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

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?

It’s the relationship, …!

by

 

Children who enter school with attachment problems are less likely to engage in school. They cannot trust adults to care or be dependable, are less likely to value or respect their relationships with teachers, and eventually become detached and cease to care. Which means they are less responsive to teacher influences and more likely to harm others. Consequently, they fail to value or pursue the achievement goals or the character traits schools seek to promote. Therefore, an early focus on creating and maintaining secure attachments must be the school’s highest priority.

The essential role of attachment in school success.

I will bet you $10 that I can walk into any 3rd grade class in Chicago, Baltimore, or Washington DC and pick four boys, three of whom will serve time in prison before age 30.

Easy bet to cover, you say, given the rates of crime in the inner city? Of all kids who start school in Baltimore, 50% don’t graduate and 60% of dropouts do prison time. Ok, that means a blind man will be right 30% of the time picking boys at random. But I am guaranteeing to be 75% correct. Where am I going to get the other 45% when I know nothing about family history of drug use or criminal involvement? That would certainly aid in my selection, but I don’t even need to know those facts to pick my four leading candidates.

Witnessing delinquent behavior would be a good predictor? If I saw one of the kids in the act of stealing while the teacher’s back was turned, that would certainly get my attention and likely my vote. But I am not assuming there are any thefts while I am watching. So how will I spot them?

Let’s pick a normal class activity. The teacher is reading a story to the class. The boys who are paying close attention and raising their hands to volunteer ideas about what will happen next in the story are clearly ruled out. They seem interested, curious, and engaged and that does not bode well for dropping out of school and becoming involved in crime. Now there’s a possible candidate. He’s got a couple of straws that he’s linked together and he’s getting the kid next to him to swat at the imagined bug in his hair. Now that’s a little delinquent for you.

Ooops, he just got busted. The teacher just gave him the briefest look and … he flunked my preliminary assessment. The boy obviously cares what his teacher thinks and the fact that he was doing something that disappointed her. And, to seal the deal, he stopped doing it after she gave him her attention.

So who are my candidates? They are the four disengaged boys. Disengaged from the story, but more importantly, from the teacher. She is reading a book about a lion cub who is lost and is going from one animal to the next asking, “Are you my mother?”. This reading to the class is not only for enjoyment, but to let them hear the story before they read the book themselves.

Some of the kids are worried about the cub not finding his mother. Others laugh at the cub for asking an obviously different looking animal if she is his mother. The teacher asks the students questions, such as, “How do you know that this animal is not his mother?” or “Where do you think he should look next?”.

The four boys show no interest in the story nor are they intrigued by her questions. Many inner city kids lack the background knowledge to appreciate hearing stories or being able to comprehend what they are trying to read. These boys have probably never been to the zoo and probably could not tell you what distinguished an elephant or a zebra. But lack of background knowledge is one of the reasons the teacher is reading this particular book and stopping to explain and explore along the way. She has the attention of most of the other kids, many of whom have not been to a zoo either.

My four targeted boys are not only disengaged, they are detached. Second and third grade kids care about their relationships with their teacher. A few may worry that their teacher doesn’t like them or that she is too strict, but they care what she thinks and most importantly, what she thinks of them. These four boys do not care. One has his head down, looking tired. Another is scratching an ever increasing slit in the floor with a paper clip. The other two are about to come to blows’, fighting over who was entitled to sit on the rug instead of the cold floor. The teacher looks don’t even catch their attention. Her warning of punishment if they continue also fails to stop the jabs and arm-twisting. These boys will not stop unless they are physically restrained, obviously undeterred by verbal warnings. None of these boys seems to care. Most likely they could tell us the rules for behavior in the classroom, but they do not care. A number of the kids needed prompts about their behavior but they were responsive to her limit setting.

The central characteristic that distinguishes these four boys from their classmates is their detachment from the teacher. They no longer care about having a relationship with this adult. They do not care about school or the people who run it because they have no reason to invest in relationships with these adults. Their experience has taught them not to trust in relationships. These boys arrived at school with a much greater deficit than lack of educational enrichment. They arrived with a deficit in their ability to attach. Unless this problem with attachment is addressed, their detachment from school will increase to the point they drop out or are thrown out or simply ignored, as two of the boys already seem to be in this classroom.

The ability to relate to others and the desire to relate to others, these are fundamental building blocks that must precede all else. Many of us take a mother’s love and reliability for granted, so the experience of these four boys is completely foreign to us. A child will not value what his teacher values, if he does not value the relationship first.

Not feeling cared for and eventually not caring about others is a recipe for someone who commits crimes without caring about his victims, who only stops when he is physically forced to stop.

Until the issue of attachment is addressed, engagement with school will be a losing battle. Disinterest in school and what teachers have to offer; and disrespect and defiance will increasingly characterize their behavior. In the process, these children will become even less likeable and “manageable”. Their interactions with teachers will only reinforce previously held perceptions of what the other (teacher or student) is like.

Having to start fresh with a new teacher every year. Having to take a three-month break in his relationships with school and the people who do care. This is the structure that only reinforces their problems with attachment and assures that relationships will be lost or undermined.

If a child comes to school with an attachment history characterized by loss, abandonment or neglect, then a focus on creating and maintaining a healthy attachment between teacher and child should be the top priority. That means matching the child with a teacher with whom he can stay connected for years, not months. Within the context of a successful attachment, investment in school and learning can take place. With children like these, assigning teachers according to subject matter or grade level specialization needs to take a back seat to a focus on creating and maintaining a healthy attachment between teacher and child.**

Attachment 101

Everything begins and ends with Attachment. A secure attachment to a parent sets the stage for forming satisfying relationships in life. It allows the child to explore and learn, knowing he has a safe base to return to when needed. This child enters school capable of loving his teacher, wanting to please her, and learning what she has to teach. At the other extreme is the child who cannot trust that an adult loves him and will dependably be there for him. No one has fanned the flame of his genuine interests. By third grade, that child will not care about what his teacher wants him to learn, because he has detached. He has no desire to please his teacher. And his behavior makes it hard for his teacher to truly care about him.

Every child longs for a connection to someone. But for some kids it is hard to trust that someone cares or will stay. Curiosity and learning take a back seat to finding and holding on to a relationship. The anxious clinging child is unwilling to venture out and explore. The detached child who has given up on connections will care little about what his teacher wants him to learn.

Ideally a child’s motivation to learn in school arises from his natural curiosity. But much of that desire also comes from his wish to please his teacher or imitate his teacher.

Grade school begins when the child is five. He spends nine months with a teacher, takes three months off, and then starts another school year with another new teacher. A securely attached child will adjust to these changes in relationships, tolerating the mismatches and cherishing the best ones. But the child who lacks that secure base will struggle to settle in and trust and then will face a series of losses that will make it hard for him to trust and commit – let alone learn.

It’s the relationship, ________! No learning is going to get done if the child does not feel cared for and secure. Attachment is a precondition for learning. A school that ignores that will have children who are either behavior problems or absent, because they will not care. They don’t trust that anyone cares about them.

When a child, even an adolescent, believes that a teacher genuinely cares about him, he will listen.

Investment in learning depends upon wanting a goal and believing it is attainable.

** Before you pay me the $10, you might want to ask, “Aren’t some students of color inappropriately labeled because their (often white) teachers do not know how to communicate well outside their culture?”. If you are really reluctant to part with your money, then you might follow on with, “A bad teacher can make well adjusted students seem detached.”

Since I will not want to leave without your money, I would respond with, “You are right. We should not make a judgment about a child based on one classroom, one teacher, or one assessment. These boys deserve to be observed in a different setting with a different teacher and assessed by different means (that are tested and valid). We should employ a multi-modal, multi-method approach to determine whether there is convergent validity for my classroom hypothesis.”

Have I left you feeling hopeless about the plight of these kids? These third grade boys may be reluctant to trust, but they are not unreachable. They still care what adults think of them – at least somewhere in their lives. Those who work with them will need to keep the development of trust and Attachment as the center pieces of all their efforts, however.

Key words: grade school education; attachment; motivation to learn; curiosity; engagement; relationship; relatedness

“He’s a natural born superstar”

by

Growth vs. Fixed Mindset

A fixed mindset assumes that one is naturally born with talent or giftedness. A growth mindset assumes that competence is gained through hard work. A label such as “gifted” can be a curse if it leads to a lack of engagement in hard work or a reluctance to risk failure – which is an essential part of learning and growing.

If you visited a 3rd grade class for a day, do you think you could pick out the kids who will be successful in life? A kid like Anthony would jump right out at you. Anthony was the biggest, strongest, and fastest kid in 3rd grade – by far. In middle school, he had the sweetest jump shot and the quickest release I can ever recall. Even at that age, the people around him knew he was “special” – and told him so. In high school, he lived up to that label – setting a state scoring record and then breaking it the following year. Anthony was one of the most highly recruited shooting guards coming out of high school before landing at VSU. To everyone’s surprise, Anthony transferred midseason of his freshman year, unhappy with his playing time. This was not the “one-and-done” route to the NBA predicted by his uncle who was already interviewing agents on Anthony’s behalf (unofficially of course). He was welcomed with open arms by his new teammates at Tremont who nicknamed him “Lights Out” after two jaw dropping exhibitions of shooting. Ineligible to play, but free to practice with the team, he became Tremont fandom’s great hope for “next year”. Again, his uncle had him only playing one year at Tremont before jumping to the NBA. And after one year, where was Anthony? Transferring to his third basketball program in as many years. Once again, he had not gotten enough playing time. There was no doubt Anthony could shoot. On several occasions he came into games late, producing a torrent of scoring. But more often, he entered games only to play mediocre defense and fail to make passes to wide open teammates.

Anthony and his uncle held a fixed mindset about his natural talent (gifted) and future (golden). Unfortunately his coaches adhered to a growth mindset – that improvement comes from hard work. Anthony watched with contempt as less highly recruited (and less “talented”) athletes passed him by in terms of playing time. But if we asked the coach, we would hear a different story. He would paint a sharp contrast between the athlete who sought coaches’ critiques, came to the gym on his own, lifted weights all summer, and never missed an opportunity to play against better competition versus the young man who rested on his laurels and transferred every year. By transferring to a new program and blaming the coach for not playing him, Anthony could hold on to his fixed mindset belief about his “talent” or “giftedness”.

A growth mindset assumes that change is possible, regardless of what natural abilities people are born with. A boy may be well coordinated, but he still has to apply himself to become good at a sport. And regardless of how good he is at present, he can always “grow” and make himself better. A growth mindset assumes that competence is gained through hard work, while a fixed mindset assumes that natural abilities or deficits determine outcomes.

The old adage, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” is a good example of a fixed mindset. What we have since discovered, however, is that we can teach an old dog new tricks; it just takes longer. We now know that brains can grow, even in our old age. We also know that brains grow in relation to how much certain skills are practiced. Quite a bit of my brain lights up when I hit a forehand in tennis, but sadly there is barely a flicker when it comes to hitting a golf shot. But that is directly related to how many hours of practice I have dedicated to each sport.

The well-developed part of the brain related to a skill practiced for 10,000 hours is like a super highway. Without those hours of practice that part of the brain is comparable to a bunch of backcountry dirt roads. Michael Jordan was cut from the varsity basketball team his sophomore year of high school. 10,000 hours of practice later, he was helping North Carolina win a national championship. If talent were all it took, all those grueling hours in the gym would not have been necessary. Jordan’s approach to the game epitomized a growth mindset. Anthony and his uncle somehow missed that part of Jordan’s biography.

“I suck at math” and “I can’t draw” are also fixed mindsets. If you compare yourself with others who are doing better, you can conclude you simply don’t have the ability. But improvement comes one small step at a time, advancing on developmental time, enhanced by practice, not simply by the passing of chronological time. If a child is expected to keep up with his age cohort in reading or math, he may conclude he lacks the talent to be good at those subjects. Math is learned one concept at a time, with explanations, demonstrations, practice problems, error analysis, and then more problems. Learning math is like building a house, one brick at a time. It occurs on developmental time, not chronological time.

The scrawniest guy on our high school tennis team epitomized the growth mindset. By all appearances, he felt no shame. Failure didn’t faze him. He just wasn’t a normal guy. He would play anyone, usually someone better than he and didn’t mind losing. In fact, he equated losing with learning. Still short and bowlegged even as a senior, he was the only one who emerged with a full-ride, Division I tennis scholarship. Anyone who watched his growth mindset at work would notice that every week, he was a better tennis player than he was the week before. That could not be said about the rest of us, with our egos safely protected.

Do you still think you can spot the future successes in 3rd grade? Could you spot the future failures? Can you spot a child with a growth mindset? How about the teacher? The parent(s)? Can a fixed mindset be changed? For Anthony’s sake, let’s hope so.

Mindset: The new psychology of success by Carol Dweck fully explains the powerful effect of a Growth vs. Fixed Mindset for development in all areas – ourselves, our children, our students, and our players.

The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle explains that people are not born with greatness, but develop it with effective practice.

Anthony is a fictional composite of all too common “can’t miss” athletes.

Don’t Eat The Marshmallow!

by

Delay of gratification, willpower, impulse control, self-control, or internal discipline are terms that describe an ability to wait to be rewarded. Although some children are temperamentally less impulsive, the ability to self-soothe, distract, or reason about an urge to act can be learned and improved. The ability to delay gratification (develop internal discipline) is an important ingredient for gaining competence in all areas of a child’s life (socially, emotionally and intellectually).

An Ability to Delay Gratification Predicts Success in Life

 Are you familiar with the classic delay of gratification studies conducted by Walter Mischel at Stanford in the late 1960′s and early 1970′s? The what? Have you seen the YouTube video of four-year-olds trying to resist eating the marshmallow in front of them? If I had asked you, have you ever heard of the MarshmallowTest, you would have known exactly what I was talking about. Give it up for YouTube, where gratification need never be delayed. I still have not jogged your memory? Then go to YouTube right now for a reenactment of the classic study, where four-year-old children are left alone in a room with a marshmallow (or a cookie, or candy) with the promise of a second marshmallow if they do not eat this one before the experimenter returns (in 15 minutes). Only thirty percent of the children were able to wait. Not surprising, is it?

Mischel discovered that by the end of high school, the kids who were able to wait seemed better adjusted psychologically and were higher achievers, with significantly higher SAT scores (>200 pts higher) and better grades. Those who could not wait more than thirty seconds had trouble paying attention in school, coping with stress, and maintaining friendships. More recently, Angela Lee Duckworth at the University of Pennsylvania offered eighth graders one dollar now or two if they could wait a week. Those who could wait fared much better academically. In fact, this measure of self-control was a better predictor of academic achievement than IQ.

As you might guess, these kids who can delay gratification grow up to be the ones who invest for retirement, wait for the best pitch to hit, and don’t say, “yes” to the first bad idea. They are able to wait to play their video games until after the homework is done.

So, are these delayers born with something special? Are their brains wired differently from birth? Are some kids just naturally more impulsive while others are more cautious and deliberate? You can be sure that the fMRI machines are cranking away in search of these answers. We can also be certain that a search for a genetic linkage will also be part of the next wave of research.

So what does that mean for us sticky fingered failures? Are we doomed to a second-class future, swinging at everything we are thrown, eating everything we see? Interestingly, Mischel found that he could provide children with techniques for resisting temptation. He said kids who continue to focus on the “hot stimulus” were doomed. But the ones who could distract themselves, were able to resist. Providing kids with techniques for taking their thoughts elsewhere, or transforming the meaning of the situation could be very helpful. In other words, self-control can be taught. Mischel also pointed out that a group of the kids who “failed to wait” grew up to be quite skilled in self-control as adults. Somehow, they found ways to teach themselves the self-regulation that came more naturally to the “delayers”.

Children are temperamentally inclined in one direction or another. At one extreme are the kids who are impulsive and labeled as Attention Deficit, Hyperactive. At the other extreme are the kids who come to be labeled as Obsessive Compulsive. Most kids are somewhere in between. Even though biology or temperament inclines a child in one direction or another, that does not mean they cannot grow in terms of self-control (or spontaneity).

Environments can be structured to help with focus and attention. Children can be taught techniques for self-control and self-soothing. Mischel explained that children can be taught habits of self-control in the family through rituals that force kids to wait on a daily basis, showing them that they can develop that self-control, and having them learn the benefits for that delay. Examples of that are limits such as no television or video games until homework is done, no snacks before dinner, save money for a desired purchase and wait until your birthday for a wished for gift. When children must work within limits (a clothing allowance for instance) they learn the benefits of self-control and the hazards of impulsivity.