What’s the difference between success and failure? Effort, of course! As everyone now knows, all you need to ensure you’re a success is a shed-load of hard work and the belief that you can do anything you set your mind to! Yay! I want to be an astronaut!
This is mindsets-lite: the undifferentiated and naive belief that the right kind of thinking leads to wonderful things. Like most well-intentioned educational fads, there’s a kernel of truth in these sorts of claims. Hard work does make a difference; beliefs do matter. As always, though, reality is a little more complicated than that. To shed some light on the growth mindset myth, we need to look at the research of Gary McPherson and James Renwick.
In 2001 McPherson & Renwick published A Longitudinal Study of Self-regulation in Children’s Musical Practice which did exactly what the title suggests. They took 27 children learning to play a variety of musical instruments and tried to unpick how and why some children improved more than others over a period of years. All of the children practised; they all put in effort, they were all motivated and had good attitudes, but not all of them got better at the same rate. It’s tempting to think that the difference must have been innate ability, but actually the researchers concluded that it was the type of practice in which the children engaged that made the most difference.
Research counted the number of mistakes children made on first playing a piece and then compared this to the number of mistakes made on a second performance. The lowest performing student made an average of 11 mistakes a minute on her first play-through and was still making 70% of the same mistakes the second time through. The best performing student made an average of 1.4 mistakes first time round and was able to correct 8 in 10 of the these mistakes in his second rendition. The researchers decided that some students had better ‘mental representations‘ of what a good performance would sound like and were able to self-check and provide their own feedback to eliminate as many mistakes as possible.
Now, of course 27 students is a very small sample size so we should be rightly sceptical of making any generalisable claims from this research. Luckily, McPherson and Renwick’s findings are supported by a large-scale study on the development of practising strategies, also published in 2001. Instead of the time-consuming approach of videoing and analysing practice sessions undertaken by McPherson & Renwick, Hallan et al relied on self-report questionnaires to make studying a much larger sample feasible. As with earlier studies, researchers found that while the quantity of practice and attitudes to learning matter, they don’t make nearly as much difference as we might hope. It was the ability to recognise one’s mistakes and then improve independently which differentiated the most accomplished students. This depended on being able to visualise what a good performance would feel like as well as sound like.
In his new book Peak, Anders Ericsson says that this ability to create rich ‘mental representations’ is one of the distinguishing features of the kind of practice which is most likely to lead to improvements: “The relationship between skill and mental representation is a virtuous circle: the more skilled you become, the better your mental representations are, and the better your mental representations are, the more effectively you can practise to hone your skill.” (p. 80)
Hard work and a growth mindset is not enough. In fact, it seems likely that practising more without getting results will probably erode beliefs about self-efficacy. No wonder children learn that they “can’t do maths” or that “French is impossible” if they’re practising in the wrong way. If we believe that the difference between successful and unsuccessful students is their mindset we could be adding to a potentially toxic cocktail. It’s much more likely that a growth mindset follows from experiencing success. If we get good early results then our self-confidence can become invincible, but if we don’t… Well, only a fool continues to believe anything is possible in the face of increasingly contradictory evidence.
In order to help students develop healthy beliefs about effort and hard work, we need to help them improve the conditions of practice. It seems to me, although I’m not aware of any studies in this area, that we could help children create effective mental representations through effective modelling of what good looks and feels like. If children don’t ever find this out then their attempts to improve are like playing snooker in the dark with ear-defenders on: they’ll never find out if their efforts are effective.
Reminds me of when I was asked to tutor a student for her AS politics. I discovered that after a year of study she still barely understood what a prime minister does. Her attempts at revision were ineffectual as she simply didn’t have enough access to what she was reading to understand and assimilate it. Her mum talked about the value of her working hard and I had to explain (it wasn’t fun) that her revision would be ineffectual. It was the only time I’ve advised a student to simply give up an A level but in the circumstances it was the right advice.
According to Angela Duckworth without passion and desire to improve deliberate practice is likely to be ineffective. We perhaps need to focus our energy on generating passion in our learners
We probably need to treat Duckworth’s claims even more sceptically then we do Dweck’s. It’s completely wrong headed to think that passion & desire predict improve performance. It’s much more sensible to acknowledge that passion and desire are the product of improved performance: the better you get, the better you feel, the more you’re prepared to practice. A logically virtuous circle.
For a glimpse at a few of the errors in Duckworth’s thinking, read this: https://theeconomyofmeaning.com/2016/05/26/this-is-interesting-duckworth-acknowledges-some-of-the-critiques-about-grit-are-correct/
“Hard work and a growth mindset is not enough.” True, but only the most naive would argue that it is. Growth mindset needs to be coupled with effective teaching and learning strategies. That it sometimes is not does not negate the repeated findings that this sort of framing of does make a difference in performance.
Sadly there seem to be a lot of very naive people around coupled with a real dearth of effective teaching & learning strategies.
Apologies, but I can’t make sense of your final sentence.
[…] What’s the difference between success and failure? Effort, of course! As everyone now knows, all you need to ensure you’re a success is a shed-load of hard work and the belief that you can do anything you set your mind to! Yay! I want to be an astronaut! This is mindsets-lite: the undifferentiated and naive […]
[…] However the Mindset INSET has and always was backed by SLT in our school and thus has some real practical implications for the new academic year and beyond. If you find it helpful you can access the resources I used, and some I created, for INSET on this padlet. I haven’t included the specific data accumulated for my own school though. The limits of growth mindset. […]
Dweck and Duckworth offer a refreshing perspective to initiate constructive discussion. Neither are attempting to sell the research as a one stop shop. We still cite Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey etc. New research is helpful. Just changing the language i use in the classroom having read work from both has given me a gain. Reflective practitioners need input, it’s still worthy of consideration in my humble opinion.
Citing Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey etc. is part of the problem. Little of what’s passed on in the name of either of these three adds much positive to teaching.
How do you *know* you’ve experienced a ‘gain’ from changing your language? Without empirical testing such claims are worth very little. Have a read of the EEF’s evaluation of mindset interventions: https://v1.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Changing_Mindsets.pdf
Apology for the long reply but it isn’t easy to explain. I don’t think it possible to have empirical evidence in every class or school that is definitive and teachers are neither-trained or given time to carry it out to publication standards.
Gain. How do I know? I agree with you, we don’t empirically. We carried out a small action research project for just over 1 year with quite a difficult group both academically and behaviourally . Three things happened. Increased lesson observations of that class indicated improved engagement and interaction with quite complex conceptual understanding tasks over time. A sample of 10 were observed in other lessons for comparison ( which is where the negative behaviour was observed as positively different) The point in the teaching which I engaged with the class most, with the language, explanations of synapse development, yet etc was with a full chemistry unit. At the end of the year they underwent the full internal exam in the three sciences and the increase in attainment in chemistry was simply wrong, given their target grades and grades in physics and biology. Chemistry was taught Sept – Dec so not at the end.
Finally, I gave the class a series of simple starter questionnaires in lessons, simple where I am statements and a fairly crude (I wrote it) final questionnaire. Non of this would stand up to be tested because we simply are not geared up for that. But the Deputy Head, head of Science and observers, feedback from students and changes in behaviour made us think that it is worth exploring. We also accept their are many other factors involved, but why not make this one of them.
We are complex beings, psychology does bring something to the table.
David Weston from TDT had a great line at the Festival of Education along the lines of, we are more likely to make a difference if we are aware of the difference we are making (sorry, David, you were more eloquent). I think there is some use of structured, research informed reflective practice – particularly if it is collaborative and supported by school leadership. I think doing so speaks to the professionalization of our profession.
Nice one, David. This seems to fit in with the precarious is it/isn’t it placement of “metacognition” at the top of the famous EEF/CEM graph. What do you think? Potentially powerful, we know good students tend to be good at it while weak ones tend to be bad at it, but how do you help kids improve? Telling them to “get better at metacognition” seems to be as useful as putting up a “Have a growth mindet” poster. I particularly like your line “It was the ability to recognise one’s mistakes and then improve independently which differentiated the most accomplished students,” and I think your insights here help break the task down into more manageable component parts.
[…] David Didau on Growth Mindset: Here […]
I remember being told, ‘They have too much marked correct in their maths books – they aren’t being challenged enough’. Actually, I was told that often. My response was always that I’d taught them well (a mastery approach, one might say) about the concept before they did any written work so that they really understood it. I didn’t ask them to record where they’d been challenged and we’d stopped and discussed before moving on. The practising in their books was just that – practising something they newly understood. Pages of incorrect work doesn’t = challenge and (if David is right here) won’t develop a growth mindset.
Maybe unclear that I was thinking about this bit:
‘practising more without getting results will probably erode beliefs about self-efficacy’.
I am involved coaching football and increasingly coaches and analyers of the game refer.to a player’s ‘mindset’ but don’t fully understand its meaning. Why should education be any different? Most of my colleagues have never heard of Carol Dweck so I am not sure who is pushing this as we haven’t had any inset training on it yet!
Personally I don’t believe that growth mindset theory is the panacea to educational woes but neither does Carol Dweck. I have lectured on her work and I think she has lots of interesting things to say but it does come down to the quality of practice (football) or revision (personal motivation,quality of support etc.)
I do agree that hard work is important but so is targeted practice and that can be encouraged by teachers.
[…] The limits of growth mindset May 2016 […]