Maybe he’s born with it: Beliefs about intelligence may impact teaching style and student motivation
Whilst there is often an assumed link between intelligence and academic performance at university, the link between these two is often weak or non-existent (e.g. Mehta & Kumar, 1985; Singh & Varma, 1995). As a researcher in psychology, my interests as such lie strongly as to how other factors outside of intelligence may affect academic performance. As a teacher, I am interested in how my approach and style to teaching may affect academic performance. As such, both these avenues have made me consider how teacher’s beliefs about intelligence can affect student academic performance.
Broadly speaking, in psychology, it is thought that individuals belong to two different schools of thought. They can hold incremental or entity beliefs about various traits including intelligence (Dweck, 1991). Entity theorists are those who believe intelligence is fixed and thus would believe academic performance is reflective of this ability. Conversely, incremental theorists would believe that intelligence is malleable and thus believe that academic performance is more the reflection of effort and strategies employed to facilitate performance and goal attainment. Importantly, these implicit person theories affect educational goal orientation and as such may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic & McDougall, 2003).
Whilst a students own belief about intelligence can affect performance, teacher beliefs about intelligence may also seemingly affect student performance and learning. Particularly, these beliefs may influence teaching methods both in approach (Etchberger & Shaw, 1992) and diversity (Hashweh, 1998). Furthermore, teachers who hold more constructivistic or incremental beliefs may also encourage more critical thinking and motivation in students to become independent learners (Gray, 1997). As such, we should be potentially wary as to our preconceptions about student ability and performance, because how our own beliefs about intelligence may both hinder our ability to have an effective teaching style as well as utilising a diverse range of techniques that may benefit teaching to a wide student populus. Additionally, fostering an incremental belief about intelligence may also potentially encourage independent thinking and learning among the students that we teach, as such leading to more deep approaches to learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals. In R. D. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 199 – 235). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Etchberger, M. L., & Shaw, K. L. (1992). Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: A chronology of a developing constructivist teacher.School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 411-417.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2002). Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance.Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 47-64.
Gray, A. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning. Saskatchewan, CA: SSTA Research Centre Report.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching.Journal of Research in Science teaching, 33(1), 47-63.
Mehta, P., & Kumar, D. (1985). Relationships of academic achievement with intelligence, personality, adjustment, study habits and academic motivation. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 1, 57– 68.
Singh, R., & Varma, S. K. (1995). The effect of academic aspiration and intelligence on scholastic success of XI graders. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education, 26, 43 – 48.
Whilst there is often an assumed link between intelligence and academic performance at university, the link between these two is often weak or non-existent (e.g. Mehta & Kumar, 1985; Singh & Varma, 1995). As a researcher in psychology, my interests as such lie strongly as to how other factors outside of intelligence may affect academic performance. As a teacher, I am interested in how my approach and style to teaching may affect academic performance. As such, both these avenues have made me consider how teacher’s beliefs about intelligence can affect student academic performance.
Broadly speaking, in psychology, it is thought that individuals belong to two different schools of thought. They can hold incremental or entity beliefs about various traits including intelligence (Dweck, 1991). Entity theorists are those who believe intelligence is fixed and thus would believe academic performance is reflective of this ability. Conversely, incremental theorists would believe that intelligence is malleable and thus believe that academic performance is more the reflection of effort and strategies employed to facilitate performance and goal attainment. Importantly, these implicit person theories affect educational goal orientation and as such may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic & McDougall, 2003).
Whilst a students own belief about intelligence can affect performance, teacher beliefs about intelligence may also seemingly affect student performance and learning. Particularly, these beliefs may influence teaching methods both in approach (Etchberger & Shaw, 1992) and diversity (Hashweh, 1998). Furthermore, teachers who hold more constructivistic or incremental beliefs may also encourage more critical thinking and motivation in students to become independent learners (Gray, 1997). As such, we should be potentially wary as to our preconceptions about student ability and performance, because how our own beliefs about intelligence may both hinder our ability to have an effective teaching style as well as utilising a diverse range of techniques that may benefit teaching to a wide student populus. Additionally, fostering an incremental belief about intelligence may also potentially encourage independent thinking and learning among the students that we teach, as such leading to more deep approaches to learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals. In R. D. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 199 – 235). Lincoln: University of Nebraska.
Etchberger, M. L., & Shaw, K. L. (1992). Teacher change as a progression of transitional images: A chronology of a developing constructivist teacher.School Science and Mathematics, 92(8), 411-417.
Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2002). Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 47-64.
Gray, A. (1997). Constructivist teaching and learning. Saskatchewan, CA: SSTA Research Centre Report.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers' epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 33(1), 47-63.
Mehta, P., & Kumar, D. (1985). Relationships of academic achievement with intelligence, personality, adjustment, study habits and academic motivation. Journal of Personality and Clinical Studies, 1, 57– 68.
Singh, R., & Varma, S. K. (1995). The effect of academic aspiration and intelligence on scholastic success of XI graders. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education, 26, 43 – 48.