Each element should be followed by the punctuation mark shown here. Earlier editions of the handbook included the place of publication and required different punctuation such as journal editions in parentheses and colons after issue numbers. In the current version, punctuation is simpler only commas and periods separate the elementsand information about the source is kept to the basics. End this element with a period.
Posted on April 8, by Scott Alexander I. I have a huge bias against growth mindset. More on Wikipedia here. Social psychology has been, um, very enthusiastic about denying that result. If all growth mindset did was continue to deny it, then it would be unexceptional. But growth mindset goes further.
People who believe that anyone can succeed if they try hard enough will be successful, well-adjusted, and treat life as a series of challenging adventures.
It is right smack in the middle of a bunch of fields that have all started seeming a little dubious recently. Most of the growth mindset experiments have used priming to get people in an effort-focused or an ability-focused state of mind, but recent priming experiments have famously failed to replicate and cast doubt on the entire field.
And growth mindset has an obvious relationship to stereotype threat, which has also started seeming very shaky recently. So I have every reason to be both suspicious of and negatively disposed toward growth mindset. Which makes it appalling that the studies are so damn good.
Consider Dweck and Muellerone of the key studies in the area. First they did some easy ones and universally succeeded. The researchers praised them as follows: All children were told that they had performed well on this problem set: You got [number of problems] right.
Some children were praised for their ability after the initial positive feedback: This is a nothing intervention, the tiniest ghost of an intervention.
The experiment had previously involved all sorts of complicated directions and tasks, I get the impression they were in the lab for at least a half hour, and the experimental intervention is changing three short words in the middle of a sentence.
Children in the intelligence condition were much less likely to persevere on a difficult task than children in the effort condition 3.
This was repeated in a bunch of subsequent studies by the same team among white students, black students, Hispanic students…you probably still get the picture.
Then she gave all of them impossible problems and watched them squirm — or, more formally, tested how long the two groups continued working on them effectively. She found extremely strong results — of the 30 subjects in each group, 11 of the mastery-oriented tried harder after failure, compared to 0 helpless.
This study is really weird.
Either something is really wrong here, or this one little test that separates mastery-oriented from helpless children constantly produces the strongest effects in all of psychology and is never wrong.
None of them ever expressed a positive statement about their own progress, while over two-thirds of the children who thought effort was more important did.
And a meta-analysis of all growth mindset studies finds more modest, but still consistent, effects, and only a little bit of publication bias. So — is growth mindset the one concept in psychology which throws up gigantic effect sizes and always works?
Or did Carol Dweck really, honest-to-goodness, make a pact with the Devil in which she offered her eternal soul in exchange for spectacular study results? But here are a few things that predispose me towards the latter explanation.
A warning — I am way out of my league here and post this only hoping it will spark further discussion. The first thing that bothers me is the history. It seems to have grown out of a couple of studies Carol Dweck and a few collaborators did in the seventies. But these studies generally found that a belief in innate ability was a positive factor alongside belief in growth mindset, with the problem children being the ones who attributed their success or failure to bad luck, or to external factors like the tests being rigged which, by the way, they always were.
Its abstract describes the finding as: The real finding of the study was that children who attributed their success or failure to any stable factor, be it effort or ability, did better than those who did not. When you actually look at the paper, this is another case of the persistent children actually having a higher belief in the importance of ability, which fails to achieve statistical significance because the study is on a grand total of twelve children.Mission of Student Disability Services.
Student Disability Services is committed to removing barriers for students with disabilities at The University of Toledo by ensuring that . Adolescence (from Latin adolescere, meaning 'to grow up') is a transitional stage of physical and psychological development that generally occurs during the period from puberty to legal adulthood (age of majority).
Adolescence is usually associated with the teenage years, but its physical, psychological or cultural expressions may begin earlier and end later. Social Media Impact on Teenagers by Jeanette Brandenburg, Debbie Smith, Connie Smith, and Matt Watterson essay on whether social media has a positive or negative impact on teenagers.
Grades: 6 7 8 Discipline: ELA articles on media networking write an essay that addresses the question and support your position with evidence from the .
Social Network Impact on Youth Social media is a term used to describe the interaction between groups or individuals in which they produce, share, and sometimes exchange ideas over the internet and in virtual communities.
A recent study that looked at over a decade of data found there is a positive spillover effect in teaching, as student achievement improves when an effective teacher joins a grade-level team. Teacher resources and professional development across the curriculum.
Teacher professional development and classroom resources across the curriculum.