1. Carol Dweck (Stanford University) Adapted from www.schoolnet.com How do people’s beliefs influence their motivation and subsequent achievement in academic contexts?

2. Dweck’s research indicates that people tend to develop two different concepts of ability/ intelligence — an entity view or an incremental view

3. Entity or “Fixed” Intelligence View Intelligence/ability is a fixed or stable trait, and unevenly distributed among individuals You-either-have-it-or-you-don’t and “it” can be accurately judged by others and “it” can’t be improved or increased much

4. Intelligence is fixed implications Student’s goal: to perform well and look smart, even if sacrificing learning (since negative evaluations are signs that I am not smart enough to succeed and there’s only a fixed amount of smartness).

5. Fixed Intelligence View Implications If confident in abilities, student will seek opportunities to demonstrate it (although won’t always risk a lot). If not confident in abilities, student will avoid situations with potential negative feedback, thus tending to avoid challenges and minimize intellectual risks.

6. Fixed Intelligence View Implications So the less confident will choose either very easy or very difficult tasks so that failure is not necessarily attributable to low ability (i.e., “I’m stupid and there’s nothing I can do about it”). In addition, high effort or need to study often thought of as reflective of low intelligence

7. Fixed Intelligence View Implications Dealing with difficulty produces less effort, act bored, procrastinate If I hardly study and still do well, then I’m really smart If I don’t do well, then, after all, I didn’t really try (self-handicapping)

8. Fixed Intelligence View Implications Failure often results in “Why bother? I’m just not smart enough to do any better.” “Only a few students can get top marks” “I just can’t get this.” Or externalize—poor teacher, unfair or limiting conditions

9. Fixed Intelligence View Implications When academics becomes difficult, effort is withdrawn to preserve sense of ability (high effort leading to failure means I’m dumb, which I can’t change—the entity view) Actual achievement sacrificed in order to hold onto the belief that they could do well

10. Incremental Intelligence View Implications Belief is that intelligence/ability consists of an ever expanding repertoire of skills and knowledge that can be increased through effort and figuring out successful strategies

11. Incremental Intelligence View Implications Student goal: not to look smart but to be smart by increasing their skill/knowledge levels. Ability is more task specific and is developed through study and practice—effort is all

12. Incremental Intelligence View Implications Failure usually encourages more practice and study, increasing chances of future success Failure: work harder, don’t give up Seek out challenges, moderately hard (not too easy but not overwhelmingly difficult) “Making mistakes is part of learning” “The harder you work at something, the better you will be at it” Dealing with difficulty produces more effort, strategy seeking

13. Research with College Students Hong et al (1998) in Dweck (2000) Part I: College students given two versions of convincing scientifically- based Psychology Today-type articles as part of a reading comprehension test One version espoused entity theory, one the incremental theory Divided into two groups; each read one Students answered questions about passage

14. Research with College Students Part II: participants worked on a series of problems and received feedback: some did relatively well (better than 65% of peers), others did relatively poorly (worse than 65% of peers) Before moving to the next set of problems, students were offered a tutorial “that was found to be effective in improving performance on the test for most people.” All of the students had room for improvement

15. Research with College Students Who would take advantage of tutorial (students were assessed a priori on incremental/entity view)? Better incremental and better entity both elected to take tutorial (>70% in each) Poor incremental: about 70% took tutorial Poor entity: 13% elected to take tutorial When students have a fixed view of intelligence, those who most need remedial work are the ones who clearly avoid it

16. Research with 6th & 7th Graders Henderson and Dweck (1990) Measured their theories of intelligence and confidence in their intelligence at beginning Examined 6 th grade grades and related achievement Compared to similar 7 th grade markers

17. Research with 6th & 7th Graders Entity view kids: marked decline in class standing: if 6 th grade was poor, mostly led to 7 th grade poor but many 6 th grade entity high achievers became low achievers Most of high achiever entity declines were students who had high confidence in their intelligence

18. Research with 6th & 7th Graders Incremental kids: clear improvement in class standing for majority; most dramatic gains were many incremental kids who had low confidence in their intelligence; they believed ability could be developed

19. Research with 6th & 7th Graders Students’ level of confidence was not nearly as important as their theory of intelligence in helping them meet and conquer the difficult transition Entering a challenging scholastic setting with a belief in fixed intelligence seems to set students up for self-doubt and drops in achievement—confidence fragile in face of difficulties

20. Implications Entity theory puts a premium on immediate demonstrations of intellectual ability rather than mastery over time

21. Implications A belief in fixed intelligence raises students’ concerns about how smart they are, it creates anxiety about challenges, and it makes failures into a measure of their fixed intelligence It can therefore create defensive and helpless behavior

22. Implications A belief in malleable intelligence helps create a desire for challenge and learning Setbacks in this framework become an expected part of long-term learning and mastery and are therefore not really failures

23. Implications It is when we look at difficult transitions or situations fraught with failure that we find that confidence loses its power to predict It is then that entity theorists with high confidence lose ground and that incremental theorists with low confidence gain ground