Great post, interesting thoughts.
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.
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.
The quote I provided earlier:
I also don’t like the word “gift.” It implies that abilities are simply bestowed from on high, that some students have them and some don’t, and that students have no role to play in developing them.
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.
From an interview with her at http://www.iub.edu/~intell/dweck_interview.shtml :
I think our society tends to believe that geniuses are born, not made. And I wouldn't dispute that there might be a strong innate component, but it's just clear from the histories of so many geniuses that motivation is a key component.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes,
many favor that approach.
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:
A brilliant student, Jonathan sailed through grade school. He completed his assignments easily and routinely earned As. Jonathan puzzled over why some of his classmates struggled, and his parents told him he had a special gift. In the seventh grade, however, Jonathan suddenly lost interest in school, refusing to do homework or study for tests. As a consequence, his grades plummeted. His parents tried to boost their son's confidence by assuring him that he was very smart. But their attempts failed to motivate Jonathan (who is a composite drawn from several children). Schoolwork, their son maintained, was boring and pointless (bolding mine).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
