Page 36 - Kukanja Gabrijelčič, Mojca, and Maruška Seničar Željeznov, eds. 2018. Teaching Gifted and Talented Children in A New Educational Era. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 36
die G. C. Malotaux-Christophersen, Sven A. C. Mathijssen, and Lianne Hoogeveen
ture, and arise from unconscious functions of the brain (Blakemore, Wolpert,
& Frith, 2000; Fletcher, & Frith, 2009; Krabbendam, 2012). Han and Northoff
(2008), and Chiao (2009) for example, demonstrated a correlation between
differences in cultural background, and the neuronal activity that underlies
cognitive functions. This correlation between culture and neuronal activity
is partially a consequence of the working of the brain while observing and
processing information (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 2000; Fletcher, & Frith,
2009; Krabbendam, 2012). Observations, for instance, are based on presump-
tions (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 2000; Knoop, 2015; Krabbendam, 2012). The
brain, based on acquired knowledge rooted in structured habits of a culture,
hypothesizes and predicts the chance and impact of an observation, in order
to decide to pay attention or not. The final perceived experience is a com-
bination of this prediction and the real observation (Blakemore, Wolpert &
Frith, 2000; Fletcher & Frith, 2009; Knoop, 2015; Krabbendam 2012). In social
interaction, the brain acts similarly, continuously hypothesizing and predict-
ing the behaviour of others. According to this prediction, behaviour will be
adjusted (Delgado, Frank, & Phelps, 2006; Frith & Frith, 2010). This process of
predicting and adjusting, though it is occurring most of the times uncon-
sciously, leads to implicit messages, and builds implicit theories (Krabben-
dam, 2012).
Sometimes the influence of implicit theories can be rather negative. Re-
search shows that self-related implicit theories of intelligence can contain
dysfunctional beliefs concerning an individual’s own potential actions and
abilities (Burkley, Burkley, Parker, & Sterner, 2009; Chany, Burke, & Burkley,
2011; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Ommundsen, 2001; Stoeger, 2009; Ziegler,
Vialle, & Wimmer, 2013). These beliefs can greatly influence a student’s self-
regulated learning as they influence self-efficacy, motivation, willingness to
take risks or to try new strategies, attributions, and, as a consequence of this,
willingness to work hard and put effort in learning (Zimmerman, 2000, 2002).
Dweck et al. (1995) found an important correlation between reactions to
problems, difficulties, setbacks or danger, and implicit theories. Those think-
ing that characteristics of a person are incremental tend to focus on analysing
a problematical situation and taking action, while those believing those char-
acteristics are an entity, tend to helplessness and blaming others. Concerning
intelligence, Dweck (2006) found that those who believe that intelligence is
not fixed, but malleable (a growth mind-set) are inclined to put more effort
into learning. Facing setbacks, they will try new strategies, work even harder,
and persist to reach their goal. Those who believe that intelligence is fixed (a
fixed mind-set), are inclined to give up, thinking they lack the intelligence to
34
ture, and arise from unconscious functions of the brain (Blakemore, Wolpert,
& Frith, 2000; Fletcher, & Frith, 2009; Krabbendam, 2012). Han and Northoff
(2008), and Chiao (2009) for example, demonstrated a correlation between
differences in cultural background, and the neuronal activity that underlies
cognitive functions. This correlation between culture and neuronal activity
is partially a consequence of the working of the brain while observing and
processing information (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 2000; Fletcher, & Frith,
2009; Krabbendam, 2012). Observations, for instance, are based on presump-
tions (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 2000; Knoop, 2015; Krabbendam, 2012). The
brain, based on acquired knowledge rooted in structured habits of a culture,
hypothesizes and predicts the chance and impact of an observation, in order
to decide to pay attention or not. The final perceived experience is a com-
bination of this prediction and the real observation (Blakemore, Wolpert &
Frith, 2000; Fletcher & Frith, 2009; Knoop, 2015; Krabbendam 2012). In social
interaction, the brain acts similarly, continuously hypothesizing and predict-
ing the behaviour of others. According to this prediction, behaviour will be
adjusted (Delgado, Frank, & Phelps, 2006; Frith & Frith, 2010). This process of
predicting and adjusting, though it is occurring most of the times uncon-
sciously, leads to implicit messages, and builds implicit theories (Krabben-
dam, 2012).
Sometimes the influence of implicit theories can be rather negative. Re-
search shows that self-related implicit theories of intelligence can contain
dysfunctional beliefs concerning an individual’s own potential actions and
abilities (Burkley, Burkley, Parker, & Sterner, 2009; Chany, Burke, & Burkley,
2011; Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Ommundsen, 2001; Stoeger, 2009; Ziegler,
Vialle, & Wimmer, 2013). These beliefs can greatly influence a student’s self-
regulated learning as they influence self-efficacy, motivation, willingness to
take risks or to try new strategies, attributions, and, as a consequence of this,
willingness to work hard and put effort in learning (Zimmerman, 2000, 2002).
Dweck et al. (1995) found an important correlation between reactions to
problems, difficulties, setbacks or danger, and implicit theories. Those think-
ing that characteristics of a person are incremental tend to focus on analysing
a problematical situation and taking action, while those believing those char-
acteristics are an entity, tend to helplessness and blaming others. Concerning
intelligence, Dweck (2006) found that those who believe that intelligence is
not fixed, but malleable (a growth mind-set) are inclined to put more effort
into learning. Facing setbacks, they will try new strategies, work even harder,
and persist to reach their goal. Those who believe that intelligence is fixed (a
fixed mind-set), are inclined to give up, thinking they lack the intelligence to
34
