Brainology. Transforming Students’ Motivation to Learn.

Write annotative comments in the margins of the article as the lesson and example shows. Literal meaning annotations: write a one-sentence summary of EACH paragraph in your own words. Implied meaning annotations: write 2 implied meaning annotations for EACH page by “quoting” something important in the paragraph (citing it with author’s last name, par. #). Writing quote explication where you explain the what the quote says and implies in your own words. Locate your quotes using different paragraphs. Identify at the top of the first page which color you are using for your literal meaning annotations and which color you are using for your implied meaning annotations, like the example in the lesson shows.

“Brainology: Transforming Students’ Motivation to Learn” by Carol Dweck

Carol Dweck is the Lewis and Virginia Eaton Professor of Psychology at Stanford University and the

author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. This article was published on the NAIS (National

Organization of Independent Schools) website in Winter 2008.

URL: https://www.nais.org/magazine/independent-school/winter-2008/brainology/

This is an exciting time for our brains. More and more research is showing that our brains change

constantly with learning and experience and that this takes place throughout our lives. Does this have

implications for students’ motivation and learning? It certainly does. In my research in collaboration

with my graduate students, we have shown that what students believe about their brains — whether

they see their intelligence as something that’s fixed or something that can grow and change — has

profound effects on their motivation, learning, and school achievement. These different beliefs, or

mindsets, create different psychological worlds: one in which students are afraid of challenges and

devastated by setbacks, and one in which students relish challenges and are resilient in the face of

setbacks.

How do these mindsets work? How are the mindsets communicated to students? And, most

important, can they be changed? As we answer these questions, you will understand why so many

students do not achieve to their potential, why so many bright students stop working when school

becomes challenging, and why stereotypes have such profound effects on students’ achievement. You

will also learn how praise can have a negative effect on students’ mindsets, harming their motivation

to learn.

Mindsets and Achievement

Many students believe that intelligence is fixed, that each person has a certain amount and that’s that.

We call this a fixed mindset, and, as you will see, students with this mindset worry about how much of

this fixed intelligence they possess. A fixed mindset makes challenges threatening for students

(because they believe that their fixed ability may not be up to the task) and it makes mistakes and

failures demoralizing (because they believe that such setbacks reflect badly on their level of fixed

intelligence).

To understand the different worlds these mindsets create, we followed several hundred students

across a difficult school transition — the transition to seventh grade. This is when the academic work

often gets much harder, the grading gets stricter, and the school environment gets less personalized

with students moving from class to class. As the students entered seventh grade, we measured their

mindsets (along with a number of other things) and then we monitored their grades over the next two

years. Other students believe that intelligence is something that can be cultivated through effort and

education. They don’t necessarily believe that everyone has the same abilities or that anyone can be as

smart as Einstein, but they do believe that everyone can improve their abilities. And they understand

that even Einstein wasn’t Einstein until he put in years of focused hard work. In short, students with

this growth mindset believe that intelligence is a potential that can be realized through learning. As a

result, confronting challenges, profiting from mistakes, and persevering in the face of setbacks

become ways of getting smarter.

The first thing we found was that students with different mindsets cared about different things in

school. Those with a growth mindset were much more interested in learning than in just looking smart

in school. This was not the case for students with a fixed mindset. In fact, in many of our studies with

students from preschool age to college age, we find that students with a fixed mindset care so much

about how smart they will appear that they often reject learning opportunities — even ones that are

critical to their success (Cimpian, et al., 2007; Hong, et al., 1999; Nussbaum and Dweck, 2008; Mangels,

et al., 2006).

Next, we found that students with the two mindsets had radically different beliefs about effort. Those

with a growth mindset had a very straightforward (and correct) idea of effort — the idea that the

harder you work, the more your ability will grow and that even geniuses have had to work hard for

their accomplishments. In contrast, the students with the fixed mindset believed that if you worked

hard it meant that you didn’t have ability, and that things would just come naturally to you if you did.

This means that every time something is hard for them and requires effort, it’s both a threat and a

bind. If they work hard at it that means that they aren’t good at it, but if they don’t work hard they

won’t do well. Clearly, since just about every worthwhile pursuit involves effort over a long period of

time, this is a potentially crippling belief, not only in school but also in life.

Students with different mindsets also had very different reactions to setbacks. Those with growth

mindsets reported that, after a setback in school, they would simply study more or study differently

the next time. But those with fixed mindsets were more likely to say that they would feel dumb, study

less the next time, and seriously consider cheating. If you feel dumb — permanently dumb — in an

academic area, there is no good way to bounce back and be successful in the future. In a growth

mindset, however, you can make a plan of positive action that can remedy a deficiency. (Hong. et al.,

1999; Nussbaum and Dweck, 2008; Heyman, et al., 1992)

Finally, when we looked at the math grades they went on to earn, we found that the students with a

growth mindset had pulled ahead. Although both groups had started seventh grade with equivalent

achievement test scores, a growth mindset quickly propelled students ahead of their fixed-mindset

peers, and this gap only increased over the two years of the study. In short, the belief that intelligence

is fixed dampened students’ motivation to learn, made them afraid of effort, and made them want to

quit after a setback. This is why so many bright students stop working when school becomes hard.

Many bright students find grade school easy and coast to success early on. But later on, when they are

challenged, they struggle. They don’t want to make mistakes and feel dumb — and, most of all, they

don’t want to work hard and feel dumb. So they simply retire.

It is the belief that intelligence can be developed that opens students to a love of learning, a belief in

the power of effort and constructive, determined reactions to setbacks.

How Do Students Learn These Mindsets?

In the 1990s, parents and schools decided that the most important thing for kids to have was self-

esteem. If children felt good about themselves, people believed, they would be set for life. In some

quarters, self-esteem in math seemed to become more important than knowing math, and self-

esteem in English seemed to become more important than reading and writing. But the biggest

mistake was the belief that you could simply hand children self-esteem by telling them how smart and

talented they are. Even though this is such an intuitively appealing idea, and even though it was

exceedingly well-intentioned, I believe it has had disastrous effects.

In the 1990s, we took a poll among parents and found that almost 85 percent endorsed the notion

that it was necessary to praise their children’s abilities to give them confidence and help them achieve.

Their children are now in the workforce and we are told that young workers cannot last through the

day without being propped up by praise, rewards, and recognition. Coaches are asking me where all

the coachable athletes have gone. Parents ask me why their children won’t work hard in school.

Could all of this come from well-meant praise? Well, we were suspicious of the praise movement at

the time. We had already seen in our research that it was the most vulnerable children who were

already obsessed with their intelligence and chronically worried about how smart they were. What if

praising intelligence made all children concerned about their intelligence? This kind of praise might

tell them that having high intelligence and talent is the most important thing and is what makes you

valuable. It might tell them that intelligence is just something you have and not something you

develop. It might deny the role of effort and dedication in achievement. In short, it might promote a

fixed mindset with all of its vulnerabilities.

The wonderful thing about research is that you can put questions like this to the test — and we did

(Kamins and Dweck, 1999; Mueller and Dweck, 1998). We gave two groups of children problems from

an IQ test, and we praised them. We praised the children in one group for their intelligence, telling

them, “Wow, that’s a really good score. You must be smart at this.” We praised the children in another

group for their effort: “Wow, that’s a really good score. You must have worked really hard.” That’s all

we did, but the results were dramatic. We did studies like this with children of different ages and

ethnicities from around the country, and the results were the same.

Here is what happened with fifth graders. The children praised for their intelligence did not want to

learn. When we offered them a challenging task that they could learn from, the majority opted for an

easier one, one on which they could avoid making mistakes. The children praised for their effort

wanted the task they could learn from.

The children praised for their intelligence lost their confidence as soon as the problems got more

difficult. Now, as a group, they thought they weren’t smart. They also lost their enjoyment, and, as a

result, their performance plummeted. On the other hand, those praised for effort maintained their

confidence, their motivation, and their performance. Actually, their performance improved over time

such that, by the end, they were performing substantially better than the intelligence-praised children

on this IQ test.

Finally, the children who were praised for their intelligence lied about their scores more often than the

children who were praised for their effort. We asked children to write something (anonymously) about

their experience to a child in another school and we left a little space for them to report their scores.

Almost 40 percent of the intelligence-praised children elevated their scores, whereas only 12 or 13

percent of children in the other group did so. To me this suggests that, after students are praised for

their intelligence, it’s too humiliating for them to admit mistakes.

The results were so striking that we repeated the study five times just to be sure, and each time

roughly the same things happened. Intelligence praise, compared to effort (or “process”) praise, put

children into a fixed mindset. Instead of giving them confidence, it made them fragile, so much so that

a brush with difficulty erased their confidence, their enjoyment, and their good performance, and

made them ashamed of their work. This can hardly be the self-esteem that parents and educators

have been aiming for.

Often, when children stop working in school, parents deal with this by reassuring their children how

smart they are. We can now see that this simply fans the flames. It confirms the fixed mindset and

makes kids all the more certain that they don’t want to try something difficult — something that could

lose them their parents’ high regard.

How should we praise our students? How should we reassure them? By focusing them on the process

they engaged in — their effort, their strategies, their concentration, their perseverance, or their

improvement. Saying things like, “You really stuck to that until you got it. That’s wonderful!” “It was a

hard project, but you did it one step at a time and it turned out great!” “I like how you chose the

tough problems to solve. You’re really going to stretch yourself and learn new things.” “I know that

school used to be a snap for you. What a waste that was. Now you really have an opportunity to

develop your abilities.”

Brainology

Can a growth mindset be taught directly to kids? If it can be taught, will it enhance their motivation

and grades? We set out to answer this question by creating a growth mindset workshop (Blackwell, et

al., 2007). We took seventh graders and divided them into two groups. Both groups got an eight-

session workshop full of great study skills, but the “growth mindset group” also got lessons in the

growth mindset — what it was and how to apply it to their schoolwork. Those lessons began with an

article called “You Can Grow Your Intelligence: New Research Shows the Brain Can Be Developed Like

a Muscle.” Students were mesmerized by this article and its message. They loved the idea that the

growth of their brains was in their hands.

This article and the lessons that followed changed the terms of engagement for students. Many

students had seen school as a place where they performed and were judged, but now they

understood that they had an active role to play in the development of their minds. They got to work,

and by the end of the semester the growth-mindset group showed a significant increase in their math

grades. The control group — the group that had gotten eight sessions of study skills — showed no

improvement and continued to decline. Even though they had learned many useful study skills, they

did not have the motivation to put them into practice.

The teachers, who didn’t even know there were two different groups, singled out students in the

growth-mindset group as showing clear changes in their motivation. They reported that these

students were now far more engaged with their schoolwork and were putting considerably more

effort into their classroom learning, homework, and studying.

Joshua Aronson, Catherine Good, and their colleagues had similar findings (Aronson, Fried, and Good,

2002; Good, Aronson, and Inzlicht, 2003). Their studies and ours also found that negatively

stereotyped students (such as girls in math, or African-American and Hispanic students in math and

verbal areas) showed substantial benefits from being in a growth-mindset workshop. Stereotypes are

typically fixed-mindset labels. They imply that the trait or ability in question is fixed and that some

groups have it and others don’t. Much of the harm that stereotypes do comes from the fixed-mindset

message they send. The growth mindset, while not denying that performance differences might exist,

portrays abilities as acquirable and sends a particularly encouraging message to students who have

been negatively stereotyped — one that they respond to with renewed motivation and engagement.

Inspired by these positive findings, we started to think about how we could make a growth mindset

workshop more widely available. To do this, we have begun to develop a computer-based program

called “Brainology.” In six computer modules, students learn about the brain and how to make it work

better. They follow two hip teens through their school day, learn how to confront and solve

schoolwork problems, and create study plans. They visit a state-of-the-art virtual brain lab, do brain

experiments, and find out such things as how the brain changes with learning — how it grows new

connections every time students learn something new. They also learn how to use this idea in their

schoolwork by putting their study skills to work to make themselves smarter.

We pilot-tested Brainology in 20 New York City schools. Virtually all of the students loved it and

reported (anonymously) the ways in which they changed their ideas about learning and changed their

learning and study habits. Here are some things they said in response to the question, “Did you

change your mind about anything?” Some of the responses included “I did change my mind about

how the brain works […] I will try harder because I know that the more you try, the more your brain

works.” “Yes […] I imagine neurons making connections in my brain and I feel like I am learning

something.” “My favorite thing from Brainology is the neurons part where when u learn something,

there are connections and they keep growing. I always picture them when I’m in school.”

Teachers also reported changes in their students, saying that they had become more active and eager

learners: “They offer to practice, study, take notes, or pay attention to ensure that connections will be

made.”

What Do We Value?

In our society, we seem to worship talent — and we often portray it as a gift. Now we can see that this

is not motivating to our students. Those who think they have this gift expect to sit there with it and be

successful. When they aren’t successful, they get defensive and demoralized, and often opt out. Those

who don’t think they have the gift also become defensive and demoralized, and often opt out as well.

We need to correct the harmful idea that people simply have gifts that transport them to success, and

to teach our students that no matter how smart or talented someone is — be it Einstein, Mozart, or

Michael Jordan — no one succeeds in a big way without enormous amounts of dedication and effort.

It is through effort that people build their abilities and realize their potential. More and more research

is showing there is one thing that sets the great successes apart from their equally talented peers —

how hard they’ve worked (Ericsson, et al., 2006).

Next time you’re tempted to praise your students’ intelligence or talent, restrain yourself. Instead,

teach them how much fun a challenging task is, how interesting and informative errors are, and how

great it is to struggle with something and make progress. Most of all, teach them that by taking on

challenges, making mistakes, and putting forth effort, they are making themselves smarter.

References

Aronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American

college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38,

113–125.

Binet, A. (1909/1973). Les idées modernes sur les enfants [Modern ideas on children]. Paris: Flamarion.

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict

Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Child

Development, 78, 246–263.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H., Markman, E.M., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues impact children’s

motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314-316.

Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Ericsson, K.A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P.J., & Hoffman, R.R. (Eds.) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of

Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Good, C. Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An

Intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,

24, 645-662.

Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C.S., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999) Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A

meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599.

Kamins, M., & Dweck, C.S. (1999). Person vs. process praise and criticism: Implications for contingent

self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835–847.

Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C.D., & Dweck, C.S. (2006). Why do beliefs about

intelligence influence learning success? A social-cognitive-neuroscience model. Social, Cognitive, and

Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75–86.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and performance.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52.

Nussbaum, A.D., & Dweck, C.S. (2007, in press). Defensiveness vs. Remediation: Self-Theories and

Modes of Self-Esteem Maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.