The Perils andThe wrong kind of praise creates self-defeating behaviorThe right kind motivates students to learn.

Carol S. Dweck

re often hear thesedays that we've

V V produced a genera-tion of young peoplewho can't get

through the day without an award. Theyexpect success because they're special,not because they've worked hard.

Is this true? Have we inadvertentlydone something to hold back ourstudents?

I think educators commonly hold twobeliefs that do just that. Many believethat (1) praising students' intelligencebuilds their confidence and motivation

to learn, and (2) students' inherentintelligence is the major cause of theirachievement in school. Our research hasshown that the first belief is false andthat the second can be harmful-evenfor the most competent students.

As a psychologist, I have studiedstudent motivation for more than 35years. My graduate students and I havelooked at thousands of children, askingwhy some enjoy learning, even when it'shard, and why they are resilient in theface of obstacles. We have learned agreat deal. Research shows us how topraise students in ways that yield moti-vation and resilience. In addition,specific interventions can reverse a

student's slide into failure during thevulnerable period of adolescence.

Fixed or Malleable?Praise is intricately connected to howstudents view their intelligence. Somestudents believe that their intellectualability is a fixed trait. They have acertain amount of intelligence, and that'sthat. Students with this fixed mind-setbecome excessively concerned with howsmart they are, seeking tasks that willprove their intelligence and avoidingones that might not (Dweck, 1999, 2006).The desire to learn takes a backseat.

Other students believe that theirintellectual ability is something they can

34 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2007

develop through effort and education.They don't necessarily believe thatanyone can become an Einstein or aMozart, but they do understand thateven Einstein and Mozart had to put inyears of effort to become who they were.When students believe that they candevelop their intelligence, they focus ondoing just that. Not worrying abouthow smart they will appear, they takeon challenges and stick to them(Dweck, 1999, 2006).

More and more research inpsychology and neuroscience supportsthe growth mind-set. We are discov-ering that the brain has more plasticityover time than we ever imagined(Doidge, 2007); that fundamental

aspects of intelligence can be enhancedthrough learning (Sternberg, 2005);and that dedication and persistence inthe face of obstacles are key ingredientsin outstanding achievement (Ericsson,Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman,2006).

Alfred Binet (1909/1973), theinventor of the IQ test, had a stronggrowth mind-set. He believed thateducation could transform the basiccapacity to learn. Far from intending tomeasure fixed intelligence, he meant histest to be a tool for identifying studentswho were not profiting from the publicschool curriculum so that other coursesof study could be devised to foster theirintellectual growth.

The Two Faces of EffortThe fixed and growth mind-sets createtwo different psychological worlds. Inthe fixed mind-set, students care firstand foremost about how they'll bejudged: smart or not smart. Repeatedly,students with this mind-set rejectopportunities to learn if they mightmake mistakes (Hong, Chiu, Dweck,Lin, & Wan, 1999; Mueller & Dweck,1998). When they do make mistakes orreveal deficiencies, rather than correctthem, they try to hide them (Nussbaum& Dweck, 2007).

They are also afraid of effort becauseeffort makes them feel dumb. Theybelieve that if you have the ability, youshouldn't need effort (Blackwell, Trzes-

Promises of Praise

niewski, & Dweck, 2007), thatability should bring success allby itself. This is one of theworst beliefs that students canhold. It can cause many brightstudents to stop working inschool when the curriculumbecomes challenging.

Finally, students in the fixedmind-set don't recover wellfrom setbacks. When they hit asetback in school, they decreasetheir efforts and considercheating (Blackwell et al.,2007). The idea of fixed intelli-gence does not offer themviable ways to improve.

Let's get inside the head of astudent with a fixed mind-setas he sits in his classroom,confronted with algebra for thefirst time. Up until then, hehas breezed through math.Even when he barely paidattention in class and skimpedon his homework, he alwaysgot As. But this is different. It'shard. The student feels anxious andthinks, "What if I'm not as good at mathas I thought? What if other kids under-stand it and I don't?" At some level, herealizes that he has two choices: tryhard, or turn off. His interest in mathbegins to wane, and his attentionwanders. He tells himself, "Who caresabout this stuff? It's for nerds. I could doit if I wanted to, but it's so boring. Youdon't see CEOs and sports stars solvingfor x and y."

By contrast, in the growth mind-set,students care about learning. When theymake a mistake or exhibit a deficiency,they correct it (Blackwell et al., 2007;Nussbaum & Dweck, 2007). For them,effort is a positive thing: It ignites theirintelligence and causes it to grow. In theface of failure, these students escalatetheir efforts and look for new learningstrategies.

Let's look at another student-one

who has a growth mind-set-having herfirst encounter with algebra. She finds itnew, hard, and confusing, unlikeanything else she has ever learned. Butshe's determined to understand it. Shelistens to everything the teacher says,asks the teacher questions after class,and takes her textbook home and readsthe chapter over twice. As she begins toget it, she feels exhilarated. A new worldof math opens up for her.

It is not surprising, then, that whenwe have followed students over chal-lenging school transitions or courses, wefind that those with growth mind-setsoutperform their classmates with fixedmind-sets-even when they enteredwith equal skills and knowledge. Agrowth mind-set fosters the growth ofability over time (Blackwell et al., 2007;Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, &Dweck, 2006; see also Grant & Dweck,2003).

The Effects of PraiseMany educators have hoped tomaximize students' confidencein their abilities, their enjoymentof learning, and their ability tothrive in school by praising theirintelligence. We've studied theeffects of this kind of praise inchildren as young as 4 years oldand as old as adolescence, instudents in inner-city and ruralsettings, and in students ofdifferent ethnicities-and we'veconsistently found the samething (Cimpian, Arce, Markman,& Dweck, 2007; Kamins &Dweck, 1999; Mueller &Dweck, 1998): Praisingstudents' intelligence gives thema short burst of pride, followedby a long string of negativeconsequences.

In many of our studies (seeMueller & Dweck, 1998), 5thgrade students worked on atask, and after the first set ofproblems, the teacher praised

some of them for their intelligence ("Youmust be smart at these problems") andothers for their effort ("You must haveworked hard at these problems"). Wethen assessed the students' mind-sets. Inone study, we asked students to agree ordisagree with mind-set statements, suchas, "Your intelligence is something basicabout you that you can't really change."Students praised for intelligence agreedwith statements like these more thanstudents praised for effort did. Inanother study, we asked students todefine intelligence. Students praised forintelligence made significantly morereferences to innate, fixed capacity,whereas the students praised for effortmade more references to skills, knowl-edge, and areas they could changethrough effort and learning. Thus, wefound that praise for intelligence tendedto put students in a fixed mind-set(intelligence is fixed, and you have it),

36 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2007

whereas praise for effort tended to putthem in a growth mind-set (you'redeveloping these skills because you'reworking hard).

We then offered students a chance towork on either a challenging task thatthey could learn from or an easy onethat ensured error-free performance.Most of those praised for intelligencewanted the easy task, whereas most ofthose praised for effort wanted the chal-lenging task and the opportunity tolearn.

Next, the students worked on somechallenging problems. As a group,students who had been praised for theirintelligence lost their confidence in theirability and their enjoyment of the taskas soon as they began to struggle withthe problem. If success meant they weresmart, then struggling meant they werenot. The whole point of intelligencepraise is to boost confidence and moti-vation, but both were gone in a flash.Only the effort-praised kids remained,on the whole, confident and eager.

When the problems were made some-what easier again, students praised forintelligence did poorly, having lost theirconfidence and motivation. As a group,they did worse than they had doneinitially on these same types of prob-lems. The students praised for effortshowed excellent performance andcontinued to improve.

Finally, when asked to report theirscores (anonymously), almost 40percent of the intelligence-praisedstudents lied. Apparently, their egoswere so wrapped up in their perform-ance that they couldn't admit mistakes.Only about 10 percent of the effort-praised students saw fit to falsify theirresults.

Praising students for their intelli-gence, then, hands them not motivationand resilience but a fixed mind-set withall its vulnerability. In contrast, effort or"process" praise (praise for engagement,

perseverance, strategies, improvement,

and the like) fosters hardy motivation. Ittells students what they've done to besuccessful and what they need to do tobe successful again in the future.Process praise sounds like this:

w You really studied for your Englishtest, and your improvement shows it.You read the material over several times,outlined it, and tested yourself on it.That really worked!

* I like the way you tried all kinds ofstrategies on that math problem untilyou finally got it.

m It was a long, hard assignment, butyou stuck to it and got it done. Youstayed at your desk, kept up yourconcentration, and kept working. That'sgreat!

* I like that you took on that chal-lenging project for your science class. Itwill take a lot of work--doing theresearch, designing the machine, buyingthe parts, and building it. You're goingto learn a lot of great things.

What about a student who gets an Awithout trying? I would say, "All right,that was too easy for you. Let's do some-

thing more challenging that you canlearn from." We don't want to makesomething done quickly and easily thebasis for our admiration.

What about a student who workshard and doesn't do well? I would say, "Iliked the effort you put in. Let's worktogether some more and figure out whatyou don't understand." Process praisekeeps students focused, not on some-thing called ability that they may or maynot have and that magically createssuccess or failure, but on processes theycan all engage in to learn.

Motivated to LearnFinding that a growth mind-set createsmotivation and resilience-and leads tohigher achievement-we sought todevelop an intervention that wouldteach this mind-set to students. Wedecided to aim our intervention atstudents who were making the transi-tion to 7th grade because this is a timeof great vulnerability. School often getsmore difficult in 7th grade, gradingbecomes more stringent, and the envi-ronment becomes more impersonal.Many students take stock of themselvesand their intellectual abilities at thistime and decide whether they want tobe involved with school. Not surpris-ingly, it is often a time of disengagementand plunging achievement.

We performed our intervention in aNew York City junior high school inwhich many students were strugglingwith the transition and were showingplummeting grades. If students learneda growth mind-set, we reasoned, theymight be able to meet this challengewith increased, rather than decreased,effort. We therefore developed an eight-session workshop in which both thecontrol group and the growth-mind-setgroup learned study skills, timemanagement techniques, and memorystrategies (Blackwell et al., 2007).However, in the growth-mind-setintervention, students also learned

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT 37

about their brains and what they coulddo to make their intelligence grow.

They learned that the brain is like amuscle-the more they exercise it, thestronger it becomes. They learned thatevery time they try hard and learnsomething new, their brain forms newconnections that, over time, make themsmarter. They learned that intellectualdevelopment is not the naturalunfolding of intelligence, but rather theformation of new connections broughtabout through effort and learning.

Students were riveted by this infor-mation. The idea that their intellectualgrowth was largely in their hands fasci-nated them. In fact, even the mostdisruptive students suddenly sat stilland took notice, with the most unrulyboy of the lot looking up at us andsaying, "You mean I don't have to bedumb?"

Indeed, the growth-mind-set messageappeared to unleash students' motiva-tion. Although both groups had experi-enced a steep decline in their mathgrades during their first months ofjunior high, those receiving the growth-mind-set intervention showed a signifi-cant rebound. Their math gradesimproved. Those in the control group,despite their excellent study skills inter-vention, continued their decline.

What's more, the teachers-who wereunaware that the intervention work-shops differed-singled out three timesas many students in the growth-mind-set intervention as showing markedchanges in motivation. These studentshad a heightened desire to work hardand learn. One striking example was theboy who thought he was dumb. Beforethis experience, he had never put in anyextra effort and often didn't turn hishomework in on time. As a result of thetraining, he worked for hours oneevening to finish an assignment early sothat his teacher could review it and givehim a chance to revise it. He earned aB+ on the assignment (he had been

getting Cs and lower previously).Other researchers have obtained

similar findings with a growth-mind-setintervention. Working with junior highschool students, Good, Aronson, andInzlicht (2003) found an increase inmath and English achievement testscores; working with college students,Aronson, Fried, and Good (2002) foundan increase in students' valuing ofacademics, their enjoyment of school-work, and their grade point averages.

To facilitate delivery of the growth-mind-set workshop to students, wedeveloped an interactive computer-

When students

believe that they

can develop their

intelligence, they

focus on doing

just that.

based version of the intervention calledBrainology. Students work through sixmodules, learning about the brain,visiting virtual brain labs, doing virtualbrain experiments, seeing how the brainchanges with learning, and learninghow they can make their brains workbetter and grow smarter.

We tested our initial version in 20New York City schools, with encour-aging results. Almost all students(anonymously polled) reported changesin their study habits and motivation tolearn resulting directly from theirlearning of the growth mind-set. Onestudent noted that as a result of theanimation she had seen about the brain,she could actually "picture the neuronsgrowing bigger as they make more

connections." One student referred tothe value of effort: "If you do not giveup and you keep studying, you can findyour way through."

Adolescents often see school as aplace where they perform for teacherswho then judge them. The growthmind-set changes that perspective andmakes school a place where studentsvigorously engage in learning for theirown benefit.

Going ForwardOur research shows that educatorscannot hand students confidence on asilver platter by praising their intelli-gence. Instead, we can help them gainthe tools they need to maintain theirconfidence in learning by keeping themfocused on the process of achievement.

Maybe we have produced a genera-tion of students who are moredependent, fragile, and entitled thanprevious generations. If so, it's time forus to adopt a growth mind-set and learnfrom our mistakes. It's time to deliverinterventions that will truly booststudents' motivation, resilience, andlearning. M

ReferencesAronson, J., Fried, C., & Good, C. (2002).

Reducing the effects of stereotype threaton African American college students byshaping theories of intelligence. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 38,113-125.

Binet, A. (1909/1973). Les idees modernes surles enfants [Modem ideas on children].Paris: Flamarion. (Original workpublished 1909)

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck,C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelli-gence predict achievement across anadolescent transition: A longitudinalstudy and an intervention. Child Develop-ment, 78, 246-263.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H., Markman, E. M., &Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguisticcues impact children's motivation. Psycho-logical Science, 18, 314-316.

Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changesitse. Stories of personal triumph from thefrontiers of brain science. New York: Viking.

38 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/OCTOBER 2007

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their rolein motivation, personality and development.Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The newpsychology of success. New York: RandomHouse.

Ericsson, K. A., Chamess, N., Feltovich, P J.,& Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.). (2006). TheCambridge handbook of expertise and expertperformance. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M.(2003). Improving adolescents' standard-ized test performance: An intervention toreduce the effects of stereotype threat.Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 645-662.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clari-fying achievement goals and their impact.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 541-553.

Hong, Y. Y, Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D.,& Wan, W (1999). Implicit theories,attributions, and coping: A meaningsystem approach. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 588-599.

Kamins, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Personvs. process praise and criticism: Implica-tions for contingent self-worth andcoping. Developmental Psychology, 35,835-847.

Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J.,Good, C. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2006).Why do beliefs about intelligence influ-ence learning success? A social-cognitive-neuroscience model. Social, Cognitive, andAffective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998).Intelligence praise can undermine motiva-tion and performance. Journal of Person-ality and Sodal Psychology, 75, 33-52.

Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2007).Defensiveness vs. remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem mainte-nance. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin.

Sternberg, R. (2005). Intelligence, compe-tence, and expertise. In A. Elliot & C. S.Dweck (Eds.), The handbook of competenceand motivation (pp. 15-30). New York:Guilford Press.

Carol S. Dweck is the Lewis and VirginiaEaton Professor of Psychology at Stan-ford University and the author ofMindset: The New Psychology ofSuccess (Random House, 2006).

Give your students the foundational skillsthey need to become lifelong readers!Read Well, the comprehensive K-1 reading curriculum:

"• Addresses the key elements of Reading First

"* Teaches literacy to mastery

"* Meets individual student needs

"* Accelerates fluency across skill levels

Visit www.readwell.net/fcrrto read the new Florida Center

M SoprisWest' for Reading Research reviewEDUCATIONAL SERVICES of Read Well.

A Cambium Learning Company www.sopriswest.com (800) 547-6747

ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: The Perils and Promises of PraiseSOURCE: Educ Leadership 65 no2 O 2007

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.