expectations, complex problem-solving and cultivating meta-cognition (or every one of them went on to do much “thinking about thinking”). Nearly better on tests than similar peers. Some researchers go further. Carol Dweck of Stanford University they have about learning). emphasises children’s “mindset” (the beliefs Children who think they can change their intelligence have a “growth she says. Those who believe they cannot do much to change mindset”, their have a to Ms Dweck, children “D” grades “fixed” one. According who adopt the first mindset quickly start to do better in tests. Teaching methods that draw on Ms work are now found in Dweck’s schools across Britain and America. The World Bank is running trials of the approach in countries such as Peru. One technique, for example, might see a pupil told to add the to their statements, as in do word “yet” “I can’t long-division—yet.” However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that interventions based on growth-mindset are less effective than their hype implies. The study suggests that the effects of interventions drawing on the idea have no effect on the typical and at best a small effect on those student’s outcomes of poorer students. Other psychologists have struggled to replicate Ms results. Dweck’s The idea that intelligence is highly malleable also jars with research on its heritability. Studies led by Robert Plomin of London King’s College suggest that roughly 50% of the variance in IQ scores is due to genetic differences. These findings do not dismiss the role of nurture; hard work and social background matter. But they undermine the idea that supreme intelligence can simply be willed into being. A broader approach to gifted education ensures that more children reach their potential. But the evidence suggests that, so long as they are open to everyone, IQ tests still have a vital role to play. To find lost Einsteins, you have to look for them.
expectations, complex problem-solving and cultivating meta-cognition (or “thinking about thinking”). Nearly every one of them went on to do much better on tests than similar peers. Some researchers go further. Carol Dweck of Stanford University emphasises children’s “mindset” (the beliefs they have about learning). Children who think they can change their intelligence have a “growth mindset”, she says. Those who believe they cannot do much to change their “D” grades have a “fixed” one. According to Ms Dweck, children who adopt the first mindset quickly start to do better in tests. Teaching methods that draw on Ms Dweck’s work are now found in schools across Britain and America. The World Bank is running trials of the approach in countries such as Peru. One technique, for example, might see a pupil told to add the word “yet” to their statements, as in “I can’t do long-division—yet.” However, a recent meta-analysis suggests that interventions based on growth-mindset are less effective than their hype implies. The study suggests that the effects of interventions drawing on the idea have no effect on the typical student’s outcomes and at best a small effect on those of poorer students. Other psychologists have struggled to replicate Ms Dweck’s results. The idea that intelligence is highly malleable also jars with research on its heritability. Studies led by Robert Plomin of King’s College London suggest that roughly 50% of the variance in IQ scores is due to genetic differences. These findings do not dismiss the role of nurture; hard work and social background matter. But they undermine the idea that supreme intelligence can simply be willed into being. A broader approach to gifted education ensures that more children reach their potential. But the evidence suggests that, so long as they are open to everyone, IQ tests still have a vital role to play. To find lost Einsteins, you have to look for them.
How%20and%20why%20to%20search%20for%20young%20Einsteins.docx