Carol Dweck
Carol Dweck – Professor of Psychology Stanford University
Dweck’s big idea is growth mindset, which can be a powerful influence when developing a new curriculum. Dweck’s ideas challenge the concept of fixed ability, arguing that mindset limits our potential. Teachers and students need to develop a growth mindset, rather than a fixed mindset about pupil potential. The growth mindset embraces challenge and sees this as learning/development; you can learn from failure. Those with a fixed mindset struggle with failure and see this as a setback.
If students can develop their abilities, then the same curriculum is appropriate for all. Dweck says it is the ‘how’ of teaching students rather than the ‘can I teach them?’ that is important. Dweck gives examples of teachers who have taught high challenge material to students who have been assumed unable to cope with it because of the background or attainment. She warns against the danger of dumbing down the curriculum. Dweck says teachers should work on the assumption that any pupil can achieve and that this is done through a mixture of an atmosphere of high challenge and the feeling of being nurtured.
Dweck’s ideas also make us think about assessment and the consequences of labelling students. Formative assessment is seen as being key as a way of learning from failure. Dweck believes it is the way we respond to the exam that makes us carry the belief of stupidity rather than then exam itself. If assessment is driven by curriculum and offers an opportunity for students to grow, we will get more from our students. Dweck agrees with Wiliam that assessment should be ongoing and not just about one moment. It should also allow us to make inferences about whether learning can apply to other contexts.
There has been a growing concern that Dweck’s work has been reduced to motivational posters and messages in assemblies, rather than as part of a whole school ethos that permeates all areas. Some have argued that genetics do have a role to play in pupil ability and that Dweck’s work is idealistic and does not consider real problems for disadvantaged students.