GO Long Distance: January 2008

The title of this blog is from an article by Carol S Dweck in American Educator magazine way back in 1999. Dweck is a Professor of psychology in the USA and was reporting on some research she and two colleagues did relating intelligence and performance and how they responded to praise. The results can be transported across to coaching and give us a valuable tool for helping swimmer development.

Because I want to relate the findings directly to swimming coaching I have changed the content of Dweck's story from students following academic tasks to swimmers undergoing training and competition. One of the direct descriptions; where Dweck talks about 'intelligence' I have changed to 'talent' so, for example, where she says, '[we] conducted .. studies.. to examine the effects of praising children for being intelligent.' I have changed that to, '[we] conducted .. studies.. to examine the effects of praising children for being talented.' Talent in this regard is deemed to be inherent - genetically predisposed characteristics - which assist fast swimming, for example, greater height and limb length than 'normal or a naturally occurring 'good' pull pattern etc. I've also transposed 'mental task' to 'training set' etc. but if you want to check the original paper it's available here.

Dweck starts by asserting the decline of the 'self-esteem movement' and states, 'Although many educators believed that boosting students' self-esteem would boost their academic achievement, this did not happen.' By boosting self-esteem she means the unconditional input of 'positive' statements and praise. I'm reminded of a situation some years ago where I was giving feedback to a (surprise) female breaststroker when she stopped, looked aghast and said, 'But you're only supposed to say nice things to me.' The Tui guys could have come up with the most appropriate response to that.

We can translate Dweck's statement as,'Although many coaches believed that boosting swimmers' self-esteem would boost their competitive achievement, this did not happen.' but Dweck clearly points out that the self-esteem people were on to something extremely important; praise is a powerful tool which, if used correctly, can help swimmers who delight in challenge to understand the value of effort and be able to deal with setbacks. However, if praise is not handled correctly it can become a negative force - this is the crux of Dweck's research and potentially of great value to coaches.

Dweck says historically many people held an intuitively appealing theory of self esteem, which went something like this: Giving [swimmers] many opportunities to experience success and then praising them for their successes will indicate to them that they are [talented]. If they feel good about their [talent], they will achieve. They will love [training]and be confident and successful [competitors]. Much research now shows that this idea is wrong. Giving [swimmers] easy tasks and praising their success tells [swimmers] that you think they’re dumb.

Dweck conducted six studies with more than 400 students in the following sequence:

A training set that was challenging but easy enough for them all of them to do quite well. They then praised one third of the group for their talent, one third for their effort and one third for their performance.
- Talent - 'Wow, you held 1:o4.5. That's really good. You must be really talented.'
- Effort - 'Wow, you held 1:o4.5. That's really good. You must have worked really hard.'
- Performance - 'Wow, you held 1:o4.5. That's really good. Good job.'
These are subtle differences but Dweck's findings indicate they are important ones.

The three groups, equally successful in this first test, then indicated they had enjoyed the task equally, were equally eager to further practice the task and were equally confident about their future performance.
The swimmers were then given a choice of different tasks to work on next. They were asked if they wanted a challenging set which could have a terrific effect but at which they might fail, or an easier set on which they were sure to do well and look like heroes. The decision:
- Talent - this group went for the easy set.
- Effort - 90% went for the challenge set.
- Performance - 50-50 easy/challenge.
Dweck's conclusion was if you praise for talent you are telling them that is the name of the game; display talent, make it look easy, don't risk making mistakes. On the other hand when you praise for effort and hard work that underpins achievement the swimmers want to continue being challenged; they are not diverted from the task of training by a concern with how talented they might, or might not, look.
The swimmers were then given a set which was harder and on which they didn't do as well.

When asked the 'talent' group indicated they did not like it and were no longer interested in further practice at that degree of difficulty. They also started to question their degree of talent. In other words the setback made them feel inadequate.

The 'effort' group liked the harder set even more than the easier ones and were even more eager to try more challenges. As Dweck says, 'It was wonderful to see.' This 'effort' group also did not think the difficulty of the set nor their comparative lack of success reflected on their talent. They thought, simply, that they had to make a greater effort in order to succeed. This group were able to keep their self-esteem; they still thought they were talented, they enjoyed the challenge and they planned to continue working towards future success. The group who had been praised for their talent received an initial boost to their egos but were shaken when the going got rough.
The groups were then given a third batch of sets which were equal in difficulty to the first set in which all had been successful. The results were striking - although all three groups had performed equally well on the first trial this did not carry over to the third:
- Talent - this group registered the worst performance of the three groups. In addition they were significantly worse than on the first test.
- Effort - the best of the three groups and significantly better then they were on the first test.
- Performance - not reported.
Dweck concludes that when swimmers see their performance as a measure of their talent they are likely to feel stigmatized when they perform poorly and may even try to hide the fact. If, however, they consider a poor performance a temporary setback, which merely reflects how much effort they have put in or their current level of skill, it will not be a stigma.
To test this conclusion the researchers asked the swimmers to tell a swimmer in another programme about the sets they had just completed and to report their times on the second, most difficult set.
- Talent - more than 40% of this group lied about their times even though they were writing to an anonymous peer who they would never meet. Very few of the swimmers in the other groups exaggerated their performance. Dweck suggests failure becomes personal when swimmers are praised for talent and therefore more of a disgrace. As a result they are less able to face and therefore deal with setbacks.
  
  The negative effects of praising for talent were as strong or even stronger for the high-performers in the group as for the slower swimmers, suggesting they may be even more susceptible to messages valuing them for their God-given gifts.
  
  This group thought talent was something innate - a capacity that you just had or didn't have.
- Effort - this group considered talent more in terms of skills, knowledge (fitness?) and motivation; things which they had some control over and were able to improve.
Dweck asks how can one sentence of praise have such powerful and persuasive effects? She emphasises her amazement at how quickly swimmers of all ages pick up on messages about themselves and how sensitive they are to suggestions about their personal qualities or about the meaning of their actions and experiences. Praise or criticism from their coaches and parents tell them about what they do and what they are.

At kindergarten age Dweck found praise or criticism focusing on being talented or well-behaved resulted in real vulnerability when swimmers hit setbacks. They saw setbacks as showing they were bad or incompetent and were unable to respond constructively. In contrast, praise or criticism focusing on strategies or efforts leading to success left them hardy, confident and in control when they confronted setbacks. A setback did not mean anything bad about them or their personal qualities; it simply meant something needed to be done, and they set about doing it.

Dweck voices concern about praising talent. When we worry about low-achievers or vulnerable we may want to reassure then they're talented. When we want to motivate high-performers we may want to spur them on by telling them they're gifted. Dweck's research says, 'Don't do that.' Instead of empowering them it is likely to render them passive and dependent on something they can't control. It can also hook them into a system in which setbacks signify incompetence and effort is recognised as a sign of weakness rather than a key to success.

In this age of 'PC-ness' where criticism is verboten and no-one is allowed to lose there is a lot of pressure to give unconditional praise in every situation. The fact is, however, we can praise as much as we like when swimmers improve or win but coaches should focus on their strategies and effort not on attributes that are innate and beyond the swimmers' control.

Rave about their effort, their concentration, the effectiveness of their training, the interesting approach they used, the way they followed through, their persistence. Ask them questions that show an intelligent appreciation of their work and what they put into it, enthusiastically discuss with them what they learned.

What about the times a swimmer really impresses by learning something quickly, easily and perfectly? Surely it's appropriate to show admiration for the swimmer's ability? Dweck's opinion is we should not! We should not be giving swimmers the impression we value their performing perfectly on tasks that are easy. Better to apologise for giving them something that was too easy and move onto a more challenging task. When they make progress in or master the bigger challenges that's when our admiration - for their efforts - should be displayed.
To back up the research-based results Dweck looked at studies done in real-life situations during the transition to junior high school and during the first two years of junior high. This is exactly the age when swimmers are forming their training and competition habits and attitudes. She compared attitudes and achievements of swimmers who believed talent is fixed and those who believed they could develop their skill sets.
- Talent - those who believed talent is fixed felt that poor performance indicated they were dumb. They reported in significantly greater numbers than their peers, that if they did badly in a test they would seriously consider cheating next time. This applied even to those who were highly skilled and had an impressive history of success.
  
  Worryingly they thought that having to make an effort meant they were dumb and one of their prime goals was to exert as little effort as possible.
  
  This group did more poorly in junior high than they had at elementary level.
- Effort - this group felt that poor performance was often due to a lack of effort and it called for more training. They saw effort as worthwhile and important, something necessary even for geniuses if they are to realize their potential. That's the sort of attitude coaches dream about. They also reported they felt most talented when things were difficult, they gained self-esteem when they applied themselves to meeting challenges. This group showed clear gains in their rankings and many blossomed competitively. The demands of their new environment encouraged them to roll up their sleeves and get to work.
The same pattern continued with students entering university - equivalent to swimmers moving to open or senior competition and aspiring to high performance.
According to Dweck (who cites an unpublished manuscript by Aronson and Fried) attitudes and behaviours can be modified even at senior level and that those modifications will result in higher performance.
Dweck suggests throwing out ideas of convincing swimmers they are talented or setting rigorous standards in the hope it will create high motivation and achievement. She puts forward this framework for coaches:
- Get swimmers to focus on their potential to train.
- Teach them to value challenge and training over reliance on talent.
- Teach them to concentrate on effort and the training process in the face of obstacles.
This framework can be applied while holding swimmers to rigorous standards and expectations. Training is highly challenging and effort is highly valued, required and rewarded. Coaches must give swimmers frank evaluations of their training and competition and their level of skill but must make it clear these are evaluations of their current level of performance and skill, not an assessment of their talent.

Coaches should not offer easy work or manipulate constant successes, thinking they are doing swimmers a favour. Do not lie to swimmers who are doing poorly so they will feel good; it robs them of the information they need to work harder and improve. Nor should coaches offer hard work that many can't complete, thus making them into casualties of the system.

A related article by Daniel T Willingham sums up as follows:

Praise should be sincere.
Praise should emphasise process, not ability.
Label the praisworthy action, not the child.
Praise should be immediate and unexpected.
Praise is neither an automatic expander of self-esteem, nor the ruin of someone's self-efficacy.
Praise should be an unexpected bonus not a right.

Willingham gives examples of a single instance when a student has been helpful, honest or organised with no pressure for her to always be that way.

'You saw that Amy was having triouble memorizing her part for the play, so you rehearsed with her until she had all her lines down pat. That was helpful - not only to Amy, but to the whole cast.'

'You told me what happened at recess today even though you knew I might get angry. I appreciate your honesty.'

You sorted out your pencils, crayons and pens, and put them in separate boxes. That's what I call being organised.'

Avoid the kind of praise that hints at past weakness or failures. Instead of referring to past weaknesses, focus on the child's present strength.

'Well, you finally played that piece of music the way it should be played.' versus,
'I really like the way you kept a strong, rhythmic beat going in that piece.'

'I never thought you would pass that test - but you did.' versus,
'I can see you put in a lot of work to pass that test.'

When swimmers are too eager for praise, be positive without explicitly praising. A positive comment can help swimmers think about working for their own satisfaction, instead of trying to earn praise from the coach. 'That was a tough problem, but you kept working at it until you solved it.' helps the swimmer think, 'I don't give up easily. I persist.'

Likewise, 'You cleared away all the kickboards and stored the backstroke flags without being asked. I really appreciate that,' get's them thinking, 'I can be responsible.'

And, in the classroom, 'Your opening sentence grabbed my interest and made me want to read on,' get's them thinking, 'I'm getting good at writing.'

Swimmers tend to judge other swimmers by how fast they are rather than how they got to be fast. This research suggests coaches should continue to move the judgement towards the process of training and racing and that the outcome will be faster racing.