I have previously in this blog, based on the work of Carol S.
Dweck,[1] made a
distinction: a student in school can
place emphasis on learning for its own sake or learning in order to be able to
perform in some endeavor. Yes, a student
can have both motivations, but the concern is whether or not a student places
priority on one or the other or excludes one or the other. According to Dweck and her research, if a
student emphasizes performance or out and out excludes learning for its own
sake, there are resulting problems with students advancing in their learning
progression. Let me explain why.
Among students, there seem to be two overarching held
theories as to learning and intelligence.
One theory sees intelligence as an entity. Students who see intelligence in this way
consider it as a given amount; one is born with that amount and the more one
has, the easier it is to learn new material.
This view can be described as fixed, more or less concrete, and
internal. You have what you have and
that’s it. The other theory sees
intelligence as incremental. This
incremental theory describes intelligence as malleable, willfully changeable,
and dynamic. In other words, a person
can become more intelligent. While one
can hold the two motivational types identified above, one cannot logically hold
these two views of intelligence simultaneously.
Intelligence is either fixed or changeable; it can’t be both. One can hold one view at one time and, later,
be convinced of the other. But it seems
to me that this is one of those basic beliefs one holds, either consciously or
subconsciously and as such, the belief can affect what learning activities one
is likely to pursue. It also affects how
one judges others. If a person sees
intelligence as unchangeable, he or she is apt to hold those who exhibit low
levels of intelligence as being highly limited in any efforts they might expend
on improving their positions in life. Can
one change one’s view of intelligence?
To the degree a person’s view of intelligence is an unconscious belief,
it would probably take either many indirect experiences to convince one of
changing this view or direct instruction that is aimed at changing that view.
In assessing these views individually, let’s look at the “entity”
view first. If a person holds this view,
one is prone to seek those settings, including learning experiences, that allow
the individual to demonstrate, i.e., “show off,” one’s smartness. Therefore, this view leads to a bias for
performance opportunities. In seeking
these settings or experiences, the person is apt to further diminish whatever
motivation he or she might have had for learning for its own sake – at least,
that is what Dweck’s work indicates. Why? Because actual learning experiences are
challenging by their very nature and, as such, a person’s engagement in them
might not produce the opportunity to show off.
On the other hand, those persons – students, in the case of Dweck’s work
– who see intelligence as incremental, seek learning experiences that do not
necessarily offer opportunities to demonstrate mastery or their “smartness.”
We found a clear and significant
relation between the students’ theories of intelligence and their goal choices:
The more students held an entity theory
of intelligence, the more likely they were to choose a performance goal,
whereas the more they held an incremental theory, the more likely they were to
choose the learning goal.[2]
This finding was similarly found among college students. The research found that such biases affect
the type of learning experiences toward which a student strives. If he or she is an “entity” student, he or
she will strive for good grades and other demonstrable exhibitions of his/her
knowledge or abilities. An “incremental”
student, on the other hand, will strive for challenges that offer opportunities
to learn, but at the same time offer the possibilities of failure. For incremental students, these possibilities
are just an inherent attribute of the learning process.
Practically, for those students who do not see the
possibility to change intelligence, they tend to be more conservative, more
reserved, in their learning strategies.
These “entity” students are more concerned with removing obstacles to
doing well in their performance efforts rather than with seeking challenging
opportunities. Dweck theorizes that for
them the motivation is to avoid those conditions which might demonstrate to
themselves or others that their “entity” might be deficient or less then
others’ “entities.” This is not good; we
want people to take on challenges and this, in turn, is enabled – even promoted
– by the other view of intelligence, the incremental view. That view would be one that is bent on
learning for its own sake. If one
believes one can change how intelligent one is, one is apt to seek those
experiences that offer the opportunity to do so. This can be in the form of remedial work,
advanced work, or whatever is reasonably calibrated to the sophistication of a
particular individual and promises to provide a learning result.
How readily are we to be dissuaded from one view to the other
view? In a set of studies Dweck
conducted, it seems that subjects who were given written material – written for
a general audience – that described intelligence in a more incremental way,
seemed to opt for learning, as opposed to performing, instructional
experiences. This indicates that we are
open to being instructed to viewing intelligence as malleable and susceptible to
being improved or increased.
I might add that the incremental view is more democratic and
more amenable to federalist thinking. It
is gratifying to know that this reported research exists and that it bolsters a
more democratic view of this very human quality: intelligence.
