|
0 members (),
189
guests, and
16
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Here is what I'd ask Carol Dweck: Have you tested the effects of NOT praising a child? That is, of not giving him external praise, which, whether it's about effort or ability, can instill a dependence on external rather than internal factors on the child? See this excellent article: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/16/the...eory_and_the_harmful_lessons_it_imparts/The more serious concern, however, is that what’s really problematic is praise itself. It’s a verbal reward, an extrinsic inducement, and, like other rewards, is often construed by the recipient as manipulation. A substantial research literature has shown that the kids typically end up less interested in whatever they were rewarded or praised for doing, because now their goal is just to get the reward or praise. As I’ve explained in books and articles, the most salient feature of a positive judgment is not that it’s positive but that it’s a judgment; it’s more about controlling than encouraging. Moreover, praise communicates that our acceptance of a child comes with strings attached: Our approval is conditional on the child’s continuing to impress us or do what we say. What kids actually need from us, along with nonjudgmental feedback and guidance, is unconditional support — the antithesis of a patronizing pat on the head for having jumped through our hoops. Dweck never included a no-praise control group in her effort/ability studies. This is a major flaw in them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
Possibly Alfie Kohn reads the forums?  Dweck's 2000 book, mentioned in the article, may be of interest to readers on these forums: Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. This book discusses research on adaptive and maladaptive motivational patterns. Dweck never included a no-praise control group in her effort/ability studies. This is a major flaw in them. A neutral control group is alluded to, however is not reported in the book mindset. Additional questions on the original research or any subsequent research are mentioned upthread. While some may see all praise as manipulation, "a patronizing pat on the head for having jumped through hoops", and the antithesis of unconditional love... others may see the guidance and formation of a child as an important expression of support for the child and society; Without use of praise there may be only negative reinforcers and/or unguided children. For example. Any theory taken to extreme... is extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 49
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 49 |
Completely agree, Indigo. Any theory taken to its extreme is extreme.
Children benefit from realistic, warm, supportive feedback. Gifted children, in particular, have good radar for manipulative, false, over-the-top praise. They know when they are being praised for work they did without effort, and many recoil if they are repeatedly told they are smart.
But gifted kids, like any others, deserve appropriate, meaningful supportive praise. There is nothing wrong, IMO, to enthusiastically saying "Good job!" when we really mean it and when our child has worked hard to accomplish something. Saying something lukewarm like, "I notice the interesting colors you chose for that project - they really stood out" can be an additional comment, but without the passion and enthusiasm, it just rings hollow. And our kids know that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,261 Likes: 8 |
A post upthread alerts us that a separate spin-off thread was created (Recommendations for math teachers, Aug 2015), to discuss Jo Boaler. Based on information gleaned from resources linked a new thread (Jo Boaler and Gifted Students, Mar 2019), I'm adding a new post to this old thread... to share excerpts of an Abstract, for the benefit of future readers: How well people bounce back from mistakes depends on their beliefs about learning and intelligence. For individuals with a growth mind-set, who believe intelligence develops through effort, mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn and improve. For individuals with a fixed mind-set, who believe intelligence is a stable characteristic, mistakes indicate lack of ability.
...
error positivity component... reflects awareness of and allocation of attention to mistakes.
...
More growth-minded individuals also showed superior accuracy after mistakes compared with individuals endorsing a more fixed mind-set.
...
growth-minded individuals’ ability to rebound from mistakes. It appears that one's mindset impacts their ability to learn from their mistakes... and can make or break a person. This may be seen as reinforcing what is summarized in this old post, upthread. Unfortunately, in this age of rating/ranking public schools and their teachers based on their success in achieving "equal educational outcomes" among the various pupils in their classrooms, this information may be weaponized and used against the gifted, essentially undermining them and limiting their growth by guiding their choices toward:
- a preference for challenge avoidance,
- a fear of making errors and/or acknowledging mistakes,
- a distaste for checking their work and/or seeking help,
- acceptance of a fixed mindset, in which an error shows the unmovable boundary of their intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
