- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
According to Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development, the 8th graders I am observing would probably fall into the early period of identity versus role confusion stage. Many classroom interactions or atmospheres may influence the healthy development of identity. For example, some students interact a lot in a group, even though the class agenda requires individual work. Some other students tend to work alone and only work in pairs when the class activities demand so. As a classroom tutor, I can only observe student interactions in more formal and structured classroom settings, so I don’t have enough evidence to infer why some students choose to interact with their group and others tend not to do so. However, I imagine students could have gravitated toward others they perceive to have similar identities (such as backgrounds and interests). Those groups, in turn, strengthen and develop the students’ identities. Other students might feel somewhat isolated because of some perceived identities, eventually developing different identities from the groups because of the isolation. Both routes of identity formation (group-fostered or isolation-fostered) could be either healthy or unhealthy, depending on the exact group atmosphere and whether the teacher contributes to individual students’ isolation. However, from what I observed, I didn’t find the group atmosphere in my classroom unhealthy.
Additionally, Erikson describes that students’ exploration of their industry or inferiority forms the basis of their identity development. I found a lot of examples related to this aspect of identity formation, mainly because the classroom stresses (academic) competence. When a student in my class answered a relatively tricky question correctly (x times x equals x^2), Mrs. Talbot enthusiastically praised him by delivering a somewhat ridiculous but potentially rewarding series of actions. She first rang a bell on her table twice, and then picked up a wooden stick with a pink star on one end, jumping up and pointing the star at the student who provided the correct answer. I felt the act of encouragement and compliment was a little overdramatic and embarrassing, but perhaps it’s because I’m older. However, the students seemed to react fine to the actions, and the complimented student smiled triumphantly. This kind of encouragement could help the student feel more competent in algebra, which can become a part of his identity: “I am good at math,” “I am smart,” and potentially “I am college material.”
[I meant to add an image of the ritual equipment, but I found that Mrs. Talbot put it close to her personal photo, so I didn’t take a picture. I will add more visuals to my blogs in the following weeks.]
In contrast, other students who do not know the answers might feel inadequate, negatively affecting their identity. For example, when Mrs. Talbot explained to the class when they would do geometry again (in high school), a girl groaned and said that she wouldn’t take math anymore and that she hates math. Her attitude revealed that a part of her identity is “I’m not good at math at all,” which could deter her enthusiasm for math and perhaps learning in general. Interestingly (or unfortunately), Mrs. Talbot only emphasized that her classroom is a space for positive attitudes. She did not address the student individually on how to have positive attitudes toward math. Although she could have had the conversation privately, I felt that Mrs. Talbot did not adequately address this issue in class. After all, maybe some other students had similar attitudes toward math and perceived identities, despite not expressing them publicly. Therefore, praising and encouraging a student who did well in front of the class may both promote and deter positive identity development.
As for me, I would classify myself as mainly under the stage of moratorium according to Marcia’s extension of Erikson’s theory. First, I am somewhat confident that I will enter the field of education in some way and have explored different ways to do so through work-study positions, externships, and internships. However, I am still undecided about exactly what I want to do. I probably will teach at some point. But will I become a researcher? If so, which areas of education? Second, I am in a tentative state of moratorium or diffusion for my religious belief. Growing up supposedly as an atheist because of the political and cultural environment, I seldomly question whether I should have a religious belief. However, I have started to mildly ponder the question of “what if I am religious” in college. I began to appreciate why many people are religious, although I don’t feel a strong urge to change my current belief. Therefore, my religious identity is undecided because I don’t think I am necessarily an atheist anymore, although I don’t have a specific religious identity. My political identity is also in moratorium. I have identified as a moderate liberal for a few years. However, I am recently inspired by a few people to consider socialism, so I am still learning about these ideologies. In addition, I am not very political most of the time, so learning about and exploring my political identity is a slow process.
On a different note, I am a little surprised to discover the testing frequency for the 8th-graders I observe. The students took a test on the first Friday I was there and took another quiz on the third Friday, with only two weeks and one section of new knowledge in between. The two tests could be of different importance, so the serious exams are farther in between. Nevertheless, I remember math tests in my middle school were more sparingly distributed even though secondary education in China is famous for its reliance on test training. (Admittedly, the tests I witnessed at U.S. public schools looked significantly more low-stake than the monthly tests I took in middle school.) It would be interesting to learn more about the testing systems in U.S. public schools and why they are more frequent than I expected.
-
Your identification of two different types of students, those who interact with groups and those who are more solitary is really interesting! I wonder if the two groups have overlap in other classes, like maybe about half of the class has a group that they like in the class and the other half is made up of people that don’t fit in as much. As compared with other theories we have learned about, it is certainly difficult to look for cues of psychosocial development in the students we are observing so I can sympathize over the woes of incomplete data here. I bet it will be way harder to track moral development in the classroom.
It is funny to hear your observation of an eighth grade teacher’s positive reinforcement ritual, in your situation I too would have found it surprising that students were into it. Eighth graders are always trying to be cooler than one another, and surely extra attention doesn’t help them with that. When I was in middle school, I felt like part of being cool was being able to answer questions without positive reinforcement, Yeah I could answer that, no big deal type responses. But Mrs Talbot sounds really wholesome and I am glad the students are responding nicely to that. Although the issue of motivating students who feel inferior is an important one, and I would hope that Mrs. Talbot is doing things to address that, even if it is when you are not there t see it. Your observations of testing also resonate with me, I would love to learn more about the effect of that, although I hope that they do not make students feel sad and demotivated.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.