For a time, educators have been enamored of the growth mindset. Now, it appears that the concept, like so many other educational fads, has limited value. Research show little benefit from promoting the idea with students.
It is/was an idea educators liked. For me, it was a new term applied to an old idea with a twist (the strange notion that Dweck somehow integrated an old idea with some flawed interpretation of brain plasticity). The brain plasticity thing was promoted as a way to encourage sticking with the effort focused on learning because science tells us you can change the brain through repetition. This is kind of true, but the repetition required to “rewrite” the brain is far more than an extra hour or so of studying.
As parents, coaches, and educators we like to promote the notion of “trying”. When I was a kid, the sportscaster used to sign off his daily show by saying:
A winner never quits and a quitter never wins.
For me, the fixed and growth mindset idea was a simplification of attribution theory. I liked attribution theory better as it seemed more complete. I liked to explain an attribution as an explanation for performance given to others and to the self. This is pretty clear what “to attribute” means. The four categories of attributions were luck, other, ability, and effort. Ability and effort seem similar to fixed and growth. Attribution theorists also noted we attribute success and failures to others and to luck. A considerable body of research exists with something called attribution retraining. Again, the goal was to get the individual to be changed to move toward effort attributions. Note the similarity of encouraging a growth mindset.
One of the issues with this model is that some behaviors are in fact influenced by ability (I prefer aptitude). The reality is that in many competitive life situations some goals will not be met. Some premeds will not be admitted to medical school. Some high school students will not make the 12 player varsity basketball team. Life does force us into accepting an aptitude attribution. When I teach this model, I like to suggest that dealing with accepting a lower aptitude is life’s way of suggesting we should focus on something we are good at. This can be a good thing. What happens to the premed who fails to accept the Cs in calculus and chemistry and persists? What about those of us advising such students? Knowing the odds even with retaking these courses, if a student is really giving his or her best effort, should the student be encouraged to continue to invest time and money.
I tend to think about situations like this as a function of a whether a goal is competitive or not and whether the environment can be changed or not. I don’t think it appropriate to suggest anyone can get into med school or make the varsity team. I do think it appropriate to suggest everyone can learn to read or learn important mathematical skills. This final optimism comes with the commitment to assure that the environment will accommodate the effort that will be required. Encouraging a growth mindset without assuring that sufficient time will be provided is unfair. For some students who struggle to keep up with their classmates this expectation is unfair. This is why I have always been a fan of personalization through mastery learning and why I have been interested in technology as a practical way to make mastery possible.
Without adapting the environment, the growth mindset thing is a label adults use to make themselves feel like they have done something when they have only encouraged certain learners to struggle with an impossible challenge.
