On the one hand, there are those who would argue that a positive self-image is absolutely critical to a person’s development and we should do everything possible to bolster that. This is often done through constant positive reinforcement and the celebration of even the smallest attempts at achievement. Here we return to the “participation trophy” which supporters would argue rewards a person’s effort and gives them the desire to try again.

However, on the other hand, it is argued that all of this “unearned” praise and reward is stunting a generation. We have raised people with the expectation that any attempt they make in life will be met with applause, but this is far from the case in the real world. No one cares if your business “almost” succeeded. There will be no participation trophy when you go bankrupt. And there is no “thanks for trying” if you can’t put food on your plate. It is argued that we should let people experience the pain of failure and then allow them to learn from it and grow.

I would say that the best course lies between these two extremes. It is not helpful for everyone everywhere to get a trophy simply for showing up. That will not bolster self-esteem it will only teach that person that even with little to no effort others will congratulate you. However, if a child breaks a leg it is equally unhelpful to tell them to hobble to the nurse and learn from it. We should be building people up and celebrating their achievements, but we should also let people fail. There is nothing wrong with failure, you often learn the most from the times you fall short.

A high-stress, achievement-based school culture also encourages cheating, as a will to succeed, get a good grade, etc. can overrule other moral considerations.   I worry that focuses on standardized tests, high GPAs for college admissions, and even the interest toward packing one’s schedule with extra curriculars to boost one’s resume creates a school environment that is less focused on developing a love of learning.  I am interested in reading more research considering the role of the “pressurized school environment” in shaping student’s self-concepts and moral reasoning.  I want to hear from more teachers about how they balance “teaching for the test” with developing collaborative, inquisitive learners.

Although it was a quick aside in the text, I like the idea of focusing on self-appraisal instead of self-esteem. Since the concept of self-esteem is so general, it almost devoid of meaning. While it might be good in theory to have a “’summary judgement’ about yourself as a person”, there will never be a time when we’re without a specific context to judge ourselves based on a particular self-concept. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when I read agree/disagree statements that try to gauge self-esteem, my mind immediately races to specific experiences that fit the question. If our goal as teachers is to prepare students physically and mentally to be moral citizens, then shouldn’t we just focus on being effective teachers? While not universally found in all teachers, the dependent variables used in the self-esteem studies – teacher’s passion, feedback, and interest in students – are all qualities found in effective teachers. 

What struck me most is that none of the developmental models presented, be it Bronfenbrenner’s, Erikson’s, Kohlberg’s, etc., exist in a vacuum. That is to say, each specific type of development holds some influence over the others and it is reciprocal. The family we’re born into, the religions we practice, the time we develop physically, the stimulus we’re exposed to is all connected. We can examine the individual pieces, the moral, behavioral, physical, etc. and gain some solid insight, but ultimately, every person is the construct of the synergy of all these elements.

If I look at my own self-concept and consider all of the factors that contributed to its development, I wonder if there could have been a reasonable expectation of outcome as to who I would become as a person. I have factors of my life counter-indicated by some of the studies mentioned (ie. I had no restrictions on television viewing and saw lots of violence, but I was not physically aggressive), so why did I develop the way I did? Where does one measurement stop and another begin?

The part that stuck me the most was the studies on racial/ethnic identity.  I do not recall studying that when I was an undergraduate, granted it was some time ago.  When I was looking at the dates of the ideas, that one jumped out to me as being one of the concepts that has been recently introduced as to identity.  It makes sense of course, as many of the barriers to having these issues being investigated have only been recently removed.  For example, interracial marriage was only fully declared legal in 1967!  

As I was reading all this information about the formation of identity, I wondered how this information will be put into our practice.  I would like to think I could address every child’s need in my classroom, but that can’t be reality.  What is the best way to utilize this information?  Obviously classroom management will be part of it, because when anyone enters a classroom as a student, they also carry with them who they are.  If a student acts out, a teacher will need to reply to simply do their job.

I wonder why else are we replying to it?  Are we doing it to just maintain the classroom, follow standards, to help the person, etc?  Are all aspects of that truly possible or just lofty idealism?  

The book lacks an in-depth understanding of why African-American students are “about twice as likely to be identified as having a mental health condition and three times as likely to be identified as having an intellectual disability.” The basis of such information is historically rooted in the education system sorting students of color a certain way intentionally developed to build a case against school integration of black and white children. Legal ramifications made way for physical presence in schools, but special education labeling practices demonstrated students were not the same. 

I also found it interesting the omission of cultural intelligence in relation to other intelligences. With our multicultural society comes the necessity to be knowledgeable in this area that comes very natural to multicultural students. I can see a revised version of this book incorporating this intelligence as an equally if not more important asset.

A case against prescribing issue to hyperactivity, is the need for students to be engaged with learning beyond their minds. Lastly, the reading about gifted students raised some questions on definition. With complaints being always “waiting” for the next thing, how can such students build their interpersonal and leadership skills?

 

With youth’s usage of mobile devices beginning at ever earlier ages (even as I write this at the coffee shop there’s a toddler at the next table playing with his mother’s iPad), technology is almost certainly having an impact on nearly every stage of Erik Erikson’s theory, especially those centered on the concept of autonomy. Indeed, the book asks how it possible to establish an autonomous identity when one is constantly in contact and “tethered” not only to their parents, but also to their peers and the Internet at large. 

 

Furthermore, this formation of identity in one’s early years is only complicated by sites and mobile apps that revolve around self-presentation, amplifying that already tenuous sensation of feeling like you’re constantly on stage around your peers. 

 

I do wish, however, that the text had better addressed the role teachers can play in dealing with and mitigating any potentially harmful results from this constant connectivity. How might we as teachers approach students who are struggling with concerns about their presentation and appearance, both physical and virtual? Will the old methods of helping foster self-identity and autonomy apply in such cases? Or will we, as the first generation immersed in such technology, be the ones who will have to develop the means for best addressing these concerns and questions? 

I also really enjoyed reading the section about cliques and friendships and the impact rejection can have on a student. I had some tumultuous years in middle school with a falling out with a best friend that definitely had an impact on my social and academic performance in school. It's definitely very important that we as educators are cognizant of the relationships our students have and, as the book states, being aware of how each students gets along with other students: that adult interventions can correct some of the problems students face. 

As I look at how I parent, I lean towards the Authoritative parent.  I fear that title has a negative feel to it as well just because it sounds mean.  I love my children and want to them to know that by caring for them and providing an environment where many burdens and worries are lifted from them.  I feel that when a child knows who is in charge and that person or people are looking out for their well being in a loving way, they have the freedom to develop and be guided/taught.

I feel the same way about being a teacher and setting a classroom environment.  A lot of children do have very chaotic and unpredictable home lives, and having a predictable school day can put a lot of those feelings at ease. I feel students learn better in an environment where boundaries are clearly stated and enforced.  I think children feel safer in this environment and then they are ready to be challenged to learn. 

 I know from my own experience that when I am dealing with chaotic times in my life I am very stressed out and I am looking for a safe zone take down my own walls and relax.  My family is the same, sometimes our calendars dictate our lives and that can become very chaotic.   I can tell when my children are stressed out because they act out of character and that tells me that we need to reestablish our routines or review schedules are reassure my kids. 

The section that stuck out to me the most was the section about play. I personally agree that play is essential to the development of children because it contributes to their cognitive, physical, social, and emotion well-being. 

Tomporowski’s research proved that physical activity and cognitive development are linked. Physical activity improves the development of the specific types of mental processing known to be important for meeting challenges encountered both in academics and throughout the lifespan. So, if physical activity is so important, why are our schools only giving our students 10-20 mins of free time each day? Recess can be very important to those who live in poverty and those who have disabilities. Recess can cut down on childhood obesity, which has doubled in every age group. 15 more minutes of recess every day has also been proven to help students improve test scores and behave better in class. 

Overall, I believe that students need to the time to explore their environment and get the physical activity needed in order to experiment with things, have trial and error, experience conflict, explore what activities interest them, get their bodies moving, get their wiggles out. Kids are not meant to be cooped up in a classroom all day, sitting criss cross applesauce, with a bubble in their mouth. However, this doesn’t go strictly for those K-6, I also believe that 7-12th graders need it just as much. 

In addition to the standard categories of authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and rejecting/neglecting parenting styles, Woolfolk also brings up whether an additional dimension in parenting (i.e. autonomy) would be helpful for describing parenting styles of Latino parents. Autonomy given to Latino children and adolescents seemed to describe the characteristic of allowing children and adolescents to make more decisions on their own. Researchers have even identified gender differences in the characteristic of autonomy in Latino families. In fact, parents of Latino males tended to grant greater autonomy than parents of Latino females. I wonder if extending these characteristics into inner-city classrooms would be beneficial for the students. Would students respond the same way to a White female teacher’s rules and warmth as they would to the rules and warmth of their own parents?