Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Feedback and Motivation (Interventions (Interventions (Paunesku et al…

- - - - Intelligence is a fixed trait
      - Intelligence cannot be changed regardless of effort
      - Fixed mindset
      - TASK CHOICE - Simple problems to show intelligence
      - EFFORT - Effort is a bad thing as it shows that you do not have an innate talent
      - SUCCESS - Because I am clever
      - FAILURE
        
        Because I am not clever (emotional reaction - give up, feel sad, think they are bad children)
        
        Helpless response to failure
        
        Characteristics - low-self ratings of performance, low affects levels, low persistence
    - - Intelligence is malleable
      - Intelligence can be greatly changed with effort
      - Growth mindset
      - TASK CHOICE - Complex problems to develop their intelligence
      - EFFORT - Effort is a positive thing as it helps develop skills, if not trying hard you are not learning new things
      - SUCCESS - Because I worked hard
      - FAILURE
        
        Because I have not worked hard (determination > control)
        
        Mastery response to failure
        
        Characteristics - High self-ratings of performance, high affect levels, high persistence
      - Can be promoted via feedback (praise/criticism) via training programmes
    - - Continuum - different for different subjects
      - Mindset is not a simple concept
      - Not easy to implement
      - Educators need to embody mindset in all their practices
      - Dont deny importance of talent
      - IT don't make you smarter
        
        Can be motivating
        
        But still need to see the goal as relevant and important to you
      - Don't underlie everything
        
        Can be different for different subjects, on different days
        
        Triggers can move us to a fixe mindset
      - False growth mindset
        
        Not just about effort
        
        If we praise effort when a child is not trying or give praise it as a consolation prize
        
        Does not promote growth mindset
      - Only have a certain amount of effort - can choose where to put it
  - - - Want to pass the test
      - Associated with 'surface learning'
      - Focus on outcome
    - - Want people to have mastery goals
      - Want to understand the material
      - Associated with 'deep learning'
      - Care about what you are learning
- - - - I gave you the wrong list of things to find
      - I gave you the wrong pieces of the jigsaw
      - I gave you the mark of someone else in your class with the same name as you
      - Ensuring children succeed in the end
- - - - Meyer (1992)
        
        Children read scenarios where two children perform equally well in a task
        
        One receives praise and the other does not
        
        Children infer that the child who is praised is weaker than the subject
      - Henderlong & Lepper (2002)
        
        Children who are praised for something they enjoy doing anyway show reduced motivation and persistent following extensive praise
        
        Children infer that they are doing the activity for the praise rather than the enjoyment
        
        Against purely behavioural definition of praise - undermine, enhance or have on effect on intrinsic motivation
        
        However sincere = beneficial to motivation
    - - Person
        
        You're really clever
        
        You're really good at X
        
        You have a X brain
        
        You have a natural ability for X
      - Process
        
        You're working hard
        
        You're trying hard
        
        You found a good way to do it
        
        You put a lot of effort into this task
      - Most successful?
        
        Cimpian, Arce, Markman & Dweck (2007)
        
        Children aged 4 pretended to do a drawing (using pipe cleaner) and were given person or process feedback
        
        Person - You are a good drawer
        
        Process - You did a good drawing
        
        Doing well
        
        No difference between two groups
        
        Task enjoyment
        
        Percieved performance
        
        Affect
        
        Failed
        
        Forgot to draw the wheels
        
        Those who received generic praise felt more negative
        
        Showed helpless response
        
        Mueller & Dweck (1998)
        
        Children worked on maths test and succeeded
        
        Received either person or process praise - asked about their theory of intelligence and what sort of task they wanted to do next
        
        Then failed
        
        Received no feedback
        
        Asked how they felt about their performance
        
        Given another set of simple maths problems
        
        Asked how well they had done anonymously
        
        Intelligence praise
        
        Entity theory of intelligence
        
        Chose a simple task rather than complex
        
        When faced with failure showed a helpless response
        
        When faced with another easy task performed poorly
        
        Lied about their performance (40% compared 10% process praise)
        
        Praise = beneficial
        
        However negative consequences for achievement motivation
        
        If praised for effort - hard work + subject to improvement
        
        Skipper & Douglas (2012)
        
        Children read 3 scenarios where they succeeded and were given a mark (10/10)
        
        Some children received no further feedback, others received person feedback or process feedback
        
        Followed by 2 scenarios where they failed and were given mark (2/10)
        
        Following failure - person praise showed helpless response to failure (lower perceived performance, affect and persistence)
        
        Second failure all children began to show helpless response - effects of praise transient?
        
        Gunderson et al (2013)
        
        Measured the praise that parent gave their children (age 14-38)
        
        Found that children who used more process praise = more incremental theory at 8yrs
        
        Praising children's effort encourages them to adopt incremental frameworks
    - - Praise > negative outcomes if given for easy/enjoyed task
      - Following success there are not differences in how children respond to feedback in either person or process forms
      - Success leads all children to feel positive about themselves, their achievement, etc
      - Person praise
        
        Helpless response to failure
        
        Succeeded because I am clever, therefore I am failing because I am not clever enough
      - Process praise
        
        Mastery response to faliure
        
        Succeeded because I was working hard, therefore Failing because I am not working hard enough
  - - - Important
        
        Shows that you have not met the expected standard
        
        Indicates that improvement is needed
      - Boehler et al (2006)
        
        Medical students received either praise or criticism about their bandage trying skills
        
        Those who received praise were happier with feedback, those who received criticism improved the most
      - Teachers tend to deliver more praise than criticism (De Paulo & Bell, 1996)
      - If children don't receive criticism they might have inflated and unrealistic views of their own abilities
      - Vital for learning
        
        Leads individuals to be more dissatisfied with current performance and set higher goals in future than when they revive no criticism
        
        When individuals fail they can respond by increasing performance or lowering goals - criticism can therefore indicate how to improve
    - - Lead children to think they are good at subject
      - Inferred that criticised child for poor performance (same scores) was better than the one not criticised
      - Young children = not this pattern
    - - Internal attributions: ability and effort
      - External attributions: task difficulty and luck
      - Attributing externally may seem more positive
      - Locus of control
        
        Rotter (1954)
        
        Attribute externally then you can not impact results in future leading to a helpless response
        
        Internally can lead to a mastery or helpless response depending on how you attribute
    - - Kamins & Dweck (1999)
        
        Children 5yr role played scenarios with puppets
        
        Experimenter played role of teacher + narrated stories where the children failed
        
        The 'teacher' gave either person or process criticism to the child
        
        Children who received person criticism
        
        Felt more negative about their performance
        
        Felt that they wired children
        
        Struggled to make amends even though they only needed to tell the experimenter how they would and did not need to act it out
        
        Creat vulnerability + sense of contingent self-worth
      - Criteria for feedback = same
- - - - Occurs between different parties (uni, charities, public, local gov) to jointly produce mutually valued outcome - knowledge/expertise
      - Academic design + evaluate interventions + provide info to external partners
      - Can be misunderstood or don't take into real world context
      - Co-creation - knowledge is developed, ensuring knowledge draws in expertise of both
      - Maximising organisational transformation in response to new research findings
      - Push from uni, but pull from community
      - Despite increasing attention to impact, little evidence for extra academic impacts
    - - Activity > output > outcome > impact
      - research > dissemination > uptake > implementation > impact
  - - - Requirements
        
        Standalone legacy product - must have reasonable life-span without requiring updating + must not require training to implement effectively
        
        Minimal resource approach - does not require sig resources for school to utilise
      - Introduction to theory underpinning approach
      - Guides to implementing approach
      - Lesson ideas to promote growth mindsets
      - Ideas to change culture - classrooms, school
  - - - Taught all children study skills, time management techniques, and memory strategies
      - Intervention group were also taught about the brain and what they could do to help their brain grow
      - The brain is a muscle, more exercised = stronger
      - Intervention to develop an incremental theory of intelligence
      - Intervention - Higher motivation, improved maths grade
      - Even though all children had received study skills training
    - - Students randomly assigned to condition after registering on the website
      - Completed 2x45 minute online sessions two weeks apart
      - Students read article about neuroplasticity
      - Activities
        
        Students re-wrote the article in their own words
        
        Letter advising an imaginary student 'not smart enough'
      - Intervention = successful in promoting growth mindset
      - Both intervention conditions = successful
      - Growth mindset, sense of purpose and control conditions
    - - Delivered growth mindset workshop to yr5 pupils - control = study skills training
      - Teacher training intervention, control group = no training
      - Teachers taught about growth midgets + given ideas on how to create a growth mindset culture (expectations, lang, rewards system)
      - Pre test, post test (4mnths), delayed post test (10 mnths)
      - Pupils who received growth mindset workshops made on average an additional 2 mnths progress in English/maths compared to control groups
      - Not sig
      - No change with teacher intervention
    - - Brainology
      - Brainobogy changed students ideas about learning/study habits, encouraged more keen/active learners - teacher + self reports
      - Created shift towards incremental theory, not maintained in 3-mnth follow up measures
      - No impact on sense of mastery or academic performance
      - Need to be ongoing and maintained - very hard to change behaviours
      - Some schools use mindset, used standardised test scores
      - Should be implemented in early years
  - - - Most investigating mindsets in young use observations
      - Puppet based role
      - Challenges
        
        Time consuming to conduct
        
        Time consuming to analyse
        
        Requires training to administer
        
        Puppets cost money
    - - 1) certain amount of intelligence + you can't really do much to change it
      - 2) intelligence is something about you that you can't change very much
      - 3) can learn new things, but you can't really change your basic intelligence