I appreciate the comments.  I think the bottom line is that if we praise a child by telling them how smart they are, then there is nothing that they can actually do to improve (and, in some cases, the child might actually do less since, after all, they are smart and decide they don't need to work any more).  Obviously, the other side is a bad idea (telling someone that they are not smart or dumb).

 

The author's position is that by praising effort you are praising something that is within your control.  I guess that I would personally separate this from the idea of remarking on the difficulty of the task.  To be told that "you did really well and I know this was really hard" is very reinforcing to me personally.

 

I also wonder if there is a learning style issue here.  Does someone perform better with verbal praise or with getting a good grade, for example.  We can say that both would apply but if you hear a teacher always telling her students how well they do, you might not buy it personally.

 

I have certainly seen in my own students that if they are praised in writing, they tend to participate in class better in the future.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Anke Grotlüschen
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:51 PM
To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 820] smartness and effort

 

Jan, 

 

These studies seem to rely on Albert Banduras idea of self-efficacy and attribution of causes. I find it quite convincing (no idea whether I can explain it correctly as I am an ESOL learner as well): 

 

People tend to attribute causes to things that happened. If you get good grades, you can use 

a)       stable causes (I'm smart) 

b)       variable causes (I invested so much effort)

 

You can either attribute internal causes or external ones, which are outside your "locus of control". The latter don't motivate.

 

So, as you cannot change stable causes (smart vs. dumb), you wouldn't be motivated to improve, if you believe your success comes from stable dispositions. But if you believe it is in your hand whether to change things or not (effort vs. lazyness), you are motivated. So it is better to tell an unsuccessful person, that it is his/her fault and in his/her control to do better -  than to say it's because of the difficulty of the task or his/her dumbness.

 

So far about theory, I don't know the empirical proof for this :-)

Thanks, 

Anke

________________________________

Von: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] Im Auftrag von Jan Potter
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2008 19:47
An: specialtopics at nifl.gov
Betreff: [SpecialTopics 801] Re: EducationGuardian.co.uk:Smallerclasssizes'not cost effective (Tom Mechem)

 

I realize we are a bit off-task, but on the topic of "praise" - 

An interesting article in New York magazine on this topic  - by Po Bronson called "How Not to Talk to Your Kids" (here's a link:  http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ ). In this article, Bronson talks

about research done by Carol Dweck (then of Columbia, now at Stanford) that suggests that praising a kid as being "smart" actually hurts their ongoing progress, ability, and perseverance when trying new

(especially intellectually challenging) things. The data suggest that praising *effort* gets dramatically better results.

 

The New York magazine article was quite an eye-opener for me.

 

It seems we are moving away from the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality these days.  The author's point was fascinating to me on the subject that a smart child would not take on challenging tasks.

 

Jan Potter, MSTC

Communications Specialist

Georgia Hospital Association

 

-----Original Message-----
From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Mechem, Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:00 AM
To: john.benseman at criticalinsight.co.nz; specialtopics at nifl.gov
Subject: [SpecialTopics 787] Re: EducationGuardian.co.uk: Smallerclasssizes'not cost effective (Tom Mechem)

 

If we all waited until we could prove everything in a court of law, we'd be even more doomed than we are presently. There's no question that smaller classes are needed for effective teaching and learning---just ask the teachers and just ask the students. Would R. Walker Willingham pay $30,000 a year to send his 14-year-old daughter Tiffany to St. Grottlesex if her European History class had 30 students instead of 12?

 

The point about praise is a tricky one. Certainly it doesn't do any good to tell someone she's smart if she doesn't believe it herself: you will only lose all credibility and trust. Yet our students need to know that we believe in them. It's like the advice we give parents: it's not enough to love your kids; they have to know that you love them. (Another untestable value of high literacy: you can get your point across.) It's not enough to believe in your students; they have to know you believe in them. However, as a wise man once said, "Self-confidence is bred of demonstrated ability." We can't just tell people they're smart; we have to create the educational environment by which they can come to know it for themselves. That's one of the intangible great things about the GED diploma: earning it proves to the student that she is smart. Though there are still lingering numbers of nattering nabobs of negativity who doubt the value of the GED process and the credential, one group that has no doubts are the students themselves.

 

Keep on rockin' in the free world (if there still is such a place).

 

 

Tom Mechem

GED State Chief Examiner

Massachusetts Department of Education

781-338-6621

"GED to Ph.D."

	-----Original Message-----
	From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov]On Behalf Of John Benseman
	Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:38 PM
	To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
	Subject: [SpecialTopics 779] Re: EducationGuardian.co.uk: Smaller classsizes'not cost effective

	I don't know the specific words that Dylan Wiliam uses about class size, but I am guessing that what he says is that there is no authoritative research that shows that class size is irrefutably related to student learning. This is not to say that class size doesn't matter, it merely says that the research over many 100s of studies is inconclusive to date.

	 

	As I am sure that the great majority of people on this listserv will attest, we all feel intuitively that class size DOES matter - it's just that there is no research to back this conclusion. The jury, so to speak, is still out on this dimension of teaching (as it is in many other areas).

	 

	The second point re saying that 'praise hurts students': I couldn't find the specific reference, but again interpreting what I think Wiliam would say is something along the lines of: just praising students for the sake of praising does them little good. What is needed however is clear and realistic feedback on where they are at in their learning. If that comes with a dollop of praise, then that's great, but praise per se is not sufficient.

	 

	I think that we can fall in to a trap of thinking that learners invariably want/need support (which they do at times), but they also need to be challenged, which means that we need to give them realistic feedback on how they are progressing (or not).

	 

	Regards, John

	 

	PS I am not a paid servant of Dylan Wiliam, but I am a fan of his research...

	 

	John Benseman

	*   john.benseman at criticalinsight.co.nz

	*   641 9 627 1882  Cell  027 454 0683

	* 52a Bolton St, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600, NZ

	
________________________________


	From: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Bruce C
	Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2008 11:29 a.m.
	To: specialtopics at nifl.gov
	Subject: [SpecialTopics 777] Re: EducationGuardian.co.uk: Smaller classsizes 'not cost effective

	 

	Regarding small class size....

	 

	Excuse my language, but regarding the comments of regarding class size attributed to Prof Dylan Wiliam, Deputy Director and Professor of Educational Assessment at the Institute of Education, University of London, I say ...

	 

	"BALDERDASH!!! and HOGWASH!!!!" 

	 

	I can't believe anyone who has been a teacher would ever say "...as long as pupils are well-behaved, then what you can do with a class of 20 is generally possible with a class of 30." 

	 

	Maybe this was taken out of context. Prof. Wiliam (yes it's only one "L"--I checked.) says some interesting things about formative assessment and personalized learning on this "Learning About Learning" website: 

	 

	http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/learningaboutlearning/aboutlal/biogs/biogdylanwiliam.asp

	 

	He does say a few wacky things--like that praise hurts students. 

	 

	Prof. Wil.i.am. says that formative assessment "encourages teachers to take constant readings about where students are." He says it's important to do this "minute by minute, day by day."  That's why I can't believe this dude really thinks that class size doesn't matter. I think a teacher with 20 students in his/her class can get a better sense of where everyone is than a teacher with 30 students. 

	
	Sure there may be things we can do that are cheaper than reducing class size...

	 

	But so what?

	 

	If that is how we define "cost effectiveness" why not TRIPLE class size and save tons of money? 

	 

	You get my point, right? 

	 

	from Bruce Carmel

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	Prof Dylan Wiliam, deputy director of 
	the Institute of Education says, 

	<http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/learningaboutlearning/aboutlal/biogs/biogdylanwiliam.asp>  

	
	"David J. Rosen" <djrosen at comcast.net> wrote:

		Colleagues,
		
		Tom Sticht spotted this on the EducationGuardian.co.uk site and sent 
		it for our formative assessment discussion.
		
		-------
		Note from Tom Sticht:
		
		This article about formative assessment appears in todays (2/25/08 
		Education Guardian online.
		-------
		
		To see this story with its related links on the 
		EducationGuardian.co.uk site, go to http://education.guardian.co.uk
		
		Smaller class sizes 'not cost effective'
		Anthea Lipsett
		Monday February 25 2008
		The Guardian
		
		Reducing school class sizes in an attempt to raise pupil achievement 
		is a waste of money for all but the youngest children, one of the 
		country's leading experts on assessment said today.
		
		Cutting class size by 30% gives children the equivalent of four extra 
		months of learning a year, but costs around £20,000 for each 
		class every year, according to Prof Dylan Wiliam, deputy director of 
		the Institute of Education.
		
		He said the more effective method of "formative assessment" - where 
		teachers monitor their pupils' progress continuously and provide 
		appropriate feedback - could provide eight extra months of 
		educational development for only £2,000 per classroom per year.
		
		"It can therefore be 20 times as cost-effective as reducing class 
		size in terms of pupil achievement," he told the annual Chartered 
		London Teachers Conference today.
		
		"Smaller classes do confer a benefit if pupils are unruly, because 
		fewer pupils in a class means less disruption. But as long as pupils 
		are well-behaved, then what you can do with a class of 20 is 
		generally possible with a class of 30.
		
		"Smaller classes can also be more cost-effective for five to seven- 
		year-olds, but research suggests the class size needs to be reduced 
		to 15 or less," he said.
		
		Wiliam added that investments in information communication technology 
		have also shown a poor return. But international studies have 
		confirmed that formative assessment can double the speed of pupil 
		learning.
		
		Some teachers use a "traffic light" system and ask pupils to hold up 
		different coloured cards to show whether they have understood what 
		they have been told. Red means "no", amber means "partly", and green 
		"yes". Pupils are also encouraged to evaluate their own work and 
		advise their classmates on how they can improve.
		
		The English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish education departments 
		have all provided varying degrees of backing for formative assessment.
		
		After three years of research in both the UK and the US, Wiliam 
		concluded that the approach would only take off properly if teachers 
		work together in school-based groups to refine their classroom methods.
		
		Wiliam and his co-researchers found that groups of eight to 10 
		teachers who meet once a month for at least two years can be most 
		effective. "It takes time to change teachers' ways of working, 
		particularly if they have been in the classroom for many years," said 
		Wiliam. "Simply telling teachers what to do doesn't work."
		
		"For example, most teachers have heard about research from the 1980s 
		which shows that if they wait three to five seconds after asking a 
		question their pupils' performance improves because they have been 
		given some time to think.
		
		"Even so, many teachers are still allowing less than a second for 
		pupils to respond. The conclusion we can draw from that is that 
		knowing what to do is the easy part of teaching. Actually doing it is 
		what's hard."
		
		Wiliam told EducationGuardian.co.uk that teacher quality was key to 
		any improvements.
		
		"To reduce class size from 30 to 20 would need 150,000 more teachers 
		and that would dilute the quality of teachers," he said.
		
		"We need to change what teachers do day in day out in the classroom 
		and we need to get better teachers into the profession."
		
		Martin Johnson, acting deputy general secretary of the Association of 
		Teachers and Lecturers, said the research should encourage the 
		government to "put its money where its mouth is".
		
		"Staff need to work together to learn how to teach more effectively, 
		but schools will need more resources to do this. [Wiliam] reminds us 
		that this would be very cost-effective.
		
		"Schools have benefited hugely over the last decade from having more 
		classroom based staff but much more training is needed to make their 
		deployment fully effective.
		
		"And while the government says it encourages assessment for learning, 
		its testing policies have stolen teachers' self-confidence so new 
		training must be provided and resourced.
		
		"School staff desperately need a contractual entitlement to training 
		which meets their individual needs."
		
		Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited
		
		
		
		David J. Rosen
		Special Topics Discussion Moderator
		djrosen at comcast.net
		
		
		
		-------------------------------
		National Institute for Literacy
		Special Topics mailing list
		SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
		To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
		Email delivered to bcarmel at rocketmail.com

	 

	  

	
________________________________


	Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http:/www.yahoo.com/r/hs>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20080229/7f708d9b/attachment.html