I encountered this criticism of growth mindset. I can see why the idea appeals to educators, coaches, and parents. It fits the “you can do anything if you try” message that sounds so good and positive. I have written about the problems I have with the book before, but again here are my issues:
- the use of brain plasticity to explain or legitimate the growth perspective seems unnecessary and flawed. As I understand the time commitments that result in changes in brain structure (not the same as what is stored), such changes take a focus on an activity (reading would be an exception) for longer than daily instruction accomplishes.
- the concept of growth is frequently presented to educators in a way that I think is flawed. I support the concept of mastery learning which argues you can often substitute extra effort for lower aptitude if background knowledge is equivalent. The motivational message of keep trying only works within a system that offers practical tactics for individualization. If you don’t like the word “aptitude”, substitute learning speed.
- my own background was focused on attribution and self-efficacy theories. I don’t see an advantage for the differentiation of mindsets as explanatory or theoretical constructs. The idea of attribution always seemed such a concrete way to explain the perspective of the learner – how do you explain why you are experiencing this outcome? How you explain an experience to yourself (and others) can certainly predict future behavior.
These are my concerns and the Neelnn and Kirschner offer their own perspective carefully annotated for those interested in the research.