Learned Helplessness



Currently, this page is merely a Stub.



Some Initial Thoughts
Students vary considerably in their speed and depth of learning. A good education system works toward each individual student being all that they can be.

To be all that you can be, you must work hard, learn to know yourself, learn to make effective use of the aids to learning that are available, and learn to take responsibility for yourself.

I think the idea of learned helplessness is quite applicable in math education. Many people seem to learn "I can't do math." That is (in my opinion) almost always the result of learned helplessness.

Keith Devlin's work (2000) tells us that few exceptions, a person who can learn to speak and listen can learn math.

Carol Dweck's work and the work of others gives us good insight into how learned helplessness can occur. Her work suggests that it is a result of just giving up trying. Persistent trying with little or no0 success leads to giving up, and this giving up can transfer to other areas.

It is easy to create math education environments in which students cannot succeed even when they try hard. The problems and tasks are significantly above their current levels of math maturity (math cognitive development) and math knowledge and skills.

Carol Dweck
Carol Dweck: https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/cdweck

Quoting from

https://www.stanford.edu/dept/psychology/cgi-bin/drupalm/system/files/cdwecklearning%20success.pdf


 * Most students aim to succeed on academic tests. Yet, there is increasing evidence that the likelihood of their success is influenced not only by actual ability, but also by the beliefs and goals that they bring to the achievement situation (Elliot and Dweck, 2005). One framework that has been informative in addressing not only how these beliefs affect overall performance, but also how they affect rebound following failure, concerns individuals’ theories of intelligence (TOI; Dweck and Sorich, 1999). Previous behavioral studies have shown that students who believe that intelligence is a fixed quantity (‘entity theorists’) are particularly vulnerable to decreased performance when they realize they are at risk of failing, whereas students who view intelligence as acquirable (‘incremental theorists’) appear better able to remain effective learners.


 * These outcomes may be rooted in the different goals that follow from holding either a fixed or an acquirable view of intelligence (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Hong et al., 1997; Mueller and Dweck, 1998; Sorich-Blackwell, 2001). Entity theorists tend to be more concerned with besting others in order to prove their intelligence (‘performance goals’), leaving them highly vulnerable to negative feedback. As a result, these individuals are more likely to shun learning opportunities where they anticipate a high risk of errors, or to disengage from these situations when errors occur. Indeed, when areas of weakness are exposed, they often will forego remedial opportunities that could be critical for future success (Chiu et al., 1997). In contrast, incremental theorists are more likely to endorse the goal of increasing ability through effort and are more likely to gravitate toward tasks that offer real challenges (‘learning goals’). In addition, in line with their view that there is always potential for intellectual growth, they are more willing to pursue remedial activities when they experience academic difficulty.

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29


 * Flow is the mental state of operation in which a person in an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and success in the process of the activity. Proposed by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, the positive psychology concept has been widely referenced across a variety of fields.

Author or Authors
The initial version of this document was developed by David Moursund.