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

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.