0 members (),
130
guests, and
29
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 387
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 387 |
That's a fair point I think. It also brings us to another part of Dweck-ism which is not comparing oneself to others - instead compare your own current performance with your own past performance. With that in place it really is all about effort and work (since the LD kid will only be compared to where she was yesterday, or last week, or last year).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 107
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 107 |
Yes, I can see how that would be beneficial. I have actually seen an example of that at my son's school. Each month they take a reading achievement test and are then given their results to plot on a graph in their folder. They are told not to share their results with others.
It was only partly effective in my son's case though as he noticed that one of his classmates had to add to his graph because it only goes up to 300 and he scored higher than that. My son's last score was a 297 and he told me that he wants to go over 300 so he can add to his graph too. Some kids are naturally competitive and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I do think it's good for that to not be the primary focus though.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
IQ alone can't solve calculus problems.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 144 |
This is my favorite Carol Dweck quote which I think most folks here would agree with:
"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!”
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
IQ alone can't solve calculus problems. No here has said that it can. But the same is true of lack of IQ alone, except that 10,000 hours of practice still won't get some people through trigonometric substitution. Talent matters, and people who try to wish that fact away by dismissing it in favor of lies about invariant outcomes of hard work are spoonfeeding a cruel lie to children. And these same people bleat that they're "giving everyone a chance," and that anyone who disagrees is obviously biased. So we end up pushing students into courses they're not ready for or capable of, and we find ways to give them extra credit to compensate for low test scores. That way, everyone can get a good grade in geometry by "working hard." And we produce thousands of kids every year who graduate from high school with honors and promptly fail the math and English placement tests before they start their first semester of college.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
Here's why I'm skeptical about Carol Dweck: In one study, we taught students ... some math history, namely stories about great mathematicians as geniuses who easily came up with their math discoveries. This alone propelled students into a fixed mindset. It sent that message: There are some people who are born smart in math and everything is easy for them. Then there are the rest of you. For the other half of the students, we talked about the mathematicians as people who became passionate about math and ended up making great discoveries. This brought students into a growth mindset. The message was: Skills and achievement come through commitment and effort. It’s amazing how kids sniff out these messages from our innocent remarks. I would be grateful if someone could name even one mathematician who sat down after lunch one day, created and wrote up a major discovery by tea time, and then went off to the back-patting machine for some well-earned praise. The thing is, when you have to make a point by lying, you really never had a point to make to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
IQ alone can't solve calculus problems. No here has said that it can. Bostonian is implying it with a rejection of the notion of the growth mindset and the identification of IQ as a fixed thing. So, IQ alone won't solve calculus... you still have to grow your math skills, regardless of your innate abilities. But the same is true of lack of IQ alone, except that 10,000 hours of practice still won't get some people through trigonometric substitution. Indeed. Ability matters. Effort matters. If we're going to turn this into a binary proposition, then there should be an AND gate in there, in order for the output to be GREATNESS (however you choose to define that). And we'd have to add other inputs: environment, opportunity, and health, for starters. So we end up pushing students into courses they're not ready for or capable of, and we find ways to give them extra credit to compensate for low test scores. That way, everyone can get a good grade in geometry by "working hard." And we produce thousands of kids every year who graduate from high school with honors and promptly fail the math and English placement tests before they start their first semester of college. Well, if we look at the five inputs I've proposed up above, it's not terribly difficult to imagine that a person of above average ability, given great health, environment, opportunities, and effort will manage to do great things. And hey, look around, and you find that it's people who fit that exact profile who have all the power and wealth. So they're clearly on to something. And in fact, "above average ability" would be something to aspire to for some of our national leaders.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 387
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 387 |
As an aside there is a guy ( www.thedanplan.com ) who is trying the 10,000 hour thing in an effort to become a pro golfer - he is a bit more than halfway through the 10,000 hours and has improved a lot.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Here's why I'm skeptical about Carol Dweck: In one study, we taught students ... some math history, namely stories about great mathematicians as geniuses who easily came up with their math discoveries. This alone propelled students into a fixed mindset. It sent that message: There are some people who are born smart in math and everything is easy for them. Then there are the rest of you. For the other half of the students, we talked about the mathematicians as people who became passionate about math and ended up making great discoveries. This brought students into a growth mindset. The message was: Skills and achievement come through commitment and effort. It’s amazing how kids sniff out these messages from our innocent remarks. I would be grateful if someone could name even one mathematician who sat down after lunch one day, created and wrote up a major discovery by tea time, and then went off to the back-patting machine for some well-earned praise. The thing is, when you have to make a point by lying, you really never had a point to make to begin with. Man, NOW I really know what I want for my next big birthday present. ITA, by the way-- when closely examined, most of the pop mythology about the great discoverers and innovators of Western Civilization comes up as about as close to obejective reality as, say, creation myths from primitive/tribal religious beliefs. It's just turtles, all the way down.It actually took Newton a bit of effort to come up with just the very rudiments of thinking necessary to THINK about using calculus to solve simple puzzles of classical mechanics and motion. DD was certainly miffed to learn this after having believed (and been told) otherwise for many years. Myself, I think that she was just disappointed to learn how much bloody hard WORK it all is, even if you're Newton. LOL.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,640 Likes: 2 |
IQ alone can't solve calculus problems. No here has said that it can. Bostonian is implying it with a rejection of the notion of the growth mindset and the identification of IQ as a fixed thing. How? Reading a calculus book will teach you that d/dx x^n = n*x^(n-1), which will help you solve calculus problems, but it won't raise your IQ. Thinking that IQ is fixed (or at least, very difficult to raise) does not mean you should not study.
|
|
|
|
|