You’re So Smart

by

Intelligence is not a fixed, unchangeable quality. It can grow with effort. Consequently, praise for being smart can undermine a child’s motivation and performance. Instead, praise should focus on the effort a child has made, such as facing and overcoming challenges.

Intelligence can grow with effort

You’re so smart,” gushes Heather’s mother upon seeing her report card. “Look at that Nathaniel. All A’s! I’m so proud of you honey. I told you she was the smartest kid in that school. Wait ’til I show that report card to Grandma.”

Heather’s mother can hardly wait to get on the phone with grandma, put the bumper sticker on her car, and get together with the girls for a “so how are the kids doing” chat. Despite her need to tell the world about her “smart” little girl, she genuinely loves her daughter and has the best of intentions. Unfortunately, her high praise may have unintended consequences.

Mother praised Heather for being so “smart”. She called her the “smartest kid in the school” and in the process told her how proud she was of her for being so smart. In other words, she was praised for her intelligence – as if she has been blessed with an extra large helping of “smartness”. Many people view intelligence as something we are dealt at birth. Some of us get better hands than others. From the looks of that report card, Heather was dealt a hand full of Aces.

Although well intentioned, mother has inadvertently made her praise conditional. If Mom is so proud of her for getting straight A’s, what will she feel about her if she comes up with something less? When her father says, “That’s my girl”, then whose girl is she when she brings home B’s? Am I being too critical? There are many other ways for Heather to know her parents genuinely love her, unconditionally; right? But the risk here is that Heather is being labeled as “special” and may feel a need to hold on to that “specialness” to retain her parents’ approval and her own self-esteem.

So what is the harm in telling a kid she is smart – when it is obvious she is? An important developmental theme has been ignored or violated. By focusing on how smart she is rather that how much effort she put forth, these parents have focused on a fixed trait as the source of her success – as if she possesses a certain amount of smarts. In other words, they are attributing the A’s to this trait or a good brain she was born with. This view holds that intelligence is a set or fixed entity – not subject to change (or growth).

The alternative developmental perspective, and the one I want you to consider, is the idea that intelligence is dynamic – it can change with effort. This view is supported by research that shows actual measurable brain growth that results from use – focused practice in particular. If we could do an autopsy (my apologies) on Itzhak Perlman, we would find his brain has significantly greater development associated with playing the violin and with the fingers on his left hand in particular. The same goes for your son’s eye-hand (aka video game) coordination; Rafael Nadal’s forehand; Gretzky’s skating; or Emeril’s cooking. This brain development is not just limited to physical activities. It also applies to reading, writing and math. Focused effort yields growth – measurable growth. In other words, it is possible to become smarter. Everyone can improve their current level of functioning with focused practice.

So where does that leave Heather? What if her mother had said,”Wow, I know how hard you worked this year.” or “You must be very proud of what you have accomplished.” If Heather had in fact worked hard, then that effort deserves mother’s praise. The goal of development is for kids to become internally disciplined or self-directed. Heather needs to know that growth is possible and it is under her control.

By labeling her as “smart” and implying that is the basis for the straight A’s was some fixed “smartness”, then what is Heather going to do when she moves on to high school where classes are more challenging and the peer competition is greater? What is she going to do when math concepts are more difficult to grasp and essays need deeper analysis? How is she going to respond to criticism, which can imply that maybe she is not so smart, yet is essential to making improvements and growing. If a child needs to hold on to the fixed label, then she may avoid challenges and potential failures. But that is a formula for stagnation. With a growth mindset, control is internal. She knows that her effort, focused practice which involves correcting errors and getting it right before moving on, is the source of growth and getting smarter.

In an ideal setting, the report card would represent mastery of specific skills in each of those subject areas. We could look at that card and know that at Jefferson Middle School an A in math means that she has mastered factoring, solving for two unknowns, setting up proportions, …; an A in PE means that she challenged herself daily with at least 20 min of aerobic exercise in her target heart rate zone; an A in English means that she can write an editorial that presents a logical argument, with three main points, that are clearly introduced, substantiated with evidence, and clearly summarized in the end; and so on …

The work of Carol Dweck and her students has demonstrated that by focusing on labels of intelligence (as if it is a fixed quality) in the long run can undermine a child’s motivation and school performance. In contrast, praise for effort provides useful support for the essential means to growth (or getting “smarter”). See:

Mueller, Claudia M. and Dweck, Carol S., Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children’s Motivation and Performance, Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, Vol. 75, No. 1, 33-52, 0022-3514/98/S3.00

Building a better pig

by

 Schools place too much emphasis on speed and not enough on mastery. In subjects such as math, a child should not move to the next topic before the previous (underlying) concept has been mastered. To do so is comparable to building a house on a shaky foundation. All children should work within a zone where they are challenged, yet adequately supported until they master the material and are ready to move on.

 

The Importance of Mastery vs. Speed

Remember the story of the Three Little Pigs? Ever wonder why two of the pigs built houses out of straw and twigs, only to be blown away by the Big Bad Wolf? And what possessed the third little pig to build one out of brick? Was the third pig smarter – born with more talent – better genes? Actually, they were brothers, all from the same litter. And no, they weren’t that different in intelligence; they were pigs for goodness sake. But the first pig went to a school where speed was emphasized. He won top honors for being the “speediest” pig. He ate fast, wallowed fast, walked fast and built houses faster than anyone. Building them out of straw definitely helped with the speed thing, because it was available right on the job site. The second pig went to a school where he learned to build the best house in the time allotted. And that was what he did. He built a very fine house of twigs and came in under budget, with a half day to spare. The third pig went to a school where nothing got done on time, because everything had to meet a certain standard before it was complete. Naturally, the third pig was unemployed after graduation, because he took too long to finish projects. Consequently, he was left to build his own house in all his free time. And so it went, with each row of bricks slowly added, but only after the row below was set and secure. And you know the end to this story. Good houses like good scholarship rely upon securing each level before adding the next. A good education is like a good house, it has to rest on a solid foundation. So how is speed an essential factor in building a solid foundation? Ask the first two pigs.

What is more important, quality of work or speed to completion? If I am paying by the hour, maybe speed. But for surgeon, songwriter, barber, and telephone advisory person – I have to go with quality. In fact, if I am paying for successful completion of the job, speed is not my concern. So why is speed such a big deal in school? Why are tests almost always timed?

I had a Chemistry professor in college who gave untimed tests. At the end of the semester, I went to turn in my test and he asked, “So how did you do?” to which I responded, “Couldn’t get the last problem” to which he responded, “Then sit down and derive it”. Bless his heart. He sat there another forty minutes in the empty classroom, while I figured it out. He knew I could and he wasn’t going to let an arbitrary deadline keep me from showing it.

If you have an assembly line running, of course you want workers who are speedy. But if you have a brand name to protect, you don’t want your product recalled due to poor workmanship. If you commission a work of art or a new website, you aren’t paying for speed, you are paying for quality.

Speed comes with competence, but speed should not be a measure of competence. And for those who are just naturally speedier – walk faster, talk faster, think faster – do they deserve special status? When I go to my doctor, I dislike waiting too long, but I dislike even more, an appointment that is rushed, where I am not carefully listened to, where the doctor does not think deeply before offering an answer to my questions.

A focus on speed often has to do with the need to keep up. Keep up with the rest of the class, get done within the 50-minute class period, and be ready to start the next unit on Monday. But every child is different and every child learns at his or her own rate. Therefore, setting the pace at which they must progress through the course is a set up for half the class feeling bored and half the class feeling overwhelmed and frustrated, convinced they are “just no good at math” or “hate math” or “have math anxiety”.

Effective instruction and learning takes place within the zone of proximal development – at a level just beyond what the child can do independently but not at a level where the child is overwhelmed, even with support. By working within the ZPD, the needed support is gradually withdrawn as mastery is achieved. The scaffolding provided by the teacher, tutor and the text allows the child to take on the challenge of new and unfamiliar material. With practice, the child learns to handle the material with increasing independence until reaching the point where no outside support is necessary because the concept has been truly mastered. Only then should the child move on, with a ZPD adjusted upward, new challenging material introduced, the support needed in place, with the foundation of concepts mastered securely in place. Yet a focus on speed and meeting some schedule totally undermines the process of working within the ZPD and moving at the pace of mastery. To do so leaves the student trying to build a house on a shaky foundation. Math is not difficult when each concept is mastered before moving on. Math is hell when a child is expected to learn new material without the proper foundation in place.

Designing a class that allows for self-paced learning is a challenge – one many teachers cannot or will not undertake.

The Truth Behind the Tortoise and Hare Incident

by

 

 

A focus on winning and losing, comparing children with each other, or grading students’ work is a prescription for children becoming frustrated, humiliated, and ultimately choosing to avoid, rather than engage. A within-child focus promotes sustained engagement with challenges, continued growth, increased competence, and ultimately greater self-esteem.

 

The Risk of Between-Child Comparisons

 

What was he thinking?! Challenging the Hare to a race? Was he out of his mind? Did he have a special scouting report on the Hare? Or maybe a HARE Personality Profile? No, the truth is this. The Tortoise was fed up with being ignored, rejected and ridiculed by the other animals for being so slow compared to everyone else. He had been cut from the cross-country team and was actively shunned on the playground where, instead of being picked last – he simply was not picked. Out of sheer frustration and a wish for a little attention, even if it risked humiliation, he boldly challenged the Hare, in front of everyone in the school cafeteria, to a race the following day (after lunch). Did he know that the Hare would need a nap after lunch? No, this was just a desperate cry for attention.

We all know the outcome. Well ahead of the Tortoise, the Hare settled in for a short nap, only to awaken too late to catch the plodding Tortoise. Is there a lesson to be learned? Don’t believe what you have been told about “slow and steady wins the race.” What kid, what school, what parent values slow?

The following day the humiliated Hare challenged the Tortoise to another race. When he refused, the Hare began taunting the Tortoise mercilessly, making his life miserable. “You are so slow, recess is over by the time you reach the playground.” Thus the Tortoise went from being ignored to being bullied.

The Hare was popular at school because he was the fastest. He was first to be picked for sports, games of tag, and delivering notes for the teacher. His status came from how he compared to others. As the fastest at Riverside Grade School, he maintained that status easily. However, when he moved to Countryside Middle School, things changed. In fact, at CMS, he wasn’t even the fastest rabbit.

Kids will always compare themselves with others. But we do not need to take a potentially harmful process and make it worse. Tortoise was shunned for being slow. He was cut from the cross-country team for being slow. But in a school that emphasizes within-child comparisons, Tortoise could have been included on the cross-country team and he could have competed each race in an attempt to better his own personal best time. Hare arrived at middle school without having been adequately challenged. He only worked hard enough to be better than the others, which at Riverside was not that difficult. He too could have benefited from competing with himself, attempting to improve with each race.

This kind of structure puts emphasis on Mastery rather than winning or relative comparisons. Within this healthier system, Tortoise got to hang out with the CC team, dropped five hours off his CC time, and entered middle school looking really fit and happy. Hare arrived at middle school with enough internal discipline that he was not blown away by the challenges of fitting in and feeling adequate where everyone was bigger, stronger and faster, having been chased daily by the farmer’s dogs.

A within-child focus promotes self-esteem and internal discipline because it emphasizes growth as a function of effort and values Mastery instead of winning. In a system that values winning, the vast majority of us are losers. Who persists at something where they are losing in comparison with others? Am I bad at math because I cannot solve problems as fast as other kids? Or is eventual mastery of the material what counts?

The Five Why’s Approach

by

Before responding to a problem or reacting to a child’s behavior, take the time to ask a series of five ‘why’ questions. The basis for the problem and a possible solution will be understood at a more fundamental and effective level. Having to answer five of your ‘why’ questions will cause your child to think more deeply about their behavior as well.

Promoting Logical Thinking and Problem Solving

Ever wonder about the origin of the expression, “Children should be seen but not heard”? If you have been around a preschooler recently, you should be able to figure this one out. After the word, “No”, what is the most frequently uttered word? Why of course, it is “Why”.

“Why do dogs have tails?”

“Why do you put gas in the car?”

“Why do I have to go to bed?”

“Why don’t dogs talk?”

And so on.

It is not just the number of “why” questions, but the fact that whatever answer you give the kid, it will invariably be followed by another “why” question. Is our frustration with the annoyance of the endless questioning? No, it is the fact that if we genuinely try to answer a series of “why” questions relating to one topic, we quickly find ourselves struggling for answers. And what is the simple solution to that obnoxious behavior? Children should be seen but not heard.

Is there a lesson to be learned here? One simple lesson is the fact that a series of “why” questions pulls for much more depth than most of us give to our everyday problem solving. Most of us are good at coming up with a quick causal explanation for something and running with it. Are you familiar with Occam’s Razor – which holds that the simplest explanation is often the best? Well, Occam raised a dull child. Face it. Most of life’s problems are far more complex than we would prefer. By asking a “why” question five times in succession, some of that complexity is unearthed.

Originally developed by Taiichi Ohno as a scientific problem solving methodology to improve production at Toyota Motors, the Five Why’s approach seeks to find the basis to a problem as well as its solution by repeating “why” five times. What does manufacturing Toyota’s have to do with raising a child, you ask? When was the last time you had a problem with your Toyota?

This simple approach to problem solving often yields surprising amounts of depth as to causes as well as possible solutions. Give it a try. Here is a simple example:

Having noticed the new water stain on the ceiling, Amanda started to dial the number of her plumber. Then she paused and decided to find out what her teenage son knew about the water problem first.

“Why is there water stain on the ceiling?”

“The sink in the bathroom overflowed.”

“Why did the sink overflow?”

“It was filled with my stuff. You know – my T-shirts and socks.”

“Why was it filled with laundry?”

“That seemed like a better place for it than leaving it on the bathroom floor.”

“Why don’t you put the clothes in the laundry room?”

“Because they aren’t that dirty.”

“Why is the sink a better place than hanging in your closet?”

“That’s a long walk, Mom.”

Instead of a plumbing bill for a house call, this mother found a trove of answers. She not only found the cause of the water damage, she found a couple of other causes worth pursuing. Not only will her son come up with some new laundry skills, he will also learn the fine art of dry wall repair. How’s that for a natural consequence or two?

Five why’s is a valuable form of assessment that leads to defining goals to master; staying engaged with a problem; and managing anxiety. It is a simple way to “Analyze Before You Act”.

So, don’t whine. Ask “why” – five times.

Here is a template that can be used to generate ideas about causes and solutions:

Questions asked: Child’s responses: Insights provided:

Why is there a water stain on the living room ceiling?

The sink in the bathroom overflowed.

Does the sink or the bathroom need a back-up drain to prevent or contain overflows?

Why?

It was filled with my stuff. You know – my T-shirts and socks.

Do I need to establish a clearer set of expectations about laundry?

Why?

That seemed like a better place for it than leaving it on the floor.

Do I need a set of consequences for this kind of behavior?

Why?

Because they aren’t that dirty.

How can I help promote logical thinking (LT), internal discipline (ID), and responsibility (RES)?

Why?

That’s a long walk, Mom

Is it too late to put him up for adoption?

Do you think the teenager got anything out of this series of questions? Do you think this process does anything for his development of logical thinking (LT), internal discipline (ID), and responsibility (RES)? How about the mother? How did she benefit from asking this series of questions?

One shoe fits all?

by

Limits are needed to protect a child from harm and to promote autonomy. A primary theme of healthy parent child relationships is the transfer of control from the parent to the child. We want our children to learn to soothe themselves when they are upset, control behaviors that are potentially harmful to themselves or others, and to become self-directed rather than reliant upon outside sources of motivation.

Setting Developmentally Appropriate Limits

How do we set boundaries (or limits) when every child is temperamentally different and develops at his or own pace? Sounds like a frustratingly difficult level of complexity, doesn’t it? And when there are multiple children involved, what system could possibly be right for all?

Instead of trying to figure out what limits an adventuresome six-year-old or a demanding sixteen-year-old should have, think in terms of the basic themes that can guide you. Limits exist for two important purposes: insuring safety and promoting growth.

It is easy to set limits that assure safety if we are not concerned about growth. In some circumstances, safety is the only concern. When the tornado siren sounds, everyone belongs in the basement with flashlight, blanket, radio, food and water. When driving, seatbelts are fastened, and no alcohol, drugs, or phones are allowed. But when can a child have her training wheels off, leave the yard, cross the street, or stay out beyond 10pm?

The growth we hope to promote is the development is autonomy – self-directed, self-controlled, and emotionally self-regulated.  We want our children to learn to soothe themselves when they are upset, control behaviors that are potentially harmful to themselves or others, and to become self-directed rather than reliant upon outside sources of motivation.

Our use of limits needs to take into consideration the extent a child can self regulate. A toddler who cannot negotiate stairs needs a fence at either end or a spotter. These are removed as she demonstrates mastery on the stairs and a healthy respect for falling.

Remember the Zone of Proximal Development? (See Goldilocks is in the “Zone” – Where We Learn Best ) That concept applies to limit setting. In areas where a child can self regulate, no external limits are necessary. When the challenges of a situation would overwhelm a child’s abilities, limits are needed. The zone between these two points is where limits can be useful in promoting growth.

All children are born curious and possess an inborn drive toward autonomy. Children want to achieve mastery and be able to control their environments (and not let the environment control them). Children have a drive to crawl, walk and climb. Where they do their crawling, walking and climbing is sometimes an issue of safety. But if they wish to have a greater range for crawling, walking and climbing, they need to demonstrate their ability to do it safely.

Remember the Magic Formula for motivation: Investment = (I want) x (I can)? Many children, especially young ones, listen to the (I want) and are off and running. They are motivated to develop the (I can) part, but are often unable to be objective about the quality or reliability of the (I can) part.

Limits are necessary when the (I can) is not fully developed. Yet these limits need to be dynamic so that the child knows that developing the (I can) means a pulling back of the limits. Limits promote healthy growth when they are perceived as (show me you can) rather than (you can’t), thus supporting the (I want) x (I can) formula that works so well.

Elsewhere, I discuss the problems of children who are overly timid or avoidant, who self-limit, because of fears of getting hurt, losing approval, or failing. For these children, limit setting takes on a completely different role. For those who are avoiding, the parent may need to gently set limits on the behavior used to avoid important work that needs to be done. Or the parent may need to inquire about the (missing) curiosity and ambition. For the timid, cautious, or shy child, the parent may need to provide safe support for engagement (ala ZPD scaffolding) that is gradually withdrawn, as the child feels more competent and confident.

When the engines of curiosity, ambition, and autonomy are at work, limits are useful standards for the child to push against to develop and demonstrate mastery. The precocious four-year-old child who thinks she is ready for the training wheels to come off can assert herself by asking for an audition to show she is ready. When her dad cannot keep up with her to support her seat, maybe she is ready for the wheels to come off. When the child can swim two laps of the pool and can tread water for 10 minutes, he has shown he is ready to swim in the deep end of the pool and use the diving board. When the child can get herself up for school on her own every morning for two weeks, she has shown she is ready for a half hour later bedtime. In each of these examples, the child is motivated for the parent’s limits to be relaxed and that occurs by virtue of the child’s demonstration of self-regulation. In these cases, the drive for autonomy and the wish to push back the limits on that autonomy provide the engine for development.

This form of limits, where the child understands that they are subject to change by virtue of their demonstrated mastery (or responsibility) is completely different from a system where rules or limits are arbitrary and rigid. For instance, when rules exist, “because I said so” or “because you are not old enough”, children either lose the drive to become competent and autonomous, or they shift their efforts into evading the limits through secrecy and deception. In a healthy family relationship, the parent is able to explain the need for the limit (for safety) and the child understands the competence he or she must demonstrate to alter that limit. It is a transparent and dynamic process. The parent and child may not agree on what constitutes readiness, but all parties should be able to understand and explain the reasoning of the other. In other words, a parent can be understanding and empathic and still say, “no”. A child can be disappointed, but know that the parent understands why they think and feel the way they do.

Here are a couple of examples:

Party Girl?

“Dad, you can trust me to not drink at that party”, explains his fifteen-year-old daughter.

“I do trust you, kiddo. I just don’t trust some of the people who will be there who have been drinking”, responds her father.

“You mean I can never be around people who are drinking?”

“Explain to me how you will be safe. Plus, am I correct in believing the police hand out tickets to everyone who is underage at a party with alcohol?”

This young lady has her work cut out for her. But she is not hearing “no, because I said so”. She is hearing, “I need to know you will be safe” and “you cannot break the law”. She will have to do some planning and brainstorming with her friends in terms of safety, openness, adult supervision, and setting. But she will figure something out, because she knows her father is strict but fair and she has earned his trust through a process of solving problems by showing she has outgrown limits instead of trying to evade them.

My Very Own Dog?

“Mom, I really want a dog. I’ll take care of him. I promise,” pleads Timmy.

“I don’t know. That is a huge responsibility and the dog can really suffer if he isn’t fed and walked,” his mother reminds him.

“Jamie has a dog and I’m the same age he is,” as Timmy points next door.

“Yeah, and who is it I see every morning walking Jamie’s dog?” his mother chuckles, trying hard not to sound too cynical.

“Jamie’s father does. Oops. Bad example, eh? Can we rent a dog for a week so I can show you?” brainstorms Timmy.

“Rented dogs can’t suffer?”

“You know what I mean. Let me prove I’m ready.”

“How would you do that?” his mother says, looking more serious now.

“I can clean my room every week and make my bed every day,” replies Timmy, knowing what seems to matter to his mother most mornings.

“That would be nice to see. What does that have to do with taking care of a dog?”

“I could fix my own breakfast and take you for a walk every day,” answers Timmy, starting to get the idea he has to show her he can take care of the dog.

“That would be nice, but I still don’t see how that proves you are ready for a dog.”

“Come on Mom. How can I show you?”

“I have an idea. Get Sparky down from the shelf and you can pretend he is a real dog for two weeks,” recalling Timmy’s attachment to his old stuffed dog.

“He is a real dog, Mom.”

“Huh?”

“I still talk to him. He just doesn’t answer back like he used to.” Timmy remembers that is mother used to compare his relationship to Sparky to the one between Calvin and Hobbes, their favorite reading at bedtime.

“Take care of Sparky for two weeks like you would a really real dog.”

“Like with a really real leash, dog dish and pooper-scooper?”

“Yeah. Let’s make a schedule for feeding and walking Sparky and put it up in the kitchen.”

“Are we going to buy Sparky real food, or just feed him table scraps?”

“How about YOU feed him blue Lego’s in the morning and red Lego’s at dinnertime?”

“And I’ll scoop yellow Lego’s on our walks?”

“That’s more information than I need.”

“How often do I need to walk Sparky?”

“Call Grandpa and ask him how often he takes Buster out.”

“Hey, I just thought of how I can prove I’m ready. Next time Nana and Grandpa go away, I can take care of Buster.”

“If you are reliable with the Sparky for two weeks, you can ask Grandpa.”

Just because a child is nine years old does not mean he is ready for “nine-year-old” privileges and responsibilities. Those should come by virtue of demonstrated mastery, on developmental time, rather than chronological time. Therefore, we are constantly assessing what a child can handle independently and where he is headed next. Fortunately, children usually let us know what is next. It is up to us to negotiate a process whereby they can develop more self-reliance. Support for their engagement as they master skills or take on increasingly more responsibility can be gradually withdrawn as they demonstrate a readiness. In other words, limits are created and amended on developmental time, not chronological or social time.

If you have not already read the distinction between developmental time and social/biological time, this would be a good time to click on that link.