I am
continuing to explore different measures of social-emotional factors in an
attempt to provide SFUSD with as much information as possible in preparation
from their development of the School Quality
Improvement System involving measures of non-cognitive factors.
As I explored
this topic further, and talked to a number of Stanford researchers in SFUSD
focused on this study, Carissa Romero from PERTS (part of Stanford’s Psychology
Department) pointed out the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago Schools
Research’s (CCSR) literature review titled, “Teaching Adolescents to Become
Learners: The Role of Non-cognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance, A
Critical Literature Review.”[1] Published in June 2012, this report provides
some helpful insights into what types of non-cognitive measures could be
helpful for purposes of accountability.
One of the more
helpful sets of findings from the report is where the CCSR authors outline in a
table how each of the different non-cognitive factors relates to academic
behaviors based on the findings from their literature review. Interestingly,
non-cognitive factors like academic behaviors, academic mindsets, and learning
strategies seem to have stronger relationships to academic behaviors than
academic perseverance and social skills. Also, when exploring the malleability
of these factors, academic perseverance, as defined as grit, is fairly stable
as a characteristic in a person, but perseverance in academics is positively
associated with positive academic mindsets. They suggest that, “The apparent
success of many of the mindset interventions suggests that mindsets are
malleable” and can be changed intentionally.[2]
The tables also describe the role of classroom context in these factors, the
clear strategies related to the factors, and whether changing this
non-cognitive factor would narrow the achievement gap.
In the latter
table, there is little research on whether changing a student’s academic
behaviors, academic perseverance, learning strategies, and social skills could
be factors in narrowing the achievement gap.
However, a number of interventions targeting mindsets have been shown to
reduce gender and racial/ethnic achievement gaps.
What does this
mean for the non-cognitive measures in the School Quality Improvement System
being developed to support SFUSD’s and other California districts’ federal
waiver? I might suggest paying close attention to the nature of the
non-cognitive factors and whether measuring them helps SFUSD and the other
districts measure the goals they want to achieve. For example, if grit is not a malleable
non-cognitive factor, then how can schools get better at developing grit in
their students, and consequently, why bother measuring it? On the other hand, if mindsets are a
malleable non-cognitive factor, then schools can get better at developing
certain types of mindsets in their students and hopefully the measure will give
them an indication of whether they are successful in developing their students
positive mindsets.
In general, the
CCSR literature review by Farrington, et al. (2012) is worth exploring as SFUSD
and these other California districts select the non-cognitive measures to be
part of their School Quality Improvement System.
[1] Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M.,
Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., & Beechum, N.O.
(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive
factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago:
University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
[2] Farrington, et al. (2012), p. 78.
No comments:
Post a Comment