Month: January 2021

Dweck’s ideas of the Fixed and Growth Mindset have to do with the students’ want for more knowledge and change in their understanding of overcoming a problem. Dweck believes that when people are faced with a problem there are two ways to approach it. The first way is running away from the problem and not trying to find a way to solve the problem. This way of thinking does not try to find a solution to the problem, they simply run away from it once it gets hard. This kind of thinking is what Dweck calls the Fixed Mindset. The second way is when faced with the same problem, you find a way to solve it. These people are the one who think problems through a found way to solve the problem. This is the kind of thinking that Dweck calls the Growth Mindset. In the Lukianoff and Haidt article they talked about how the coddling of children by the parents, and even by society, is creating this close minded student and person. Where anything can set them off and make them upset. Dweck’s idea of a Fixed Mindset is very similar to the points Lukianoff and Haidt make about the “trigger warnings” people nowadays use wehn a hard conversation comes up. Lukianoff and Haidt’s topic of their article was people running away from hard conversations because they are scared of what the conversation will entail, similarly to Dweck’s ideas she stated in her TED Talk. 

In both Dweck’s TED Talk and in Lukianoff and Haidt’s article they talk about the issue of not being able to handle hard conversations and problems that are common in life. In Dweck’s Talk she talks about what goes through a person’s head when they are faced with a problem and  they have a fixed-mindset. When she is showing the audience the difference in the two types of mindsets, she says “On the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it” (around 01:51). What she is saying here is that students with this type of mindset don’t engage with a problem. They do not see the issue as a puzzle and aren’t trying to solve it. They are stuck in their ways and are not able to get past what they think they know. Similarly in Lukianoff and Haidt’s article they talk about people being very sheltered and not having hard conversations about things that are important in our lives. Lukianoff and Hadit talk about the hard conversations that we need to have in our life, about topics that are sensitive but also very crucial to parts of our history. “Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward” (Paragraph 58) this is a quote from the text, and they are talking about how these people are not the kind of people that society wants. They want someone who will see a problem and effectively address the issue and find ways toward a solution. The people that can have these hard conversations and are able to keep themselves composed, even if they don’t like the way the conversation is going and not say that this is triggering them, are the one that are going to go far in life. Because these people can see past their own selfishness and be able to be a contributing member of society. In both the TED Talk and “The Coddling” article, we see examples of students who have a fixed mindset. These students do not take the time to think outside of the box, and stop and realize that they are not the only ones who live in this world. 

Dweck talks about the difference between the two types of mindsets, “On the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it. But on the right, you have the students with the growth mindset, the idea that abilities can be developed. They engage deeply. Their brain is on fire with yet. They engage deeply. They process the error. They learn from it and they correct it”(around 01:51). She also compares the two of them after doing an experiment with the children, “‘Not Yet” also gave me insight into a critical event early in my career, a real turning point. I wanted to see how children coped with challenge and difficulty, so I gave 10-year-olds problems that were slightly too hard for them. Some of them reacted in a shockingly positive way. They said things like, “I love a challenge,” or, “You know, I was hoping this would be informative.” They understood that their abilities could be developed. They had what I call a growth mindset. But other students felt it was tragic, catastrophic. From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed. Instead of luxuriating in the power of yet, they were gripped in the tyranny of now” (around 00:35). These two quotes from Dweck’s Talk really speak to me when it comes to the conversation that Lukianoff and Hadit have in their article, “The Coddling”. In the last section of Lukianoff and Hadit’s article they talk about what we can do next, and what the next steps would be to create a society where everyone is not as scared. What Dweck talks about in her Talk may be what we do next. She shows, through studies and research, that people can evolve in their ideas and thinking. And if we as a society can start evolving our thinking from a less fixed approach into a more open mindset, we will be a better society as a whole. The problems that Lukianoff and Hadit talk about are stemmed from the fixed mindset, these people have never had issues in their lives because they just ran from the problems in their lives, but once it gets tough for them they cry about it being too hard. And with Dweck’s research we can change these people and their fixed mindsets into members of society who are able to approach a problem and fix it instead of cowering and running away. 

2. “These examples may seem extreme, but the reasoning behind them has become more commonplace on campus in recent years” (para. 26). Explain this reasoning in your own words and quote from the text in your response. Also, consider the claim critically. Do you agree? Why or why not? Give reasons!

There are many instances on campuses that have shown that people say things without thinking or caring about how people who hear them say this will feel about what they are staying. In the article the authors give the readers very detailed descriptions of events that have happened on campuses and how people say or do things without thinking about if their actions will hurt someone else. The article talks about several instances on campuses of people being racist or doing things that will be harmful for others. “In a particularly egregious 2008 case, for instance, Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis found a white student guilty of racial harassment for reading a book titled Notre Dame vs. the Klan. The book honored student opposition to the Ku Klux Klan when it marched on Notre Dame in 1924. Nonetheless, the picture of a Klan rally on the book’s cover offended at least one of the student’s co-workers (he was a janitor as well as a student), and that was enough for a guilty finding by the university’s Affirmative Action Office” (Paragraph 26) this is quote from the text which is an example of repercussions to a student because of their behaviour, even if they did not know that they were being offensive to another student. I agree with the quote from the text because these students need to know aht is right and what is wrong to have, or talk about, on campuses but I do not agree with their ideas to completely remove sensitive topics from the curriculum. Hard conversations need to be had and hardships that happened during our past need to be talked about as well. But if everyone is going to be “triggered” then those conversations are not going to be able to be had. We need to learn from past mistakes made and learn how to create a better future for ourselves and others. But that starts with having that difficult conversation. 

3.  What’s wrong with “fortune telling and trigger warnings” (para 31+). This question invites you to say what the authors think is wrong with them AND to think about it for yourself. It’s ok to disagree with the text – with reasons!

A fortune telling is “‘anticipat[ing] that things will turn out badly” and feeling “convinced that your prediction is an already-established fact’”( Paragraph 31) and trigger warnings are “alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response” (Paragraph 2). These are two words that are heard a lot on college campuses. They are what protects everyone from difficult conversations that could put them in a situation that they may not like. Many people do not think before they speak or act, they just do whatever they please and do not care if those actions are going to hurt someone that is around them. And as a society we do need to be more conscious of the things we do or say because they can hurt others very badly. But we are becoming a society of sheltered people with very thin skin, people who cannot have a conversation without saying that the other person is triggering them or saying something that is offensive to them. We have become a society of people who are soft. “Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward” (Paragraph 58) this is a quote from the text, talking about how if we continue to shield ourselves from real conversations and topics that make us uncomfortable, so that we can find easy ways to understand our past, we are going to have a generation of people who are not going to be able to handle those conversations. Situations that make us uncomfortable are not things we need to run from, we need to be able to have adult conversations about things and be able to learn from others through their experience. If we immediately say that something is “triggering” us, we are never going to be able to grow as a society. I do not agree with the disappearance of tough conversations in classes or on campuses. Those conversations are where you learn and learn about the hardships others have gone through in their lifetime. But if we hide from this conversation, we will never learn how to correct the behaviour of the past. 

1. The authors define (and italicize) the terms microaggressions and trigger warnings and offer a set of examples they think “border on the surreal.” they draw a distinction between what they term “political correctness” of the 1980s and 1990s and what they think is happening today. What, on their view, is that difference and why does it matter for education? What do you make of their ideas in the first section of the article? Be sure to quote from the text in your response. 

There is a significant difference between microaggression and trigger warnings. They have similar meaning.  but the way the word is used is different. In reference to “The Coddling” these words have been defined to describe life on campuses and ways students and educators talk to one another. The way they describe microaggressions in the text is, “Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless” (Paragraph 2). What this means is that microaggression is when you say something to someone without the intention of being harmful but the connotation of what you have said is hurtful to the person. Microaggression is not intended to to hurt someone’s feelings but it does while trigger warning is a bit different. In the text trigger warning is defined as, “Trigger warnings are alerts that professors are expected to issue if something in a course might cause a strong emotional response” (Paragraph 2). What this means is that a trigger warning is something that alerts an educator of something that may cause strong response or emotion to the people in their class. These two terms matter in education because they are things you need to look out for when you are teaching a group of students. Some things may rub students the wrong way, even if that was not your intention. The ideas they had in the first section about these two things, microaggression and trigger warnings, was to be a guide as to what will offend students and what will be the proper response when something of an offensive nature will come up in discussion. The author used examples and ideas that would be helpful to understand what could make a student upset and how to have an intellectual conversation without bringing up things that will be harmful to a student. 

2. Consider the second section of the article, “How Did We Get Here?” The authors offer a kind of historical/social diagnosis for what they see on campuses. Attempt a brief (2-3 sentence) summary of the section and draw a text-to-self connection to a specific passage (quote). You might agree or disagree with them in your connection- or both, if it seems appropriate. 

In the section of the text “How Did We Get Here?” the author talks about how the lifestyle of children has shifted over the years. Children used to roam around the streets and not be worried about the dangers in the world, but as these children grew up and started having children of their own the world seemed like a more dangerous place. These kids have grown up their entire life being told that someone will protect them their entire lives, and this is creating a more codependent on someone else. I think this fear that is instilled in children is something that is seen in many places today, not just on college campuses. For me personally, I am very scared to go out alone when it’s dark outside, or to go anywhere without a buddy when it’s late. In the text, it talks about the difference in children’s childhoods over the last few decades, “Childhood itself has changed greatly during the past generation. Many Baby Boomers and Gen Xers can remember riding their bicycles around their hometowns, unchaperoned by adults, by the time they were 8 or 9 years old. In the hours after school, kids were expected to occupy themselves, getting into minor scrapes and learning from their experiences. But “free range” childhood became less common in the 1980s. The surge in crime from the ’60s through the early ’90s made Baby Boomer parents more protective than their own parents had been” (Paragraph 9). This shows the fear that has been instilled in children and their parents. There are many scary people in this world, but we also need to realize that not everyone is out to hurt us. I agree we need to be cautious, i am cautious when i am out and about, but we do also need to realize that we cannot live in a bubble forever. We need to be able to get out and explore the world without this fear of being kidnapped or hurt. 

3. How might Dweck’s ideas about a “fixed mindset” (or a “growth mindset” if you prefer) relate to ideas in the first three sections of “The Coddling…”? In your response, be sure to quote from both texts and EXPLAIN the relationship you see. 

Dweck’s idea of a fixed mindset is that these are students who run from problems and don’t try to solve a problem that they are facing, “On the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it” (around 01:51). She believes that these students don’t have the understanding to engage with problems and find different ways to solve the problem. In this text the authors are talking about how these students on college campuses are not adapted to living with problems, they have been coddling their entire lives and any small thing will set them off. “The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (Paragraph 5) this is a piece from “The Coddling” that shows that adults are shielding these young adults from offensive words or situations. While it is good to protect everyone from some things you cannot shield them from every thing in the world that may upset them. This is a fixed mindset approach because these students are running away from confrontation and things that make them uncomfortable because they do not have the technique to face the problem. Dweck’s idea of this fixed mindset is very prominent with current students when it comes to social interactions because they don’t know how to have a civilized conversation with one another. 

1. Dweck offers two key terms, Growth Mindset and Fixed Mindset. Explain these two concepts. Use a Dweck quote for each part of your explanation. Be sure to offer your explanation in a way that a friend might understand it. 

A Growth Mindset is when your intellectual abilities are able to grow and expand.  Dweck describes it as “They understood that their abilities could be developed. They had what I call a growth mindset” (around 00:35). This mindset is a way for the student to be able to enhance their way of thinking and understanding of material put out in front of them. Dweck also says “But on the right, you have the students with the growth mindset, the idea that abilities can be developed. They engage deeply. Their brain is on fire with yet. They engage deeply. They process the error. They learn from it and they correct it” (around 01:51). She is showing that students with this type of mindset are more willing to learn and to expand their knowledge and intellect.  While a Fixed Mindset is when you don’t put in the effort to expand your knowledge. These types of students are fixed in their one way of thinking and don’t put in the effort to grow their understanding. Dweck described this mindset as “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed. Instead of luxuriating in the power of yet, they were gripped in the tyranny of now” (around 00:35). What she is saying here is that they are focused only on what they know at this moment in time and  aren’t looking for ways to expand their knowledge and understanding. Dweck also says “On the left, you see the fixed-mindset students. There’s hardly any activity. They run from the error. They don’t engage with it” (around 01:51). What she is saying here is that these types of students when they are faced with a problem they don’t look for ways to fix it, they are stuck in their current ways and don’t have the type of understanding to fix the problem.

2. Dweck names at least two ways to stimulate a Growth Mindset or to building a “bridge to yet” (3:53). What are they? Use a quote for each and offer a response. Do these seem reasonable? Does something about them bother you? Why?

Two ways to stimulate a Growth Mindset are to praise the students, but not praising them on their intelligence or their talent, and reward their effort, strategy and progress. In Dweck’s talk she says “First of all, we can praise wisely, not praising intelligence or talent. That has failed. Don’t do that anymore. But praising the process that kids engage in, their effort, their strategies, their focus, their perseverance, their improvement. This process praise creates kids who are hardy and resilient” (around 04:00). This is one way to stimulate the Growth Mindset, it shows that the educators are seeing the progress in their work and making the student feel empowered by what they are doing and so that they continue with this type of thinking. For her second point, Dweck says “There are other ways to reward yet. We recently teamed up with game scientists from the University of Washington to create a new online math game that rewarded yet. In this game, students were rewarded for effort, strategy and progress. The usual math game rewards you for getting answers right, right now, but this game rewarded process. And we got more effort, more strategies, more engagement over longer periods of time, and more perseverance when they hit really, really hard problems” (around 04:30). This is for her second idea, the reward for their effort, strategy and progress. This is that we give the students a reward for this different type of thinking so that they will continue to do it. Both of these ways to stimulate this mindset are very important, they are showing the students that the educators do care about them and the growth of their knowledge. These are both very reasonable ways to encourage a growth of learning. I agree with both of these ways to stimulate learning, if I had this kind of reassurance and care from some of my past teachers I would not have had such a hard time expanding my knowledge and ways to obtain this knowledge.

3. Intelligence. Dweck’s ideas may suggest a notion of intelligence or smarts that is different from what many might think about when considering intelligence. How do you see her model of intelligence? Explain with evidence from the text.

Dweck’s idea of intelligence is more based on growth and understanding than getting A’s. She is more concerned with the students understanding the information and creating more ways for them to think at a higher level, without the pressure of getting the highest grades in the class. Dweck is for praise and reward for the students grasping a higher understanding of the material instead of rote memorization and then spitting the facts out onto a piece of paper when test time comes. She created games and problems that made the students think harder and challenge them. This process she has created and used will create better students, than the ones who just memorize. She wants to create a real contributing group of students into society that will be able to actually think for themselves.

4. Write about a fixed mindset moment in your own learning history. If you have one from your reading and writing experience, consider using it as an example. Explain how that moment worked out for you. Be sure to offer enough detail for a reader to grasp the situation, your approach/experience, and the outcome. (We all have them at some point!) Make sure to explicitly link your experience to a specific idea (or ideas) in Dweck’s talk. You’ll be making what we call a “text to self” connection here.

I have had a few experiences of a fixed mindset moment in my schooling career. Never has it been in a reading/writing class because those classes I used were ways to get a better understanding of the text I was reading and working with. My fixed mindset moment happened a lot in Geometry in my eight grade year. I had a teacher that just wanted us to memorize and spit out the information but I wasn’t getting it. I thought I was doing it right but my test scores proved otherwise. I was stuck on this wrong way to complete the problem, and because of this I had to take the course again my freshman year of high school because I just could not grasp the ideas. But then I sat down with my high school teacher who pushed me and was trying her best to teach me the correct ways. And once I let go of the mentality  “I just can’t do this class i’m not smart enough to do this,” I was able to grasp the concept. When Dweck talks about the students who ran away from the problems and wouldn’t try to find ways around the problem or ways to solve a problem in this fixed mindset, that was me in this course. I was running away from the problem and wasn’t trying to do better for myself. But once I sat down with a teacher and worked through my issues, and she praised me for starting it the right way and following the steps, the way Dweck talked about, I was able to truly understand what I was doing.