Reports
“It's ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Can comforting struggling students demotivate them and potentially decrease the pool of students pursuing math-related subjects? In Studies 1–3, instructors holding an entity (fixed) theory of math intelligence more readily judged students to have low ability than those holding an incremental (malleable) theory. Studies 2–3 further revealed that those holding an entity (versus incremental) theory were more likely to both comfort students for low math ability and use “kind” strategies unlikely to promote engagement with the field (e.g., assigning less homework). Next, we explored what this comfort-oriented feedback communicated to students, compared with strategy-oriented and control feedback (Study 4). Students responding to comfort-oriented feedback not only perceived the instructor's entity theory and low expectations, but also reported lowered motivation and lower expectations for their own performance. This research has implications for understanding how pedagogical practices can lock students into low achievement and deplete the math pipeline.

Highlights

► Fixed theory of math ability leads to diagnosing low ability from one test score. ► Fixed theory of math ability also leads to comforting students for low ability. ► Fixed theory of math ability also leads to practices unlikely to promote engagement. ► Comfort feedback leads students to perceive a fixed theory, express low motivation. ► Implications for how teaching behaviors can lock students into low achievement.

Introduction

The idea that people's areas of weakness should be accepted, as long as they focus on developing and maximizing their strengths, has become a prevalent one in American society. One frequently encounters students embodying this idea when they claim, “I'm just not a math person” or “I'm a fuzzy, not a techie.” How do people come to simply accept themselves as having low ability in important fields of study? Although a focus on cultivating strengths is not problematic per se, it may become so if one takes individual instances of performance as an index of strengths and weaknesses and views those strengths and weaknesses as fixed. We propose that implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999) – beliefs about whether intelligence is fixed or malleable – can illuminate this practice. We chose to examine this idea from the perspective of teaching and in the context of math given how important it is for teachers to help students persevere through difficulty in the process of learning math and how critical it is to understand factors that may contribute to the shortage of students pursuing math-related careers in the U.S. (National Science Foundation, 2010).

Research shows that adults holding an entity (or fixed) theory of ability are more oriented toward diagnosing people's stable traits, often from preliminary information, whereas those holding an incremental (or malleable) theory tend to be more open to information about change over time (Butler, 2000, Heslin et al., 2005, Plaks et al., 2001). Research has also shown that students' implicit theories of ability affect their motivation, learning, and achievement outcomes. Those holding an entity (or fixed) theory are particularly likely to draw conclusions about their ability (vs. effort) from setbacks and to give up more readily when faced with difficulty, as compared with those holding an incremental (or malleable) theory (Blackwell et al., 2007, Dweck, 1999, Heine et al., 2001, see also Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

However, research has not yet examined how implicit theories of ability play out in the pedagogical practices that instructors use when students confront difficulty. We hypothesize that the “appropriate” response to students who exhibit initial low performance in a course, from the perspective of an instructor with an entity theory, will be to conclude that they have low ability and to console them for this lack of aptitude (e.g., by suggesting not everyone can be good at every subject). These adults may be well-intentioned and believe they are acting in students' best interests. However, to the extent that such comforting statements communicate that students have stable low ability, they might demotivate students and relegate them to a future of low achievement. The present studies represent, to our knowledge, the first systematic investigation of whether an entity (versus incremental) perspective leads those in a teaching role to spontaneously focus more on comforting students for low ability following failure and on using practices that could lock students into long-term low achievement.

In addition to examining the pedagogical practices preferred by entity versus incremental theorists when confronting a struggling student, we also asked what such practices would communicate to students. Previous research has illustrated that communicating high standards when students perform poorly can be conducive to greater effort and engagement (Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999). Here, we considered the possibility that comfort feedback stemming from an entity perspective would do the opposite. We propose that comforting students for their (perceived) low ability might represent a subtle way in which teachers' theories of intelligence and their low expectations are communicated to students. Previous research has shown that perceiving a more entity (versus incremental) theory to be dominant in one's context can lead people to experience changes in their self-concept (Murphy & Dweck, 2010) and can lead to decrements in students' performance and sense of belonging (Good, Rattan, & Dweck, in press). Therefore, we also hypothesized that these pedagogical practices might both communicate an entity theory of intelligence to students (along with low expectations) and lead students to lose motivation and lower their own expectations for their future performance.

We examined these hypotheses in four studies. Study 1 investigated whether adults holding more of an entity (vs. incremental) theory would be more likely to diagnose students' math ability from a single score on the first test of the year. In Study 2, we manipulated participants' implicit theories of math ability and asked whether an entity theory also leads to potentially problematic pedagogical practices, such as comforting students for their presumed lack of aptitude in the subject. Study 3 again examined the diagnosis of ability and preferred pedagogical practices, but with actual math/science instructors at the college level. In Study 4, we explored the additional hypothesis that these practices would convey an instructor's entity theory and low expectations and would lead students to report less motivation and lower expectations for their own future performance.

Section snippets

Study 1

Although some past research has shown that those who hold an entity theory may be more oriented toward rapidly diagnosing ability (Butler, 2000, Plaks et al., 2001), we thought it was important to show that people placed in a teaching role would also exhibit such behaviors, given that being in a teaching role might, in itself, orient individuals toward fostering learning and improvement.

Participants

Forty-one undergraduates at a competitive private university on the West coast (14 males, 27 females; 2 African-Americans, 18 Asian-Americans, 12 European-Americans/Whites, 8 Latino-Americans, 1 Native American; mean age = 20.05, SD = 1.64) participated for course credit or pay.

Procedure

Participants completed an online study about math education beginning with a “general math attitudes” survey. An implicit theory of math intelligence scale was embedded in the survey. Participants were asked to agree or

Results and discussion

In the following analyses, the variable of interest was regressed on mean-centered implicit theories of math intelligence scores (Aiken & West, 1991). Analyses of participants' sense of belonging to math, enjoyment of math, and perceived usefulness of math showed that math was equally valued by participants with different implicit theories of math intelligence (ps > .4).

As hypothesized, the more participants endorsed an entity (vs. incremental) theory, the more they agreed that the one instance

Study 2

In Study 2, we manipulated implicit theories of math intelligence to address whether these beliefs play a causal role in participants' inferences about students' ability and in their preferences for certain pedagogical practices.

Participants

Ninety-five undergraduates at a public college on the East coast participated for course credit (8 male; 87 females; 4 African-American, 12 Asian-American, 65 European-American, 10 Latino-American, 3 mixed-race, and 1 unreported; age unreported).

Procedure

Participants first read an article that manipulated implicit theories of math intelligence. The article presented expert evidence indicating that math intelligence was either fixed, (e.g., “…up to 88% of a person's math intelligence results from genetic

Results and discussion

On the manipulation check, those in the entity theory condition (M = 3.66, SD = .89) endorsed a significantly more fixed belief about math intelligence than those in the incremental theory condition (M = 2.46, SD = .81), t(93) = 6.81, p < .01.

We also found that participants in the entity theory condition, compared to those in the incremental theory condition, agreed significantly more that their student was “not smart enough in math,” M_entity = 4.07, SD = 1.45, M_incremental = 2.67, SD = 1.43, t(90) = 4.01, p < .01,

Study 3

Study 3 addressed this question by recruiting graduate students in math-related areas who were instructors or teaching assistants in undergraduate courses in their field of study.

Participants

Forty-one graduate students who were instructors or teaching assistants at a competitive private university on the West coast participated for pay (35 males, 6 females; 9 Asian/Asian-Americans, 30 European-Americans/Whites, 2 unidentified; mean age = 26.3, SD = 2.91). All participants were Ph.D. candidates in a math-related field (29 computer science, 10 math, 2 statistics). In each of these graduate programs, Ph.D. candidates are required to serve as either an instructor or teaching assistant for

Results and discussion

In the following analyses, the variable of interest was regressed on mean-centered implicit theories of math intelligence scores (Aiken & West, 1991). There were no differences by theory on endorsement of the teaching-related filler items (p > .1).

Even among these actual instructors, the more participants endorsed an entity (vs. incremental) theory, the greater percentage of the student's grade was attributed to a “lack of math intelligence” as opposed to a “lack of hard work,” B = 4.24, t(36) = 

Study 4

We hypothesized that comfort-oriented feedback, which was more associated with the entity pedagogical style in the previous studies, would lead students both to perceive their professor as having a more entity theory about math ability and to feel less supported, encouraged, and motivated — even when the professor expressed support for the students and complimented their strengths. We compared comfort-oriented feedback to feedback more focused on concrete strategies and with control feedback

Participants

Fifty-four students at a competitive private university on the West coast participated for pay (26 males, 28 females; 8 African-Americans, 15 Asian-Americans, 21 European-Americans/Whites, 6 Latino-Americans, 2 Native Americans, 2 Biracial; mean age = 20.2, SD = 2.36).

Procedure

Participants completed an online study in which they imagined being in a calculus course at their university. They read a scenario in which, after the first calculus test of the year, they met with their professor to learn their grade

Results and discussion

As predicted, the feedback manipulation led participants to hold strikingly different perceptions of their professor's beliefs about the malleability of math intelligence, F(2, 51) = 15.95, p < .01. Planned contrasts revealed that participants in the comfort feedback condition (M = 4.73, SD = .997) viewed their professor as having a significantly stronger entity theory than participants in either the strategy feedback condition (M = 2.69, SD = 1.43, t(51) = 5.02, p < .01) or the control feedback condition (M = 

General discussion

People holding a more entity theory of math intelligence were significantly more likely to diagnose a student as having low ability based upon a single, initial poor performance (Studies 1–3). Moreover, in Studies 2–3, holding an entity theory led people to comfort students for their presumed low ability in the subject and to engage in pedagogical practices that could reduce engagement with the subject, as compared with participants who held a more incremental theory. In Study 3, instructors

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Dweck-Walton Lab, Good Lab, and Katharine Atterbury.

References (15)

  • L.S. Aiken et al.

    Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions

    (1991)
  • L.S. Blackwell et al.

    Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention

    Child Development

    (2007)
  • R. Butler

    Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2000)
  • G.L. Cohen et al.

    The mentor's dilemma: Providing critical feedback across the racial divide

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1999)
  • C.S. Dweck

    Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development

    (1999)
  • C.S. Dweck et al.

    A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality

    Psychological Review

    (1988)
  • E. Fennema et al.

    Fennema–Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males

    Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

    (1976)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text