In Is Math a Gift? by Carol S Dwight, she mainly emphasizes on the results of optimistic versus pessimistic thinking. Unlike Valian, Dweck goes more into depth of the effects of entity and incremental thinking. For those of you who may have forgotten, the difference between entity and incremental perspective is that entity thinkers believe traits are static while incremental thinkers believe a trait is malleable. Dweck goes through a series of tests to show how people who thought talents were innate did worse on tests than people who thought of talent as something that could improve through effort. She found that viewing intellectual ability as something that could be improved led to more successful test scores and outcomes for females. While females who saw a trait as a gift, performed worse. Overall the author uses multiple tests to prove the negative outcome of entity thinking and the positive benefits of incremental thinking. She did prove a lot of points; however, there seemed to be a sign of questionable data and drawbacks to some of her tests, as I will later point out. In this blog, I will be talking about how Dwight brings up the drawbacks of limiting talent as a “gift,” explain how she offers a solution to help influence more women to be a greater part of STEM, and enlighten you with my own perspective on this chapter.

Dweck’s whole research on the benefits of incremental theory first started when a test was done that showed many females performing worse than males when faced with a difficult challenge. In this test, a group of students were assigned to learn a new task. Half of them were given confusing material near the beginning and the brighter girls performed terribly while the boys did not seem to face much trouble at all. Why is there such a drastic difference between the boys and girls? The shocking fact is that material given to these students was not even about STEM. Hence, Kimura’s reasoning for cognitive abilities would not be an acceptable claim. Overall this test was done to view the performance of females under difficult situations and showed that even the brightest in the group had trouble. Now, you’re probably thinking this test just proved a worse point about a female’s ability. It puts females at more of a disadvantage because it comes to show how incapable they would be even in math and science careers when faced with challenging problems. However, Dweck makes an excellent point and states that this outcome isn’t due to a stigma, but rather due to a psychological basis, which could lead to more vulnerability.

What is this psychological basis and vulnerability talk about? Dweck argues that having an incremental or entity perspective has a huge impact on a female’s performance. A female who is more of a pessimistic thinker is more susceptible to vulnerability. In order to support her hypothesis, Dweck did a research in Columbia University that focused on female and male premed Chemistry students. This course is known for being challenging and was also a determinant factor of who would continue to pursue their careers in the medical field. The results showed a shocking outcome. Dweck states, “When we looked at students who believed that intellectual ability could be expanded, the gap was almost gone” (49). The incremental thinkers proved to be successful unlike the entity students who performed worse. The research showed a chain reaction for the females that failed to perform well. Vulnerable female students who saw an ability as fixed caused them to do worse when hit with challenges because that showed they were not capable of the subject, which led them to realize they didn’t have a gift. Thus, leading to a lack of interest. Dweck found that this negative outlook also led to females being more vulnerable to stereotypes. Dweck then performs another test that showed similar results. Females from Columbia were watched over as they took a calculus course. Those surrounded by negative stereotype led to more women who thought math was innate. Which led them to not want a career in the math field. There is a common pattern of problem that arises. So, is there a solution to this problem? Can all females be taught to think in a more positive outlook?

There is indeed a solution. However, a step to definitely avoid is praising a female as stated by Dweck. By praising an individual, this leads that individual to increase his or her ego, making them aware of their “gift.” This leads them to become reluctant to take on challenges. This individual then finds the inability to successfully complete a task due to a lack of “gift.” This chain reaction eventually leads a female to think she is not capable of having a career in the STEM field. Now, the real answer to this solution is being taught the right way. One should be taught in a way that allows students to understand knowledge could grow and that it is not static. Dweck supports this argument by using research from a test that was done on Junior High students. The control group was not taught about “expandable nature of intellectual skills” (51). The group that was taught of growing ability eventually ended up performing higher on math grades than the control group. Dweck uses another test that showed similar results. She concludes her data and research by stating “Thus, it is clear that the messages we send in educational settings really matter, and that through our messages we can help female students perform up to their potential” (52). She concludes her reasoning that entity and incremental thinking is influenced mainly by how students are taught. Education should be changed in a way that influences children to realize knowledge is attained through trial and error, so it is okay to face difficulties.

As a society we tend to simply accept claims such as there being such thing as natural talent. I think that the existing gender schemas and stereotypes that we are constantly surrounded in influences us to be subconsciously aware of a female’s incapability in STEM. This whole idea of incremental and entity thinking connects with Valian’s points. Gender schema influences the mindset of people. Both point out that education should be something that should be fixed in a way that helps retain girls through the method of “growing ability”. I feel like if we combined both Valian’s and Dweck’s data, there could be a more strong set of data that supports this idea that women are just as capable as men. Overall in chapter three, Dweck makes great points through thorough support and similar data. Even in an article called Research debunks the myths about cognitive differences, through thorough research scientists found that “social context plays a significant role” in the outcome of aptitude tests. Women who were told that a previous math test had a wide gender difference hurt their math scores even though these women had a strong background in math. Although there is other data that helps support Dweck’s data, it would have been more effective to have males in the data as well. She should have explained why entity and incremental thinking did not affect men. I don’t think Dweck really got into depth on why males were unaffected and why they still performed better. I feel when being given data, tests should be done on both male and female. It would have been better to compare incremental females to incremental males or even entity males. The chapter was a little biased and leaning more towards supporting this idea of the benefits of incremental thinking. But, overall I agree with Dweck and I thought that her research supported every bit of her hypothesis. One main reason why I also support the idea of growing ability is because through my own personal experience I found that having an entity perspective led me to perform worse on math tests. After I began to change my mindset and I was praised for my improved test scores, I failed again because I was convinced that my performance was due to an innate ability. However, after changing my perspective again, I am able to perform well through constant effort. Although there were drawbacks, I still agree to the fact that people should be taught to think in a more positive perspective.

Sources

Why Aren’t More Women in Math and Science by Ceci and Williams

http://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/share.aspx