in_therapy_the_atlantic/

It's an extremely interesting article that I find extremely relevant to educational psychology... and motivation in particular.

But after working with these patients over time, I came to believe that no florid denial or distortion was going on. They truly did seem to have caring and loving parents, parents who gave them the freedom to “find themselves” and the encouragement to do anything they wanted in life. Parents who had driven carpools, and helped with homework each night, and intervened when there was a bully at school or a birthday invitation not received, and had gotten them tutors when they struggled in math, and music lessons when they expressed an interest in guitar (but let them quit when they lost that interest), and talked through their feelings when they broke the rules, instead of punishing them (“logical consequences” always stood in for punishment). In short, these were parents who had always been “attuned,” as we therapists like to say, and had made sure to guide my patients through any and all trials and tribulations of childhood. As an overwhelmed parent myself, I’d sit in session and secretly wonder how these fabulous parents had done it all.

Until, one day, another question occurred to me: Was it possible these parents had done too much?

I think that this passage from Mogel's article in The Atlantic says a lot about parenting (and certainly teaching, as well) these days. Kids develop the skills to deal with problems in life by wrestling with them-- it provides them experience and resilience. If we allow students to struggle and "fall down," they can prove to themselves they will be able to get back up and move on.

We've been talking about attribution this week, and I think that failures and struggles can be a big part of what drives the "good" attributions we want kids to make. That is, failing and seeing that you failed because you didn't study enough (leading you to make an internal, unstable attribution) can lead you to increase your motivation and drive to study and work harder. Some parents today (and some teachers) are quick to blame or question outside forces in kids' failures.

The teacher grades unfairly. The test was too hard. The project wasn't clearly defined. We didn't have enough time to complete it the way we wanted to. On and on the excuses come-- and frequently, parents are right there leading the charge (Mogel talks about this in the article as well). Kids learn through modeling-- and a lot of the modeling many kids see is this kind of excuse-making. Parents are likely well-intentioned: they just want to see their child do well! What parent doesn't want that? (And, for that matter, what teacher doesn't want that?) However, this can backfire in leaving students struggling later on-- for motivation, for direction, for self-confidence...

I think, then, that the teacher may have to take on some of the work that needs to be done. As if we need more to do. But if we don't, we're doing our students a disservice. We need to show kids that the consequences they see are a result of their actions; that their hard work and tries can (and usually do) pay off. I'm not sure exactly what this looks like in a classroom, or how to effectively model it, but it's something that needs to be done. Of course, without parent awareness and cooperation, any work we do in the classroom can quickly and easily be done at home. Perhaps this is more of a societal issue than one that can be tackled in a single classroom.

In any case, good food for thought. I love the article.