This week a glorious Chinook swept through Calgary. Off came the toques and mittens, winter jackets and scarves, and ice began to thaw. The temperature shifted so much in fact, that the ice melted into sizeable pools of water, dirtying vehicles and splashing unsuspecting pedestrians.
At our school, ever curious elementary children began to explore into these pools of ice water. Chunks of ice skimmed across the surface while winter boots and wooly socks sponged up cold water. Our administration responded by making regular cautionary announcements, stationing a perimeter of pylons, and stepping up supervision around these ponds.
While on supervision, I witnessed a grade 2 boy testing the limits of our "stay out of the frozen pool of water in the playground" policy. He observed the pylons, dipping the toe of his boot just along the border of the pond. He delighted in the sharp crackle of the ice when his toe broke through. The boy soon got caught in the moment. His other boot followed suit, testing the limits of the ice and his supervisor. It wasn't long before both boots full on plunged into the water. The boy squealed, flapped his arms and spun around, swirling loose pieces of ice. Though inside I was delighted by spirit of this boy's exploration, my professional duties won over and I asked him to leave the area as it was deemed unsafe.
Risk management. At what cost? At our school, we speak about taking risks in our practice and encouraging students to take risks in their learning. I've accepted this, seemingly without question, for the past few years. Now I wish to confront it. What does this actually mean?
I dug up an article titled, "Why Do Boys Engage in More Risk Taking Than Girls? The Role of Attributions, Beliefs, and Risk Appraisals" by Barbara A. Morrongiello and Heather Rennie. http://jpepsy.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/1/33.full.pdf+html The article begins by citing research on gender differences in relation to risk taking, such as activity levels, socialization, amount of direct supervision, and constraints parents place upon each gender. Morrongiello and Rennie (1998) identify the purpose of their research, which is to examine "the possibility that cognitive-based factors also may contribute to increased injury liability among boys" They assessed "children's beliefs about their personal vulnerability" and whether "they are less susceptible to injury than their peers" (p. 34). These researchers conducted a survey with a sample of boys and girls, asking them to rate a series of scenarios on their relative risk. They discovered that "for the highest risk condition, boys' risk ratings for the confident wary-affect displays were significantly less than the corresponding ratings by girls" (p. 38). Also, "boys attributed more injuries to bad luck" and "expressed more of an optimism bias than girls" (p. 40). Interestingly, in terms of peer influence, boys may be more inclined than girls to engage in an injury-risk activity even if they observe a peer get hurt doing the activity" (p. 41).
So what does this all mean for my research? Going back to my original post, my goal in this thesis is to "to determine how to best meet the learning needs of a boy." Given a boy's propensity to take risks, how can we harness this behaviour and apply it in a productive and meaningful way in the classroom?
No comments:
Post a Comment