One of my discussion posts next week included the following questions: What factors have been shown to affect subjective well-being? What other factors do you think can affect happiness?
I had great fun researching this subject, because I think everyone has a right to be happy. Here's what I think today ... it could change tomorrow ...
Numerous factors have been shown to affect subjective well-being. In Australia, the Victorian Government Health compiled a list, grouping them into four headings: Healthy conditions and environments, psychosocial, effective health service, healthy lifestyle (Victorian, n.d.) Another source (MacLeod, Coates, & Hetherton, 2008) identified economic, social, personality and cognitive factors as attributes of well-being. No matter how many factors are named, the general consensus is that subjective well-being is the combination of high positive affect, low negative affect and satisfaction with life.
Happy people usually have a positive temperament; they are optimistic and do not meditate on unpleasant events (Diener, et al., 1999). According to Diener, two of the most prominent predictors of happiness are Extraversion and high levels of Emotional Intelligence. This study also showed that gaining pleasure from some aspect of one’s life is an important factor. Another study (Furnham & Christoforou, 2007) showed that religiousness can also be an important “happiness” factor for people who are active in faith-based communities because their faith provides a support community in times of crisis, reasons to look outside of the self, and a sense of purpose and hope. While religiousness is a factor for some, their study also found that religion is not necessary for overall happiness for everyone.
In an informal interview (Jacobs, 2010) with a self-reported happy person, a 51-year-old Chief Warrant Officer in the U.S. Army expressed how he became happy when he ran out of reasons to be angry and began to accept himself. The self-acceptance happened “when I realized I could do more, going out and doing more, and then experiencing success … when I realized I didn’t have to be unhappy, when I realized that people love me.” He went on to report that when you can “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”, apply yourself, you can do it and then help others. He also felt that realistic goals promote happiness, and that when the goal is achieved it is imperative to recognize that achieving the goal is not the end. Rather, it is how you build to the next level. This interview very much supports the findings of MacLeod et al. who reported that goal setting is a major factor in attaining happiness.
When I reflect on this topic, I think happiness is a by-product of what I do because happiness is an emotional reaction to something. Therefore happiness cannot be a goal in and of itself. Happiness happens when a person has the ability to recognize what activities, environments and actions make them happy and when they become self-aware and self-accepting. I find I can be happy most of the time when I consciously practice activities that create happiness. In essence my happiness is a habit. It took and continues to take practice.
For me, my well-being and happiness depend on doing what I love to do and being/working with people I love. It involves experimenting with different thoughts, ideas and experiences so that I grow intellectually and artistically, and march to the beat of my own drum. I alone am responsible for recognizing what I do and do not like—and making a CHOICE. If I am going to be happy I must refrain from doing what I do not like to do—especially when I am free to make that choice. For example: I do not work in a job because “it pays me well", or because "it is a good job.” This is a courageous act when the choice to *give up* the so-called *financial security* must be made, and because society is not kind when choices like these are made. However, in so doing, I learned so much about the nature of happiness and how easy it really is to be happy.
Without knowing the work of Vella-Brodrick & Peterson (2009), my personal observations/experiences are supported. In their studies, they noted that engagement in activity and meaning are more important that the pleasure. Well-being occurs when a person is fully engaged in activity (flow) and that the experiences are meaningful. My experiences tell me this is true.
Happiness happens! Once again: FASCINATING! Don’t you just LOVE psychology!
References
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Furnham, A., & Christoforou, I. (2007). Personality traits, emotional intelligence and multiple happiness. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 439-462. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-19659-003&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Jacobs, A. (2010, November 11). Telephone interview.
Lucas, R. E. (2007). Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: Does happiness change after major life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 75-79. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00479.x
MacLeod, A. K., Coates, E., & Hetherton, J. (2008). Increasing well-being through teaching goal-setting and planning skills: Results of a brief intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(2), 185-196. doi:10.1007/s10902-007-9057-2
McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 494-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.494
Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1460-1469. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1460
Vella-Brodrick, D., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Three ways to be happy: Pleasure, engagement, and meaning—Findings from australian and US samples. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 165-179. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9251-6
Victorian Government Health Information. (n.d.) The factors affecting health and wellbeing. Retrieved November 11, 2010 from http://www.health.vic.gov.au/healthpromotion/downloads/factors_hlth_wellbeing.pdf
Friday, November 12, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Skipping a Grade
In the attempts to help a gifted child, I am taking an online graduate course from Learner's Edge, called "Tapping the Talent". Part of the course requirements include the posting of our opinions in a public forum. Today, I wrote this post:
As a teacher, I support acceleration. If a child has the mind to advance, then why should we inhibit that desire for learning and mind expansion? Don't we want our smart children to be smarter? Right now, schools are not providing for the educational needs of a gifted child and are, in essence, only giving them a babysitting service. Is that what we want?
Susan Winebrenner's book "Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom" gives teachers an excellent resource to help children LEARN more within the confines of a flawed educational system. Why do teachers resist?
In almost every post I read in the Learner's Edge Teacher's Forum, teachers keep talking (ad nauseaum) about social interaction, or the social problems a child will encounter if they do skip a grade. After twenty years of teaching, I find this a ridiculous argument because children will always be learning about social interaction and they will always have social issues. Acceleration only presents them with a different set of them.
Every single day, we interact with our colleagues. Are we the same age? Are we interested in the same things? Of course not. Teachers come in all shapes and sizes .... so ... Why are we trying to make children the 'same'? Why are we trying to make learning uniform when scientists provide us with overwhelming evidence that our minds and bodies sequence differently. Why can't we honor the learning of a child? It makes us look stupid to think we can make everybody learn at the same rate.
Yes, we can have a child achieve a standard, but PLEASE ... can't we get smarter about teaching children who have the capacity to go beyond the average? If we impose age restrictions on our children, and the grade levels in which they learn, then we should do the same thing for ourselves as teachers. It's only fair.
And isn't the real bone of contention "diversity "...? We keep preaching that we need to embrace diversity and break down the walls that divide us. Well, here's a good example and yet we keep sending a mixed message to our gifted children by not recognizing their needs, or embracing their gifts.
Our job is to teach children. And, if we teach a gifted child to the "standard" we lower the standard of the gifted child. We make them average ... and what is so great about being average?
As a teacher, I support acceleration. If a child has the mind to advance, then why should we inhibit that desire for learning and mind expansion? Don't we want our smart children to be smarter? Right now, schools are not providing for the educational needs of a gifted child and are, in essence, only giving them a babysitting service. Is that what we want?
Susan Winebrenner's book "Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom" gives teachers an excellent resource to help children LEARN more within the confines of a flawed educational system. Why do teachers resist?
In almost every post I read in the Learner's Edge Teacher's Forum, teachers keep talking (ad nauseaum) about social interaction, or the social problems a child will encounter if they do skip a grade. After twenty years of teaching, I find this a ridiculous argument because children will always be learning about social interaction and they will always have social issues. Acceleration only presents them with a different set of them.
Every single day, we interact with our colleagues. Are we the same age? Are we interested in the same things? Of course not. Teachers come in all shapes and sizes .... so ... Why are we trying to make children the 'same'? Why are we trying to make learning uniform when scientists provide us with overwhelming evidence that our minds and bodies sequence differently. Why can't we honor the learning of a child? It makes us look stupid to think we can make everybody learn at the same rate.
Yes, we can have a child achieve a standard, but PLEASE ... can't we get smarter about teaching children who have the capacity to go beyond the average? If we impose age restrictions on our children, and the grade levels in which they learn, then we should do the same thing for ourselves as teachers. It's only fair.
And isn't the real bone of contention "diversity "...? We keep preaching that we need to embrace diversity and break down the walls that divide us. Well, here's a good example and yet we keep sending a mixed message to our gifted children by not recognizing their needs, or embracing their gifts.
Our job is to teach children. And, if we teach a gifted child to the "standard" we lower the standard of the gifted child. We make them average ... and what is so great about being average?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Essential Ph.D.
This coming August, I will begin my online coursework through Capella University to complete a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in Music. Because my diversity as an artist, I know I must pursue a degree that allows me to combine and capsule all the things that I love to do in a terminal degree.
The other week, I set up an appointment with Donna Brink Fox to talk about what my "Next Steps" in my career path could be. Donna is Dean of Academic Affairs at The Eastman School of Music, Rochester, NY and I have always admired and respected her opinions. Anyway, in advance of our meeting, I sent her a recent copy of my resume, so she could respond to my "Next Steps" dilemma.
When I arrived at her office, we started discussing the possibilities. She seemed to think that I would not be happy trying to fit the "bigness" of what I can do into a conservatory environment like Eastman. She said I could try, but that my interests and passions went beyond what Eastman could do. We also discussed the problems a person has when they are diverse.
She was incredibly supportive of my interest in pursuing a degree outside of music and thought the Educational Psychology degree would be a good one.
When I left her office, I couldn't help but think: Isn't it amazing that it isn't "just music"? What I know is that I want to do it all and I want to share what I know with others. In academia, a Ph.D is essential.
Yesterday, I visited the Capella website and entered my student I.D. number and found my place in the site. I am fully enrolled now. Over the next several weeks I will be applying for financial aid and scholarship money.
In some weird way, I am looking forward to the process. I want to do well ... I want to learn as much as I can. I want to do the coursework as quickly as possible and be in a position to do my dissertation when Doug returns from deployment.
Right now, I am very interested in the differences in learning sequences between boys and girls. The differences in gender and how to access the learning potential based on what we already know about brain development.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we educated our young using our knowledge of the natural processes of their learning sequences? What could we accomplish then? As a nation ... as a world?
And how differently would the Arts look if we did? Interesting question ... one I will probably ponder quite a lot over the next two years.
The other week, I set up an appointment with Donna Brink Fox to talk about what my "Next Steps" in my career path could be. Donna is Dean of Academic Affairs at The Eastman School of Music, Rochester, NY and I have always admired and respected her opinions. Anyway, in advance of our meeting, I sent her a recent copy of my resume, so she could respond to my "Next Steps" dilemma.
When I arrived at her office, we started discussing the possibilities. She seemed to think that I would not be happy trying to fit the "bigness" of what I can do into a conservatory environment like Eastman. She said I could try, but that my interests and passions went beyond what Eastman could do. We also discussed the problems a person has when they are diverse.
She was incredibly supportive of my interest in pursuing a degree outside of music and thought the Educational Psychology degree would be a good one.
When I left her office, I couldn't help but think: Isn't it amazing that it isn't "just music"? What I know is that I want to do it all and I want to share what I know with others. In academia, a Ph.D is essential.
Yesterday, I visited the Capella website and entered my student I.D. number and found my place in the site. I am fully enrolled now. Over the next several weeks I will be applying for financial aid and scholarship money.
In some weird way, I am looking forward to the process. I want to do well ... I want to learn as much as I can. I want to do the coursework as quickly as possible and be in a position to do my dissertation when Doug returns from deployment.
Right now, I am very interested in the differences in learning sequences between boys and girls. The differences in gender and how to access the learning potential based on what we already know about brain development.
Wouldn't it be amazing if we educated our young using our knowledge of the natural processes of their learning sequences? What could we accomplish then? As a nation ... as a world?
And how differently would the Arts look if we did? Interesting question ... one I will probably ponder quite a lot over the next two years.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Acceleration and Early Entrance for Kindergarten - for Gifted Learners
There is no doubt that we live in a nation that cares deeply about education. With the “No Child Left Behind Act", our government proved to the world that the United States is a well-intended nation, and that we care about the education and future of our children.
However, every child is different; every child is unique. Our desire for all children to be 'equal' in academic skills and knowledge has backfired because this fact wasn't taken into account, and the strength of our good intention has become our greatest weakness in educating our most academically gifted children.
It is ironic. Our desire to be 'fair' and provide everyone with the 'same' opportunities is depleting financial resources to aid the less academically gifted while our greatest minds are 'left behind'.
Acceleration is greatly needed for students who excel in all areas. Why isn't it used more? If a child is capable in all areas, why should his/her body be 'left behind' in a class when his/her mind can excel and go beyond? And it makes sense financially for school districts because less school tax money would be used to educate the child from kindergarten to senior year.
From twenty years of research by Dr. Julian Stanley, creator of the Academic Talent Search. (Winebrenner, p. 187), there is evidence to conclude that highly gifted children benefit greatly from acceleration, and that the long term benefits far outweigh any disadvantages. Why do our education systems fight the evidence? Don't we want our smart kids to get smarter?
Every year, teachers are given a monumental task: to ensure that all students achieve "the standards". For the students with less academic ability, this plan benefits them greatly. These students receive special attention, individual education plans, tutoring, etc. and enormous resources are spent on them for this to happen. These children are working to achieve the standards. This is wonderful for them, and our nation can rejoice because we are raising the standards for them, and helping them to succeed.
On the other hand, what about the children with the greatest academic ability? Where is their benefit? Why are they not receiving special attention, individual education plans, tutoring, etc?
Academically gifted students have already achieved the standards and mastered the material. There is nothing new for them to learn if they are required to wait for the less academically gifted to ‘catch up’. Their talents are wasted.
This is tragic for a gifted child because our education system is teaching them how to only-do-as-much-as-you-have-to. For us as a nation, this is an even greater tragedy because we have lowered their standards. Shame on us!
Why are we teaching to a 'standard' anyway? What is so great about being average? Do we really want ALL of our children to achieve and get an 'average' education? Why aren't we encouraging ALL of our children -- teaching ALL of them (not just Special Education children) -- to go beyond themselves and their own average?
Shouldn't our current 'standards' be the minimum expectation of academic excellence instead of the maximum of what we are trying to achieve? How can our nation continue to lead the world in education, be progressive and innovative if we teach our brightest children with the greatest minds to be average?
Children with great academic capacity are discouraged by a system we have created, and the educational resources to meet their needs are not provided to them. The academically gifted are left behind. At the same time, children with less academic ability, who in all likelihood may never substantially contribute to our society are encouraged because they do receive resources to meet their needs. Does this description of the overarching problem really make us look like a nation who cares about education?
There is a lot of work to be done, and if we close our minds to the possibility of alternative ways of teaching our most promising minds, then we limit the possibilities of our nation.
Is acceleration a good idea? Is early entrance to kindergarten a good idea?
How will we ever know the answers to these questions if we as a nation do not strive to instill an expectation of academic excellence from everyone? If we do, I believe no one will be left behind.
However, every child is different; every child is unique. Our desire for all children to be 'equal' in academic skills and knowledge has backfired because this fact wasn't taken into account, and the strength of our good intention has become our greatest weakness in educating our most academically gifted children.
It is ironic. Our desire to be 'fair' and provide everyone with the 'same' opportunities is depleting financial resources to aid the less academically gifted while our greatest minds are 'left behind'.
Acceleration is greatly needed for students who excel in all areas. Why isn't it used more? If a child is capable in all areas, why should his/her body be 'left behind' in a class when his/her mind can excel and go beyond? And it makes sense financially for school districts because less school tax money would be used to educate the child from kindergarten to senior year.
From twenty years of research by Dr. Julian Stanley, creator of the Academic Talent Search. (Winebrenner, p. 187), there is evidence to conclude that highly gifted children benefit greatly from acceleration, and that the long term benefits far outweigh any disadvantages. Why do our education systems fight the evidence? Don't we want our smart kids to get smarter?
Every year, teachers are given a monumental task: to ensure that all students achieve "the standards". For the students with less academic ability, this plan benefits them greatly. These students receive special attention, individual education plans, tutoring, etc. and enormous resources are spent on them for this to happen. These children are working to achieve the standards. This is wonderful for them, and our nation can rejoice because we are raising the standards for them, and helping them to succeed.
On the other hand, what about the children with the greatest academic ability? Where is their benefit? Why are they not receiving special attention, individual education plans, tutoring, etc?
Academically gifted students have already achieved the standards and mastered the material. There is nothing new for them to learn if they are required to wait for the less academically gifted to ‘catch up’. Their talents are wasted.
This is tragic for a gifted child because our education system is teaching them how to only-do-as-much-as-you-have-to. For us as a nation, this is an even greater tragedy because we have lowered their standards. Shame on us!
Why are we teaching to a 'standard' anyway? What is so great about being average? Do we really want ALL of our children to achieve and get an 'average' education? Why aren't we encouraging ALL of our children -- teaching ALL of them (not just Special Education children) -- to go beyond themselves and their own average?
Shouldn't our current 'standards' be the minimum expectation of academic excellence instead of the maximum of what we are trying to achieve? How can our nation continue to lead the world in education, be progressive and innovative if we teach our brightest children with the greatest minds to be average?
Children with great academic capacity are discouraged by a system we have created, and the educational resources to meet their needs are not provided to them. The academically gifted are left behind. At the same time, children with less academic ability, who in all likelihood may never substantially contribute to our society are encouraged because they do receive resources to meet their needs. Does this description of the overarching problem really make us look like a nation who cares about education?
There is a lot of work to be done, and if we close our minds to the possibility of alternative ways of teaching our most promising minds, then we limit the possibilities of our nation.
Is acceleration a good idea? Is early entrance to kindergarten a good idea?
How will we ever know the answers to these questions if we as a nation do not strive to instill an expectation of academic excellence from everyone? If we do, I believe no one will be left behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)