![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/AdobeStock_292206703_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTypically, adults work with a two-variable formula: “effort + skill = performance<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n That is: If I’m\u00a0good<\/em> at singing, and\u00a0I\u00a0practice<\/em> singing, then my recital will go well. But: if I’m just not much of a singer, or if I waste my talents by not practicing, the recital will be a dud.<\/p>\n In the short term, I have control over effort, but not over skill. (Over the long term, I can increase my skill by practicing.)<\/p>\n For several decades now, psychologists have thought that this theory develops over time. Young children — in this view — start with an even simpler theory: “effort = performance<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n If I work hard, I’ll succeed. If I don’t, I won’t.<\/p>\n The idea that children gradually develop the two-variable formula rests on several research findings. The most important uses a well-established research paradigm.<\/p>\n Children hear a story, and see accompanying pictures, of two students learning a topic. One spends the whole story working (“consistent effort”). The other works part of the time, but goofs off at other times (“inconsistent effort”).<\/p>\n Here’s the kicker: both students get a perfect score on the test!<\/em><\/p>\n Researchers ask the children, which student is smarter<\/em> (that is, more skilled<\/em>)?<\/p>\n According to the “effort + skill” theory, if a student gets a high score despite a low effort, he must be especially smart\/skilled.<\/p>\n According to the “effort = performance” theory, the student who works harder is demonstrating greater skill.<\/p>\n And, sure enough, in the 1970s and 80s, researchers found that younger<\/em> children tend to say that the consistent-effort student is smarter. Older children, with their “more mature” theory, say that the inconsistent-effort student is smarter.<\/p>\n In brief: children’s explanations of success develop over time.<\/p>\n Two researchers — Melis Muradoglu and Andrei Cimpian — thought that they spotted a problem with this chain of logic.<\/p>\n What if the research paradigm that produced this answer was itself flawed? If the scale I’m using to measure my ingredients isn’t accurate, my recipes won’t come out right. If the test I’m using to understand children’s thought patterns isn’t well designed, my conclusions won’t come out right either.<\/p>\n Specifically, Muradoglu and Cimpian worried about the question that researchers asked children\u00a0before<\/em> they asked who was smarter. That question was: “which student worked harder?”<\/p>\nResearch Says So<\/h2>\n
Wait: Does Research Really Say So?<\/h2>\n