If readers are of the mind, think back to
middle school (or if you are as old as this blogger, think back to junior high). Ask: is intelligence or how well they did at
school the product of inborn intelligence or from figuring out how that learning
game was played? American psychologist,
Carol S. Dweck, argues that this basic distinction in how people see
intelligence plays a big role in how likely individual students will perform at
that level of instruction. And, consequently,
how they will be likely to experience success from that point on when it comes
to schooling.[1]
This
blog last addressed Dweck’s work in a posting, “A Middle School Challenge,”
back in 2019.[2] It reports how this psychologist labels each
view. The “I’m just smart or I am not”
view is given the name entity theory, while “I just have to figure out how to
learn this stuff” view is named incremental theory. She claims these two views or theories
prevail among students. Students tend to
see intelligence either one way or the other.
The first, entity theory, sees intelligence as
a given amount a person has from birth.
The more one has, the easier it is to learn new material or content. It is judged to be a fixed, tangible, or
concrete quality, and is part of what makes a person who he/she is. People either have it or they don’t.
On the other hand, the other view, incremental
theory, Dweck describes as malleable, changeable through effort, and has a
dynamic quality. In short, in this
second view, people can become smarter or more intelligent. Yes, it calls for people to work at it, but
such challenges take on a puzzle quality and have a higher likelihood of being
experienced in positive ways. And making
mistakes in the process can even be given a positive slant since they are opportunities
to advance learning.
Asking middle school students, through her
research, Dweck found that “entity” students tended to agree with the following
statements:
“The main thing I want when I do my schoolwork
is to show how good I am at it.”
“I mostly like schoolwork that I can do
perfectly without any mistakes.”
“I have to admit that sometimes I would rather
do well in a class than learn a lot.”[3]
Whereas incremental students were likely to
agree with:
“I like schoolwork that I’ll learn from even if
I make a lot of mistakes.”
“It’s much more important to me to know new
things in my classes than it is to get the best grades.”
“I like schoolwork best when it makes me think
hard.”[4]
Ask any teacher which set of biases they wished
their students shared, and this blogger believes they would overwhelmingly want
their students to see schoolwork and learning through the “incremental” lens as
reflected in the above quotes.
Yet, this blogger believes that most teachers do
not see this distinction being based, at least in part, on how their students view
or understand intelligence. As a matter
of fact, he also believes that many, if not most, teachers share in the entity
theory of intelligence themselves. If
true, this can be detrimental in many ways, including ones in which they – and
their students in upcoming years – view civic concerns.
For example, if intelligence is a set element
of one’s makeup, is it determined by biological factors? Can those factors be related to such
classifications as race, gender, nationality, and the like? While the emphasis of this posting is not on
these concerns; in passing, they seemed worth considering.
But overall, incremental students consistently
chose options reflecting exhortation of effort.
While entity students tended to choose, when it came to schoolwork,
options of avoidance, alternative options to study and work such as avoiding
subjects or courses, and even entertained cheating on tests. Incremental students were more apt to seek
out the challenges involved. The next
posting will apply these distinctions to the concerns of civics more directly.
[1] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and
Development (Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press, 2000).
[2] Robert Gutierrez, “A Middle School Challenge,” Gravitas: A Voice for
Civics, October 11, 2019, accessed February 3, 2024,
URL: https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2019_10_06_archive.html.
[3] Dweck, Self-Theories, 33.
[4] Ibid., 33.
No comments:
Post a Comment