Research into how children view themselves as learners, using Carol
Dweck’s Self-Theories: promoting challenge and independent learning
across KS2 & KS3 in North Tyneside Education Action Zone.
Gerry Miller – EAZ Consultant
I first came across Carol Dweck’s work on learners’ Self-Theories in November 2000.
Dylan Wiliam was making a presentation on his research on Formative Assessment,
“Inside the Black Box” and he used two mindmap slides* (see below Figs 1 & 2) to
illustrate how children’s motivation to learn is strongly influenced by whether they
have the incremental or the entity theory of ability.
Self-Theories
Entity v Incremental
I believe that intelligence is
not fixed
My intelligence can be
improved through learning
I thrive on challenge
I throw myself into difficult
tasks
I am self-confident
Incremental
I can ignore the low
aspirations of my
peers
(Mastery Oriented)
I react to failure by
trying harder
I engage in selfmonitoring
I have learning goals
I like feedback on my
performance so I can
improve
About 40% of US students hold an incremental theory of ability
Fig 1
1
Self-Theories
Entity v Incremental
I don’t like challenge
I don’t want to risk looking
stupid
I am vulnerable
I believe that intelligence is
fixed
I was born bright/not very
bright
Entity
I tend to conform to
the low aspirations of
my peers
(Helpless)
I like easy performance
goals and being told I’ve
done well
I react to failure by
switching off and
avoiding the issues
About 40% of US students hold an entity theory of ability
Fig 2
I immediately recognized certain traits, such as avoidance of challenge, liking reward
for easy performance goals and reacting to failure by switching off, as constant
barriers to learning amongst my own students. The danger of praising easy
performance goals also made me think about the pitfalls of using differentiation in a
simplistic manner. I therefore began to encourage the incremental view in my
students, which complemented our work on developing Formative Assessment.
For the last two years I have worked as consultant to the North Tyneside Education
Action Zone. One of our Action Plan targets is to improve KS2-KS3 transition
through consistent use of Assessment for Learning in Primary & High Schools. When
I read Carol Dweck’s book, “Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and
Development” in July 2006, I decided to use Carol’s questionnaires to assess our
students’ self-theories. I also wanted to raise awareness of Carol’s research amongst
teachers in the EAZ, as I felt that this would complement our efforts to embed
Assessment for Learning.
Carol Dweck’s Research
Carol Dweck has been carrying out research in psychology over the last 30 years in
the United States. She is particularly interested in how students view themselves as
learners and she has found that their self-theory is likely to have a major effect on
2
their self-belief and their motivation to learn. Carol describes the hallmark of
successful individuals as that “they love learning, they value effort and they persist
in the face of obstacles”. Having struggled for many years to motivate students who
have little self-belief, lack resilience and give up very easily, I was immediately
interested in finding out how to promote this “can-do” mindset.
In the first chapter of her book Carol quickly dismantles four widely-held beliefs
about ability, success, praise and confidence.
1. The belief that students with high ability are more likely to display “mastery
oriented” qualities
“You might think that students who were highly skilled would be the ones to
relish a challenge and persevere in the face of setbacks. Instead, many of these
students are the most worried about failure, and the most likely to question their
ability and to wilt when they hit obstacles”
(Leggett, 1985)
Recent target-setting systems and the identification of “Gifted & Talented” students
place increasing pressures and demands on higher ability students. Yet many of these
students do not respond positively to these extra challenges. Carol Dweck explains
why this tends to happen.
2. The belief that success in school directly fosters mastery-oriented qualities
“You might also think that when students succeed, they are emboldened and
energized to seek out more challenging tasks. The truth is that success in itself
does little to boost students’ desire for challenge or their ability to cope with
setbacks. In fact we can see that it can have quite the opposite effect.”
(Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980)
As teachers we often seem to get locked into a spiral of ensuring our students are
successful by giving them differentiated or “easy” tasks and giving them excessive
praise for completing them. This often creates a “dependency culture” where some
students expect to have easy tasks or help readily available in all their activities. This
false success does nothing to help students when they face a more challenging task –
quite the reverse.
3. The belief that praise, particularly praising a student’s intelligence,
encourages mastery-oriented qualities
This is a most cherished belief in our society. One can hardly walk down the
street without hearing parents telling their children how smart they are. The
hope is that such praise will instil confidence and thereby promote a host of
desirable qualities. Far from promoting the hoped for qualities, this type of
praise can lead students to fear failure, avoid risks, doubt themselves when they
fail and cope poorly with setbacks.
(Mueller & Dweck, 1998)
In the 1990s we were encouraged to praise students at every opportunity, in the belief
that this would spur students on to achieve further success. We now know that praise
on its own does not raise achievement and that praising students’ intelligence can
actually encourage them to stick to easy tasks that will make them look smart,
3
because if they take on a more challenging task and experience difficulties, their selfimage as a “bright” student may be shattered.
4. The belief that students’ confidence in their intelligence is the key to masteryoriented qualities
In a way, it seems only logical to assume that students who have confidence in
their intelligence – who clearly believe they are smart – would have nothing to
fear from challenge and would be somehow inoculated against the ravages of
failure. But many of the most confident individuals do not want their intelligence
too stringently tested, and their high confidence is all too quickly shaken when
they are confronted with difficulty.
(Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Dweck & Lin, 1998)
Students who are confident through regular success in the safe environment of a
primary classroom, may suffer a rapid reappraisal of their intelligence when
confronted with a wide variety of teaching methods at secondary school.
Carol Dweck goes on to explain how her research has shown that incremental (or
“mastery-oriented”) learners can focus on the idea that everyone, with effort and
guidance, can increase their intellectual abilities. They are also less concerned with
looking smart than with learning something new and, even if they have low
confidence in their intelligence, they can throw themselves whole-heartedly into
difficult tasks – and stick with them! She also explains that self-esteem for entity
learners can be boosted in the short term by easy success – but does not last and is just
as easily diminished by failure.
How failure can motivate … or undermine self-esteem
Carol Dweck analyses how failure can motivate incremental learners to try harder, but
can undermine entity learners, destroying their fragile self-belief. In one study Y5 &
Y6 students were given a series of conceptual problems to solve. All children could
solve the first eight problems, with hints or training if needed. They could not solve
the next four problems as these were too difficult for their age. What happened to
their thoughts, feelings and actions when confronted with this failure?
Entity Learners quickly began to denigrate their abilities and blame their intelligence
for failures (“I’m no good at this”). Moments before they had been successful and
their performance was just as good as Incremental Learners. Following failure, many
now thought they could not solve the problems they had just got right! They also
thought they had got more problems wrong than right! (in fact they had got twice as
many right). Each unsuccessful effort seemed to undermine their self-worth and their
fragile self-belief quickly disappeared.
Incremental Learners, on the other hand, did not blame their intelligence for failure, in
fact most did not even see themselves as failing! They tended to issue instructions to
themselves on how to improve performance (eg “I should try to slow down and figure
this out”)
4
They also remained confident that they would succeed and retained the positive mood
that they had shown while solving the easier problems. Crucially they did not see
mistakes or failure as an indictment of themselves and they retained their self-belief in
the face of difficulty.
Why entity learners experience a dip in achievement following transition from
one phase to another
We are all aware of the commonly found dip in achievement at Year 7.
Carol Dweck shows that it is entity learners whose achievement tends to dip most
following transition from one phase of education to another. For example, she found
that a group of students from ethnic minority groups, who had been amongst the
highest achievers at High School, experienced a crisis of confidence when they started
university, not because the work was too difficult, but because they were unable to
cope with the fact that they were no longer the highest achieving students. In fact she
found that the drop-out rate was higher amongst those with the highest ability.
In another study, Carol’s researchers examined what happened to a group of students
after transition to High School. She found that many of the entity learners showed a
marked decline in their class standing. Those who had done poorly in Y6 tended to
continue to do poorly. Many who had been high achievers in Y6 were now among the
lower achievers. Many who showed this decline had held high confidence in their
intelligence. She also found that entity learners were significantly more apprehensive
about their school work and tended to be more anxious about school in general. They
did show some recovery in their standing in Y8 but were still clearly below where
they had been in Primary School. Amongst the incremental learners, on the other
hand, many showed a clear improvement in their class standing. Those who had done
well in Y6 continued to do well. Many of those who had been among the lower
achievers in Y6 were now doing much better, often entering the ranks of higher
achievers and many of those making the most impressive gains were those with low
confidence in their intelligence.
(Henderson & Dweck 1990)
Assessing pupils’ self-theories using Carol Dweck’s Questionnaires
So far we have assessed 547 pupils (mostly Y6 and a few Y5) in EAZ Primary
Schools using two different questionnaires. The first one assesses the child’s implicit
theory of intelligence (whether they see intelligence as fixed or as something that can
be improved through learning). The second assesses the child’s task choice (given a
choice, would they choose to work on problems that they will learn a lot from? – Or
would they prefer an easy task that will make them look smart?).
In our sample found that there was a below average percentage of incremental
learners on intelligence theory (Fig 3), but a higher percentage on task-choice goal
measure (Fig 4). Results in different schools varied considerably and some schools
5
with a particularly low percentage of incremental learners were very keen to start
challenging this view with their pupils.
Carol Dweck tells us that she has found a mild (0.3) correlation between the two
measures. We suspect that the more positive results on the task-choice test are due to
the fact that most of our schools positively promote the idea that difficult work is
good for you. “If its hard it means you are learning” is a message regularly seen
displayed on classroom walls. The fixed view of intelligence, on the other hand, is
likely to be reinforced from a young age, both at home and at school (eg through
setting and grouping by ability).
EAZ Self-Theories Survey
Intelligence Theory
50
40
EAZ average
20
USA average
%
30
10
0
Incremental
Borderline
Entity
Fig 3
EAZ Self-Theories Survey
Task Choice
70
60
%
50
40
EAZ average
30
USA average
20
10
0
Incremental
Entity
Fig 4
6
All the teachers were interested in the results of the survey, sometimes finding that the
children’s self-theories confirmed their view of individual pupils, but sometimes
being surprised by them. The general consensus was that the positive attitudes to
learning of the incremental learner were attributes that we wanted to encourage as part
of the “collaborative classroom environment” that is key to good formative
assessment.
How to encourage the incremental learner mindset – strategies for teachers to
use with pupils
1. Use the mindmap slides (*Figs 1 & 2 above) on your white board to
stimulate discussion with children on what it means to be an Entity Learner
and an Incremental Learner.
2. Explain how the view on intelligence has changed over the last 10 years –
many people used to think it was fixed, but most educationists now see it as
something than can be changed through learning.
3. Discuss the importance of challenge and having a go at difficult tasks – we
shouldn’t be afraid to get things wrong because that’s how we learn. If work is
easy it means we are not learning – if it’s hard we need to keep trying as that is
how we learn.
4. Role Models:
Discuss role models with children of people who have achieved success
through hard work. Children often equate success with innate ability rather
than hard work and imagine that clever or skilful people can be successful
without working hard.
Eg Alan Shearer –was not considered one of the most skilful players in
Southampton junior teams, but very hard-working, determined and focused –
believed he would succeed and was prepared to put the effort in to get there.
5. Discuss possible pressures on us not to work hard. Some people think it is
“cool” not to work hard. These people are unlikely to achieve much. “Swot” is
a four letter word!
6. Resilience:
Many children want to give up when the work gets hard or want the teacher or
TA to come and help them as soon as they get stuck. The more they can learn
to use a variety of strategies to overcome difficulties without help from an
adult, the more they are likely to succeed in more difficult tasks as they get
older.
7. When we move up to High School it will help if we are incremental learners
because:
 We will probably find some subjects harder than others. It is important
that we don’t give up when we find it hard.
 We will be out of the “comfort zone” of our primary classroom – this
is when Entity Learners sometimes struggle.
 We will have lots of different teachers – we want to show them that we
are willing to have a go and that we don’t need an adult to help us
whenever the work gets difficult.
7
At a recent EAZ Network meeting, Angi Gibson, Y6 teacher at New York Primary
School, North Shields, described how she had made the “incremental learner”
mindset a key part of her positive classroom climate this year. Angi and staff at
the school are determined to raise the aspirations of their pupils, many of whom do
not see themselves as being achievers at school or later in the world of work. In
addition to the strategies listed above, Angi has a large display of the incremental
learner mindmap on the wall of her classroom, which all her pupils understand and
can relate to their learning (see fig 5). Her pupils can explain why it is important to be
an incremental learner in Miss Gibson’s class and they can see the links between this
attitude and achieving success in the classroom. When asked to comment on being an
incremental learner, one of Angi’s pupils wrote recently:
“Being an incremental learner means the world to me because it means I can work on
challenges without struggling… I believe my brain isn’t fixed, it fills the more I
learn”.
In order to reinforce the importance of resilience and sticking at a task, even when it
seems hard, Angi Gibson gives an award to the “Self-Sufficiency Student of the
Day”. The children are involved in choosing a student who has shown the ability to
solve a problem on their own or has kept going with work they found difficult. The
class have taken ownership of this award to such an extent that when Angi was away
recently and Lesley Colthart, the Headteacher, was taking the class, they said to her
near the end of the lesson: “Miss, we haven’t awarded the Self-Sufficiency Student of
the Day yet!” They then proceeded to explain what this meant and make a joint
decision on who should get the award. These children were really in tune with their
learning and actively involved in the collaborative classroom climate that is so
important to build motivation and self-esteem. Surely this is much more constructive
than rewarding a child who has got all the answers right on a relatively easy piece of
work with a gold star?
I returned to retest the self-theories in Angi Gibson’s class three months later.
Whereas on the first occasion the class had included a majority of entity learners,
when I returned there was a very high percentage of incremental learners (see Fig 6).
It is probably not surprising that pupils’ attitudes have changed, when the teacher has
made the incremental mindset a key focus of her classroom practice, but the results do
show that it is possible for a teacher or a school to bring about a change in attitude in
pupils. Presumably the longer this environment is maintained as the child progresses
through primary and secondary education, the more embedded the attitude will
become and the more likely he/she will be to make progress and ignore the low
aspirations of peers.
8
Fig 5
New York PS Y6 Self-Theories
90
80
70
%
60
50
Original test Sept 06
Retest Jan 07
40
30
20
10
0
Incremental
Borderline
Entity
Fig 6
9
Promoting the incremental learner mindset in KS3
Our next challenge is to follow up this work in the High Schools. If KS3 teachers
don’t value the incremental mindset, students’ positive attitudes to learning will soon
be lost, especially if rigid banding or setting reinforces the entity mindset. In one of
the EAZ Secondary schools, Norham College, the Science Department have used
Carol Dweck’s ideas as a focus for their mission statement, which is prominently
displayed in classrooms (see fig 7).
Science Department - Mission Statement
•
We believe that all students should recognise their ability as something that
can be improved through learning.

We strive to ensure that all students become active participants in learning,
with a clear understanding of where they are, where they are going and how
they are going to get there.

In Science we are all incremental learners (banner for display in corridors etc)
Fig 7
In 2007-2008 we are planning to track the present Y6 pupils as they progress through
Y7 to see whether the entity learners’ achievement suffers in the same way as those
featured in Carol Dweck’s research in the USA. On a more positive note, we are
hoping that the more embedded the incremental mindset becomes, the less likely
some of our students will be to “switch off” as they progress through secondary
education.
References:
Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development
By Carol S. Dweck (Psychology Press 2000)
Mindset by Carol S. Dweck
Inside the Black Box by Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam (King’s College, London,
1998)
Gerry Miller
Education Action Zone Consultant
North Tyneside EiC
Gerry.miller@northtyneside.gov.uk
10