week 2, thu, jan 21  Dweck, C. (1999). Caution: Praise can be dangerous.  Mini-Inquiry Activity the one five o

assignments  Brophy, J (2010). Chapter 4. Goal Theory, p (available in ANGEL)  Test podcast due Tue to ANGEL dropbox  Schedule participants for Inquiry 1  Develop a plan for your inquiry (focus & questions) the one five o

carol dweck  l_Dweck l_Dweck  k/Dweck_Motivation.html k/Dweck_Motivation.html  k/Dweck_questionnaire.html k/Dweck_questionnaire.html  Best known for her work on implicit theories of intelligence  the one five o

dweck’s praise studies When reading research, it is important to know:  the main research questions  how the study was designed to address the questions  what was found Suggestion: make a diagram that represents the three main pieces the one five o

dangerous praise  According to Dweck, why can praise be dangerous?  85% parents think praise* is good  * a certain kind of praise… the one five o

mueller & dweck study (1998(  Participants: 5 th graders  Task: easy puzzle task  Intervention: Ss were praised for either intelligence, effort, performance.  Data: All Ss showed similar enjoyment, looking forward to practicing, and confidence the one five o

mueller & dweck study (1998(  Follow-up #1: SS given choice of tasks of different difficulties  Data: Pr-intel Ss chose easier task; Pr-effort Ss chose more challenging tasks. the one five o

mueller & dweck study (1998(  Follow-up #2: SS given difficult task which they did not succeed on  Data: Pr-intel Ss did not like task or want to practice it. They also questioned their intelligence.  Data: Pr-effort Ss liked this task just as much (or more) as the easier one and wanted to practice more. Their difficulties did not make them question their intelligence. the one five o

mueller & dweck study (1998(  Follow-up #3: SS given easy task again  Data: Pr-intel Ss did worse than others and than before. 40% lied about their scores  Data: Pr-effort Ss did better than others and than before. Few lied about their scores. the one five o

mueller & dweck study (1998(  Follow-up #4: SS asked about their views of intelligence  Data: Pr-intel Ss saw their intelligence as innate: an unchanging entity  Data: Pr-effort Ss saw their intelligence as related to skills, knowledge, and motivation: something incremental that could be changed the one five o

dweck’s questionnaire On a 5-pt scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”, rate the following.  You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can’t do much to change it  Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much  You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence the one five o

seeing the inaccessible  We do not always understand what motivates us  What, then, are the implications for “seeing” motivation?  For example, how do we discern individuals’ views of their intelligence, if they may not really know themselves? the one five o

seeing the inaccessible Q: How do we discern individuals’ views of their intelligence, if they may not really know themselves? A: Look for qualities associated with particular views of intelligence.  reaction to difficult tasks (attributions for success & failure, persistence, emotional reactions, confidence)  difficulty level of tasks they choose  how they were praised when learning  focused on learning or achievement the one five o

quick inquiry activity Focus Questions  What is view of their intelligence?  How is this view related to other aspects of their motivation? In small teams  4:45 Devise a plan for getting at these aspects of motivation.  5:00 Interview 1 or 2 people  5:10 Analyze your data  5:15 Report the story of your inquiry the one five o

title the one five o

title the one five o

title the one five o