Special needs kids - He aint heavy, he's my brother

Parenting challenging or special needs kids is very tough on parents , siblings and of course the special needs kids. For most regular families parenting is like emigrating to a new country like Italy. For parents of challenging kids it is not Welcome to Italy  , but as I shared in a previous blog  - Welcome to Holland or is it Beirut ? ' 

Here is a you tube  -        The team Long Brothers _ a journey of Brotherly love  

The you tube should also inspire us to provide kids with opportunities to enjoy cooperative sport and games rather than competitive sport , being number one and beating the other kid.

Welcome to Holland  essay
          http://www.journeyofhearts.org/kirstimd/holland.htm

Welcome to Beirut essay
http://www.bbbautism.com/beginners_beirut.htm

         "Holland Schmolland"

http://www.autism-help.org/story-holland-schmolland.htm 

Motivation and self talk - Bob the builder and the Marsh Mellow test

In a CBS interview   on ' how to find meaning in the work place beyond the pay check '           

Dan Pink shares motivation advice also from Bob the builder.

People are happier and intrinsically motivated in the work place if they are given autonomy, have mastery and find purpose in their work. Bob the builder tells us that self-posed questions about a future behavior-  ' Can we fix it '  may inspire thoughts about autonomous or intrinsically motivated reasons to pursue a goal, leading a person to form corresponding intentions and ultimately perform the behavior. People are more likely to engage in a behavior when they have IM – intrinsic motivation, feeling personally responsible for the action, than when they have extrinsic motivation.

Research  by University of Illinois Professor Dolores Albarracin and her team has shown that those who ask themselves whether they will perform a task generally do better than those who tell themselves that they will.

Participants in a study were told  to either spend a minute wondering  ' whether  'they would complete a task or telling themselves' they would'. The participants showed more success on an anagram task (rearranging words to create different words) when they asked themselves  'whether ' they would complete it than when they told themselves 'they would.'

In another experiment, students were asked to write either “I Will” or “Will I,” and then work on an task. Participants did better when they wrote, “Will I” even though they had no idea that the word writing related to the anagram task.  A final experiment added the dimension of having participants complete a test designed to gauge motivation levels.  Again, the participants who wrote ' Will I ' , and then proceeded to report their intentions to exercise scored significantly higher on the motivation test.

In other words, by asking themselves a question – interrogative self –talk , people were more likely to build their own motivation than if they simply told themselves – declarative self –talk , they’d get it done.

Questions like ' will I ' or 'can I ' open up the brain and stimulate thinking on how we would go about a task. Telling our selves ' I will ' or 'I can do it ' may make usu feel good and affirm our abilities, but it shuts down the thinking brain leaving the emotional brain in control. Telling our selves ' I will ' or 'I can do it ' sounds autonomous , but in reality we are just pressurizing ourselves from the inside.

 Try it out and see how ' Will I' and ' I will' have different effects on the brain – opening up or shutting down the brain.

The research is significant because it discounts all the talk , that what kids need is self-discipline, self control grit, and be ambitious and motivated to succeed and achieve.

It supports findings of the marsh mellow test where kids were asked to delay gratification and show self control. The kids who did well were able to distract themselves from the marsh mellow and sit out the time.

It is quite possible kids asked themselves ' can I do it ' and then started thinking about ways to go about it. Those kids who pumped themselves up with ' I can do it ' shut down their thinking brains and in a short time were struggling not to eat the marsh mellow .

Self-talk that focuses on the questions instead of presupposing answers, allows our minds to build motivation around the questions and be creative.

Parents and Teachers should forget about the motivational 'hype' and inspirational posters like ' You can do it '  in trying to motivate kids , but rather just help kids frame their own questions which will help them motivate themselves.

.

Deborah Meier on ' How children succeed ' - character education

In my blog post on Paul Tough's ' How children succeed'  I said that trying to promote the 'non-cognitive ' skills such self control, grit and self discipline not in the context of community and cooperative learning,, addressing needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness , using intrinsic motivation and passion to drive learning and solve problems in a collaborative way taking into account kids concerns as well , all we end up is promoting docility and compliance.

I came across Deborah Meier's response on the Dianne Ravitch's blog post on the book.  

The blog post and comments focused mainly on Paul Tough's important contribution on the education and poverty debate and ignored the issue of character education as reflected in KIPP schools. Deborah Meier's insightful comment is on character education.

'Good points re Tough. Diane. But I worry that so many, Tough too, miss the special character strengths that the poor (and stressed) often bring with them to school. Their very strengths (especially if they are males) are seen as weaknesses, including their indomitable feistiness, their independence, their networking, etc. They are seen as traits to be “broken”, and then remade in another image. Kids fight back. And in doing so they are seen as incorrigible! I saw it all the time in 4 and 5 year olds–and, of course, 14-18 year olds. . But instead of encouraging them to hold onto their self-respect, we put it down as a sign of lack of character.

It’s a big subject, and I think you are on the same trail–as has become usual for us–as I am–to see what this “grit” term means when it comes to schooling, and then–who needs to change? The kids or the way the schools (and the larger society and media) respond to them?

I learned a lot just from sitting in the park and watching kids in the sand box–of a most diverse type–and how the adults responded to them and their behavior. Ah well, more another time.'

How Children succeed - Paul Tough

     In   How children succeed - Paul Tough   argues that the qualities that matter most have more to do with character: skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control and grit. Instead of focusing on cognitive academic skills , schools should focus on character.

I have just read about the book, listened to a few podcats and my first reaction was to think of Alfie Kohn. Besides the importance of attachment parenting and the negative impact of poverty on kids brains , I think Paul Tough gets it wrong on a few accounts.

He talks about self control and grit in an econtalks podcast –' And so grit was this idea that Angela Ducksworth came up with; it certainly involved a lot of self-discipline but also involved a large degree of passion. She defined it as perseverance in pursuit of a passion. So, it's somebody who has a very strong goal and does not let obstacles get in the way; does not give up; does not get distracted. And so she now feels like grit is the more important and more predictive of these non-cognitive skills.'

In the podcast the discussion ignores the crucial element of passion , a possibility of intrinsic motivation fuelling the self discipline and focuses on motivating kids on achievement and the long term pay offs of working hard and having self discipline. In a note - article ' why is self discipline over-rated ' AK says the  limitations of grit itself, as  a concept is  that it ' ignores motivational factors (that is, why people persevere), thus conflating genuine passion for a task with a desperate need to prove one’s competence, an inability to change course when appropriate, and so on. '

What comes across from what I have heard and read is that kids do not see the ' learning in itself ' as something meaningful and worthwhile , they are just focused on achievement and being successful.

So as Ak says , talk about grit, self control and self discipline is more about getting kids to meet adult expectations and be compliant. Character education is less about meeting kids needs for autonomy , competence and relatedness but about meeting adult expectations and getting kids to listen and do what they are told.

Character education has to given in the context of cooperative learning, community and a place where problems are solved in a collaborative way taking into account both adult and kids concerns. Kids should be helped to reflect on how they impact on others and at the same time get their needs met and support others.

This cannot take place in a competitive environment and where a discipline code uses rewards and consequences and ignores kids' concerns.

Paul Tough says schooling focuses on cognitive skills, whereas kids need qualities that  have more to do with character which he calls non-cognitive skills like perseverance, curiosity, conscientiousness, optimism, and self-control and grit.

He fails to understand that we use cognition all the time. Just like in academic learning kids need to be active in constructing meaning , kids need to be pro-active and make meaning of their socio-moral learning.

The self -control displayed by kids in the marsh mellow test was more about thinking, problem solving and finding ways to distract oneself from eating the marsh mellow than from good -old fashioned self control.

We would go along way in helping kids acquire grit etc by trying to help them develop a passion for learning and make meaning of what they are doing. Life is a process , not just achieving goals and then moving onto the next goal.

One of the reasons that Paul Tough thinks that cognitive skills are not worth much is that he and kids don't see any value in the learning itself. If there is value in the learning itself then both the cognitive and non-cognitive skills come together.

I recommend Paul Tough and all to read the following articles

What children really learn from failure - Alfie Kohn

Character education - how not to teach values - Alfie Kohn

Why is self discipline overrated - Alfie Kohn

Caring kids - the role of schools - Alfie Kohn

ADHD - self control , CPS and mindfulness

I recently read an article on ADHD interventions which can be described as mindfulness in action. 

This is a lot different from the traditional Barkley interventions of rewards, consequences etc which are supposed to compensate for the lack of intrinsic motivation, but essentially don't teach any skills and in the long run they  ( rewards ) undermine intrinsic motivation.

Barkely sees ADHD as ' self-control or self inhibition disorder. If I understand him correctly the ability to inhibit response enables the 4 executive functions ,- nonverbal working memory , verbal working memory= privatization of speech, privatization of emotion which is the source of intrinsic motivation , and playing with ideas-problem solving. 

ADHD kids lack the ability to privatize emotion , the source of intrinsic emotion and need to be compensated by extrinsic motivation. He says cognitive therapy does not work because it assumes the presence of verbal working memory=privatization of speech. 

Others disagree with Barkley. Dr Ross Greene shows that how engaging kids in the collaboration problem solving process many of the kids lagging skills such as executive functions, social skills, language processing skills, cognitive flexibility and emotional regulation skills are taught in an indirect way in a dynamic environment and in the context of real problems.

Attention and self talk skills can be taught in a more direct way by teaching ' mindfulness for children'. In this way kids become more reflective rather than impulsive.

In an article by Dr Ofer Timna , a kid with ADHD is taught to eat chocolate in a mindful way , taking his time by reflecting on taste, texture, smell etc and delay swallowing the piece of chocolate.

Blowing up balloons helps a kid learn to be attentive and monitor his actions and avoid popping the balloon. The balloon could be used to animate how his friends react to his irritating behaviors.

We see from here that self control and inhibition has less to do about self discipline and delaying gratification but more about activating the prefrontal lobe and get the kid into a thinking, reflecting  and problem solving mode.

This is also what Walter Mischel found about kids who participated in his famous "Marshmellow experiment.

Four decades ago, in the Stanford University laboratory of Walter Mischel, preschool-age children were left alone in a room after having been told they could get a small treat (say, a marshmallow) by ringing a bell at any time to summon the experimenter -- or, if they held out until he returned on his own, they could have a bigger treat (two marshmallows).  As the results of this experiment are usually summarized, the children who were able to wait and exert good old fashioned self control , scored better on measures of cognitive and social skills about a decade later and also had higher SAT scores. 

What mostly interested Mischel wasn’t whether children could wait for a bigger treat – which, by the way, most of them could – and whether waiters fared better in life than non-waiters, but how children go about trying to wait and which strategies help.  It turned out that kids waited longer when they were distracted by a toy.  What worked best wasn’t “self-denial and grim determination” but doing something enjoyable while waiting so that self-control wasn’t needed at all.

http://tinyurl.com/cy2n8ye     - mindfulness for children

ADHD - self control , mindfulness and collaborative problem solving

I recently read an article on ADHD interventions which can be described as mindfulness in action. This is a lot different from the traditional Barkley interventions of rewards, consequences etc which are supposed to compensate for the lack of intrinsic motivation, but essentially don't teach any skills and in the long run they  ( rewards ) undermine intrinsic motivation.

Barkely sees ADHD as ' self-control or self inhibition disorder.

If I understand him correctly the ability to inhibit response enables the 4 executive functions ,- nonverbal working memory , verbal working memory= privatization of speech, privatization of emotion which is the source of intrinsic motivation , and playing with ideas-problem solving. ADHD kids lack the ability to privatize emotion , the source of intrinsic emotion and need to be compensated by extrinsic motivation. He says cognitive therapy does not work because it assumes the presence of verbal working memory=privatization of speech. 

Others disagree with Barkley. Dr Ross Greene shows that how engaging kids in the collaboration problem solving process many of the kids lagging skills such as executive functions, social skills, language processing skills, cognitive flexibility and emotional regulation skills are taught in an indirect way in a dynamic environment and in the context of real problems.

Attention and self talk skills can be taught in a more direct way by teaching ' mindfulness for children'. In this way kids become more reflective rather than impulsive.

In an article by Dr Ofer Timna , a kid with ADHD is taught to eat chocolate in a mindful way , taking his time by reflecting on taste, texture, smell etc and delay swallowing the piece of chocolate.

Blowing up balloons helps a kid learn to be attentive and monitor his actions and avoid popping the balloon. The balloon could be used to animate how his friends react to his irritating behaviors.

We see from here that self control and inhibition has less to do about self discipline and delaying gratification but more about activating the prefrontal lobe and get the kid into a thinking, reflecting  and problem solving mode.

This is also what Walter Mischel found about kids who participated in his famous "Marshmellow experiment.

Four decades ago, in the Stanford University laboratory of Walter Mischel, preschool-age children were left alone in a room after having been told they could get a small treat (say, a marshmallow) by ringing a bell at any time to summon the experimenter -- or, if they held out until he returned on his own, they could have a bigger treat (two marshmallows).  As the results of this experiment are usually summarized, the children who were able to wait and exert good old fashioned self control , scored better on measures of cognitive and social skills about a decade later and also had higher SAT scores. 

What mostly interested Mischel wasn’t whether children could wait for a bigger treat – which, by the way, most of them could – and whether waiters fared better in life than non-waiters, but how children go about trying to wait and which strategies help.  It turned out that kids waited longer when they were distracted by a toy.  What worked best wasn’t “self-denial and grim determination” but doing something enjoyable while waiting so that self-control wasn’t needed at all.

http://tinyurl.com/cy2n8ye     - mindfulness for children

Collaborative Problem solving - Cps and Timing

'  Bad Timing ' is one of the most likely causes that makes the Collaborative problem solving process difficult and unsuccessful.

CPS should be pro-active and ' not in the moment'. When we are in the midst of a problem – in the moment -and the heat is on , our kids are agitated and frustrated,  their ability for clear thinking is limited , we and our kids are not in the right ' thinking mode' to engage in CPS. This is not the time to try to teach a kid a lesson or try to engage him in cps in order to find a permanent solution to the problem. At most we can try and redirect , calm the kid down and take out the back-up plan. A back-up plan is always a great thing to have.

We should have a list of unsolved problems with which we approach with plan C.  We acknowledge that this is not the ' time' to deal with these problems and let-go . We let go of our expectations for the time being. We can only really  deal with 2-3 problems at the same time. We need to prioritize and put some problems on the back burner. This helps reduce negative interactions, the kids intensity and relax the atmosphere.

We should try to make a regular fixed time to discuss with our kids  -how thing are going, a time to deal with problems the CPS way , and a time to review how solutions are working out. Even if we do ' CPS' out of the moment, the surprise of a cps discussion makes kids less open. If we have a regular time for talking, we can tell a kid ahead of time ,that we want to discuss a certain problem in the next talking session.

Solving problems is something that takes time, sometimes more than one session or discussion.  When we get stuck  on a problem or the kid is becoming restless or agitated, we can always take a break and come back to it later.

A CPS discussion should be preceded with some time just bonding with the kid, finding out how he is feeling in general ,and if possible in the discussion getting him to agree with you. This sets the stage for him being open and actually ' hearing you'.

Teachers can do CPS during the time they would normally deal with academic problems on a one to one basis, which is usually before or after school , recess , or time when teaching is not frontal. Kids must feel comfortable with the time set for CPS.

If we encourage our kids to share their perspectives and thinking, input and we focus on being  good listeners , they become more interested in their own thinking and sharing their concerns with us. This is so much more easier for the non-emotive stuff and helps kids navigate the more emotive problems solving sessions.