|
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 2015
Posts: 282
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 282 |
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
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? That website is her website. If she didn't approve of what was written, it wouldn't be there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 602
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 602 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 282
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 282 |
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) Q (Jonathan Fields): From what you’ve written, it sounds like the net effect of installing a separate track for “gifted and talented” kids, then labeling them as such may be destructive to both the kids intentionally labeled and those inadvertently labeled “not gifted and talented” by default. I wonder whether you might be kind enough to share your thoughts on this topic.
A (Dweck): Actually, I don’t have a strong position against gifted programs per se. I believe that all children need to be challenged at school. I am concerned, however, when the “gift” is portrayed as a fixed trait and the label becomes a symbol of worth. Students may then care more about the label than about learning–they may become afraid to take on challenges or make mistakes.
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. Yet, researchers are beginning to agree that giftedness and talent are quite dynamic and can flourish at any time under the right circumstances (or wither under the wrong ones). Research is also showing the enormous role of dedication, practice, and resilience in the development of talent.
So, any gifted program should focus on teaching students how to challenge themselves, seek learning, value and enjoy effort, and recover from setbacks. This is what they need to develop their abilities. Then again, these lessons would help all students develop their abilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
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 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
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: One of the most damaging myths has been that some people are born with more intellectual ability than others, and that they retain this competitive advantage throughout their lives. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
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? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 313 |
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?")
|
|
|
|
|
