Intelligence, Education, & Motivational Development

Remember the ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) that we explored earlier? This model helps us understand individuals by examining their development as it unfolds in the contexts where they live, and highlights the direct and indirect influences of those contexts on their development.

During middle and late childhood, school becomes a very important context for children's development. In educational settings and activities, children and youth learn about the subjects they are taught, but also about themselves, their peers, and how the larger world works (Negru-Subtirica, 2024). Since academic performance is the coin of the realm in school, children also learn about the nature of intelligence, and how those capacities fit into their own identity.

In this chapter, after introducing the basic idea of self-concept or self-understanding, we examine theories and research on intelligence, including biases in intelligence testing. Then we turn to a set of key issues facing education today: how to create schools that are culturally attuned and that support the motivation, learning, and development of all students. We end with a discussion of student motivation (Wigfield et al., 2021), and learn about mindsets: what they are, how they work, and how to support their healthy development-- in yourself as well as others.

Development of Self-Understanding

Self-understanding, which refers to an individual's personal appraisal of their own character and capacities, has been studied under many labels, including self-concept, self-esteem, and self-perceptions. Because these assessments are cognitive constructions, their pattern of development follows the stages of cognitive development described in previous chapters. For example, very young children tend to focus on specific personal attributes, like age, physical characteristics, behaviors, and accomplishments, and their beliefs are not always tethered to reality. Most young children overestimate their competences and believe that they can become anything, including opposite sex persons and magical creatures.

Children in middle and late childhood have a more realistic sense of self, and they better understand their strengths and areas for improvement. This can be attributed to new cognitive capacities that emerge with concrete operational thinking, as well as experience in settings like school that actively compare their performance with those of their age-mates. Children in middle and late childhood are also able to include other peoples’ appraisals of them into their self-concepts, including input from parents, teachers, peers, culture, and media.

Comparing themselves to others and internalizing others’ appraisals can affect children’s self-esteem, which is defined as an evaluation of one’s nature and worth. Children typically construct individual assessments of how well they perform in a variety of domains (e.g., math, sports, art) and also begin to develop an overall global self-assessment. If they fall behind age-mates or receive negative evaluations and criticism from others, their self-esteem can be negatively affected. 

Another important development in self-understanding is self-efficacy, which is the conviction that you are capable of carrying out a specific task or of reaching a specific goal (Bandura, 1977, 1986, 1997). Self-efficacy can be as important as actual ability in predicting students' engagement, effort, and learning (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). If a student believes that they can solve mathematical problems, then they are more likely to attempt the math homework a teacher assigns.

Unfortunately, the converse is also true. If a student believes that they are bad at math, then they are less likely to attempt the math homework regardless of their actual math ability. Since self-efficacy is constructed by students, it is possible for them to underestimate their current capacity, and these misperceptions can have negative effects on students' motivations (Bandura, 1997). It is important to note that teachers also have self-efficacy-- for teaching-- and their self-efficacy affects their engagement and enjoyment in that process (Hussain et al., 2022).

Intelligence: Theories, Measurement, and Bias 

Psychologists have long debated how to best conceptualize and measure intelligence (Sternberg, 2003). These questions include: How many types of intelligence there are, the role of nature versus nurture in intelligence, how intelligence is embodied in the brain, and the meaning of group differences in intelligence. 

Theories of Intelligence

General (g) versus Specific (s) Intelligences. In 1904, the French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857–1911) and his colleague Théodore Simon (1872–1961) began working on behalf of the French government to develop a measure that would identify children who would not be successful in the regular school curriculum. The goal was to help teachers better educate these students (Aiken, 1994). Binet and Simon developed what most psychologists today regard as the first intelligence test, which consisted of a set questions covering a wide variety of material, including the ability to name objects, define words, draw pictures, complete sentences, compare items, and construct sentences.

Binet and Simon (Binet, Simon, & Town, 1915; Siegler, 1992) believed that the questions they asked children assessed their basic abilities to understand, reason, and make judgments. It turned out that the correlations among these different types of measures were in fact all positive. That is, students who got one item correct were more likely to also get other items correct, even though the questions themselves were very different. 

On the basis of these results, the psychologist Charles Spearman (1863–1945) hypothesized that there must be a single underlying capacity that all of these items measure. He called the construct that the different abilities and skills measured on intelligence tests have in common the General Intelligence Factor (g). Virtually all psychologists now believe that there is a generalized intelligence factor, “g”, that relates to abstract thinking and that includes the ability to acquire knowledge, to reason abstractly, to adapt to novel situations, and to benefit from instruction and experience (Gottfredson, 1997; Sternberg, 2003). People with higher general intelligence learn faster. 

Soon after Binet and Simon introduced their test, the American psychologist Lewis Terman at Stanford University (1877–1956) developed an American version of Binet’s test that became known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The Stanford-Binet is a measure of general intelligence made up of a wide variety of tasks, including vocabulary, memory for pictures, naming of familiar objects, repeating sentences, and following commands. 

Although there is general agreement among psychologists that “g” exists, there is also evidence for specific intelligences or “s”, a set of specific skills in narrower domains. One empirical result in support of the idea of “s” comes from intelligence tests themselves. Although the different types of questions do correlate with each other, some items correlate more highly with each other than do other items. The items form clusters or clumps, suggesting more differentiated kinds of intelligences. 

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. One advocate of the idea of multiple intelligences is the psychologist Robert Sternberg (1985, 2003). He has proposed a triarchic (three-part) theory of intelligence which holds that people may display more or less analytical intelligence, creative intelligence, and practical intelligence (Sabbah & Aldin, 2022; Xiang, 2025). Sternberg argued that traditional intelligence tests assess analytical intelligence, or academic problem solving and performing calculations, but that they do not typically assess creative intelligence, the ability to adapt to new situations and create new ideas, or practical intelligence, the ability to demonstrate common sense and street-smarts. 

As Sternberg proposed, research has found that creativity is not highly correlated with analytical intelligence (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008) and exceptionally creative scientists, artists, mathematicians, and engineers do not score higher on standard intelligence tests than do their less, creative peers (Simonton, 2000).

Furthermore, the brain areas associated with convergent thinking, or thinking that is directed toward finding the correct answer to a given problem, are different from those associated with divergent thinking, or the ability to generate many different ideas or solutions to a single problem (Tarasova, Volf, & Razoumnikova, 2010). On the other hand, being creative often takes some of the basic abilities measured by “g”, including the abilities to learn from experience, to remember information, and to think abstractly (Bink & Marsh, 2000). Ericsson (1998), Weisberg (2006), Hennessey and Amabile (2010) and Simonton (1992) studied creative people and identified at least five components that are likely to be important for creativity as listed in Table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 Important Components for Creativity

adapted from Lally & Valentine-French, 2019

The last aspect of the triarchic model, practical intelligence, refers primarily to intelligence that cannot be gained from books or formal learning. Practical intelligence represents a type of “street smarts” or “common sense” that is learned from life experiences. Although a number of tests have been devised to measure practical intelligence (Sternberg, Wagner, & Okagaki, 1993; Wagner & Sternberg, 1985), research has not found much evidence that practical intelligence is distinct from “g” or that it is predictive of success at particular tasks (Gottfredson, 2003). Practical intelligence may include, at least in part, certain abilities that help people perform well at specific jobs, and these abilities may not always be highly correlated with general intelligence (Sternberg et al., 1993). 

Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Another champion of the idea of many specific types of intelligences rather than one overall intelligence is the psychologist Howard Gardner (1983, 1999). Gardner argued that it would be evolutionarily functional for different people to have different talents and skills, and proposed that there are eight intelligences that can be differentiated from each other. Table 7.2 lists Gardner’s eight specific intelligences. 

Table 7.2 Howard Gardner's Eight Specific Intelligences

Adapted from Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner identified these eight intelligences using multiple sources of evidence. He conducted psychometric analyses of tests designed to capture different kinds of intelligence. He also examined evidence from studies of children who were talented in one or more areas, and from studies of adults who suffered brain damage from strokes that compromised capacities in some areas, but not in others. Gardner also noted that some evidence for multiple intelligences comes from the abilities of autistic savants, that is, people who score low on intelligence tests overall, but who nevertheless may have exceptional skills in a given domain, such as math, music, art, or in being able to recite statistics in a given sport (Treffert & Wallace, 2004). A potential ninth intelligence; that is, existential intelligence, still needs empirical support.

The idea of multiple intelligences has been influential in the field of education, and teachers have used these ideas to try to teach differently to different students (Baas, 2016; Shearer, 2018). For instance, to teach math problems to students who have particularly good kinesthetic intelligence, a teacher might encourage students to move their bodies or hands according to the numbers. On the other hand, some have argued that these “intelligences” seem more like “abilities” or “talents” rather than real intelligence.

There is no clear conclusion about how many intelligences there are. Are sense of humor, artistic skills, dramatic skills, and so forth also separate intelligences? Furthermore, and again suggesting an underlying single intelligence, the many different intelligences are, in fact, positively correlated and thus may represent, in part, “g” (Brody, 2003; Gardner, 2020). 

Measuring Intelligence: Standardization and the Intelligence Quotient 

The goal of most intelligence tests is to measure “g”, the general intelligence factor. Good intelligence tests are reliable, meaning that they are consistent over time, and also demonstrate validity, meaning that they actually measure intelligence rather than something else. Because intelligence is such an important individual difference dimension, psychologists have invested substantial effort in creating and improving measures of intelligence, and these tests are now considered the most accurate of all psychological tests. In fact, the ability to accurately assess intelligence is one of the most important contributions of psychology to everyday public life. 

Intelligence changes with age. A 3-year-old who could accurately multiply 183 by 39 would certainly be brilliant, but a 25-year-old who could not do so would be seen as low on intelligence. Thus, understanding intelligence requires that we know the norms or standards in a given population of people at a given age. The standardization or norming of a test involves giving it to a large number of people at different ages and computing the average score on the test at each age level. 

It is important that intelligence tests be standardized on a regular basis, because the overall level of intelligence in a population may change over time. The Flynn effect refers to the observation that scores on intelligence tests worldwide have increased substantially over the past several decades (Flynn, 1999). Although the increase varies somewhat from country to country, the average increase is about 3 IQ points every 10 years. There are many explanations for the Flynn effect, including better nutrition, increased years of education, greater access to information, and more familiarity with multiple-choice tests (Neisser, 1998).

Whether people are actually getting smarter, however, is debatable (Neisser, 1997). Most of the increase in IQ occurred during the second half of the 20th century. Recent research has found a reversal of the Flynn effect in several nations around the world, although some nations still show an increase in IQ scores (Dutton, van der Linden, & Lynn, 2016). It will be interesting to see how the pandemic, with its loss of school time for most children around the world, has an effect on historical changes in intelligence test scores.

Once the standardization has been accomplished, we have a picture of the average abilities of people at different ages and can calculate a person’s mental age, which is the age at which a person is performing intellectually. If we compare the mental age of a person to the person’s chronological age, the result is the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), a measure of intelligence that is adjusted for age. A simple way to calculate IQ is by using the following formula: 

IQ = mental age ÷ chronological age × 100. 

Thus a 10-year-old child who does as well as the average 10-year-old child has an IQ of 100 (10 ÷ 10 × 100), whereas an 8-year-old child who does as well as the average 10-year-old child would have an IQ of 125 (10 ÷ 8 × 100). Most modern intelligence tests are based on the relative position of a person’s score among people of the same age, rather than on the basis of this formula, but the idea of an intelligence “ratio” or “quotient” provides a good description of the score’s meaning. 

Wechsler Scales. A number of scales are designed to measure intelligence. The Wechsler lntelligence Scale for Children (WISC) is the most widely used scale for children ages 6 to 16, and the Wechsler Adult lntelligence Scale (WAIS) is the most widely used assessment for adults ages 16 to 90 (Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark, 1995). Both were updated in 2024 and are on their fifth edition (WISC-5 and WAIS-5). Both also new norms that account for the Flynn effect and other shifts in population averages. The Wechsler scale has also been adapted for preschool children in the form of the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence.

The scales consist of multiple tasks or subtests, each designed to assess intelligence. Scores on these subtests are combined to produce scores on broader domains. For example, the WISC scale assesses children's performance in five domains:

1. Verbal comprehension, which assesses verbal concept formation, knowledge, and reasoning (using subtests such as vocabulary and comprehension).
2. Visual spatial, which measures the capacity to interpret and solve problems that involve visual information (using subtests such as block design and visual puzzles).
3. Fluid reasoning, which assesses the capacity to reason and solve abstract problems (using subtests like matrix reasoning and arithmetic).
4.  Working memory, which assesses the ability to hold and manipulate information in short-term memory (using subtasks like digit and picture span).
5. Processing speed, which evaluates speed and accuracy of mental functioning (using subtasks like coding and symbol search).

The reliability of these tests is high (more than 0.95), and they shows substantial construct validity. The WISC-5 and the WAIS-5 are highly correlated with other IQ tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, as well as with criteria of academic performance and life success, including school and college grades, measures of work performance, and occupational level. They also show significant correlations with measures of everyday functioning among people with intellectual disabilities. 

Bias in Conceptualization, Testing, and Use of Intelligence Scores

Definitions and measures of intelligence have been heavily criticized over the last 50 years for being biased in favor of European-American middle class respondents. Criticisms focus on three primary issues.

Nature of Intelligence. First, critics point out a big gap between what intelligence tests are presumed to measure and what they actually measure. That is, many definitions and common sense understanding make intelligence sound like a single fixed trait, present at birth, based on genetic endowment, that is constant over the lifespan, and confers a lifelong advantage or disadvantage to the owner.

However, these ideas are just myths about the nature of intelligence. (Did you recognize these maturational assumptions?) Consistent with a more contextual perspective, research has found that intelligence is indeed shaped by biology (just like every other psychological attribute) but it is also heavily influenced by contextual factors, like socioeconomic background, diet, health, home experience, and especially amount and quality of schooling. Intelligence also changes over time, and is quite mutable based on changing biological and social conditions. Hence, it is more accurate to think of what intelligence tests measure, not as a permanent ability of some kind, but as one's current performance on a set of malleable skills.

Moreover, the focus of that performance is pretty narrow. Intelligence tests focus on logical and analytical reasoning and problem solving skills, and do not provide any information about other important attributes that are crucial to children's learning and success, like motivation, tenacity, curiosity, creativity, social skills, or emotional competence. Most importantly, these tests provide little information about an individual's developmental potential, that is, how much they can learn and succeed under optimal conditions. As developmentalists, educators, and parents, it is really that potential that we are interested in nurturing.

Bias in Tests and Testing. A second critique focuses on the tests themselves and the processes used to administer them. Measures and methods have been criticized for favoring Anglo-American middle class students. Although test developers have tried to minimize this bias, it is clear that to some extent the questions, subtests, and formats of testing still reflect the cultural background of the test developers and the users of information about intelligence, who are largely white, middle class, and English speaking. This disadvantages minorities and non-native English speakers. For example, some items may use vocabulary, implicit knowledge, or illustrations that are specific to certain cultural or linguistic backgrounds, thus making them less valid for students from non-dominant groups.

Tests may also be normed on standardization samples that are not fully representative of the whole spectrum of students taking these tests. Moreover, test taking conditions can also disadvantage minoritized students. Testers are often white middle class monolingual and monocultural adults, meaning that students from those backgrounds are likely to be more comfortable and less anxious under these familiar conditions. If children from non-dominant backgrounds are uncertain or stressed about what is happening during the testing situation, this could negatively bias their test performance and make their scores less valid.

Interpretation and Use of Intelligence Tests. A third critique focuses on how the results of intelligence tests are interpreted and used to make decisions about individual students. As explained in the assigned video clip below, even though these tests were originally devised to identify students who could benefit from extra academic support, they have historically been used to sort and label students, often according to those societal status hierarchies whose effects on development we have been trying to make more visible.

As a result, based on their performance, individual students can be labeled as "inferior," which can have enormous consequences for the teaching and learning opportunities they then receive and their placement in different levels of classes or tracks. Rather than offering such students more support and opportunities to learn (as was intended by the French government when they hired Simon and Binet), these labels can result in less support, poorer learning conditions, and differential treatment, especially if decision makers buy into preconceived assumptions that intelligence as fixed.

• This required video explores the history of intelligence tests, including their initial creation, their use to justify eugenics practices, and their inherent flaws.

Especially pernicious is the use of group differences in intelligence test scores to label certain groups (always at the bottom of society's status hierarchies) as genetically inferior. As you know, that assertion reflects an intrenched racist myth. This particular brand of pseudoscience reappears in popular literature regularly. For example, the book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, published in 1994, repeats these false claims, arguing that differences between social classes and races in educational and occupational attainment are due completely to differences in IQ, which are in turn completely determined by genetics, and since they are unchangeable, there is no need for programs or policies to ameliorate these well-documented disparities in attainment.

Can you see the many errors in this reasoning? Let's start with three big corrections: Educational and occupational attainment are influenced by a wide range of factors, a great number of which are in the environment; IQ is malleable and changeable; many programs and polices have empirical support for their effectiveness in improving both test performance and attainment. Even though scientists have participated in perpetuating these falsehoods in the past, current consensus is clear: There are no genetic differences between races in intelligence or any other psychological attribute; in fact, there are no races (see optional reading below).

Misuse of Intelligence Tests. It is crucial for all of us to be aware of the history of intelligence testing, including its abuses, in order to be sure that researchers, educators, and parents use these tests properly, and interpret the information they generate thoughtfully. Intelligence testing has a history of being misused for dangerous political and ideological purposes, for example, as part of the eugenics movement.

This was a powerful social and political movement in the early 1900s (which still has remnants today), led by scientists and law makers, who falsely argued that undesirable characteristics (like low intelligence and criminality) are hereditary and so can be eliminated in a population through selective breeding, sterilization, and other ways of preventing "unfit" people from reproducing. For example, in Nazi Germany, low IQ scores were used as one justification to murder between 200,000 to 300,000 mentally and physically disabled infants, children, and adults.

The eugenics movement also had a big impact in the US. It was especially powerful in the early to mid-1900s, when for example, many states decided to use IQ tests to identify candidates for forced sterilization. These programs were even sanctioned by the Supreme Court which, in Buck vs. Bell (1927), upheld compulsory sterilization laws. By 1937, 32 states enacted such laws, which affected over 50,000 people.

Although they lost support after the atrocities of World War II, forced sterilizations were performed in North Caroline as late as 1974. It is important to note that these policies disproportionately targeted marginalized groups, including minorities, immigrants, the poor, the physically and mentally ill, and unwed mothers. In California, for example, Black people and immigrants were sterilized at twice the rate of the general population based on their representation in state institutions.

Hence, it is important to be aware of the potential misuses of intelligence testing. In the more recent past, intelligence tests were sometimes used to help diagnose learning disabilities or psychopathologies, but the tests were never intended for this use, and they are no longer considered to be best practices. Some forms of achievement testing, like the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) were also previously used routinely to screen applicants for admission to educational institutions. However, over the last several decades the majority of schools and universities have discontinued their use. And schools that do utilize them generally do not consider them an indicator of intelligence or ability, but instead as a marker of previous academic preparation.

Multicultural Educational Systems 

Schooling and education represent big commitments in the lives of children and youth. From preschool until high school graduation, children spend more hours a day participating in school than they do doing anything else besides sleeping. Hence, school is a major context for the development of children and youth. The educational system has historically been a target of criticism from many directions.

But at its foundation, public education serves many crucial anchoring functions for communities beyond those of teaching and learning, from making sure students eat daily to allowing parents to go to work to providing afterschool activities that keep children and adolescents safe and off the street. When schools were shut down during the pandemic, society was shaken. A bedrock institution had been removed, leaving our everyday lives more difficult. We are still registering the after effects. Children lost out not only on learning but also on the development of social, emotional, and regulatory skills, which became the focus of many schools when they were reopened.

One of the great challenges to school systems worldwide, and the American educational system in particular, has been to create and transform schools so that they work well in supporting the development of children and youth from all backgrounds. As in many pluralistic societies, schools in the US serve students who vary in heritage culture, socioeconomic status, gender, race, disability status, sexual orientation, and so on.

Since schools have largely been created based on the norms and practices of white Middle class culture, students from non-dominant groups sometimes experience a disconnect or dissonance between the cultures of their home and school. Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, schools have been working toward a more pluralistic multicultural form of eduction (Banks, 2021; Grant & Chapman, 2008).

As you can imagine, this is a long-term ongoing project, that schools and educators have been working on for decades. It is made more difficult by political crosswinds and easier by the support of local communities. So in this section, we consider just a few components that schools have targeted, including increasing cultural awareness in classroom practices, incorporating bilingualism, reducing differential treatment and discipline, and promoting parents' involvement in their children's schooling.

Cultural Richness in the Classroom 

For many schools, a first major step has been to reconsider teaching and learning practices in the classroom, so they can be accessible and welcoming to students from a range of backgrounds. Through professional development activities and their own teaching and lived experience, educators, who as a group tend to be predominantly white and monolingual, work to become more culturally competent, attuned, and flexible. These practices can prevent misunderstandings between teachers and students, help students learn better, and improve the classroom climate (Cazden, 2001; Rogers, et al., 2005). They are also good for teachers' own learning and development!

Consider some examples:  

• Speaking. In some cultures, it is considered polite or even intelligent not to speak unless you have something truly important to say. Chitchat, or talk that simply affirms a personal tie between people, is considered immature or intrusive (Minami, 2002). In a classroom, this habit can make it easier for a child to learn not to interrupt others, but it can also make the child seem unfriendly. 
• Eye contact. Eye contact varies by culture. In many African American and Latin American communities, it is considered appropriate and respectful for a child not to look directly at an adult who is speaking to them (Torres-Guzman, 1998). In classrooms, however, teachers often expect a lot of eye contact (as in “I want all eyes on me!”) and may be tempted to construe lack of eye contact as a sign of indifference or disrespect. 
• Social distance. Social distance varies by culture. In some cultures, it is common to stand relatively close when having a conversation; in others, it is more customary to stand relatively far apart (Beaulieu, 2004). Misunderstandings can arise when a teacher and a student prefer different social distances. A student who expects a closer distance than does the teacher may seem overly familiar or intrusive, whereas one who expects a larger distance may seem overly formal or reserved. 
• Wait time. Wait time varies by culture. Wait time is the gap between the end of one person's comment or question and the next person's reply or answer. In some cultures wait time is relatively long, as long as three or four seconds (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). In others it is a negative gap, meaning that it is acceptable, even expected, for a person to begin talking before the end of the previous comment. In classrooms the wait time is customarily about one second; after that, the teacher is likely to move on to another question or to another student. A student who habitually expects a wait time longer may seem hesitant, be passed over, or not be given many chances to speak. A student who expects a negative wait time, on the other hand, may seem overeager or even rude. 
• Questions. In most non-Anglo cultures, questions are intended to gain information, and it is assumed that a person asking a question truly does not have the information requested (Rogoff, 2003). In most classrooms, however, teachers regularly ask "test questions," which are questions to which the teacher already knows the answer and that simply assess whether a student knows the answer as well (Macbeth, 2003). The question: “How much is 2 + 2?” for example, is a test question. If the student is not aware of this purpose, they may become confused, or think that the teacher is surprisingly ignorant. Worse yet, the student may feel that the teacher is trying deliberately to shame the student by revealing the student's ignorance or incompetence to others. 

• 

  Preference for activities that are cooperative rather than competitive. Many activities in school are competitive, even when teachers try to de-emphasize the competition. Once past the early years of school, students often become attentive to who receives the highest marks on an assignment, for example, or who is the best athlete at various sports or whose contributions to class discussions gets the most verbal recognition from the teacher (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). A teacher can deliberately organize important activities or assignments competitively, as in “Let’s see who finishes the math sheet first”.

Classroom life can then become explicitly competitive, and a competitive atmosphere can interfere with cultivating supportive relationships among students or between students and the teacher (Cohen, 2004). For students who give priority to these relationships, competition can seem confusing at best and threatening at worst. A student may wonder, “What sort of sharing or helping with answers is allowed?” The answer to this question may be different depending on the cultural background of the student and teacher. What the student views as cooperative sharing may be seen by the teacher as laziness, freeloading, or even cheating.

Bilingualism in Schools

In 1979, less than 10% of school aged children and adolescents in the US were bilingual (Camarota & Zeigler, 2014), but today approximately 20% speak a language other than English at home. The majority of bilingual students speak Spanish, but the rest represent more than three hundred different language groups from around the world. In communities throughout the United States, it is therefore common for a single classroom to contain students from several different language backgrounds at the same time.

Kinds of Bilingualism. In classrooms, as in other social settings, bilingualism exists in different forms and degrees. At one extreme are students who speak both English and another language fluently; at the other extreme are those who speak only limited versions of both languages. In between are students who speak their home (or heritage) language much better than English, as well as others who have partially lost their heritage language in the process of learning English (Tse, 2001). Commonly, a student may speak a language satisfactorily, but be challenged by reading or writing it. That is, children can be bilingual without being biliterate, or able to read and write fluently in both languages.

Whatever the case, each bilingual student brings unique strengths and poses unique challenges to teachers. Students who are English language learners (ELL) are now referred to as emerging bilinguals to better reflect their actual competencies (Zoeller & Briceño, 2022). Worldwide the majority of children and youth (about 66%) are bilingual or multilingual and most school systems outside of the US are intentionally set up to foster second (and third) language development.

The US also has schools that are organized around learning multiple languages, often called immersion programs, because part of the school day takes place completely in a language other than English. Given what you know about language development, you can probably see the many advantages of starting children on language learning already in preschool and early elementary school (Bialystok, 2018; Fibla et al., 2022).

Advantages of Bilingualism. A student who speaks two languages fluently has a definite cognitive advantage. As you might suspect, and research confirms, a fully fluent bilingual student is in a better position to express concepts or ideas in more than one way, and to be aware of doing so (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995; Francis, 2006). Unfortunately, the bilingualism of many students is unbalanced in the sense that they are either still learning English, or else they have lost some earlier ability to use their original, heritage language.

Losing one’s original language is a concern as research finds that language loss limits students' ability to learn English as well or as quickly as they could. Having a large vocabulary in a first language has been shown to save time in learning vocabulary in a second language (Hansen, Umeda & McKinney, 2002). Preserving the first language is important. If a student has impaired skill in all languages, they could benefit from interventions or help from a speech-language specialist. Research has found, in such cases, that the specialist can be more effective if the specialist speaks and uses the first language as well as English (Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan, & Duran, 2005).

Differential Treatment and Discipline

The stereotypes held by parents and teachers can influence children’s learning, achievement, and self-understanding. For example, teachers who hold the view that girls are better at reading (Retelsdorf, Schwartz, & Asbrock, 2015) or boys are better at math (Plante, de la Sablonnière, Aronson, & Théorêt, 2013) often find that their students’ performance in these areas mirror these stereotypes, despite the children’s actual ability, or the ability of children in the classrooms of teachers who do not hold such stereotypes. While not all children will internalize the views of others, those who do are more likely to show declines in their performance consistent with the stereotypes (Plante, et al., 2013; Retelsdorf et al., 2015).

Differential Treatment. One issue that schools and teachers are working hard to resolve involves differential treatment and disparities in discipline (Civitillo et al., 2024; Denessen et al., 2022; Rubie-Davies & Hattie, 2024; Wang et al., 2018). Differential treatment has been studied most extensively in work on teacher expectations, in which teachers' beliefs about students’ potential to learn and perform well in school influence how they interact with students, which in turn shapes students' learning and development. Teachers base their expectations on multiple factors, including students’ actual performance, their motivation and engagement, and student demographics. In general, teachers hold lower expectations for: (1) students from low SES backgrounds; (2) students who are Black, Latino, Indigenous, immigrant, non-native English speakers; and (3) students with learning disabilities and mental health issues.

Teacher expectations are very important. Research shows that they predict student psycho-social, behavioral, and achievement outcomes. Students can feel them and they impact student motivation. Students engage, learn, and perform differentially depending on teacher expectations. They end up affecting students’ academic identities, including their self-efficacy, perceived ability, and their own expectancies.

Research has shown that teachers treat students’ differently depending on their expectations. When teachers hold low expectations for students, they provide more:

• Negative feedback
• Feedback about nonacademic issues (e.g., behavior)
• General insincere praise
• Frequent interruptions
• Criticism, direction, rules
• Monitoring/structuring activities
• Shorter wait time
• Reward incorrect answers and inappropriate behavior
• Assign seats further from teacher
• Group work e.g., assigned to lower performing groups

When teachers hold high expectations for students, they provide more:

• Attention, smiles, eye contact
• Positive feedback
• Informative feedback
• Opportunities to respond in class
• Cues to improve responses
• Latitude, freedom of choice
• Challenging activities
• Demands for more effort

Research has also shown that there are at least three kinds of teachers: (1) those who have differential expectations; (2) those with uniformly low expectations, who are especially prevalent in schools that serve students from marginalized communities; and (3) those with uniformly high expectations, who treat all students like high expectation students. It turns out that these teachers actually teach better, that is, they provide higher quality classroom environments, including:

1. Warmer socioemotional climates, closer relationships, more caring, partnership, and constructive response to mistakes.
2. More positive classroom management practices, including routines, preventative strategies, and scaffolding for self-regulation.
3. Better instruction, such as providing:

• Challenging, exciting learning activities, where students’ can choose their own direction
• More teaching statements: Many instructions, explanations of concepts, examples
• Questions which require higher order thinking, thinking beyond facts, and synthesis
• A better framework for student learning: Teachers orient students to topics, link them to previous lessons and prior knowledge, make sure students have a clear understanding of material before moving to independent activities
• Individual mastery goals, encouraging, motivating, seeking student questions
• More feedback about progress, info about what they had learned, what to do next
• Scaffolding, more cues, rephrasing questions, reminding of previous learning

In short, teachers with high expectations are good teachers. Their students learn and do well. If teachers don’t teach very well, they often feel like their students aren’t capable of learning. Interventions can focus on improving teacher practices in order to show them that all students can learn. Schools can provide more professional development and coaching to help them create high quality classroom experiences, as well as more support to help with students with learning challenges or behavioral issues. As you can imagine, these changes are not only good for students. They can foster greater teacher self-efficacy, satisfaction, and enjoyment as well!

Disciplinary Disparities. A crucial issue that both researchers and school leaders are working to address involves racial and ethnic discrimination at school (Civitillo et al., 2024; Denessen et al., 2022), including disparities in discipline (Gopalan, 2019; Little & Welsh, 2022; Owens, 2022). Black and Latino students are disciplined disproportionately more often and more severely for the same infractions compared to their white peers, according to reports by the National Institute of Mental Health.

Black students, especially boys, are most affected, but disparities also impact Black girls and Hispanic students, with data showing they are more likely to be seen as "blameworthy" and receive longer or more severe punishments. For example, black children are four times more likely than white to be suspended or expelled by age 9 (28% of black children vs. 7% of white children). These disparities are driven by the societal status hierarchies we have been discussing, as they are played out in schools via racialized school climates, implicit bias of teachers and administrators (e.g., in interpreting student behavior), and zero-tolerance disciplinary policies (Caldera, 2020; Gardner-Neblett et al., 2023).

Educators, parents, and researchers agree that it is crucial to make disciplinary policies and practices fair and equitable. Long term, higher rates of discipline put students of color at greater risk for dropout and increased involvement with the juvenile justice system. Short term, well functioning evidence-based management systems, such as those based on restorative justice (Lodi et al., 2021), help all students by preventing misbehavior and promoting better self-regulation, closer relationships with teachers and peers, and a warmer and more inclusive school climate.

Interestingly, other professional development activities for teachers, such as those focused on culturally responsive teaching, behavioral and social-emotional learning interventions, and implicit bias training, also reduce disciplinary disparities, as well as the overall number of infractions. You can learn more about interesting research on alternative disciplinary practices here in this summary from the Institute of Education Sciences.

Parental Involvement in School

Parents vary in their level of involvement with their children's schools. Teachers often devise a variety of techniques to keep parents in touch with daily and overall progress. For example, parents may be required to sign a behavior chart each evening to be returned to school or may be given information about the school's events through websites and newsletters. There are other factors that need to be considered when looking at parental involvement. To explore these, first ask yourself if all parents who enter the school with concerns about their child will be received in the same way?

Horvat (2004) found that teachers seek a particular type of involvement from particular types of parents. While teachers thought they were open and neutral in their responses to parental involvement, in reality teachers were most receptive to support, praise, and agreement coming from parents who were most similar to them in race and social class. Parents who criticized the school or its policies were less likely to be given voice.

Parents who have higher levels of income, occupational status, and other qualities favored in society have family capital. This is a form of power that can be used to improve a child's education. Parents who do not have these qualities may find it more difficult to be effectively involved. The authors suggest that teachers closely examine their biases about different kinds of parents. Schools may also need to examine their ability to dialogue with parents about school policies in more open ways. Any efforts to improve effective parental involvement should address these concerns.

The Development of Motivation: Mindsets 

Mindsets are organized sets of beliefs people have about the nature of ability and what they themselves are capable of learning. They are convictions people come to hold about how competent they are and whether there are limits to how much more competent they can become (Dweck & Yeager, 2019), . 

Where do mindsets come from? 

According to theories of mastery motivation, babies are born active and curious, ready to learn about the world and see how it works. As a result, infants are highly motivated and busy trying to make things happen—they love to “create effects,” for example, by waving their arms around, dropping spoons, splashing in the bath, pulling on earrings, and so on. Mastery motivation (sometimes called intrinsic motivation) is like a motor that sets in motion thousands of these exploratory interactions, and through them, babies learn an enormous amount about how to be effective in producing desired and preventing undesired outcomes. 

How do mindsets develop? 

As children learn about their environments, however, they are also learning something about themselves: that they are competent, efficacious little people, capable of making things happen. They take these beliefs with them into other learning contexts, like school, and such beliefs provide an underlying source of confidence, determination, and persistence, especially when children run into problems or setbacks. 

This sense of confidence and competence is called a mastery orientation, and it is one basis for children’s constructive engagement with challenging learning activities. When children with a mastery orientation make mistakes or can’t solve problems right away, they roll up their sleeves and work harder, their concentration and strategizing increases, they turn on the effort and don’t give up. As a result, they learn from their mistakes and benefit from challenges and difficulties. They not only feel more competent and efficacious, they actually become more competent as a result. Over time, these experiences strengthen their mastery orientation. 

Do all children have a mastery orientation? 

No, unfortunately, many infants and young children grow up in environments where they do not have experiences of competence and control. Their parents are not responsive, they do not come when babies call, or comfort them when they are upset. Parents may even be downright hostile. Children soon learn that their actions don’t matter, that they have no control over their little worlds. This is called a learned helplessness orientation, and it can be seen in infants as young as 4 months old.  

What are the effects of a learned helplessness orientation? 

Children take helpless attitudes with them into learning contexts, too. Unlike the mastery oriented children, however, children with a learned helplessness orientation react to obstacles or setbacks with helplessness, which means that they behave as if there is nothing they can do to solve the problem: They become upset and anxious, they give up and don’t even try. They avoid challenges and don’t want to try anything new or difficult. As a result, they don’t learn very much. These experiences undermine their confidence even more. Over time, by avoiding challenge and giving up when the going gets tough, they learn less and start to lose ground. Eventually, they not only feel less competent, they actually become objectively less competent. It is a vicious cycle. 

What are the mindsets that underlie mastery and helpless orientations? 

A researcher named Carol Dweck (Dweck, 2006) has done a lot of research on the kinds of mindsets that children (and adults) develop. She has argued that the experiences that we have in achievement contexts (like schools) communicate to us the meaning of “intelligence” or “smart-ness.” 

According to her work, people tend to develop one of two kinds of mindsets based on their cumulative history of experiences: 

• Fixed Mindset (aka an entity view of intelligence). In this mindset, people view intelligence as an unchangeable thing (an entity). Each of us has a certain amount of ability or talent, and these traits are “fixed,” meaning that they can’t be expanded or improved. In this mindset, children are always trying to “measure up,” and they worry about revealing how big (or small) their intelligence actually is. Such children never want to let anyone see when they don’t understand something, so they don’t ask questions. Mistakes and failures are to be avoided because they show how “dumb” you are, and having to exert extra effort means that you must not be as “naturally” smart. Since every low performance is considered a shameful failure, individuals with this view tend to prefer tasks that they can already do well and to avoid those where they might have to try hard, or where they might make mistakes. 
• Growth Mindset (aka an incremental view of intelligence). In this mindset, people view intelligence and abilities as expandable with effort. There is no fixed amount of intelligence that people come with. Instead, there’s just the level of competence we have attained up to this point. Everyone can always get “smarter,” through effort, hard work, practice, and more effective strategies. In this view, effort expands the capacity to learn, and mistakes are an opportunity to learn even more. Such children do not need to worry about whether they “measure up;” they focus instead on figuring out how to take the next steps to improve their skills. Since “failure” is considered an opportunity to learn more, individuals with this view tend to prefer tasks that are challenging, even if it means they make mistakes at first, because that is how they will learn the most.  

Why do mindsets matter? 

Even throughout adulthood, mindsets profoundly affect your life and the way you approach the world. For example, they affect your goals, how you strive to achieve them, and your motivations for pursuing them. They also impact your definitions of success versus failure and your reactions to obstacles and challenges. 

Learning Goals (associated with a growth mindset). For those with a learning orientation, the goal is to acquire/improve new skills and knowledge. In general, individuals who hold these views enjoy challenges, set high goals for themselves, exert high effort, and concentrate on the task at hand. When failure is encountered, they tend to view it as information about how they can improve their performance in the future rather than as an assault on their personal abilities. When dealing with obstacles, people with learning goals tend to respond with more determination and persistence, show less distress, and initiate more proactive patterns of action such as planning, studying, and practicing. 

Performance Goals (associated with a fixed mindset). For those with a performance orientation, the goal is to gain approval from others (e.g., the teacher) by demonstrating one’s high ability or hiding one’s low ability. In general, individuals who hold these views often avoid challenge, set less specific goals for themselves, and are easily distracted. They tend to do just enough to get by and experience more self-derogatory thoughts. When dealing with setbacks, people with performance goals tend to give up quickly, avoid help, ruminate on their failures, and give excuses for their performance. 

Can mindsets be changed? 

Absolutely! The key idea of a growth mindset is that we can develop our abiities through effort. Change doesn’t happen over night, but beliefs and mindsets can slowly be changed. When you encounter challenge, what can be learned from it? If we can give up the desire to always appear to be “smart” and embrace the struggles and setbacks that are an essential part of the learning process (and teach our children/students to do so as well), we will be more likely to pursue more challenging and fulfilling goals, and to become more competent over time. 

It’s important to note that having a growth mindset doesn’t mean you can never feel bad about things that have gone wrong. You can, for a little while. But, feeling bad does not need to keep you from taking the next, growth-minded steps of figuring out how to improve in the future and try again. 

How can I promote a growth mindset in my children or students? 

Feedback from parents and teachers can play a big role in the development of children’s beliefs about themselves. There is a lot of research about how to set up classrooms so that they promote “learning goals” and a growth mindset. Perhaps the most important thing is the mindset of the adult (Yeager et al., 2022). If a teacher believes that children’s abilities are fixed, then they focus on measuring intelligence, sorting children accordingly, and offer different opportunities to each group. Parents who label their children as this is my “smart child” and this is my “artistic child” communicate to both of them that their fixed talents have been measured and that they should limit themselves to those activities. 

Adults can help by providing a wide range of learning opportunities (especially in areas that children aren’t already good at), accompanied by lots of encouragement for effort, hard work, and practice. When children encounter setbacks, they can benefit from cooperative examination of their mistakes, supportive coaching, and suggestions about more effective strategies for learning.

Even subtle things can make a difference: Praising a child for getting a perfect score on an exam can send a message about the importance of getting the correct answer the first time (associated with a fixed mindset), whereas praising their effort can emphasize the importance of developing and learning (associated with a growth mindset). Likewise, expressing sympathy at a low performance or encouraging children to drop an activity when they do not excel right away suggests that there is nothing they can do (associated with a fixed mindset), whereas mild irritation and support for continued practice can communicate the expectation that children can improve if they apply themselves (associated with a growth mindset). 

Reflect on your own development (or the development of someone you know): 

1.  What tends to motivate you? 

• Getting a good grade? 
• Learning new things? 

2.  How do you feel when you make a mistake? 

• Like an idiot? 
• Like you are about to learn something? 

3.  How do you cope with obstacles and setbacks? 

• Do you give up? 
• Do you try harder the next time? 

4.  What are your beliefs about intelligence? 

• Is it fixed? 
• Can it change with effort? 

5.  Can you influence your own development? 

• In what ways could you be your own (positive or negative) social context? 

Supplemental Materials

• This video illustrates Erikson's stage of Industry. It features a 9-year old girl in Minneapolis who makes and sells bracelets with the proceeds going to support building black businesses and those in need because of covid-19.
  

• This video shows an 8-year-old child, nick-named Kid President, who inspires people to be industrious and contribute to a better world.
• This article discusses the unique challenges of navigating the U.S. school system for minoritized students whose families do not subscribe to the White, middle class culture socialized in most schools.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Cao, H.T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 224-250.

• This article provides an overview of the history of research on children's mindsets, as told by one of the researchers who uncovered the concept.

Dweck, C. S. (2017). The journey to children's mindsets—and beyond. Child Development Perspectives, 11(2), 139-144.

• This documentary by Shakti Butler explores the school-to-prison-pipeline and the impact of the criminal legal system on minoritized populations.

https://www.world-trust.org/healing-justice

• This article discusses how harsh discipline school policies impact Black girls.

Hines-Datiri, D., & Carter Andrews, D. J. (2017). The Effects of Zero Tolerance Policies on Black Girls. Urban Education, 0042085917690204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917690204

References

Aiken, L. R. (1994). Psychological testing and assessment (8th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2021). Transforming multicultural education policy and practice: Expanding educational opportunity. Teachers College Press.

Bas, G. (2016). The effect of multiple intelligences theory-based education on academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(6), 1833-1864.

Beaulieu, C. (2004). Intercultural study of personal space: A case study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 794-805. Binet, A., Simon, T., & Town, C. H. (1915). A method of measuring the development of the intelligence of young children (3rd ed.) Chicago, IL: Chicago Medical Book.

Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666-679.

Bink, M. L., & Marsh, R. L. (2000). Cognitive regularities in creative activity. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 59–78. Brody, N. (2003). Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis. Intelligence, 31(4), 319–329.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univeristy Press.

Caldera, A. L. (2020). Eradicating anti-Black racism in US schools: A call-to-action for school leaders. Diversity, Social Justice, and the Educational Leader, 4(1), 12-25.

Camarota, S. A., & Zeigler, K. (2015). One in five U. S. residents speaks foreign language at home. Retrieved from https://cis.org/sites/default/files/camarota-language-15.pdf

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse, (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heineman Publishers.

Civitillo, S., Mayer, A. M., & Jugert, P. (2024). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between perceived teacher-based racial–ethnic discrimination and student well-being and academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(5), 719.

Cohen, E. (2004). Teaching cooperative learning: The challenge for teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., van den Bergh, L., & Bijlstra, G. (2022). Implicit measures of teachers' attitudes and stereotypes, and their effects on teacher practice and student outcomes: A review. Learning and Instruction, 78, 101437.

Dutton, E., van der Linden, D., Lynn, R. (2016). The negative Flynn effect: A systematic literature review. Intelligence, 59, 163-169.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset : the new psychology of success (1st ed.). Random House.

Ericsson, K. (1998). The scientific study of expert levels of performance: General implications for optimal learning and creativity. High Ability Studies, 9(1), 75–100.

Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. NY: Norton & Company.

Fibla, L., Kosie, J. E., Kircher, R., Lew-Williams, C., & Byers-Heinlein, K. (2022). Bilingual language development in infancy: What can we do to support bilingual families?. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(1), 35-43.

Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54(1), 5–20.

Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse ability and metalinguistic awareness in second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 37-47.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 613–617.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2020). “Neuromyths”: A critical consideration. Mind Brain Education, 14, 2–4. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12229

Gardner-Neblett, N., Iruka, I. U., & Humphries, M. (2023). Dismantling the Black–White achievement gap paradigm: Why and how we need to focus instead on systemic change. Journal of Education, 203(2), 433-441.

Gopalan, M. (2019). Understanding the linkages between racial/ethnic discipline gaps and racial/ethnic achievement gaps in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(154), n154.

Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4), 343–397.

Grant, C. A., & Chapman, T. K. (Eds.). (2008). History of multicultural education: Foundations and stratifications (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Gregory, A., Hafen, C. A., Ruzek, E., Mikami, A. Y., Allen, J. P., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). Closing the racial discipline gap in classrooms by changing teacher practice. School psychology review, 45(2), 171-191.

Hansen, L., Umeda, Y., & McKinney, M. (2002). Savings in the relearning of second language vocabulary: The effects of time and proficiency. Language Learning, 52, 653-663.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.

Horvat, E. M. (2004). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. In A. Lareau (Author) & J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (2nd ed., pp. 276-286). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hussain, M. S., Khan, S. A., & Bidar, M. C. (2022). Self-efficacy of teachers: A review of the literature. Multi-Disciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 110-116.

Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., & Pearson. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 67-97.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning, (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P., & Duran, L. (2005). Intervention with linguistically diverse preschool children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251-263.

Little, S. J., & Welsh, R. O. (2022). Rac (e) ing to punishment? Applying theory to racial disparities in disciplinary outcomes. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 564-584.

Lodi, E., Perrella, L., Lepri, G. L., Scarpa, M. L., & Patrizi, P. (2021). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 96.

Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan's Learning Lessons reconsidered: On the differences between naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (1), 239-280.

Minami, M. (2002). Culture-specific language styles: The development of oral narrative and literacy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Negru-Subtirica, O. (2024). Educational identity processes in adolescence: An analysis of longitudinal evidence and the role of educational systems. Child Development Perspectives, 18, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12504

Neisser, U. (1997). Rising scores on intelligence tests. American Scientist, 85, 440-447.

Neisser, U. (1998). The rising curve. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Owens, J. (2022). Double jeopardy: Teacher biases, racialized organizations, and the production of racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline. American Sociological Review, 87(6), 1007-1048.

Plante, I., De la Sablonnière, R., Aronson, J. M., & Théorêt, M. (2013). Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and task values. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(3), 225-235.

Retelsdorf, J., Asbrock, F., & Schwartz, K. (2015). “Michael can’t read!” teachers’ gender stereotypes and boys’ reading self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 186-194.

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosely, M., Hui, D., & O'Garro, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 365-416.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The culture of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Hattie, J. A. (2024). The powerful impact of teacher expectations: a narrative review. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2393296

Sabbah, S. S., & Aldin, A. M. H. A. (2022). Distinctive behavioral characteristics of outstanding students in the light of Triarchic Theory of Intelligence from the point of view of students and their teachers. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S2), 8624-8639.

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Shearer, B. (2018). Multiple intelligences in teaching and education: Lessons learned from neuroscience. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 38.

Siegler, R. S. (1992). The other Alfred Binet. Developmental Psychology, 28(2), 179–190.

Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–158.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Contemporary theories of intelligence. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 23–45). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at school. In J. M. Puckett & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Mechanisms of everyday cognition (pp. 205–227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tarasova, I. V., Volf, N. V., & Razoumnikova, O. M. (2010). Parameters of cortical interactions in subjects with high and low levels of verbal creativity. Human Physiology, 36(1), 80–85.

Tharp, R. & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Torres-Guzman, M. (1998). Language culture, and literacy in Puerto Rican communities. In B. Perez (Ed.), Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Treffert, D. A., & Wallace, G. L. (2004). Islands of genius. Scientific American, 14–23. Retrieved from http://gordonresearch.com/articles_autism/SciAm-Islands_of_Genius.pdf

Tse, L. (2001). Why don't they learn English? New York: Teachers' College Press.

Wagner, R., & Sternberg, R. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 436–458.

Wang, S., Rubie-Davies, C. M., & Meissel, K. (2018). A systematic review of the teacher expectation literature over the past 30 years. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3-5), 124-179.

Watkins, C. E., Campbell, V. L., Nieberding, R., & Hallmark, R. (1995). Contemporary practice of psychological assessment by clinical psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(1), 54–60.

Weisberg, R. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Wigfield, A., Muenks, K., & Eccles, J. S. (2021). Achievement motivation: What we know and where we are going. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 87-111.

Xiang, Y. (2025). Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. In The ECPH Encyclopedia of Psychology (pp. 1553-1554). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269-1284.

Yeager, D. S., Carroll, J. M., Buontempo, J., Cimpian, A., Woody, S., Crosnoe, R., ... & Dweck, C. S. (2022). Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth-mindset intervention does and doesn’t work. Psychological Science, 33(1), 18-32.

Zoeller, E., & Briceño, A. (2022). We can be bilingual rather than an English learner. Teacher Education Quarterly, 49(2), 33-57.

OER Attribution:

"Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective, Second Edition" by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0

The Development of Motivation: Mindsets by Jennifer Pitzer Graham is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Video Attribution:

9-year-old makes bracelets to raise money for Minneapolis by Good Morning America is licensed All Rights Reserved and is embedded here according to YouTube terms of service.

The dark history of IQ tests by TED is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0