Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Don't say it, even if you believe it?

  • Nov. 30th, 2007 at 10:53 AM
side-beard-flip
Ironically, much as I believe in the heritability of intelligence, I also believe in this research:
Several years later I developed a broader theory of what separates the two general classes of learners—helpless versus mastery-oriented. I realized that these different types of students not only explain their failures differently, but they also hold different “theories” of intelligence. The helpless ones believe that intelligence is a fixed trait: you have only a certain amount, and that’s that. I call this a “fixed mind-set.” Mistakes crack their self-confidence because they attribute errors to a lack of ability, which they feel powerless to change. They avoid challenges because challenges make mistakes more likely and looking smart less so. Like Jonathan, such children shun effort in the belief that having to work hard means they are dumb.

The mastery-oriented children, on the other hand, think intelligence is malleable and can be developed through education and hard work. They want to learn above all else. After all, if you believe that you can expand your intellectual skills, you want to do just that. Because slipups stem from a lack of effort, not ability, they can be remedied by more effort. Challenges are energizing rather than intimidating; they offer opportunities to learn. Students with such a growth mind-set, we predicted, were destined for greater academic success and were quite likely to outperform their counterparts.

We validated these expectations in a study published in early 2007.
Psychologists Lisa Blackwell of Columbia University and Kali H. Trzes­niewski of Stanford University and I monitored 373 students for two years during the transition to junior high school, when the work gets more difficult and the grading more stringent, to determine how their mind-sets might affect their math grades. At the beginning of seventh grade, we assessed the students’ mind-sets by asking them to agree or disagree with statements such as “Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can’t really change.” We then assessed their beliefs about other aspects of learning and looked to see what happened to their grades.

As we had predicted, the students with a growth mind-set felt that learning was a more important goal in school than getting good grades. In addition, they held hard work in high regard, believing that the more you labored at something, the better you would become at it. They understood that even geniuses have to work hard for their great accomplishments. Confronted by a setback such as a disappointing test grade, students with a growth mind-set said they would study harder or try a different strategy for mastering the material.

The students who held a fixed mind-set, however, were concerned about looking smart with little regard for learning. They had negative views of effort, believing that having to work hard at something was a sign of low ability. They thought that a person with talent or intelligence did not need to work hard to do well. Attributing a bad grade to their own lack of ability, those with a fixed mind-set said that they would study less in the future, try never to take that subject again and consider cheating on future tests.

Such divergent outlooks had a dramatic impact on performance. At the start of junior high, the math achievement test scores of the students with a growth mind-set were comparable to those of students who displayed a fixed mind-set. But as the work became more difficult, the students with a growth mind-set showed greater persistence. As a result, their math grades overtook those of the other students by the end of the first semester—and the gap between the two groups continued to widen during the two years we followed them.
My only issue with this is that they don't seem to be directly controlling for IQ, I would be most interested in seeing how mind-set applies in addition to standard mental tests. On the other hand, by looking at math achievement scores, they are at least controlling for something that is a pretty good proxy for IQ.

Another sort of issue: might this mindset be related to IQ? In other words, might some of a person's intelligence be based on whether they give up or keep trying, try to learn or try to look good? If so, it's interesting in that it suggests that perhaps there are interventions affecting motivation which would affect alter IQ and performance. On the other hand, if this belief is a fixed genetic thing, then all we're really doing is describing part of fixed IQ, not finding something useful and changeable. As some evidence against the latter:
In studies involving several hundred fifth graders published in 1998, for example, Columbia psychologist Claudia M. Mueller and I gave children questions from a nonverbal IQ test. After the first 10 problems, on which most children did fairly well, we praised them. We praised some of them for their intelligence: “Wow … that’s a really good score. You must be smart at this.” We commended others for their effort: “Wow … that’s a really good score. You must have worked really hard.”

We found that intelligence praise encouraged a fixed mind-set more often than did pats on the back for effort. Those congratulated for their intelligence, for example, shied away from a challenging assignment—they wanted an easy one instead—far more often than the kids applauded for their effort. (Most of those lauded for their hard work wanted the difficult problem set from which they would learn.) When we gave everyone hard problems anyway, those praised for being smart became discouraged, doubting their ability. And their scores, even on an easier problem set we gave them afterward, declined as compared with their previous results on equivalent problems. In contrast, students praised for their effort did not lose confidence when faced with the harder questions, and their performance improved markedly on the easier problems that followed.
But an intervention on one test doesn't prove whether you can have an impact over time. I'd love to see some followup on motivational interventions over years, and whether they have a lasting impact. I don't really like not talking about something (that many abilities are fixed) that I believe in. But then again I see nothing hypocritical about choosing to praise my kids in a certain way, based on what is most effective, as long as I'm honest about my views when they come up in context.

Comments

[info]abyrneseyeview wrote:
Nov. 30th, 2007 07:15 pm (UTC)
I think Marvin Minsky said something like that. Roughly, he argued that intelligence can maybe double how fast you learn -- but spending ten hours a day learning instead of one hour a day learning is what's going to make you really successful. I think Feynman was a similar case; he said his IQ was comparatively low (125), but he spent basically all his time learning new tricks.

There might be a way to figure out if intelligence correlates with this attitude: take a bunch of standardized test results, and see how predictive skipping a question is compared to question strength. On the SAT, I believe they shuffled 'easy', 'medium', and 'hard' questions. Lots of people would want to skip 'hard' questions, but people with the unhealthy attitude mentioned in the article would be more likely, after skipping hard questions, to skip medium ones, too.

That's a pretty strained way to think about this question, but it's convenient because it uses existing data (maybe Steve Levitt has some Chicago-area standardized test scores left over).
[info]freelikebeer wrote:
Nov. 30th, 2007 07:33 pm (UTC)
I am teaching...
an elementary stats class this semester. If anything frustrates me about 'intelligence' it is that brittle thinking that goes with the fixed-mindset-crowd.

I gave an exam that I could not have prepped them for any more, short of giving them the questions. I gave them an itemized list of exam topics, examples of questions like the ones that would be on the exam, open book, open note, I'll answer any question short of giving them the answer, guaranteed not to get worse than a C because I have a very liberal improve-your-grade policy, and they STILL came to class looking beaten down and afraid of it. One of the kids told me after the class that it just seems so complicated and hard and she knows she will never use it again (sigh). Most of them quit on it after an hour (2.5 hour class timeslot). The one kid who took 2.25 hours, and spent the time time, thought about the problems, and got the second best grade in the class (the best grade went to a high school kid who smoked it, took her 25 minutes to do).

This is probably why I leave what comments I do on your intelligence posts. I see so many people who defeat themselves, where their personality overpowers their personal ability. It's hard for me to get a gauge on what 'smart' is. It is my US-cultural bias that I think that these people could Ido better if they could break through their socialization. Because of this, I see the causes and effects of intelligence as highly entropic, and consequently our knowledge about it them is unsure.
[info]prock wrote:
Nov. 30th, 2007 08:45 pm (UTC)
My only issue with this is that they don't seem to be directly controlling for IQ.

This would probably be counter productive, as they aren't investigating IQ.

The more I read about your IQ stuff, the more I wonder why it's so important to you that fitting intelligence to a normalized scalar value is all that important to you. I'm sure that you find it interesting, but the idea that our mental capacity is well described by IQ is, well... naive.

On the other hand, some might find the cognitive dissonance you experience when people do intelligence studies which aren't centered around IQ...

amusing?

Nah, frustrating is probably a better word for your rigid and simplistic model of mental capacity and development.
[info]patrissimo wrote:
Dec. 1st, 2007 09:04 pm (UTC)
I tend to argue against whatever I see as a common, wrong view. For example, the view that intelligence cannot be modeled well by a scalar value. Decades of research in the field of mental testing have shown that intelligence is modeled surprisingly well by a single scalar value. And that it's very hard to write a mental test which measures something other than g.

That is not to say that our abilities or competence or mental capacity are based solely on g. I think that lots of other things matter, many fo which can be learned, and some of which matter a lot. That's why I read and post about self-development. That's why I work on classes in developing emotional intelligence at work.
[info]peneli wrote:
Nov. 30th, 2007 09:23 pm (UTC)
The second study you talked about I've been familiar with for a while, and it and similar educational research definitely makes the first make plenty of sense to me. You're right about the intervention on one test--but I SWEAR I read something about a follow-up to that study tracking students for a school year and showing a difference. Can I find it now? Of course not.

I think one of the key differences between the idea that IQ is highly based on genetics and the issues in this study is the fact that intelligence, by itself, does NOT determine success. So even if there isn't much we can do environmentally to change IQ, using the way we praise children to instill the value that hard work will lead to success rather than the idea that all they need to do is to "be smart" is a good idea.
[info]jamey1138 wrote:
Dec. 1st, 2007 02:09 pm (UTC)
First off, it's worth understanding that educators and developmental psychologists often don't control for IQ, because (as Prock suggests) it'd be counter-productive to the study they're doing (and because educators and developmental psychologists generally believe that we ought to be educating everyone well, not just those with highest IQs-- there's a subset of researchers working specifically in "gifted and talented learning", but the bulk of the research is generalized for all students, deliberately).

My only issue with this is that they don't seem to be directly controlling for IQ, I would be most interested in seeing how mind-set applies in addition to standard mental tests. On the other hand, by looking at math achievement scores, they are at least controlling for something that is a pretty good proxy for IQ.

Dude, have you SEEN a math achievement test lately? Most of them are quite different from IQ tests (often focusing on "contextual problem solving" -- what used to be called "word problems", and on equivalent representations of math concepts, through algebraic expression, tabulated data, graphical representation and verbal description-- the so-called "rule of 4"). There's plenty of room for cultural bias in a typical math test-- certainly in the ones I give my students, as well as the ACT, SAT and AP Calculus and AP Statistics tests (I'm much less expert at the elementary school tests, but at a glance, they appear similar to these standardized tests).

Another sort of issue: might this mindset be related to IQ? In other words, might some of a person's intelligence be based on whether they give up or keep trying, try to learn or try to look good? If so, it's interesting in that it suggests that perhaps there are interventions affecting motivation which would affect alter IQ and performance.

This is where I think you have the biggest problem with your existing IQ model: it should be obvious that there are a variety of non-genetic forces that can ensure that a person does not express their genetic IQ potential accurately (any sort of brain injury, for example). So, even if this sort of motivational mindset is a purely external, learned behavior, it can be chalked up as one of several external, non-genetic spoilers (lumped in with the environmental factors that have been proven to be spoilers, as described in an earlier thread...)

On the other hand, if this belief is a fixed genetic thing, then all we're really doing is describing part of fixed IQ, not finding something useful and changeable.

Well, I personally think it's very much useful and changeable, because it matches my own experience: I was told a lot as a young child that I was really smart, and was put in gifted and talented programs, and the like. Mostly, I understood things about halfway through the first explanation of them. In high school, I fell in with a peer group who were equally smart, and since we were all straight-A students, the way we competed was by minimizing workload-- that is, if Steve and I both got an A, but he worked less on it, then he was clearly the better student.

The transition to University was, understandably, a rough one: Northwestern's engineering school is a whole different ballpark than the AP/honors curriculum I was taking, and I had to learn to study. There was a brief period where I wondered if I had hit the wall-- played out my potential, and wasn't going to be able to be an A student any more (I wasn't FAILING classes at NU, but I was getting Cs, which to my mind was failure).

A few factors helped me to turn into a "learner" rather than a "smartguy"-- I had always worked hard at the non-academic things I did (sports, music), where I had very little talent, and so I knew that in that arena, effort led to improvement and success. So, when a few of my new friends basically told me to nut it up and work harder like they did, it seemed like it was worth a try ("maybe effort can pay off in academics, just like it pays off in swimming!"), and it worked.

Anecdotal evidence, I realize, but it might inform your model, anyway...

Latest Month

July 2009
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow