Imagine having the innate confidence to face failure with an optimistic attitude and the resilience to try again, knowing that failure is simply an inescapable aspect of learning This is the mindset that Carol Dweck, and other researchers, aim to accomplish for every student. Through intentional social-emotional learning, “children and youth acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions” (Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, & Weissberg, 2017, p.1). Dweck (2006) coined the terms growth and fixed mindsets to label the self-notion that students have in regards to their abilities and whether or not they can progress from where they start. In addition to the research conducted by Dweck (2006) on growth and fixed mindsets, other researchers have devised terms that go along with the same idea. Duckworth (2016) determined that grit is an essential characteristic to adopting a growth mindset, and Peter Johnston (2014) wrote about the importance of a dynamic learning framework.
With subtle differences, growth mindset, grit, and dynamic learning framework all focus on the importance of classroom social-emotional learning and the best practices for implementing social-emotional learning strategies into general education classrooms. The inclusion of these three variations of social-emotional learning in the classroom comes with many questions about the classroom application, importance, and how social-emotional learning benefits students and teachers. This paper will look into the various aspects that compare and contrast the three main theories of social-emotional learning to determine benefits for the individual students and best practices to implement in general elementary education classrooms.
An Overview of Social-Emotional Learning
A team of five researchers from the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance wrote a four part review on the literature analysis and benefits of implementing social-emotional learning strategies in the classroom. Through their reasoning behind the need for social-emotional learning in general education classrooms, they state that “social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process by which children and adults learn to understand and manage emotions, maintain positive relationships, and make responsible
decisions” (O’Conner, De Feyter, Carr, Luo, & Romm, 2017). Despite the extensive amount of research and theories regarding social-emotional learning, Dweck (2006), Duckworth (2009), and Johnston (2014) agree that the factors that impact the success of the implementation in the general education classroom include classroom climate, instructional strategies, and teacher social and emotional competence (O’Conner et. al, 2017). Social-emotional learning strategies are especially important in elementary school as the cusp of adolescence brings about many external and internal changes that students are not naturally equipped to overcome without interference (Yeager, 2017).
A push for social-emotional learning by both researchers and teachers, as evidenced by the growth in published research regarding this area of study, has been continuous since the rise in student depression and aggression (Reicher & Matischek-Jauk, 2017). According to a study conducted by Mental Health America, a nonprofit organization founded in 1909, 18.5% of youth (ages below 17) have experienced severe depression with at least one major depressive episode in 2017. As stated by Mental Health American, major depression is seen through substantial and consistent feelings of sadness, associated with suicidal thoughts and ideation that impair the ability to participate in or enjoy normal activities and routines. In addition to this research, Blue Cross Blue Shield published a report on major depression in Americans in 2018. According to their report, diagnoses of major depression have risen 33% since 2013.
Without social-emotional learning implemented into classrooms, students continue to face adversity within content areas and social dynamics of school without proper knowledge of how to overcome these misfortunes. Having to consistently face these hardships and uncomfortable situations with no release can lead to years of built up anger and sadness, which adds to the rise of depression in students, as previously noted (Reicher & Matischek-Jauk, 2017). One team of researchers go as far as to say that the recent rise in school shootings is partly due to the harsh focus on grades in school and the lack of focus on relationships and building individual characters (Hollingshead, Crump, Eddy, & Rowe, 2009).
Multiculturalism
Social-emotional learning also benefits the enactment of a peaceful multicultural classroom climate (Greenberg, Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Durlak, 2017). This is an important influence of social-emotional learning in general education classrooms as the amount of multicultural classrooms in the U.S. are ever rising. According to the National Institute of Education Sciences, more than 4.9 million English Language Learners were enrolled in public schools in the U.S. for the 2013-14 school year. This rise in multicultural classrooms brings new challenges for teachers as they implement strategies and techniques to make all students feel equal and included (Alsubaie, 2015). In order to establish a multicultural classroom, Alusbaie (2015) states that students should have the opportunity to explore various cultural experiences through a wholistic and positive lens, by learning and appreciating the various cultures of classmates and teachers while understanding that, though different, cultures should be treated with the same respect. This is determined through the classroom climate that the teacher facilitates through words, actions, and curriculum (Patel, 2018). A multicultural classroom is also dependent upon the appropriate language used when talking about or to people from diverse cultures (Hansen et al., 2016). A true multicultural classroom can be enacted through research-based practices and theories of social-emotional learning, as discussed later in this paper.
Growth Mindset
Dweck (2006) noticed a lack of perseverance and determination in students to learn through failure and grow from experiences. Inspired by Mischel’s famous Marshmallow Test, originally conducted in 1965, Dweck (2006) began researching student mindsets. Mischel’s Marshmallow Test from 1965, as defined in his book The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control, allowed students the option to eat one marshmallow immediately or wait 15 minutes and be rewarded with more treats (Mischel, 2014). Following this idea of researching the motivation of students to either wait or have instant gratification, Dweck (2009), coined the term growth mindset while researching the student success in relation to the positive inclusion of failure while learning (Pueschel & Tucker, 2018). Dweck (2009) defines growth mindset as the ability to change the way a student thinks about their own intelligence level; regarding it not as a fixed ability but as ever changing and growing capabilities.
Growth mindset aims to teach students to learn from failure and respond positively to challenges faced academically, emotionally, and socially. This mindset is a learned behavior that must first be modeled by authoritative figures in students’ lives, such as teachers (Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). In order to model growth mindset, the teacher must have an organic and true growth mindset of their own. This brings in the teacher’s social-emotional competence factor of a true social-emotional learning classroom (Brackett, Reyes, Rivers, Elbertson, & Salovey, 2011).
Fixed Mindset
The opposite end of growth mindset and it’s synonymous theories would be a fixed mindset. Dweck (2009) defined fixed mindset as believing that intelligence is a born trait and one cannot gain or grow their intelligence more. A fixed mindset is a mindset in which students believe that their current abilities are their maximum potential. Students with a fixed mindset believe that they are unable to become any smarter than their current capabilities (Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015).
Research by the Educational Consultancy and Research Center shows that this is a learned belief due to negative feedback or responses from teachers, family members, or classmates (Ulusoy & Duy, 2013). This learned belief can lead to detrimental effects in the classroom and outside of school, ranging from procrastination to anxiety and depression.
Traux (2018) believes that a fixed mindset is due to the increase in standardized testing and the implementation of rigorous Common Core State Standards. Combined, she believes that these two factors alter the reason for learning. Rather than appreciating the process and outcomes of learning, students are focused on number and letter grades and basing success on that.
The way in which teachers talk to students through instruction or feedback can either promote a growth mindset or a fixed mindset (Enriquez, Clark, & Calce, 2017). Beyond the apparently negative comments about student ability, or lack thereof, Enriquez and colleagues (2017) also state that comments such as “you are so smart” can hinder students’ potential growth mindset when deeper validation does not accompany it. Telling students that they are smart for solving the math problem leads them to believe that they are smart because they did it correctly, and that they are not smart when they do something incorrectly (Johnston, 2012). The idea of growth mindset is to encourage failure with an optimistic outlook for the desire to learn and achieve. The language used by teachers can either help or hinder the goal of positive classroom climate as one of the major factors in a successful social-emotional learning environment.
Research conducted by Yeager and Dweck (2012), found general behaviors and thoughts as exhibited by students with a growth mindset and students with a fixed mindset. In their 2012 research, Yeager and Dweck (2012) called fixed mindset the entity theory and growth mindset incremental theory. Students with an entity theory believe that their capabilities are fixed where they currently are, whereas students with an incremental theory believe that intelligence can be further developed (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). The table below is taken from their research report and shows the most common attitudes of entity and incremental theories.
Table 1
Academic Mindsets, for Those with More of an Entity Versus Incremental Implicit Theory of Intelligence
Entity Theory Incremental Theory
Goals Look smart Learn
Response to challenges Tendency to give up Work harder and smarter
Changes in grades during times of adversity Decrease or remain low Increase
The table shows a clear and concise comparison of attitudes between entity (fixed) and incremental (growth) mindsets in students. For the purpose of consistency with terms used throughout the paper, entity theory will be referred to as fixed mindset and incremental theory will be referred to as growth mindset. As shown above, the goals of students with an fixed mindset are to simply look smart, and more explicitly, to “not look dumb” (Dweck & Yeager, 2012, p. 3). Dissimilar, growth mindset students’ goal is to learn through effort and resilience. With a fixed mindset, students tend to respond to challenges by giving up and not facing the challenge at all, while students with a growth mindset appreciate the challenge as an opportunity to continuing learning through working harder and making smarter choices. The fixed mindset students’ grades are often negatively impacted during times of adversity and growth mindset students’ grades tend to increase in these times. This is one of the major factors for the implementation of social-emotional learning in general education classrooms. As previously stated, the amount of depression in students is 33% higher in 2018 than it was in 2013 (Blue Cross Blue Shield). Not only does this impact the student’s emotionally, but it is evident through grades. Implementing growth mindset, grit, or dynamic learning framework strategies into classrooms can aid in student perseverance through times of adversity (Domitrovich, 2017).
Grit
Duckworth (2016) began conducting research regarding levels of grit after teaching seventh grade math in public school (Duckworth, 2016). Duckworth wanted to know why some students failed while some succeeded. She found the answer to this question through the levels of grit students had. Grit, as defined by Duckworth (2016) in her book Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance is the combination of passion and perseverance with the purpose of achieving an important goal (Duckworth, 2016). Grit is the “unique combination of passion and long-term perseverance” (Pueschel & Tucker, 2018, p. 2) and “not just having resilience in the face of failure, but also having deep commitments that you remain loyal to over many years” (Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015).
Duckworth (2016) and colleagues conducted many research experiments to test the grit levels and how they related to achievement. One of their first studies was conducted with West Point Military Academy in New York. This research tested how grit related to retention in the program, as 1 in 20 cadets drop out of West Point Military Academy during training (Perkins-Gough, 2013). Duckworth (2016) created a grit scale, consisting of 10 questions relating to common characteristics of persistence. Her research with West Point Military Academy cadets using the grit scale proved that grit was the best predictor of resilience and retention (Duckworth, 2016). The grit scale is now freely available through Duckworth’s (2016) official website. She encourages students and employees to take the scale test as a self-reflection on their attitude towards adversity (Duckworth, 2016).
Agreeing with previous statements by researchers that the rise in standardized testing is a main culprit of fixed mindsets in students, researchers Pueschel and Tucker state that “many students are choosing the hollow promise of a trophy at the expense of learning” (Pueschel & Tucker, 2018, p. 1). This quote exemplifies the idea of learning for a grade rather than learning for the simple joy of learning (Duckworth, Quinn, & Tsukayama, 2012; Traux, 2018). Correlating to Dweck’s (2006) growth mindset, aiming for a grade rather than for the experience in learning is similar to her definition of a fixed mindset.
Teaching grit also means transitioning from a fixed mindset to a mindset focused on grit and resiliency. Once again, the fixed mindset can lead to much greater harm than failing grades for the student. Having a fixed mindset has been shown by Yeager & Dweck (2012) to lead to ongoing peer victimization, as not only do students with a fixed mindset believe that their academic abilities are unable of change or growth, but that their social abilities will remain the same as well. Thus, they believe that if they were once a bully, they will forever be the bully or the bad person (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
Dynamic Learning Framework
Johnston (2014) wrote about his social-emotional learning strategy titled a Dynamic Learning Framework in Choice Words: How Our Language Affects Children’s Learning and Opening Minds. Johnston’s (2014) approach to social-emotional learning in the general education classroom is similar to Dweck’s growth mindset as he uses the word dynamic in the same way; the opposite of fixed mindset. The dynamic learning framework encourages students to look beyond scores and grades into their personal ability levels. The aim is for students to know that their performance is based on how well one works at increasing their abilities “through dedication and hard work” (Enriquez et. al., 2017, p. 2).
This theory is an extension of Dweck’s (2006) growth mindset theory, as Johnston’s goal was to progress through the classroom and continue into the real world, incorporating a worldview into the students’ resiliency. Enriquez and colleagues termed Johnston’s research “a growth mindset towards social justice” (Enriquez, et. al., 2017, p. 3). This would be accomplished by increasing civic engagement while incorporating the multicultural influence. Students are encouraged to question stereotypes and widen their lens from their classroom to classrooms around the world.
Add to research
Research-Based Strategies in the Classroom
The aforementioned similar, yet slightly different, social-emotional learning theories all aim to better the classroom climate through use of strategic instructional strategies by a socially and emotionally competent teacher. Despite slight variances in research methodologies or strategy focuses, the overarching goal of any social-emotional learning theory implemented into the general education elementary classroom involves these three factors: classroom climate, instructional strategies, and teachers’ social-emotional competence.
Classroom Climate
Classroom climate can be described as the “learning environment developed by teachers in the classroom” (Patel, 2018). Classroom climates can be either positive or negative, depending on how the teacher acts or reacts to situations.
Patel’s (2018) definition highlights an important idea; classroom climate is created by the classroom teacher. Ultimately, in order for a classroom to have positive and healthy classroom climate, and in turn incorporate social-emotional learning, the teacher must be prepared and ready to do so. Through the teacher, classroom climate is determined as they model the behaviors expected of students while instructing.
Find more evidence from other researchers
Teacher Language
The language used by the teacher to the students has a great impact on how students see themselves, in relation to whether or not they have a growth or fixed mindset (Enriquez, et. al., 2017). Sutherland (2000) reports on the impact of teacher’s language used when instructing or providing feedback to students, based on original research experiment conducted in 1972 by researchers Kirby and Shields (1972). Their 1972 research on the amount of math correct problems as related to teacher’s positive feedback resulted by showing that baseline correct problems per minute were 0.7, and it increased to 1.4 correct problems per minute through positive teacher language (Kirby & Shields, 1972). Sutherland (2000) states that this research experiment proves that a correlation between teachers’ language and students’ achievement is evident.
Expand evidence from other researchers
Teacher’s Social-Emotional Competence
Teaching a lesson about an unfamiliar content area is a challenge, but teaching about social-emotional characteristics without confidence in one’s own competency is not beneficial for students or teacher. As teachers are the conductors of implementation of social-emotional learning, they first have to be socially and emotionally competent themselves (Brackett, et. al, 2011).
Instructional Strategies
The instructional strategies used by the teacher in a classroom can aid in the contribution of a healthy classroom climate and in the inclusion of a social-emotional learning environment where multicultural positivity is encouraged.
Although social-emotional learning is often a specific area of study in exclusive classrooms, in the general education classroom it is incorporated throughout all content areas. Including social-emotional learning into reading for elementary students has been shown through research by Traux (2018) to be beneficial in the positive shift of mindset. Literature that demonstrates diverse characters in a positive light, who approach challenges in a healthy and determined way, encourage students to do the same (Enriquez, et. al., 2017).
Using quality children’s literature to introduce resilient and growth based mindsets is halfway to including social-emotional strategies in ready. Returning to the idea of the teacher being the leader and main facilitator of positive mindsets, they would then have quality and truthful discussions with students, which allows them to talk through misconceptions about themselves and others (Traux, 2018).