Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion What would you ask Carol Dweck?

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?