Carol Dweck will be making a "Mindset" presentation in my community. I am planning to attend. I don't know if she will entertain questions, but I thought I would prepare a couple just in case. The problem is, I am having a hard time wording them without revealing my views. I want to hear an objective answer that will help me understand the attraction, not a defensive answer that will leave me frustrated.

I will reread the book beforehand to try and open my mind a bit. While I don't disagree with everything she says, I am certainly at odds with some things. Our head honcho is an avowed "Dweckian". I want to understand why.

Have you heard Dr. Dweck speak? Does she engage the audience? Suggestions what to listen for? And finally, what would you ask her?

I was just reading a great blog on this topic -- will see if I can find it for you.

My question is: how much does the learning environment itself (i.e. challenges being provided at the right, vs. age-based, level) have to do with growth mindset? The articles seem to focus on wording (i.e. praise of various attributes - working hard, smart, etc.) while ignoring the tasks themselves.

Found it -- Gail Post blog.
http://giftedchallenges.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-grit-talent-dichotomy-creating_19.html

A recent long thread about Dweck was Against the growth mindset.

I would ask Carol Dweck to autograph my copy of her book, mindset.

Beyond that, I might ask about research and application:
1) Research.
Mindset (copyright 2006) was based on research. I might ask if there is new research spawned by her book, and what the central questions are. On the other hand, I might ask if research has been completed since mindset was published which might re-emphasize certain points in mindset... call other earlier research into question... refine any points... etc.
2) Application.
In the ongoing nature/nurture discussion, mindset relates to nurture. Are there specific schools which have implemented a policy of encouraging growth mindset, and what do the results show? Similarly, is there reader mail which indicates that families have dedicated themselves to a growth mindset, and achieved positive results (anecdotal evidence)?

Other posters upthread have shared some recent threads with lively discussion of mindset. Another such thread is Gifted girls.

Regarding Carol Dweck speaking, there are several youtube videos, including Teaching a Growth Mindset.

Stories on pp63-67 may help explain this? Possibly these stories indicate that adopting a growth mindset may help close any achievement gap and/or excellence gap, in a positive way (without capping the growth of the top performers). Also pp196-202. ETA: Another post discusses that a possible gap in mindset may result in capping growth of students at the top.

I think I would want to ask her this -

A basic tenet of mindset development seems to be that praise should be reserved for truly effort-based accomplishments. But, there is a body of science that shows that executive function and impulse control are skills that develop asynchronously - and later - in gifted children as compared to neurotypical children. Within these asynchronously developed skills lies the ability to accept failure and continue on - e.g., losing a game while still enjoying playing and wanting to play again. How do you tailor mindset development strategies to match a child's zone of proximal development with respect to executive function? That is - how do you know when a child is truly making an effort on tasks that require executive function and impulse control? By analogy - how do you make sure your grit and resilience expectations ("You rushed through this work, and could have done much better.") aren't equivalent to expecting a child to run, before she has the capacity to walk?

May I ask your source for this?

In the video Teaching a Growth Mindset, one study is described as complimenting each child, according to the group s/he was assigned to:
1) Fixed mindset group: Compliment on score. You must be smart.
(Internalized message: Being smart is valued; Don't risk making mistakes. Natural talent is valued; Avoid "effort".)
2) Growth mindset group: Compliment on score, and on effort.
(Internalized message: Effort is valued; Can make mistakes and learn from them.)
3) Neutral control group: Compliment on score.

This did not seem to be based on the difficulty of the work relative to the child, or the amount of effort involved on the part of the child, rather it was about influencing a child's mindset in preparation for the next upcoming task(s) in the research study.

This raises a question in my mind, and this may be a question to ask of Dr. Dweck: whether the students in the studies were working in their ZPD, as praising effort is genuine in this context. By contrast, in real life often students are grouped by age and may be in classes where they are not exposed to new material.

ETA: Possibly I've found the answer to the question I asked at the top of this post, seeking a source for your statement regarding reserving praise for truly effort-based accomplishments:

Originally Posted by mindset book, page 179

So what should we say when children complete a task - say, math problems - quickly and perfectly? Should we deny them the praise they have earned? Yes. When this happens, I say, "Whoops. I guess that was too easy. I apologize for wasting your time. Let's do something you can really learn from!"

IMO this may be a great way to open doors to help a child get access to appropriate curriculum and pacing, while also ensuring that a child doing advanced work is receiving grades which reflect the advanced work they are doing. (See old posts on differentiated task demands and redo policies which may in some cases penalize advanced students.)

Has it been shown that students who have a "growth mindset" do so because their parents and teachers try to instill that mindset in them? I think the mindset may be a result of past success or failure. Someone who works hard at Algebra II but eventually "gets it" is more likely to have a growth mindset afterwards than someone who works hard and flunks the subject. I had more of a growth mindset before college than after it, because in high school I did not encounter material that was just too hard for me. The lower the IQ, the earlier in life one has this experience.

I might combine Dots' and Indigo's questions about learning environment and ask what a growth mindset learning environment looks like without using the Brainology (or similar) program, which seems to include a lot of posters and stories about effort trumping innate ability. That is, are class/teacher assignments, teaching methodology, schedules, assessment, etc. structured to elicit growth mindsets? Are there studies related to implementation of any growth mindset techniques?

Because the post may reveal an unfamiliarity with mindset, please, PLEASE, puh-leeeez watch the 23 minute video... Teaching a Growth Mindset. It is time well spent.

There is a lot of information presented. If it helps, take notes of key phrases which resonate with you, and the mm:ss in the video where they are presented.

If reading the book mindset, some may be interested in listening along with the audiobook on youtube.

This slideshare presentation, a synthesis of mindset, may also be a helpful introduction to Dweck's book, mindset: the new psychology of success.

This Stanford alumni article, The Effort Effect may also be of interest, and help formulate questions.

Hmm. I'm with Bostonian.

I like the idea of a "mindset" in which you believe that if you work hard at something, you maximize your chances of learning how to do it competently. Personally, I developed this type of thinking with respect to mathematics at some point, and it serves me well because I added a step to a process (now generalized in my mind) that goes like this:

1. Hmm. New thing to learn.

2. Whoa, this is really hard to understand.

Old step 3: I can't do this. I'll do something else.

New step 3: I can do this if I focus and maybe find a couple other sources of information about this topic.

New step 4. Now that I get this, it's not so hard.

Alternative pathway (learning-related): I understand my strengths and my limitations. I can see that [insert task] requires ability where I have weakness. I'll never really be competent at this, so I should play to my strengths and focus on something where I have ability.

Alternative pathway (work- or project-related): I get this idea yo, but it's wrong and I have to stop trying to make it work. (People call this pathway learning from your failures).

---

IMO, the new step 3 results from an internal process. It's fine to tell people that they should have a "growth mindset," but IMO, honest growth mindset is simply a synonym for confidence that comes with accomplishing something that was difficult for you. You can't just hand something like that to a person by wishing it so.

As an aside, this is where schools fail gifted students (because so much in school is too easy) as well as low-IQ students (because the age-grade level pace is too fast for them). Gifted students are at risk for not learning how to fail, and low IQ kids are at risk for not learning how to succeed.

Overall, I think people like Dweck and Malcolm Gladwell peddle a (lucrative) fantasy that lies to people about being able to achieve things if they just belieeeve and try haaaaaard. Like Bostonian said, this just sets people up for failure. It also conveniently places blame on the guy who failed when the outcome may have been beyond his control (because he didn't believe and he didn't try hard enough).

So, I guess my question for Dweck would be this:



If she denies that lack of ability is a limiting factor, you'll probably have a good idea about her ideology.

She's mentioned that people can get smarter if they try hard enough (there's a link in a message I wrote in that thread Bostonian mentioned). Can an adult grow taller by trying hard? Can they people flap their arms and fly if they try hard enough (no external devices allowed)?

Different authors, different work, different message.

As mindset is based on research, possibly the question might be something along the lines of an inquiry into the IQ ranges of the subjects in the studies, and whether the effects of fixed vs. growth mindset were different at various IQ ranges.

Some thoughts:
1) Intelligence consists of both fluid reasoning (innate) and crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge).
2) Bob Woodruff and others have sustained brain damage and through extensive effort have regained many abilities. This is different than growing taller or flying.
3) On the forums, parents often post about their 2e children's learning disabilities, and steps taken to scaffold and remediate so that these children may learn to overcome what may be brain-based differences or deficits.
4) Mindset is based on research.
5) Nature and nurture.

Which posters on this tread have actually read mindset?

Indigo, I read the book for an interactive community presentation, and have watched a few youtube videos. I hope the upcoming presentation is not Carol Dweck reciting the book as in the videos I've seen. So I am taking to heart your two questions about research and evidence since 2007. Thank you for those ideas.

Our head honcho has made several positive changes that reflect Carol Dweck's ideas. This is a good thing! However, the REASONS behind them I find disturbing. For example, we will no longer have a named gifted program in the ES because it negatively affected the self-esteem of the students IN the program. They still have compacted curriculum available for students ready for it. I don't think it matters whether there is a named program as long as the opportunities are still there, but the reason they gave seems odd. I don't think they polled the students on their self-esteem; the language is identical to Dr. Dweck's.

Some of the blanket statements I see in the book about ability
offend me. There IS such a thing as innate ability. It can be developed. If you do not have innate ability, you can still develop an ability. It may take longer. Mozart worked hard, but he had quite a few things to work WITH: being born into a family of musicians, having a parent who enabled him, AND having talent. eta: the book states that Mozart was good because he worked hard.

The worst thing teachers have said to my child is "You're a smart kid, this shouldn't be a problem for you." If adopting the "Growth Mindset" philosophy removes that phrase from every teacher's mouth, I'll be a happy camper. But when a teacher says "Good score, you must have studied really hard", what is a student to say if he DIDN'T study much at all? He may think, counter to what Dr. Dweck would like, "wow, I can do well without studying" or, "my teacher doesn't notice me, he doesn't know my abilities, why should I even bother?" That's bad, it leads to disengagement.

As I said, I will re-read the book for the presentation. I always pick up on something new the second time 'round. I am trying to open my mind for it, so that I can get the most out of it. But some things slam me to a halt as I want to sputter "but...but..."

It seems that all things being equal, a growth mindset tends to take a person further than a fixed mindset. One's mindset is a factor which is under their control.

My guess is that the change may signal that the opportunities may be made available to a broader group or different group than those traditionally identified as gifted. Possibly vignettes in the book mindset, pp 63-67, may have inspired the change (whether intended as an experiment or as a permanent change).

There is also acknowledgement of differences in opportunities (p47).

Agreed. For positive impact, it might be helpful for the student to hear a simple compliment such as "nice work" in regard to his own work when it comes easily, hear compliments such as "great effort" for those known to have studied hard, and a statement of hope and high expectations such as "not YET" for kids who may need to repeat a lesson, so that students understand that the school and teacher value a broad range of accomplishment, achievement, and incremental learning. It seems that the aspect of praising effort is best applied when students are working at their challenge level, in their zone of proximal development(ZPD).

This may be a question to ask of Dr. Dweck... whether the students in the studies were working in their ZPD, as praising effort is genuine in this context. By contrast, in real life often students are grouped by age and may be in classes where they are not exposed to new material. (If the school really wishes to adopt Dweck's ideas, possibly such information may help convince them to have each child working in their ZPD.)

Me, too. You may wish to take note of the page number and question/objection. I often find my questions are clarified on a later page or in a later chapter. Using the audiobook is helping keep my re-reading on track.

I agree with Val on 'new step 3' - my own name for looking at other sources to help understand something hard is 'triangulating onto it' because that is sort of what I am doing in my mind.

Yes, this is exactly why. More challenges open to more students, based on their readiness each year. In a similar vein, the HS AP and honors pre-reqs have been reduced or even eliminated, such as a course or a certain grade in a certain course. This is fine. DS benefited from this change and will benefit next year, and another child of mine would have benefited. But, I don't think they polled the ES students to see whether being in the gifted program lowered their self esteem. That came from "Mindset".

So, I REALLY like your question referring to whether students in the studies were working at their challenge level.

Interesting extrapolation of the ills of a fixed mindset.

It was inspired by another poster upthread.

This is also closely related to the question upthread about the IQ ranges of the subjects in the studies, and whether the effects of fixed vs. growth mindset were different at various IQ ranges.

Which brings me to a point of disagreement with the book: On pp235-236, rather than encouraging appropriate curriculum and pacing at the child's ZPD for a child who is bored, there's a suggestion of making homework more challenging. Right there I began to wonder whether some of the "fixed" mindsets reported on might just be bored, tuned out, "gifted" underachievers who were not allowed to grow, learn, and develop their academic skills at a challenge level with support. All gifted kids do not have a fixed mindset.

In the video Dr Dweck rather discards the control group. I wonder what internalized message they received?

The extrapolation was the school's, and they used "Mindset"'s language in their letter explaining the change.

I noticed this too, and thought it could make an interesting basis for further research study.

It would seem that since no mindset preference was suggested or imprinted on them by the neutral compliment, their original mindset (which they may be unaware of) would have been left intact, without manipulation. Therefore a mix of beliefs.

Possibly this was done and not reported on, but it fascinates me:
1) those who may originally lean toward fixed mindset
1a) assigned to the fixed mindset group, given the compliment on score and being smart
1b) assigned to the growth mindset group, given the compliment on score and effort
1c) assigned to the control group, given the compliment and no mindset manipulation

2) those who may originally lean toward growth mindset
2a) assigned to the fixed mindset group, given the compliment on score and being smart
2b) assigned to the growth mindset group, given the compliment on score and effort
2c) assigned to the control group, given the compliment and no mindset manipulation

3) those who may originally have no discernible mindset preference or belief
3a) assigned to the fixed mindset group, given the compliment on score and being smart
3b) assigned to the growth mindset group, given the compliment on score and effort
3c) assigned to the control group, given the compliment and no mindset manipulation

I would be curious to see the extent to which the mindsets were changed by the suggestion/manipulation.

After the research study, I would hope that all students assigned to the "fixed" mindset group received counseling and coaching in developing a "growth" mindset (and were not left to languish with a set of fixed mindset beliefs). Similarly, I hope those in the neutral control group also were taught about the advantages of developing a "growth" mindset.

Hi Indigo - yes that works as a source for me. Also some similar comments I've seen in interviews with her. I'll be honest and say that her position here simply offends me. Why on earth deny a child "praise they have earned" (her words)? It seems cruel to me. Couldn't we at least say "too easy FOR YOU" so the child can feel positive about her abilities?

Let's play it out in a realistic classroom setting: Gifted student is an outlier who often feels disconnected. Class is given a math worksheet. Gifted student completes the worksheet quickly and hands it in. No praise. Instead, "Whoops, I guess that was too easy. . . . Let's do something you can really learn from!" Gifted child returns to desk (maybe with a harder worksheet, but probably not). Five minutes later, Child 2 turns in the worksheet with only a couple errors. Teacher applauds child - "Wow, great effort! I can tell you really studied last night! You see - I told you you could do it!" Child 2 is glowing. Gifted child is now ANGRY and feels even more isolated and defensive. Gifted child makes a smart-ass remark to teacher 10 minutes later and gets sent to the office.

Gifted child is not developing a growth mindset. Gifted child is only learning that her abilities should be suppressed so she can get some praise, too, sometimes. Child 2 is probably developing a growth mindset - but at the expense of the gifted child. "Teacher praised ME, not HER. And she thinks she's so smart ...."

My point is this - having an ability is a good and valuable thing. But in any real world application (other than one on one tutoring), the message to a gifted child is that her ability is NOT good and valuable. ALL the kids HEAR this stuff. They learn from it. And what they are learning is that the gifted child's abilities are not valuable; the gifted child is weird and unworthy of praise.

I don't disagree with Dweck's theory in principal. I constantly try to apply it in my one on one time with DS. I want him to learn that trying hard, to do ever harder things, is not only good - it's where the fun is. Even when you haven't gotten it yet! It's where all the excitement starts.

But, application of Dweck's ideas in a classroom setting is inherently demeaning to gifted children, and degrading to their gifts. It hurts my insides to think how a gifted child ends up feeling in the above scenario. And, I just don't see any way around it other than a purely differentiated curriculum. And we all know that is not feasible.

So anyway, that's what bugs me about her mindset stuff. Honestly, I feel queasy imagining this scenario playing out, day after day. The damage it does to a little kid who just wants to hear nice words from Teacher, just like everybody else.

I would have to assume that in Dweck's world the gifted child in suevv's example would be given appropriate work the next day and have a chance to be "Child 2" and receive praise. The problem as we all know (and stated above), is that that isn't usually the case. It all boils down to - how do you ensure that ALL kids have the appropriate work so that they are able to develop a growth mindset?

I think that until they've tried to actually differentiate for an HG+ kid in a normal classroom they honestly think that it can be done and they all drink the differentiation kool-aid. In our case they photocopy a worksheet one grade level ahead, send the kid off to the corner to teach it to themselves and then pat themselves on the back for their amazing differentiation. That isn't even close to enough for these kids. To be totally honest the huge majority of elementary teachers simple don't have the math background to be able to do much else. They simply follow the text book/curriculum and stay one lesson ahead of the kids. They lack the bigger picture or the depth themselves to be able to branch out and do something a little different. What elementary teacher has a good enough grasp of math 3, 4 or more years ahead to teach it and yet that is what some of these kids need. What elementary teacher has enough of a math background to know some things that AREN'T in the curriculum that could provide some useful tangents? Mastered addition and subtraction? Let's try that in binary, now octal, now hex, now whatever base you want to make up. That just isn't going to happen.

Exactly.

This passage on page 179 and the passage on pages 235-236 about making homework "more fun and challenging" when a child is bored hint at acknowledging that a child does not have appropriate curriculum and pacing, placement at their zone of proximal development, and challenge. However there is no clear statement or push for the child to have access to such opportunity. Possibly Dr. Dweck saw this as reaching the outer edge of her area of expertise and/or responsibility of reporting the research findings... however when attempting to implement the research findings in the classroom, this may be seen as a flaw, shortcoming, or incompleteness in the work, something to be addressed by clarification on the research studies conducted and compiled for the book and/or for gently probing further/future research spawned by release of the book.

Combining thoughts from other posts upthread, I would formulate questions for Carol Dweck along the lines of:
1) whether the students in the studies were working in their ZPD, as praising effort is genuine in this context
2) what are the implications for classroom application regarding student placement and effort-praiseworthy work? (Possibly having children in flexible cluster groups by readiness and ability in each subject, across "grade levels" and without regard to age, so that each child is receiving curriculum and instruction at their ZPD? Without this in place, possibly the growth mindset in the classroom becomes another means to close achievement gaps and excellence gaps by capping the growth of the top students. This contrasts with thoughts in a post upthread, referencing material on other pages of the book, which seemed to indicate that gaps would be closed by bringing up students at the bottom, not by capping students at the top.)
3) the IQ ranges of the subjects in the studies, and whether the effects of fixed vs. growth mindset were different at various IQ ranges
4) whether note was taken of a student's original mindset prior to the study, as in the study the mindset was manipulated by compliments on being smart or compliments on effort
5) whether there was a correlation between the original mindset of a subject and the subject's past accomplishment/achievement level and/or IQ
6) if there is new research spawned by her book, and what the central questions are. On the other hand, I might ask if research has been completed since 2007 which might re-emphasize certain points in mindset... call other earlier research into question... refine any points... etc.
7) Are there specific schools which have implemented a policy of encouraging growth mindset, and what do the results show? Among these results, what do the results show for the gifted? Similarly, is there reader mail which indicates that families have dedicated themselves to a growth mindset, and achieved positive results (anecdotal evidence)?

This has been a lot to think about, and connect ideas between. Great thread, NotherBen.

For anyone who has not read the book mindset, I do recommend it. It is based on years of research. Not that I agree with every idea/application, but on balance found a number of ideas to be useful. Beyond implications for children's classroom learning, there are lifelong applications of this motivational theory, including "Mindsets in love (or not)."

Some may say that "being reminded you are smart" and having a "fundamental belief in your abilities" would include not only a belief in one's innate intelligence, but also a belief in embracing challenges, persistence in the face of setbacks, effort as a positive path, interest in learning from feedback as well as from mistakes, and reaching ever-higher levels of achievement, in a manner which is genuine and emotionally satisfying.

Well said, chay.

So, perhaps schools following the growth mindset philosophy provide settings where all students have to work, all the time. That seems to be how our school is applying it, at least in some subject areas.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the phrase about "all students have to work, all the time". Might you try putting this into other words to help me understand? Thnx.

Meanwhile to help you see what I don't understand about "work all the time"...
- Hopefully kids get recess, breaks, etc!
- Hopefully no demoralizing, wheel-spinning "busy work"
- Hopefully kids are not regularly working to tutor others while waiting for the class to "catch up"
- Hopefully kids are learning new things, while being flexible cluster grouped with others who are receiving the same curriculum and instruction at their ZPD... working at their challenge level, an effort-praiseworthy level, and growing their brains

What I mean by "work all the time" is exactly what you hope.

I would want to ask how to encourage an older (say, teenaged) student who may have been in a fixed mindset for years, largely because it has been taught. Their mindset won't change quickly. Because it's fixed.

I was about to say "don't get me started on recess", but that is an excellent idea. I would think that Growth Mindset would encourage children, well, anyone, to engage in free recreation with people at different levels of development or interest, to observe and participate in growth (oh, and to have fun!). I wonder if Dr Dweck would agree? Hmm, that's a question to formulate.

For helping a teen remove what has been learned, depending on the kid, I might offer them the book asking their views on the ideas presented... how solid they seem, how they might seem to apply to his school, etc (similar to asking us in a more open-ended way for questions for the author). The book has lots of sports stories, some bully stories, and some corporate stories from the news... which might spark interest in a teen.

Other than that, role modeling seems to be key. Especially re-framing "failure" as "not YET" and a valuable opportunity to learn.

Some key areas of the book, relevant to fostering a "growth" mindset may include:
Book page 32 - Mindsets Change the Meaning of Failure
Book page 39 - Mindsets Change the Meaning of Effort
Book chapter 7: Parents, Teachers, and Coaches: Where do mindsets come from?
Book chapter 8: Changing Mindsets (especially pages 234-236, Changing your child's mindset EXCEPT for the two sentences about homework)

I agree with this. Our district is all about the "personalized learning pathway" and they even pride themselves on "cluster groups" but is it meaningful? Nope. I'm so sick of the word "differentiation". DS had a teacher in first grade who sat with him each day teaching him that "harder work" but she said it was difficult. DS was still on his own a lot, and he became frustrated when he got stuck and there was no one to help. So a question for Carol Dweck is how do you get high effort from the kids with much higher than average achievement levels when there is no way a teacher can manage to teach to 30 different levels in a classroom, for 30 different kids.

Some may say that reframing failure as "not YET" and a valuable opportunity to learn begins to sound like the repetitions-to-mastery approach of Competency Based Education (CBE) ... hopefully an important difference would be that while mastery (regardless of number of repetitions or length of time to achieve mastery) may be intended to make all student accomplishments seem indistinguishably the same among students of the same chronological age... that "growth" mindset would keep students moving forward upon mastery (not waiting for others to catch up) so that each student is working at their ZPD and effort-praiseworthy level rather than being grouped by age.

It would be great if the adopters/implementers of both CBE and growth mindset would create flexible cluster grouping of children by ability and readiness in each subject, regardless of "grade level" or chronological age. (So-called cluster groups within a grade-level or classroom may be so small as to be meaningless, serving to isolate students rather than providing curriculum and instruction at the challenge level or ZPD.)

Possibly it is time to consider worst-case-scenario?

What would that be?

Because Dweck shares that she was a gifted child, had teachers with a fixed mindset, and had developed a fixed mindset herself, it is possible (and I would consider it worst case scenario) that mindset would be used to stereotype all gifted as having a fixed mindset and the host of negative characteristics which come with that label; This could be used to justify closing any achievement gaps and/or excellence gaps by capping growth of students at the top... essentially stating that the gifted blocked their own progress due to a supposed fixed mindset. In this way mindset could become part of the anti-gifted backlash.

Appropriate placement of students at an effort-praiseworthy level of curriculum and instruction in their ZPD may be key to precluding this worst case scenario from occurring.

This has been expressed in other words upthread, but seemed worth repeating tied to the concept of worst case scenario for our gifted kids.

I think I would ask Ms. Dweck how she could improve upon her book.

Precisely my point. This, coupled with the otherwise laudable Social Emotional Learning curriculum (in which PG/2e kids quite often struggle mightily at even the lowest ZPD), provides a powerful one-two punch in the gut to my little guy on a daily basis. Oddly, the only place "smart" comes up is when he gets in trouble. As in, "you're smart enough to know better." Sigh.

Possibly this reflects an undesirable expansion of the role of schools in raising children rather than educating them. But that's probably another topic!

I do hope we get to hear what Carol Dweck has to say about her theory in the context of a frustrated, academically under-challenged kid. Please do ask the question if you get a chance, and let us hear what she says!

Eco, that's kind of where I started. But I wouldn't get a helpful answer! Asking instead, as indigo suggested, what recent research and observations have shown (in a nutshell) might be, um, less insulting and get me an open and honest response, and maybe even an exchange of ideas.

Indigo, your idea that Dr Dweck's early experience colors her view of all gifted children as having a fixed mindset, makes me think that perhaps indeed she hasn't completely overcome it herself. Perhaps that's what bothers me when I read the book.

Suevv, the presentation isn't for a while yet. But I'm starting early on thinking about it because it's summer and I have some brain cells handy, and because I want to go through all the thought iterations from blunt to considered to outraged to researched to, eventually, a selection of questions that will elicit meaningful responses. It's good to have something to obsess about This interchange is very helpful, and indigo has given me some great ideas, perceptions, and language to consider. I like your question, I imagine she has heard it from parents of such children in other communities, and will try to word it so that she would answer in a new way. I look forward to others' ideas, as well!

It took me a while to get there. Now in this thread it is all laid out... the good and the bad, the questions and the red flags to watch for.

Some may say this appears contrived to create a negative association with the word smart, when the word is apparently used in a context of shaming a child. Truly heinous.

I personally find that to be an undesirable expansion, and believe the line may be a fuzzy one at best, depending upon the family's confidence in their own ability to raise their child(ren).

There is enough material here, that even if an opportunity does not present itself to pose questions in person, it may be well worth drafting a letter to her. The author bio in the back of her book mentions Stanford, and a quick web search shows contact info for her at Stanford.

PS. I would still ask her to autograph my copy of her book. The revelations of mindset provide another tool... like other tools it can be used to build or dismantle.

I will certainly ask her to autograph it, if she can find space between my scribbled notes.

Dr Dweck has mentioned a high school in Chicago that uses a "not yet" approach to grading. I have been unable to find references to such a school or any details on her website, though I did find one vaguely similar in Baltimore. (I see an opportunity to improve my search skills. Growth mindset!) Does anyone know the Chicago school she may be talking about, or know of a school that uses the "not yet" grading approach?

Not finding the name of the Chicago high school which uses the "not Yet" grading. This article from 2010 mentions the school, not by name. I'm wondering whether the school has continued to utilize that approach now that 5 years have passed... if so, one would anticipate more media coverage. My thought at this point would be to add it to list of questions to ask the author, in a letter, and see what response you might get... possibly even prior to her presentation.

I would ask her, "What's it like down in the rabbit hole?", though I don't know that it would receive a favorable response.

Like many philosophies, the growth mindset idea is quite useful. And like most philosophies, even the quite useful ones, dogmatic adherence to them in all situations leads one down the metaphorical rabbit hole. For instance, John Locke had a great many good ideas, but even in his own writings he'd explore the application of one of his ideas, and then pull himself up short, because he noticed that the next logical conclusion was going to fly against all good sense. He simply refused to follow those ideas down the rabbit hole. Others came after him who did, and the result of that work was a rejection of rationalism altogether, leading to highly-influential, highly-destructive philosophies from the Romanticism and German Idealism movements to take its place.

For her part, Ms Dweck seems particularly eager to follow her own ideas down the rabbit hole, supporting them against good sense wherever they are in conflict. That's a shame, because much like rationalism, the growth mindset has its place, and a valuable role to fill. By being her own philosophy's worst enemy, she risks having it subjugated to far less beneficial ideas.

Indigo, thanks for sharing that article!

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly anti-ability about that article...though it reads very much like a pop psychology book. I really don't think the world is as binary as she is making it out to be. One can recognize one's abilities while, at the same time, strive to achieve personal growth. The article makes it sound black and white.

I appreciated the title of the article, and her reference to "meaningful learning tasks" and "meaningful work" as these give me hope of gifted students receiving curriculum and instruction at their ZPD, rather than "differentiated task demands" in which advanced students are required to do more homework to receive the same grade as other students, thereby giving a false impression of equal outcomes by all students, while demoralizing the advanced students.

Agreed.

Agreed. I think the binary description is almost necessitated by the need to succinctly compare/contrast the two mindsets which were revealed in the studies. In real life, creating a layer of the lens through which we view the world, both beliefs may co-exist in varied degrees, however one belief may tend to be dominant.

Like most studies, educational philosophies, ideologies, etc, her work should come with the caveat "not designed or tested for the tail ends of the bell curve below 70 and above 130".
Easy tasks should be presented as boring, not helping to develop the brain? Way to go to make the mainstreamed special ed student feel "less than." No children should be allowed to Coast, with effortless success? Ever been to any elementary school lately? Or the ways in the article the teacher should sit down with the struggling student, walk him through the problem...great if you have a private tutor, in class with 20 or 30 kids? Not happening.

http://www.newsweek.com/brain-muscle-really-223348

A study by the nurture shock authors asking the question just how malleable IQ really is. Answer - a lot. Predictably, with the caveat, if you were working with underprivileged, presumably under stimulated kids in the first place.

And that is what I'd like to ask Carole Dweck about: how damaging is it for a kid to realize that effort alone doesn't cut it either....
http://www.newsweek.com/downside-always-telling-kids-work-harder-223366

Previous posts have discussed inquiring into the IQ ranges of student participants in the research.

As the body of Dweck's work discusses tasks relative to the individual, I'm quite certain that you misunderstood and/or misinterpreted this, out of-context.

The point of sharing the results of the research are to help bring about change.

Is this in reference to finding the impasse? There are frequent posts on the forums regarding identification of learning differences and/or disabilities, scaffolding, remediation, accommodations, instructional differences, teaching assistants, classroom aides, team meetings, etc... so we know that efforts to overcome an impasse do, in fact, happen.

Because mindset is research-based, possibly a question which reflects your expressed sentiment and also the content of a few posts upthread about reaching the limits of one's ability, may be something along these lines:
- In the research, did you reach a point at which growth mindset was not able to assist the subject's further measurable growth in an area, due to limits of ability?
- Are you aware of further research being done in the area of reaching the absolute limits of one's ability, at which point the growth mindset is no longer able to facilitate the test subject's continued measurable growth in that area?

Interesting 2009 article by Po Bronson, whose endorsement of Dweck's 2006 book mindset is printed on the paperback's cover:

They do happen once a child has been identified with a learning disability and services kick into gear. That is not the kind of struggling student Dweck appears to refer to in her article, but the kind of teaching she expects for every child so they can learn how to grow from their mistakes.

I am simply weary of solutions which might work just wonderfully If Only (insert your personal idea of educational paradise here). Unless they can be implemented by the average teacher in the average classroom with the average resources they are Not Going to Happen, but that way it's easy to just shrug and say it's not your fault.

Several points appear to have been taken out of context.

It may be important to keep separate the research, and the myriad ways in which it has been presented to different audiences, with different knowledge base and background, over the past nearly decade.

Questions posed to an author may elicit the most informative responses if they remain focused on the research.

It is indeed important to focus on the research. Dr Dweck is an academic, not a consultant, though they do offer the "Brainology" program. I don't know her level of involvement with that, will look into it. I also would like to ask our district if they are planning on implementing Brainology as a program, or developing growth mindset in other ways (such as unnaming the gifted program or changing grading systems).

I would be curious to know if she sees ways in which institutions try to implement her ideas that are at odds with what she meant. For example, here on the forum we interpret her writing in different ways, but it's just for matters of discussion. Real-world applications have real implications, and I wonder if it can backfire. I don't know how aware she is of our district's efforts in adjusting mindset, so I wouldn't want to ask questions specific to our situation.

Darn, I just agreed it's important to focus on the research, but then I say I really want to know what happens to it in the real world. So, back to indigo's earlier to suggestion, to ask about ongoing research, and if there is current research into real-world applications, especially in schools.

This is one of those Davidson threads that confuses me. For those who are enthusiastic about Dweck's ideas, why are you here, when her entire philosophy is grounded in the idea that intelligence isn't innate? I mean, I've met enough HG+ people to know that a high IQ doesn't make people immune to woo, but growth mindset is so hostile to innate giftedness, I honestly can't understand why people could believe it AND talk about the unique needs of HG+ kids.

Here's a quote from the Mindset Works/Brainology web site:


a) Is it a myth that some people are born to be taller or naturally stronger than others? YES, it's a valid comparison. Height, strength, and intelligence result from anatomy and/or physiological processes (and genetics). All can be severely hindered by a poor environment, and while they can be optimized in a good environment, the degree to which they can be optimized is << the degree to which they can be hindered. (Umpteen references, including those related to physiological constraints on linear growth in a generation, available on request.)

b) Nice trick: they used a lie about innate ability to make an invalid claim about IQ and competitiveness. This type of language is very useful for manipulating people.


This idea is integral to the growth mindset philosophy. What does this site have to offer adherents, given that this board is heavily focused on HG+ kids being different from their peers in some ways because of cognitive abilities they were born with? And BTW, if intelligence isn't innate, why do so many HG+ babies develop skills weeks and months ahead of neurotypical babies? My daughter was using her hands before she was a month old (this skill normally develops in the third month). Did she just have a growth mindset about getting her fingers into her mouth? Did my month-old son have a growth mindset about reaching for objects? Did they both have growth mindsets about paying attention to the world around them, consistently, from birth? Why do so many people here report the same things, while so many others in the population are surprised by what HG+ newborns do?

Dweck claims and that the brain is "a muscle" that can be developed. Obviously, more practice with cognitively demanding tasks can improve SKILL, but this is not the same as changing ABILITY. Similarly, people can work out with weights and get stronger, but not everyone will be able to bench press 250 pounds, no matter how hard they try. Do I have a fixed mindset because I accept this fact about myself? Or am I just avoiding the potential for injury by asking too much of my muscles?

Honestly, we have in unequal society and it's natural for people perceive very smart people as having a "competitive advantage." It's true in many ways --- if you're smart, it's easier to get a STEM degree, and people whose education is limited don't have access to the middle class the way they did 50 years ago.

However, IQ isn't the problem: it's that our leaders have chosen to put the needs of many of our citizens (that is, good jobs) at a lower priority. People like Dweck manipulate this fact and play into the "solution" that everyone should to go to college. Pretending that you can growth mindset your way to a degree in engineering is, IMO, equivalent to and as cruel as claims that anyone can be president/a software developer/etc if they just work hard.

Finally, what makes me even more suspicious is that she's running a Brainology business. I mean, seriously --- Brainology? My woo meter is deep in the red there.

I'm fairly wary about this website as well. But these aren't Dweck's words, so how can you hold her accountable for them? I think most here are in agreement that other people may have taken her ideas too far or interpret them in a way that's incompatible with what she is saying.

I also get the impression that ability means something different to the Brainology folks than it does to us. Their use of ability is more akin to something I'd call talent. But that's the problem with terms; we interpret their meaning different. Heck, we can't even all agree on a definition of giftedness.

That website is her website. If she didn't approve of what was written, it wouldn't be there.

I'm not debating Mindset in this thread. The fact is that my school district is making some changes to promote a Growth Mindset. Some changes seem to be positive. Some language is not.

I have an opportunity to hear Dr Dweck in person, and I hope she will take questions. I want to get a clear understanding "right from the horse's mouth", not someone else's. My intent is not to challenge her, the event is not the right forum for that, and I doubt I would get a meaningful response.

I hope to understand whether my district is interpreting Mindset the same way I do, agreeing with some things but not others, or whether they have gone down the rabbit hole, too. Of course, that they are spending the money (and it might not be my money, it likely comes from a grant or donation) to host this event, probably means they are deep in. If they offer kool-aid for refreshments I will definitely worry.

I asked in my original post if anyone had heard Dr Dweck speak live and in person, not on video. Has anyone?

I like your post, Val! Yeah, the term brainology rubs me that way, too, and she does write for and speaks to mainstream parent/educator audiences, offering her solutions as practical ideas to be implemented in the real world.

Someone espousing a methodology on behalf of someone else is not the same as the other person saying it.

Here is a presumed actual quote from Dweck that I bet that most people here would agree with (http://www.jonathanfields.com/is-gifted-and-talented-a-life-sentence)

I hope it's being paid for by a grant, because her speaking fee is in the range of $20-30K. This makes me very suspicious because she has a crystal-clear financial interest in persuading others to accept her ideas. Which is to say, she's running a business and has a serious conflict of interest with respect to the research claims.

If this event is at the school and the school is paying for it, is the school also complaining about budget shortfalls?

If you only want to ask questions that don't challenge her, you're going to get one-sided answers --- from a person with a significant financial interest in promoting her ideas. I haven't heard her speak in person, but suspect that you'll hear a very polished presentation that plays to emotions that make the audience feel good.

If you want to understand how your district is interpreting her ideas, your best bet is to ask the person (or committee?) who had the authority to pay for Brainology (and her speaker fee, if she's speaking at a school). This person or committee (not Dweck) will be in the best position to answer your question about what the attraction is.

I'm sorry you didn't want this thread to turn into a debate, but I was (and am) trying to point out asking questions and raising points about what I see as serious problems in her arguments and conflicts of interest. IMO, this stuff is required for informed opinions.

Counter-point for Val: If you think ability is fixed and unchangeable, why would you be a member of a forum that advocates for appropriate challenge (and therefore, growth opportunities) for gifted children?

Honestly, I think you're caught up in a false binary, and thereby making the same mistake as Dweck, just in the opposite direction.

Going back to your quote:


Yes, it most certainly IS a myth. If someone is born with an unusually larger proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers, that individual has a natural advantage in sprinting. But after 50 years of sedentary lifestyle, excess weight gain, and natural wear-and-tear, that individual isn't outrunning even casual athletes with normal muscle fibers. So much for natural advantage.

Yes, it's also true that an individual with a normal or low proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers will be unable to win a 100m dash against other athletes with high proportions, no matter how hard that athlete tries. But here's the difference: those other athletes are also, just like the average hard-worker, in active training. They're simply getting more benefit from it, and they're accomplishing amazing times because they're combining their natural gifts with a rigorous program that improves their performance even more. So it's not an either/or for training and ability, it's both.

And that's why I'm here, because my DD has a natural cognitive advantage, she can be great if given proper training, and the school is offering her a mental training regimen akin to couch surfing and junk food.

Can you see the manipulative language here?

a) Intelligence IS simply bestowed, in the same way that height and eye color are. Some people are smart or tall, but more people aren't.

b) Since when has ANYONE on this forum or ANYONE (who is not a crank) claimed that a person has no role to play in developing his talents? This claim is absurd on its face. Yet she uses it in a backhanded way that allows her to deny reality: differences exist, they are real and meaningful, and they aren't going anywhere.

She even manipulates with her obvious claim that hard work is important to develop skills or talents. People have known this since the dawn of toolmaking: Little Thag, practice your axe-making. Someday you'll need to make them to survive. Yet she makes the statement as though no one had ever noticed that before, ever.

Seriously, this stuff is transparent.

Sure, it's important to learn from failure and be resilient. But she's not the first person to say that (though she's very good at packaging the idea). But it's also important to accept that differences exist and can't be mindsetted away.

Read my posts. You'll see I didn't say that --- but I believe that the range of talent optimization is narrow (with the range for reducing it being very wide).

Also, talent (aka ability here) is not the same as skill. Skill needs to be developed with appropriate challenge. Talent drives how well you can improve your skills.

Val, points about fixed intelligence and the black-and-white statements about people, are exactly the points I sputter about when I read Mindset. So, help me out here. Suppose Dr Dweck is making a presentation near you for FREE and you attend. Just suppose, okay? 200 people in the audience. You get one question. What do you want to know about Mindset? What question do you ask to find out? (and no, it can't be "who's paying for you?")

delete

I certainly don't think that I can contribute anything more meaningful than that.

delete

Aw, shucks, suevv, I appreciated your rant before you deleted, glad I caught it, but appreciate keeping the focus.

I'm kind of surprised not to see that anyone has heard Carol Dweck in person. It seems that, even when we disagree with someone, it is interesting to get a live perspective.

The more Dweck quotes I read, the less honest I feel she is being. I've read some things that she has said now that make her seem ranty, yet when people attempt to call her on it, she seems to use overloaded meanings of "ability" and "growth" to slip out of accountability for some of her more questionable statements.

I would ask her for an exact definition of "ability" because it seems to me to be the word everyone is sliding around on.

Not necessarily "enthusiastic about Dweck's ideas", but
- respect the research as presented,
- have questions about the research studies conducted prior to the book,
- have questions about any follow-up studies conducted in the decade or so since the book,
- have questions about the application, implementation, and possible extrapolation of the research.
That's why some of us are here, participating on this thread.

Here is a brief roundup of counter-points to that statement:
1) Intelligence consists of both fluid intelligence (reasoning) and crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge).
2) Many gifted students experience difficulty with their education, that is, acquiring knowledge.
3) Dr. Dweck's "philosophy" is research-based and focuses on motivation.

You may have read this elsewhere on the forums: One aspect or application of a fixed mindset is that gifted kids may stop taking appropriate risks in order to always be "right" or always be "smart" or never be "wrong", and this may work against them.

This was presented in the context of nature / nurture. Crystalized intelligence (acquired knowledge) may be closely related to nurture.

Some kiddos may be gifted, HG+, and unidentified, possibly treated as behavior problems, and have low expectations set for them by others. It is my belief that this is the population which schools may be quite excited about reaching.

1) Choosing words such as "trick", "lie", "invalid claim" may also be regarded as "very useful for manipulating people".
2) As not all intelligence is innate (G = Gf + Gc), some may see that truth exists in statements about growing one's abilities.
3) There are many threads on the forums in which parents seek to parlay IQ into an edge or "competitive advantage". For example, college admissions.

While some suffer the gifted label as a necessary preliminary step (under current legislation in some States) to obtaining any incremental gains toward meeting their child's educational needs, other parents grasp at the label as something to flaunt.

1) Some may say that the website which you shared is not the definitive work, rather the book mindset is.
2) These forums do not consist of all parents of gifted children; Not all HG+ children are identified, and unfortunately some members here are hesitant to share the forums with other parents. Some members may derive a benefit, edge, or competitive advantage which they'd rather not share with other local parents, whose children may compete with their own. It is also my understanding that some members may have a vested interest in keeping other local parents away from the forums as these members may gather information here which they then present to local parents who are paying clients of the member's professional gifted consultancy business.
3) The website seems intended to attract all who might benefit from learning of Dr. Dweck's research on motivation.

While early milestones are an indication of giftedness for those who know what to look for, being a precocious child is not necessarily a guarantee of being gifted, HG+, etc.

In the video shared upthread, Dr. Dweck opens with: comments on the natural curiosity of babies, then shows bored kids in school, what happened?

Some may say this is an analogy or metaphor, using something which is common knowledge to help a broad audience understand the concept of development through effort may apply to athleticism/muscles and also to academics/intellect.

The distinction may, in some cases, be a fuzzy line. For example, a math skill, with automaticity, may yield higher achievement causing a student to be considered high ability.

Agreed. This quote from the book mindset was posted upthread in reply to your earlier post, and I'll share it again here:
What informed your view? IOW, do you have a source for this, which is attributable to Dr. Dweck?
Alternatively, is this possibly a bit of hyperbole for illustrative purposes?

Like all titles, meant to attract attention, and be memorable. Reading her bio page at the Stanford site, the bio in her book, etc, she is quite open and transparent about her area of research: motivation. This is just not as catchy.

I find this with most things: solid from a distance, up close it resembles a mosaic: more grout than substance.

So far, I've not seen that with Dweck, possibly because I do anticipate much of society being geared toward audiences in the middle as statistically that is where most consumers are. Despite what mindset may offer the masses, I do think that mindset has an important message for the gifted, which they may be wise to consider. On the forums I've paraphrased it this way: One aspect or application of a fixed mindset is that gifted kids may stop taking appropriate risks in order to always be "right" or always be "smart" or never be "wrong", and this may work against them.

Do you have an example of the waffling you describe? I'd like to take a look at it and see what thoughts might occur to me. Thnx.

I say this is a great idea. If a second edition of the book, or a follow-up book with additional research is ever published, I would suggest including a glossary of terms, including ability (which may have multiple contextual meanings, as many words in the dictionary do, and yet each can be expressed in descriptive terms), intelligence, talent, effort, skill, smart, gifted, genius, prodigy... all words we understand in general use but seem to have specific meaning within the context of discussing motivational mindsets, implementing mindset coaching in the classroom... or selling the coaching to schools.

On her Stanford page, that website is not listed. Mindsetonline is listed. The Mindsetonline website then has a link to Mindsetworks, home of Brainology. This could be another question to ask of Dr. Dweck... something along the lines of the level of autonomy of Brainology and/or the level of her oversight. A note on the "About Us" page states:

What is your source of this information?

Have you weighed your source of information with information presented on the Brainology website you posted upthread - a note on the "About Us" page states:

Thanks for posting this, I found it very interesting. Refreshing to read her own words, as opposed to reading about her.

Environmental influences play a huge role in intelligence, so I definitely don't see it as being something that is innate and unchangeable. Just consider the Flynn effect (the average performance on IQ tests going up over time) and the fact that there is a huge difference in IQ scores between races, but the gap is narrowing. Some people may try to argue that some races are genetically superior, but I don't buy that. That being said, some people have more cognitive potential than others at birth, but that innate ability is not enough. The person with more determination/drive may ultimately achieve more (and ultimately do better on an IQ test) than the the person born with superior innate cognitive ability (but poor effort or a poor environment). From the little I've read here, I think that may be what Carol Dweck is attempting to say. That being said, I don't necessarily agree with everything she says either, and think that it can have undesirable consequences, for instance treating people like they are all the same. I have always disliked the word "gifted" myself. I really don't care if the abilities of my children are genetic or because of something related to their upbringing or environment. Whatever the case, they are more advanced than average (at the moment, at least), and need more challenge in school than what is generally offered, so that is why I visit this site.

Indigo,

I wouldn't describe Dweck as "waffling" exactly, but she does sometimes seem to ridicule the mere concept of innate ability and other times acknowledge it.

These two statements of hers, for instance, seem to be at odds.

The quote I provided earlier:

From an interview with her at http://www.iub.edu/~intell/dweck_interview.shtml :
Granted, she doesn't use the word ability in the second quote, though I read "innate component" as being equivalent to "innate ability" as measured on an IQ test (since she brought up geniuses).

I would strongly disagree that the word "gift" conveys all of the meaning she is assigning to it in the first quote. Unless we as parents and educators are actually assigning that meaning to the word, those ideas do not have power. I use the term "gifted learner" with DS rather than simply telling him he is gifted. To me, that acknowledges that he can learn quite differently than many of his age peers, but that the learning part is still up to him and will take effort.

I think the larger problem with the growth mindset movement is what Dweck doesn't say about the very practical challenges of motivating students who indisputably learn far more quickly than others from the start (i.e., the gifted). This article, for instance (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-secret-to-raising-smart-kids1/) jumps to the conclusion that Jonathan checked out from seventh grade solely because his parents praised him for being smart:

I have a real problem with the way this is presented. She makes it seem incontrovertible that Jonathan's problem was the ability-based praise he received suddenly wasn't enough to motivate him when the "going got tough." More likely, he hadn't been given enough challenge all through grade school, and no amount of growth mindset was going to work for him since he had already "hit the ceiling" on expected growth. More likely, seventh grade absolutely sucked socially and emotionally for him (as it does for so many kids), and what was previously a less-than-ideal-but-tolerable situation suddenly became living hell. More likely, it was easier to "throw in the towel" completely on school and run away from "boring and pointless" work... the school was providing him nothing but 6-7 hours a day of waste.

And, also? Jonathan is fictitious! She needs to prove her point by making someone up? Couldn't she have taken an actual student and changed his name to make her point?

If she has considered that gifted kids needs a more challenging environment to grow (rather than simply a change of mindset), I have yet to come across a quote of hers that states that. And I think that is what irks so many people on this board.

Great post, interesting thoughts.

Thanks for clarifying. Over the course of nearly a decade of discussing a topic, there may be some variation in language... From the examples given, this may be occurring.

Debate about the word "gifted" is common, and for many it does imply that either you have it or you do not (a binary situation: on or off) rather than a continuum, with different degrees of many different attributes. The gifted (in this context meaning top 2% of the population, as reflected in scores on IQ tests) are a minority by definition, and the findings of the research on motivation apply to all individuals, not just the gifted... therefore the message must get past the negative vibe and visceral responses often elicited by the word "gifted" to reach the majority population. I think that acknowledging the controversial nature of the word "gifted" makes sense.

Two thoughts:
1) IQ tests measure both fluid reasoning and crystallized intelligence (acquired knowledge).
2) The book mindset also discusses musical realms and athletic realms, with relatively little emphasis on education. There are different types of geniuses, including scientific geniuses and musical geniuses.

Yes, "gifted" has become a big umbrella word, with lots of groups beneath it. One example might be 2e... some argue strenuously that a 2e child is no less gifted... however if that child has slow processing speed and low working memory, some might say that child does not have the "gift" of fast processing speed or the "gift" of high working memory. Another child might not have the "gift" of social intelligence in that they are not wired to pick up those skills/abilities naturally from casual observation as many children do. This does not indicate that kids who start out with a relatively lower innate strength in these areas will necessarily remain low in these demonstrated skills/abilities... many children learn by direct instruction, and repetition, to "compensate". This is also seen in successful re-learning after brain damage, for example Bob Woodruff.

Yes, many favor that approach.

Bingo! Yes, I've tried to articulate what I also see as something unaddressed, a flaw, shortcoming, or incompleteness in the work. For example, in the composite case which you mentioned, we do not know whether the child was lacking appropriate challenge (curriculum, pacing, and instruction in his ZPD), lacking peers, etc.

It is my understanding that use of a composite is a common technique, and may also be done for legal, ethical, and IRB compliance purposes so as to protect all study participants.

Yes, we do not have clarity in this area, although we've seen quotes which give hope. Some of the suggested questions were intended to explore this area in more depth.

I think the key word here is "current." This being Silicon Valley, it is extremely likely that she has shares in this company and stands to profit if it is acquired or goes public. Besides, if there was no interest in profits, why not form a non-profit foundation instead? In addition, there are the $20-30K-per-shot speaking fees. I continue to see a financial conflict of interest.




You've distorted what I wrote in a Dweckian way --- link an obvious statement (curiosity in little kids) to a dodgey idea or a valid point (mine, curiosity) and use the obvious one to promote or disparage the linked one. There should be a formal logical fallacy named for that. If not, I choose to call it the Dweckian distortion fallacy.

HG+ kids are often described as meeting milestones well before neurotypical or even MG kids. This is observed as early as the day of birth and throughout the newborn period. It therefore cannot be attributed to "nurture" or "praise" or anything else except innate cognitive abilities in the newborn. The idea that this ability may naturally disappear is effectively equivalent to the statement, "they all even out by third grade." In many ways, Dweck denies the reality of being highly gifted --- as though it's just some brain-muscle growth-thing that you can drive with hard work --- and that's why I get so wound up. Her ideas are very disrespectful of a small segment of the population.

But if she were to write a more nuanced view, she wouldn't book so many lecture dates or sell so many subscriptions to Brainology (tm).

I believe that there are many kids who do look very advanced as newborns, and they actually DO "even out". I'm sure there is a correlation between infant developmental milestones and later cognitive ability, but it probably isn't very strong or predictive. Both of my kids scored 99th percentile on the WISC-IV and both looked pretty average as newborns/young infants. Neither one of them really took off in any obvious way until age 2-3 (and that could have been because of environmental influences). They are 100 percent genetically UNrelated, but have remarkably similar IQ scores, even down to specific subtests. Both of them had Picture Concepts and Matrix Reasoning as their highest scores, and coding as their lowest score. DS was a somewhat early walker, and then he ended up with a developmental coordination disorder diagnosis a few years later. I've seen kids who did everything early as infants, and they are now average, or even behind.

Some may say that an accusation/allegation of conflict of interest against a psychologist is a strong statement. Although asked, you've not provided a source for your information, therefore your repeated statements about conflict of interest appear to be conjecture/hypothetical/unfounded.

Possibly I see things more simply and do not see the argument. Possibly we just disagree. If you believe there was a distortion, please feel free to clarify your point.

Agreed. Infants have varying amounts of innate abilities. For some infants, advanced abilities may be evident on day 1. This may depend upon several things including
- what the infant is doing,
- who may be watching,
- what the watcher's knowledge of milestones may be.

For other babies, advanced abilities may not be noticed until they are several months old. In some cases, the baby could have been doing the same things as the infant, at the same age as the infant, however these actions may have gone unobserved, and/or significance may not have been placed on them possibly due to being unaware of milestones, therefore unaware that the baby's actions were advanced, and that this may be an indicator of high IQ.

For some preschoolers, advanced abilities may have been occurring but also gone unnoticed and/or the child may receive negative responses to his/her precocity.

Similarly for some elementary school children, advanced abilities may be demonstrated but remain unacknowledged and/or unappreciated.

In the examples, we do not see the infant's abilities disappear, however we begin to see advanced abilities recognized in more children over time, as they may be observed by more individuals and/or the individuals observing them may become more familiar with milestones.

Do you have examples of Dweck denying the reality of being highly gifted?

Dweck is a gifted person herself, and shares anecdotes of teachers with fixed mindset and the impact of those teachers upon the students... therefore I do not believe that she intends to offend or be disrespectful of gifted individuals.

In fact, I appreciate her caution that gifted individuals may stop taking appropriate risks in order to always be seen as smart, thereby choosing to keep-up-appearances rather than embracing possible learning experiences in which they may be exposed as not already knowing something.

Unfortunately, children may develop this defensive/protective stance when subject to unrealistic statements and intentional belittlement along the lines of... if they are smart/gifted/advanced they should know (or be able to do) ___xyz___ (fill in the blank). This seems to ring true to many posts on the forum. In the book mindset, Dweck points out harmful messages given to children by parents, teachers, coaches... so that children may receive more beneficial messages.

Have you read the book mindset? Are there specific passages/excerpts on specific pages which you might point to, as the source for the understanding you seem to take away from mindset? These passages/excerpts may form the basis for insightful questions the OP may pose to the author...

I have not read the author in question, so I am only going to make a small comment on financial conflicts of interest for psychologists and others in related fields:

Due to the current funding structure of research, especially large-scale research of assessments and interventions, most psychologists who develop programs or standardized assessments will at some point have to develop a relationship with a (major) publishing company in order to collect the kind of data-to-scale that is most desirable and publishable. Public and NGO funding is generally not sufficient to run any kind of standardization or efficacy studies larger than a couple of hundred students, so researchers who hope to collect that kind of data on thousands of students almost always have to develop a relationship with a publisher at some point.

And if you want it to be adopted by any significant numbers, you definitely need the marketing muscle of a Pearson or Riverside.

So yes, one needs to be cognizant of financial interests, but also acknowledge that the system currently resists "pure" research in certain domains.

Thanks for that perspective, aeh.

In addition to val's post above, I think that something which bothers me about the Dweckian perspective on "growth" mindset as a construct is that I see this tying into the larger societal ill of frenzied push-parenting.

Now parents who post here regularly over a course of months or years, we're NOT most parents, and our kids (rather by definition) are not most children.

The kinds of settings, opportunities, etc. that we provide our HG/+ children allow them to soar. But there are other parents just as determined to provide those opportunities for their children* so that they can BECOME* "highly gifted" or something even more illustrious.
* regardless of the feelings, impulses, or desire of the children in question, that is.
It's not much of a stretch to assert that this fuels the greater social ill of college admissions frenzy. I don't see much difference between that and SAT tutors and superscoring and Summer AP prep-school, and community-service-as-resume-fodder, etc.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems all of a piece, this notion that push parenting actually pushes on some inherently quite MUTABLE property.

I'm not very confident that it does, in point of fact. Actually-- I rather suspect that it just harms the children who aren't born to be HG+, and makes them feel a lot like their parents can't accept who they actually are as human beings in their own right.

So yeah. Growth mindset? Hmmm. Maybe a useful construct for some things, but maybe not so much for others, and maybe the way that this is being presented is actually fueling something that every parent ought to be more or less appalled by to begin with.

I'm not a fan of "multiple intelligences" either, probably no surprise.



I say all of that and I don't-- inherently-- have much of a problem with loving push-parenting in it's less high-pressure form. I do think that children need guidance about their life decisions, education included. But what I do not believe that they "need" is tinkering with their basic intrinsic motivation to learn in a misguided attempt to make them all SuperKids. That seems somewhat abusive to me on some level. Like me pushing my DD to swim well enough to make nationals or something-- maybe I could do it, with the help of some pros that would push her alongside me... but it would. be. wrong.


This kind of nuanced view, however, is never going to make me one of Jon's Persons of Major Significance, I fear. Perhaps I just need to wish it so using a growth mindset.

Have you read Carol Dweck's book mindset?
Could you formulate a polite question for the author?

This.

As we continue to add to our primitive understanding of the brain, and find that, for instance, musical training increases cortical thickness, it becomes increasingly difficult to accept the notion that the brain's properties are immutably established prior to birth.

Been away from this forum for a while, but wanted to respond and thank Connecting Dots for kindly citing a blog post I wrote about the grit-talent dichotomy (http://giftedchallenges.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-grit-talent-dichotomy-creating_19.html)

This thread has been great in debating the merits and problems with the mindset philosophy. I think much of the problem comes from the oversimplification of the concept, turning it into an all-or-nothing term, and demonizing giftedness, as if telling a child he/she is smart will deter the child from academic growth.

Of course it is critical to challenge oneself, take risks, develop resiliency, and rack up failures and learn from them. This is pretty obvious. But mindset has become a buzzword that is now used in many school districts with little understanding of how it may affect both gifted and neurotypical students.

Unfortunately, this may not be obvious to some schools, as the forums are filled with anecdotes of any "failure", setback, lack of growth, and/or plateauing, being used as evidence that a child is not gifted, not so gifted, not the smartest in the class, and/or does not have academic/intellectual/educational/curricular needs beyond the regular classroom offerings, etc. Such determinations may be predicated on using an achievement-based definition of giftedness and focusing on a short-term time frame.

Agreed. In some instances, this may be due to not having reading Dweck's book mindset, but only having read about mindset... catching small sound bites here and there, out of context.

When using Dweck's work as a classroom theory which benefits ALL students, possibly this could include:
- It's OK to make fresh, new mistakes.
- Making a fresh, new mistake may be evidence of working at one's challenge level or zone of proximal development (ZPD): the pupil is exploring territory which was previously unchartered by him/her (but ideally is well-known by the teacher).
- It is not good to hide mistakes, as that short-circuits the important process of learning from mistakes.
- Kids could be encouraged to share a mistake, roadblock, or impasse which they experienced... and what they learned from it, or if it is ongoing, what they hope to learn from it. (If a lesson did not afford the opportunity to explore uncharted territory and make a mistake... boredom could be an impasse, and ought not to be treated as a taboo subject... in the case of sustained boredom, a kid would be hoping for the stimulation of learning something new, to keep school interesting and avoid zoning out followed by eventual underachievement.)

Indigo, Those are great suggestions for the classroom. It would be amazing if more schools considered using them.

Also, agree with your point about how schools often use lack of "achievement" as evidence of not being gifted. Another sad circumstance most of us have encountered is where schools assume gifted children are fulfilled because of good grades and high achievement, and ignore that many are skating through with little or no effort, developing bad habits that reinforce an under the radar form of underachievement.

I caught a bit of Dweck taking calls on MN public radio last week (first hour of The Daily Circuit on 7/27) while traveling. There were a few calls regarding gifted/bright kids in the Twin Cities area. One inquired about how to encourage growth in their child who always has top scores and grades (cue 23 min remaining), and later, another parent inquired about a child in a gifted classroom, to which she did say:

"It's super important for your son to be challenged and to have a peer group that is being challenged. It's up to you, in part, to interpret what does it mean to be gifted. It just means that if you challenge yourself you grow your ability, you grow your talent in order to do wonderful things with it in the future, so you just need to interpret it. It's not a fixed trait. It's a resource that you use and grow in the service of some dream or contribution you can make in the future. I think that could help him not get stuck in that gifted fixed mindset place." (see 7:07 remaining, and then 4:05 remaining)

Edited: I found the archive and added details. There are actually two guests. Might be worth a listen. :-)

To praise or not to praise smart kids

Longcut, It is great to hear of an interview where she acknowledges the importance of gifted kids being "challenged and to have a peer group that is being challenged."

This concept - the need for ability grouping, and the idea that gifted people are, in fact, different - gets lost in the mindset literature.

What also seems to emerge in many of the articles that circulate (please don't ask me to quote them now!) is the assumption that gifted kids are at a disadvantage if they know they are gifted because that will create a fixed mindset and stall their growth.

What seems to get lost is the idea that:
1. Gifted kids benefit from knowing the reality of their abilities (since they already sense they are different anyway);
2. They need to be challenged, need to fail, need to take risks;
3. They can't readily learn to fail or take risks unless the system encourages this by actually challenging them, placing them in ability grouped learning environments, encouraging their creativity, etc.

It's almost a blame the victim mentality - "it's all the gifted kid's fault if he doesn't succeed - he knows he's gifted, that creates a fixed mindset, so he doesn't push himself. The schools are blameless. If no one told him he was gifted, he would push himself to succeed."

It's a simplistic and false dichotomy that may not be what Dweck intended at all, but seems to be what is emerging in some of the articles out there, and may be absorbed by teachers and school districts.

Agreed. This forms the basis for many great questions to ask Dweck.

There were more questions posed to her along these lines in the program I linked. It's 40 min long, and the program topic was focused on "smart" kids. She said people have misinterpreted what she's said in terms of high ability kids (which she refers to more as "advanced" and seemed reticent to approach using the term gifted). Based on that misinterpretation, it would be nice to see her supplement her mindset info to clarify, for the sake of schools using it.

Agreed, although I did not perceive her as reticent to use the word gifted; Rather I understood her to acknowledge the baggage which comes with that word and offer some additional words commonly in use in gifted programs (such as "advanced").
Thanks for sharing the link to the MPR segment featuring Q&A with Carol Dweck. The 40 minutes of Q&A provides great clarity, and is consistent with research presented in the book, mindset. Highly recommend.

This. You often see Dweck's work stretched out by others... to the point of some people claiming that giftedness does not exist and it's merely a social, elitist construct because anyone can "grow" to be smarter.

It's assuming that the cause of a fixed mindset is knowledge of one's own giftedness. I would argue that not being challenged is far more toxic and more likely to lead one into a fixed mindset.

I'm sure, after listening to that interview (thanks for the link, longcut!) that Dweck does not intend to imply that dichotomy. However, phrases such as "stuck in that gifted fixed mindset" (see 37:11 elapsed) don't really help the cause. They make giftedness sound almost inevitable to having a fixed mindset unless you take loads of precautionary measures.

I would further argue that euphemisms for "extraordinary cognitive ability" that mask reality (that this is a tail end of {gasp} a normal distribution)-- do not help, either.

It is INCORRECT to state that a child like my DD is "advanced." She isn't. She's qualitatively-- and ultimately, quantitatively-- different from most children.

I know this because we've seen it in action in her deevelopmental arc. "Advanced" implies that my 6yo was "about like a third grader," or that acceleration is a sole solution to the problem-- something that educators already believe as part of the mythology of what asynchronous development means.

This isn't helpful.

Not all five year olds who can read like fifteen-year-olds should be studying Othello or The Holocaust. But "advanced" tidily implies that this might be, you know, a thing. It simply is not.

Again-- we know, because we were in fact forced to VERY carefully tease apart what emotional readiness our PG-let had at various points in her developmental arc, and what might be beyond her, or too much at the time. We made occasional missteps-- some of which I've posted about here. It was a minefield, quite frankly-- as a parent, one never really knew what she'd maintain a safe emotional distance from and what she'd unexpectedly personally-identify with.

"Advanced" is not the term for highly asynchronous development. Period. It's a gross oversimplification that is a huge disservice to children who are HG/HG+ in particular.

This is no better than assuming that a child with an FSIQ of 60 is "delayed." What, so eventually that child will "get" to calculus or esoteric theological analysis??

Again, I'm not saying that cognition is a fixed thing. Clearly it is not. But I do think that there is a lot of money to be made in promulgating the belief that anyone can be Einstein if they just try harder, and if they just "let go of what's holding them back" (preferably by some kind of "training" module, for a modest fee, no doubt).

What if there is an "optimized" developmental arc for an individual... and then there is everything LESS than that ideal?

That might not be such a popular idea, but it sure seems to be the one most consistent with every bit of data I've ever seen published, no matter what the authors suggest that it means.

Yes, stretched out by others, possibly because the book was written for general audiences.

Stretched out by others possibly by removing Dweck's work from the context of the time in which it was written, nearly a decade ago, without regard for what has changed in that decade.

The research was conducted and the book mindset (copyright 2006) came out prior to:
- common core (2010), national standards, one-size-fits-all education, and the emphasis on closing any achievement gap and/or excellence gap, often by creating a ceiling for children at the top.
- NAGC changing the definition of "gifted" to emphasize accomplishment/achievement/eminence rather than gifted as a way of being/thinking (recapped in this blog post, Gifted Parenting Support, November 26, 2011)

As these trends were not part of the landscape when mindset was published, it would be unusual for Dweck to anticipate the movement of gifted education in that direction, and therefore to have included statements in her work which may be in defense of gifted education in the face of such changes. At the time when mindset was published, these influences did not exist.

Unfortunately, even for those of us who've read the book, it may be equally difficult to focus on what mindset says about the research, when we are immersed in today's educational landscape which causes us to wonder why mindset seems silent on certain topics (which did not exist a decade ago).

At the time when mindset was written, a hot topic in gifted education was "underachievement". The research presented in mindset was research into motivation. Another article summarizes a sentiment similar to the research presented by mindset, this way:

NotherBen,

Has your meeting occurred yet? Would you please update us after the meeting?

Meanwhile, in considering many of the posts discussing implementation of various changes in classrooms (attributed to Dweck), possibly some of these changes may have had roots in other research? This article by Dr. Sally Reis of University of Connecticut (UConn) offers a great synopsis of research on Schoolwide Enrichment Models (SEM).

Indigo,
The event is in a few weeks yet, and of course I will post an update!

Having finished Mindset now, I am not ready to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" regarding "talent is nothing, hard work is everything" dichotomy. That's the bathwater. I find Growth mindset is an idea worth considering. And no, I didn't have any Kool-aid lol. While I think the book could have been better edited (based on my own marginalia and post-its), and certainly needs updating (Circuit City is held up as a growth-mindset business success story), the essence of developing a growth mindset is attractive.

Dweck confesses to having had a fixed mindset for much of her life; I suspect she still does. She also notes that Mindset is her first foray into writing a popular book. I think the effort to make it simpler for the masses led her and her editor to make some missteps.

Thanks to longcamp for posting the link to the radio programme, I look forward to listening to it. I hope the upcoming talk does not dwell on "don't praise intelligence". I still don't understand how identifying a person as "gifted" is praise. Perhaps THAT is the simple, basic question I would ask, because it seems to raise a lot of hackles and keeps us from listening to the rest of her message.

I agree, in principle it is no more praise then telling someone that they have colour x colored eyes - it is a factual statement and praise/judgement neutral as far as I am concerned too.

The difference is that it is clearly better to have a high IQ than a low IQ. Height is a better analogy than eye color. Society values height, especially in males. You would be more reluctant to tell a male friend that he is short than that he is tall (not that he would not know). Telling a guy he is tall may be considered praise, but telling him he is short is not. Height is not under one's control.

I don't entirely disagree with your points but personally I consider praise to be complimenting someone their achievements as opposed to their God given attributes.

I think that it is entirely healthy to tell a child that they are intelligent (when they are).

I agree completely. I'll add that I believe that children have a right to know important information about themselves, which includes information about how their minds and bodies work. I know that people may disagree, but to me, not telling a child that she's extremely intelligent is very unfair to the kid. So it might make things difficult for her --- so what? It's not the KNOWLEDGE about being different that makes things hard; it's the REALITY about being different. Reality doesn't go away when we ignore it --- it typically gets harder to deal with instead. Plus, not acknowledging a person's abilities (I did NOT say skills) kind of turns them into a dirty secret.

In contrast to height, research shows that the growth/development of one's brain is under one's control (and the control of others who surround and influence that individual).
1) Growth spiral: Stimulation and/or challenging task ==> growing more neural connections ==> increased mental capacity.
2) Downward spiral: Boredom and/or easy task ==> growing fewer neural connections ==> underachievement.

Motivation may play a role, in that individuals complimented/praised for effort may be more likely to choose option 1 (challenging task), when a choice of tasks is available... while individuals primarily complimented/praised for being smart may be more likely to choose option 2 (easy task), when a choice of tasks is available.

When telling a child important information about themselves (such as "You are gifted"), some may say it is also wise to share this "mindset" information from the fields of psychology and neuroscience. This may be seen as providing a user manual for a new machine or appliance (their brain), so they may:
- appropriately understand that "gifted" does not mean they will never make errors/mistakes
- choose to cultivate a positive attitude toward mistakes as a part of embracing the learning process
- enjoy choosing a challenging task
- embrace the struggle and effort which can accompany learning something new.

I'm going to also put this in its own thread because I think it's worth it, but this article (link is a pdf file) seemed worth sharing here because of the comments in the beginning on growth vs. fixed mindsets.

That's a great article, ElizabethN! Thanks for sharing.

All of you have made so many great points.

One of my additional concerns about the growth mindset is the assumption that either you have it or you don't. That's where the dichotomy comes in. It's just a little too simplistic in how it has been tossed about in the media. And it incidentally fuels more misunderstanding about gifted kids.

I replied to that highly controversial piece by Jo Boaler on the new thread, Recommendations for math teachers, and will repeat the quote from the mindset book here: mindset states, in part:

Originally Posted by mindset, page 50:

The growth mindset is the belief that abilities can be cultivated. But it doesn't tell you how much change is possible or how long change will take.

So we need people to have a growth mindset about the growth mindset. Break out the calculus!

Err...well, the first point in that presentation claims that "everyone can learn math to the highest levels." I find that statement offensive. Everyone most certainly cannot learn complex analysis, tensor calculus, or, even harder (!) dream up new methods for integrating complex mathematical expressions and then prove them rigorously. Claiming that anyone can do this is wishful thinking at best and can be harmful. The presentation also claims that being born with a "math brain" is a "damaging myth," which is insulting to people who clearly have talent for mathematics.

I have trouble understanding why Americans are so loathe to face the reality that some people are just smarter than others.

Believing in yourself is important, but self-confidence is effectively worthless unless accompanied by a solid understanding of your limitations.

Perhaps the secret to learning math "to the highest levels" is the way it's taught. Have you read The Joy of X by Steven Strogatz? It presents often hard-to-understand concepts in a such a way to make accessible some of math's "most compelling and far-reaching ideas" (quote from the book).

The article seems to be aimed at high school and middle school teachers, so I think mentally, I took that sentence to mean "everyone can learn math to the highest levels (taught in high schools)." I think that modified like that, it actually is true, or close enough to true. Even people with limited talent for mathematics can probably be taught basic calculus, given enough time and the right methods. I don't think you need a "math brain" to learn those topics. You don't need a "writing brain" to be able to learn honors English in high school, either, though few students have (or need) what it takes to become professional writers, or even to succeed as college English majors.

This statement seems to me to be just as offensive as the one you took offense to. There's no need to characterize a particular area of muddy thinking as uniquely American. Plenty of Americans disagree (including you, going by your location), and plenty of non-Americans would go along with it.

I also took this article as aimed at secondary school teachers. Without having to agree with every assertion, I think it has value for them, in terms of promoting more positive attitudes toward math development. And, anecdotally, I have seen some pretty amazing math growth in quite low-functioning students, when taught by a positive, skilled, and relentless math teacher. Including individuals with FSIQs in the 60s who were able to obtain passing scores in algebra I and geometry on state-mandated high school exit exams. Perhaps not coincidentally, the two most effective math teachers I have known were both raised and educated outside of the USA, in cultures with long histories of believing that math (at least high school math) both should be rigorously-taught to, and is within the reach of, all motivated and industrious students.

(Actually, both came from communities where it was not unusual for high school students to have had more advanced math than the average USA high school math teacher has had. But that's another story.)

Algebra1, geometry, and basic calculus are a long way from the highest levels of math. You or ash or others may interpret that to mean "in high schools," but even calculus 1 isn't the highest level of mathematics taught in many high schools. Many teach topics like differential equations and multivariable calculus.

Also, just because you interpret the statement as meaning "in high schools," doesn't mean that high school kids will understand it the same way. This is what makes statements like that so potentially damaging. Remember also that these ideas are surrounded by people saying that everyone can go to college or everyone can be president or everyone can become an engineer. These ideas are simply not true, and it's cruel to tell children that they are.

This way of thinking may not be uniquely American, but it is primarily an American phenomenon.

Reading about math for pleasure and enlightenment is good, and I have bought such books for my eldest son. But when a math major studies a topic he or she needs to do calculations and understand proofs of the major theorems, which is much more difficult than reading a popular math book.

Indeed.

Here is a new thread: When Success Leads to Failure.

Here is what I'd ask Carol Dweck:


See this excellent article: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/16/the...eory_and_the_harmful_lessons_it_imparts/


Dweck never included a no-praise control group in her effort/ability studies. This is a major flaw in them.

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.

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.

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.

These are all great points.

I'll add that effort is not the antonym of giftedness, and that a growth mindset doesn’t promise you that you can be Einstein.

These ideas may provide good questions to ask Dweck.

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:
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.