Slashdot Mirror
Huge Study Finds Professors' Attitudes Affect Students' Grades (arstechnica.com)
A huge study at Indiana University, led by Elizabeth Canning, finds that the attitudes of instructors affect the grades their students earned in classes. The researchers conducted their study by sending out a simple survey to all the instructors of STEM courses at Indiana University, asking whether professors felt that a student's intelligence is fixed and unchanging or whether they thought it could be developed. Then, the researchers were given access to two years' worth of students' grades in those instructors' classes, covering a total of 15,000 students. Ars Technica reports: The results showed a surprising difference between the professors who agreed that intelligence is fixed and those who disagreed (referred to as "fixed mindset" and "growth mindset" professors). In classes taught by fixed mindset instructors, Latino, African-American, and Native American students averaged grades 0.19 grade points (out of four) lower than white and Asian-American students. But in classes taught by "growth mindset" instructors, the gap dropped to just 0.10 grade points. No other factor the researchers analyzed showed a statistically significant difference among classes -- not the instructors' experience, tenure status, gender, specific department, or even ethnicity. Yet their belief about whether a students' intelligence is fixed seems to have had a sizable effect.
The students' course evaluations contain possible clues. Students reported less "motivation to do their best work" in the classes taught by fixed mindset professors, and they also gave lower ratings for a question about whether their professor "emphasize[d] learning and development." Students were less likely to say they'd recommend the professor to others, as well. Is it possible that the fixed mindset professors just happen to teach the hardest classes? The student evaluations also include a question about how much time the course required -- the average answer was slightly higher for fixed mindset professors, but the difference was not statistically significant. Instead, the researchers think the data suggests that -- in any number of small ways -- instructors who think their students' intelligence is fixed don't keep their students as motivated, and perhaps don't focus as much on teaching techniques that can encourage growth. And while this affects all students, it seems to have an extra impact on underrepresented minority students.
The students' course evaluations contain possible clues. Students reported less "motivation to do their best work" in the classes taught by fixed mindset professors, and they also gave lower ratings for a question about whether their professor "emphasize[d] learning and development." Students were less likely to say they'd recommend the professor to others, as well. Is it possible that the fixed mindset professors just happen to teach the hardest classes? The student evaluations also include a question about how much time the course required -- the average answer was slightly higher for fixed mindset professors, but the difference was not statistically significant. Instead, the researchers think the data suggests that -- in any number of small ways -- instructors who think their students' intelligence is fixed don't keep their students as motivated, and perhaps don't focus as much on teaching techniques that can encourage growth. And while this affects all students, it seems to have an extra impact on underrepresented minority students.
I've taught logic in graduate school. The worst thing you can do as a teacher is determine that smartness is baked in. The best thing you can do is assume every student is a budding Einstein if you could just help them along a bit to discover how to learn. By the way, Einstein was no Einstein in school, and not really a very good mathematician.
Jeezus, I hope you never get near students.
In the social sciences, by graduate school most of the high IQ demo is already out.
Think about who likes to live in echo chambers? It isn't the smart ones.
Shouldn't they have learned logic before grad school? Sounds like * studies to me.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Prove to me that is not because one set of professors actually gives fair grades, while the other artificially inflated them....
Exactly that! If you look at the graph comparing grades, you will see that the "fixed mindsets" generally gave lower grades. This could be interpreted as being more demanding or rigorous and not inflating the grades. With more rigorous testing you will get a bigger difference between higher and lower performing students, because the grades will be spread over larger interval (reflected by the larger error margins in their data).
If the authors of the article want me to believe them, I want to see the grades that the students taught by the "open mindset" professors will get when they are tested by the "fixed mindset" professors. Also, subject all students to a test that is implemented by a third party and see if the "open" vs "fixed" differences remain the same. Not too hard experiments to do, are they? I have a very "fixed mindset" when it comes to experimental proof vs. wishful thinking.
PS. The authors have not controlled for family income, which is known to correlate with learning performance: richer kids go to better schools and are more prepared when they get to the university.
If I can get serious for just a moment, I believed that coming from a place of love and respect made for better student outcomes. I didn't teach STEM or anything, but I was considered a hard grader and expected a fair amount from students (especially grad students). When I was just a newly-minted lecturer, back in the '80s, I had a colleague tell me that it's important to be invested in the success of your students. You're not just pumping gas. That always stuck with me.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I find it odd that the "growth mindset" instructors didn't have an equal effect on all students. Perhaps they were cutting Latino, African-American, and Native American students a break. Or maybe they made more of an effort to help them because they are minority students. It wouldn't surprise me if it was some of both.
Did anyone review the actual coursework to determine which set of professors were grading more fairly?
They could have both graded fairly. According to the summary, the students felt less motivated and didn't work as hard in the "fixed-mindset" classes. So they may have gotten worse grades because they failed to learn as much and actually deserved worse grades.
I got my BA in '81 or so.
Teachers that took attendance every day and docked you for absences tended to be the teachers who's handouts were copies of copies of copies of 20 year old crap. Not to mention the lectures were useless. Best plan was to find out when the tests and quizzes were and what they covered, and skipped class. But skipping class cost you big time.
Teachers who's lectures were not to be missed. Fark the tests and quizzes, if you wanted to understand the subject you went to the lectures.
Goes without saying the first group of teachers had tenure and didn't care, the second group did not have tenure and did care.
YMMV, there was variation in mine.
The story is all so nice and neat, but a lot of is back-fitted crap, like the stuff about bells.
School was often taught in Churches, they were already using the Church bells for whatever events happened at the school. Later, electricity made bells easy to install everywhere. It is a basic aid for group activities, used by nearly every type of human activity. The only reason to connect it to factory bells is when you're just making up history as imagined by a popular narrative.
More real was that basic education was seen as being needed so that workers grow up able to read instructions, and weigh, measure, and time things. But there was never really a gap where it wasn't understood that a well-rounded education was more effective even at teaching to weigh and measure. That was always understood. It is simply that the schools were being provisioned from different sources of money than the traditional upper class education; a teacher who can read and write is enough when you want to save money. And some of them will be good anyways, so you'll end up with lots of educated workers.
Even now with all the access to information it is difficult to get people to separate what they imagine from what they know. They don't bother to think about, "if I was hired as a school teacher in that era, what instructions would I be given?" Where does the conspiracy to condition children to bells come from? How would the instruction be given? How would a teacher who had to purchase supplies out of the budget for their pay know that they were required to purchase the bell? Or would they only buy it because it was a major convenience for them? Is it possible that the rich kids didn't have bells, because they had private tutors and it didn't serve any purpose?
In Merry Olde England, when the peasants were gathered around the square waiting for alms, (a free cup of soup and a beer, basically) did the church ring the bell to tell them it was time? Did pre-industrial American farm kids come running when a dinner bell was rung? Can you imagine living on a farm with people spread out all over the place and not being used to banging on a noise-maker at dinner time?!
Did anyone review the actual coursework to determine which set of professors were grading more fairly?
They could have both graded fairly. According to the summary, the students felt less motivated and didn't work as hard in the "fixed-mindset" classes. So they may have gotten worse grades because they failed to learn as much and actually deserved worse grades.
The importance of teachers and parents on student achievement, independent of a student's supposed intrinsic intelligence, is confirmed by a whole generation of education research. Education researchers are not common on Slashdot, but my wife was one, after being a math teacher and has a PhD in mathematics education. One trick she pulled while doing research in a central Oregon reservation was to stand in for a pregnant teacher for a term (she was there and still had her teaching license, so why not?). The class which for all time had hit a 100% failure fate (to pass standardized exams), magically attained a 100% pass rate for that term and fell back to a 100% fail rate after she left.
Pedagogy research has been done. The results tell how teaching should happen. If you know the research and apply the conclusions, students will succeed. A problem is that this is consistently not done in most schools. Schools still get bogged down in stupid stuff like ability tracking and age delineation. They clearly are broadly ignorant of the results of education research.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
If memory serves there is the opposite effect, i.e. you can stunt the growth of someone if you act as if they are "lost cause".
Teacher should be aware of those and be carefully not to let the talented become lazy or the less talented to give up...
Here is the full article: STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes
Being a teacher, this kind of thing is important to me. And this article irritates me, because I think they get things exactly backwards. The article specifically examines the performance of two groups of students: white/asian vs. black/latino/native-american. The latter group is implicitly assumed to be disadvantaged by the fact that their average, group intelligence is lower than the first group. The hypothesis being that, if your teacher thinks you're less intelligent, you will do more poorly in class that you should.
Interestingly: the article states that there was no discernable grouping amongst the teachers. Teachers and their beliefs were evenly distributed across all ethnicities, genders, ages, etc.. So this isn't a claim of racism or genderism, but simply a claim that teachers with particular views are poorer teachers. This is measured by the fact that their students received poorer grades.
I think this is the critical flaw in the study: Those grades are assigned by the teachers themselves. There is no objective measure of student capability. Teachers with "tough" courses will, on average, give out lower grades. And lower still to the less capable students.
I teach introductory courses - filter courses - at my university. An essential part of my job is to fail students who are unlikely be unable to complete the course of study. Hence, I give lower grades than instructors in other courses later in the program, after the incapable students have been eliminated. I've been doing this a long time, and I have come to the view that students either have certain aptitudes, or they don't. I submit that I have come to this "fixed mindset" view by observation: teaching thousands of students, failing those who cannot develop the necessary skills, and passing those who can. My role as a teacher is precisely that: to help them develop skills. If they are incapable of doing so despite my best efforts? Then they are in the wrong program of study.
In other words, it's not a "fixed mindset" that causes an instructor to hand out poor grades, but the other way around: someone who teaches teaches tough courses will come to recognize that student aptitudes are largely inherent. There are exceptions: I've seen talented students fail through laziness, and marginal students get through with sheer grit and determination. Those exceptions, by their very rarity, serve to underscore the general pattern.
Finally, one must comment on the student evaluations. Students in courses that handed out better grades were more likely to have liked the course. That's not a surprise, that comes close to a law of nature. However, the study misses a great opportunity here. The authors admit that my theory (about tough courses being the root cause) might be true:
"It is possible that faculty who endorse fixed mindset beliefs create more demanding coursesâ"requiring students to spend more time studying and preparing for their course. If this is true, then differences in studentsâ(TM) performance and psychological experiences might be explained by the demands of these courses (instead of professorsâ(TM) mindset beliefs)."
One of the questions in student evaluations ("how much time did this course require?") would have been a good indication of course difficulty. Unfortunately, the study does not seem to have tested this hypothesis, or at least, the paper makes no mention of it. A cynic might wonder if they did do the analysis, but perhaps it didn't support the desired results. After all: "tough courses lead to lower grades" would hardly be a conclusion worthy of publication.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.