Tom Oxenham

Page | 1

Researching Pupils Perspectives:

Do children’s perceptions of intelligence differ

depending on their attainment levels within the class?

Introduction

Children’s understanding of intelligence has big effects on their learning. This

is because their attitudes towards intelligence can reflect their motivation and

approach to work. Their views on intelligence also reflect how they see each

other as learners as well as themselves in the classroom.

This essay hopes to give an insight into how children can perceive

themselves and their peers through their own judgements of defining

intelligence. Understanding children’s perceptions of intelligence could help

understand the reasons they attach for their own stage in their learning, as

well as why they feel other pupils may be above or below them in terms of

attainment.

The research involved collecting children’s perspectives of intelligence and

comparing this against their attainment levels within their class. This

incorporated the sub-questions of:

How do the children define intelligence?

How do the children believe intelligence is attained?

Do the children perceive natural ability or effort to be more of a

determining factor in being intelligent?

The responses were sorted into ‘lower’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ attaining pupil’s

views and compared to see if responses differed.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 2

The research may help teachers in their decisions relating to the way they

present attainment information to children, the way groupings and seating

arrangements are used within the classroom and the language used when

discussing attainment and intelligence.

Literature Review

There is great debate and disagreement over exact definitions and attributes

of intelligence between academics. Definitions range from reference to

understanding, self-awareness, retaining information, reasoning and problem

solving among many more (Neisser et al, 1996).

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that children have varying opinions of

what it means, how it is obtained and whether it can be measured. The

complexity of the topic itself means there are many views and ultimately these

are all subjective. Some views follow the idea of effort being inextricably tied

to intelligence (Grotzer & Perkins, 2000), whilst others view intelligence as a

more fixed trait and linked to a ‘natural’ ability (Hernstein & Murray, 1994).

What is interesting is why people have these certain perspectives and what it

means in terms of their attitudes towards their own learning and their views of

others.

Dweck (1999) proposes that children may view intelligence as fixed

(entity view) or as something that can change through effort (incremental

view). The research she undertook found that children’s concepts of

intelligence affected the way in which children tackled tasks as well as

affecting their motivation and strategies in achieving in their work. This

research led on to discussions of why children can feel helpless in their

Tom Oxenham

Page | 3

attempt at achieving in school.

Dweck also found that children who endorse the entity view of

intelligence were much less likely to take chances or risks if failure seemed at

all a possibility. This is due to errors in work seen as a weakness and not

getting something correct straight away as a sign of low ability. Children that

have a fixed view of intelligence believe if a task takes a lot of time and effort

to complete then it is an indicator of low intelligence. Most that hold this view

would rather avoid attempting the task in fear of being looked upon as a

failure. In contrast, children who endorse the incremental view tend to focus

on the processes involved in work and see mistakes as opportunities to learn

and improve. Children that hold this view feel they can set themselves goals

and take control of what they can achieve. They usually display persistence in

tackling problems and can adapt to obstacles throughout their learning. This

self-resilience is seen to be a major factor in determining a child’s learning

development.

Having this control over learning can be seen in different ways by

pupils. From a low attaining child’s point of view, the idea of their achievement

being in their control may seem daunting. Believing in the entity view of

intelligence may be comforting as there is a removal of responsibility for their

level of achievement. If a pupil feels they are putting effort into their work and

still not making progress then this could bring about a ‘learned helplessness’

discussed by Dweck (1999), which is a major barrier to learning as it puts

pupils in a cycle of non-improvement. On the other hand, effort could be the

one aspect of hope a low-attaining child could hold onto through dealing with

the threat of low academic performance. Believing that they have the prospect

Tom Oxenham

Page | 4

to further their personal development could give them the motivation needed

to improve.

There has been much interest in children’s concepts of intelligence in

recent years, with research taking place internationally, showing comparisons

of children’s definitions of intelligence. Children’s explanations for their

academic successes and failures have also been investigated extensively

(e.g. Weiner 1986, 1992). However, there are a relatively small number of

studies that have been carried out in the UK, with a particular gap in research

relating concepts of intelligence with levels of attainment.

Research on children’s conceptions of intelligence seems to fall into

three key areas for study (Kinlaw & Kurtz-Costes, 2003). The first is a look

into the specific skills that children decide on as being the main attributes of

intelligence. This research focuses on the subjects children relate to

intelligence and asks questions such as “what should you look for in a person

to tell if they are intelligent?” The second area is interested in looking at how

children see themselves and others in relation to their view of intelligence.

This self-and-other evaluation can help show how beliefs about ability can

shape how children view themselves and others in a variety of domains. The

third key area focuses on how beliefs about ability influence achievements

and behaviours towards achievement. There is such a high level of crossover

between these key areas that this study hopes to draw on all three areas for

arguments, reflecting on all the data collected and give insights into each of

the questions posed.

This study was influenced by research that has been done in Scottish primary

schools to show children’s perceptions of intelligence related to age (Burke &

Tom Oxenham

Page | 5

Williams, 2009). The outcomes from this study showed that the younger

children believed intelligence depended heavily on effort put in, whereas the

older children saw intelligence as a more fixed attribute and effort would do

little to change it. This could be down to children becoming familiar with the

school system of grading and feeling their efforts did less to change outcomes

the further they moved through the school years.

This concurs with other research findings, such as in Preschool

children’s reasoning about ability (Heyman et al, 2003), which discusses how

pre-school children mostly regarded high academic ability to be the outcome

of high effort and that young children are much less likely to view ability as

something stable or fixed. Droege and Stipek (1993) also argue that children

become less likely to believe academic competence can be changed through

effort as they develop. The age where these changes in attitudes towards

concepts of intelligence seem to come about is between seven and nine years

according to research done by Kinlaw and Kurtz-Costes (2003).

The majority of research on the topic of children’s concepts of

intelligence seems to assume that academic ability lies within intelligence.

This is because most children’s responses reflect this view, possibly due to

the ethos and attitude of schools towards intelligence and ability. Rosenholtz

and Simpson (1984) propose the reason behind this lies in a need from

individuals to quantify such abstract terms so they can be understood clearly.

This then leads pupils to step from intelligence to ability to factual result. Such

processes provide statistical evidence which can define an individual’s ability,

which in turn can be used to compare between other pupil’s levels of ability.

Judgements can then be made on this information by teachers and peers.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 6

When looking into children’s perspectives on intelligence, it is important to

keep in mind the influence the school has on shaping these perspectives and

projecting their own ideals onto pupils. There is a conundrum that lies in the

contradictory functions of the school (Snellman & Raty, 1995). The

contradiction is the practice of ranking pupils according to their educational

potential but at the same time having the intent to advance each pupil’s

learning and skills. These conflicting goals can be met with pupils’ judgements

of their ability merely reflecting the interpretation the school uses and passes

onto the pupils.

This leads onto a major issue to consider throughout this study -

grouping pupils by attainment levels. Ability groupings started being used by

the majority of schools in the UK from 1997, with the main subjects used for

groupings being maths, literacy and science (Hallam et al, 2003).

Factoring in the presence of ability groups is important because it

relates directly with pupils’ self-concept of their academic achievement and

the views they hold of their peers within the class. Ability groupings link to

children’s concepts of intelligence because as well as their perception of

intelligence affecting their attainment level, their attainment level and

perception of themselves could in turn determine or alter their perception of

intelligence. This two-way relationship will be referred to in the study as well

as looking into how it makes children feel.

Research into a sample of schools in New Zealand (Hornby et al,

2011) showed that having ability groups was a standard and common aspect

of most schools. However, many head teachers felt ability groupings did not

work best. The interviewers questioned head teachers and found that many

Tom Oxenham

Page | 7

were against ability groupings. Ability groupings causing the teacher’s

expectations to be lowered, selecting children inaccurately which meant some

children missed out and the fact that lower attaining children couldn’t feed off

the knowledge of higher attaining children were all points raised. An important

comment was the fact that many children felt thoroughly disappointed at being

put in a low group.

Using ability groupings in a class could mean that children in the

highest ability groups don’t see how they can improve as they see themselves

as the ‘best’ and those in the lower ability groups can feel de-motivated to

learn and give up hope. Raty (2004) refers to this as being within the

‘restrictive sphere’ of a school. Comparisons and inter class competition can

spring from these groupings adding to the ‘restrictive sphere’. Optimistic

pupils put themselves in the ‘promotional sphere’ of the school where they

envision they will climb the ranks of the ability groups as they progress.

Constant comparisons with class peers are not a healthy way to measure

achievement. This is because even if a pupil is making progress, they may be

more focused on the gap between themselves and others than the progress

they have made individually.

The literature referred to is important to help understand and reach

conclusions from the data collected in this research project. It highlights

potential reasons for outcomes as well as allowing hypothesis to be made. It

also explains what considerations need to be accounted for when making

judgements from the outcomes, as there are many factors to consider. It is

important to consider the class environment, teacher attitudes and ethos of

the school when thinking about what could have influenced the responses

Tom Oxenham

Page | 8

collected.

Research Design

All of the research for this study was carried out over January 2013 in a

primary school in Peterborough. All of the participants completed a

questionnaire (see appendix 1) and the results were cross-examined by

choosing children who had scored at extreme ends of the Likert scale. This

resulted in six children being selected to take part in a semi-structured

interview (see appendix 2). Furthering the exploration of the quantitative data

with qualitative data provided verification from multiple sources that the

findings had some substance. Olsen (2004) argues that triangulation such as

this “is not aimed merely at validation but at deepening and widening one’s

understanding” (pg. 1).

It was hoped the interviews would give an insight into the questionnaire

responses and lead to an identification of themes in the answers children

gave. It is important to note that an agreement in findings from both methods

cannot lead to an absolute proof and caution needs to be taken when looking

at the data combined.

It is also worth noting that the school the research took place within

uses groupings for all mathematics and literacy lessons. The children sit on

tables according to their attainment levels with the lower level children one the

right hand side of the room, moving to the highest attaining children sitting at

a table on the left hand side of the room. The level the child is achieving was

made explicit to them, as well as the general levels of their peers due to the

streaming of the class in an obvious and ordered manner. This will be

Tom Oxenham

Page | 9

considered alongside the attainment levels of the children in the analysis of

the data, as it will in no doubt have an effect on the views the children have on

intelligence and the importance they place on it.

Participants

In total, thirteen children participated in this study. Six of the participants were

girls and seven were boys. They were all from the same Year 3 class within

the 7-8 age range. A convenience sample from the class was used where

consent had been obtained for those children’s parents to take part. There

was a broad range of attainment levels from the sample which meant that

comparisons could be made which were vital for the study. The age range

was chosen as Kinlaw and Kurtz-Costes (2003) identified a shift in children’s

perspectives of intelligence specifically around this age, moving from seeing

intelligence as dynamic to a much more static view.

Academic achievement

Teacher’s assessments of the children’s academic achievement levels were

collected for every child in the study. They showed the levels given for maths,

reading and writing from November 2012. These levels were determined from

informal assessments given by the teacher and reflected National Curriculum

guidelines.

In the analysis stage, this information was then used to split the sample

group into three categories in order to compare the data collected. A number

was given to represent each level from lowest to highest. This conversion

from a level to a numerical value allowed for each child’s level data to be

Tom Oxenham

Page | 10

translated into a single value. These values were then ordered and general

groupings could be made of lower, medium and higher attaining children.

Questionnaire

In order to collect data quantitatively a questionnaire was deemed the most

appropriate, as this could easily collect a large amount of information from the

participants in a small amount of time. The questions decided upon were

taken from Burke and Williams’ (2009) published research on children’s

intelligence concepts, which were thoroughly researched and tested to

establish reliability, with draft questions extensively piloted to make sure the

wording was suitable for the UK. Seven questions were chosen from their

research that were most relevant to the research question of this study as well

as addressing different attributes of intelligence.

Questions covered defining intelligence, describing characteristics,

identifying causes of intelligence, exploring the relationship between effort and

ability, and finally checking the stability of intelligence. The questions were

turned into statements and a Likert scale was used from 1 to 5 with

appropriate responses above which ranged from strongly disagree to strongly

agree. The wording of some questions was reversed to prevent biased

responses occurring due to the same end of the scale being circled too

frequently for similar opinions.

The Likert scale questionnaires gave the advantage of giving easy data

to analyse, though there was no depth in the answers given and reasons

could not be discussed. The interviews were put in place to further explore the

questionnaire data and back up the findings with added depth and breadth.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 11

The questionnaires were completed individually and took about eight minutes

to complete.

Children’s responses to the questionnaires were inputted into Microsoft

Excel and grouped in accordance with the levels that were converted into

numerical scores. Of the thirteen children, five were calculated as ‘lower

ability’, two as ‘medium ability’ and six as ‘high ability’. Because of the limited

number of participants and varying numbers in each group, percentage bar

charts were deemed the most sensible to portray the general viewpoints for

each group.

Semi-structured interview

Each child was interviewed individually within the school setting. This was so

that pupils would not be influenced by others opinions, so they had a chance

to take their time over each question and feel relaxed in a familiar

environment. It was explained that the purpose of the research was to

understand what children thought about being ‘clever’. Each interview lasted

for an average of ten minutes and they were recorded using a microphone in

order to transcribe at a later stage.

The interview used a mix of direct consultation (asking questions)

mixed with prompted consultation (using photographs of a child working as a

stimulus). This allowed for a semi-structured interview that followed key

questions but could explore interesting points as the conversation developed.

Vignettes were useful to help the children discuss their thoughts through a

character and give their ideas and perspectives a context of a student who

was getting lots of work right or getting lots of work wrong.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 12

The answers were analysed and coding took place to group the responses

into categories which expressed certain viewpoints (see appendix 3).

Ethical Considerations

Careful consideration was given to the research project before any collecting

of data occurred. The first in the series of steps was to summarise the ethical

concerns in a document which was signed by my personal tutor to ensure that

the research was in line with the guidelines issued by the British Educational

Research Association. The second step was discussing the research with the

mentor in the school. When we had agreed an outline of what the research

would entail this was taken to the head teacher who approved the

questionnaire as well as the parental consent form that was to be sent out.

Once the school was fully aware of what the research would cover and

how much time it would require consent letters were sent out to all parents

and guardians from the chosen class (se appendix 4). The letter gave an

outline of the reason behind the project, what their child would be involved in

doing and a reassurance that all names would remain anonymous. The letter

included a return slip which was an opt-in choice. As the pupils in the study

were under the age of 18 a signature was required to allow for their

participation in the activities. It was acknowledged that the activities were by

no means compulsory and no reason needed to be given for not wanting their

child to partake in the study.

As well as gaining parents’ consent, every child was spoken to before

any data collection took place informing them of what the study was about

and if they had any questions. They were asked if they wanted to do the

Tom Oxenham

Page | 13

activity and only with their permission would data be collected. For the

interviews, an explanation was given about the format of the interview and the

fact that their voice would be recorded and kept until no longer needed.

The nature of the study involved perceptions of intelligence in contrast to

attainment, which would understandably be a sensitive issue for the children.

Because of this, their own attainment levels were never mentioned and in fact

their own ability or peers abilities were not discussed at all. Instead, the

discussions focused on their own ideas about intelligence and what it meant

in general terms. All names used in this study have been changed to protect

the identity of the children involved.

Results and critical evaluation of key findings

Definition / characteristics of intelligence

Figure 1 (below) shows that the lower ability group felt there was a close tie

between intelligence and certain specific skills such as being good at maths or

reading. The purpose of this question was to check whether the pupils saw

intelligence as something that could be an isolated type of knowledge or skill.

This could suggest that the ‘medium’ and ‘higher’ groups believed that more

than being good at maths or reading is required to be deemed clever and

could link to having a more general and rounded view of intelligence.

However, this conclusion cannot be jumped to from such a closed question

and by no means gives a general definition of intelligence from the

participants.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 14

Figure 1. The relationship between academic attainment and perspectives of characteristics

of intelligence

One of the first questions posed in the interview was “What does it

mean to be clever?” Margaret was a child identified as being in the ‘lower

attaining’ group and responded to this question by talking about a specific

skill:

“Reading and listening to the teacher” (Margaret, interview 1).

Isobel was also in the ‘lower attaining’ group and replied:

“If you know lots of stuff – science and other lessons.” (Isobel, interview 2).

These 2 responses relate to linking intelligence with knowledge and

giving it cognitive attributes (Kurtz-Costes et al, 2005). However, for children

identified as being ‘higher attainers’, the responses were more closely linked

with non-cognitive attributes. Laura stated:

“Practicing school work, work at home and school. Umm, get ideas from

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Medium Higher

If someone is good at maths or reading, then this shows they must be clever

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Tom Oxenham

Page | 15

others” (Laura, interview 6).

Daniel responded:

“Ask a lot of questions” (Daniel, interview 4).

Practicing and working hard were ideas brought up a lot more by the

‘higher attainers’. The responses also show they believe that collaboration is

needed in learning and progressing to achieve intelligence. Ideas relating to

asking others and collaborating were not mentioned by the ‘lower attainers’.

Working together collaboratively and contributing to each other’s ideas has

been shown to improve understanding for children (Mercer & Littleton, 2007).

If children feel that being ‘clever’ is more about what you can do on your own

in isolation, this could lead to less progression taking place. Interventions

such as ‘talking partners’ could be used to help children get the chance to

share ideas frequently in the classroom.

The question “How do you know if someone is clever?” was asked to

see if certain attributes could be articulated by the children. The responses to

this question were very similar from all children, with nearly all saying that

either testing them or asking them difficult questions was the best way to

reach a conclusion. However, Tyler, a ‘medium attaining’ child, responded:

“Miss Botrell will tell you, she always tells Daniel.” (Tyler, interview 3)

This shows that there is a removal of judgement from the child and he

believes the teacher will imply who is clever through what is said to children in

the class. This could link to the fact ability groupings are used in the class and

this in itself could be seen as an indicator of who is clever.

Laura replied with:

Tom Oxenham

Page | 16

“If they can help you. If they put their hands up on the carpet a lot.” (Laura,

interview 6)

The first point ties to ‘good citizenship’, which links to the previous point

of collaboration and shared learning. The second point is interesting as

putting your hand up lots may not mean that the child has the right answer but

having the confidence to try could be seen as an indicator of having

intelligence.

Entity view of intelligence

Figure 2 (below) shows results from one of the more interesting questions

from the questionnaire, as there is strong correlation between pupils’

academic attainment and their view on entity intelligence. The data results

show that not a single pupil from the ‘medium’ or ‘low’ attainment groups

disagreed with this statement, in contrast with over 80% of the ‘higher

attainers’.

Figure 2. The relationship between academic attainment and perspectives on entity view of

intelligence

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Medium Higher

Some people are naturally clever, even if they don't try hard at school

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Tom Oxenham

Page | 17

This shows that the ‘lower’ and ‘medium’ attaining children from the

sample have more of an entity view of intelligence than the ‘higher’ attainers.

This is because they have not attributed pupil’s efforts to be a major factor

relating to intelligence. There could be many reasons for this, which could

include the ‘higher attainers’ having the self-concept that they are intelligent

because of the groups they are in and feeling they have worked hard to be in

the top set, therefore believing that natural ability will not suffice. If a ‘lower

attaining’ child feels they are putting effort into their work and trying hard but

still feeling they are a ‘low achiever’ then they may come to the conclusion

that there are other factors in being deemed as ‘intelligent’ (Dweck, 1999).

Relationship between effort and ability

In response to questions relating effort to ability in the questionnaire, there were no real

differences noted between the responses from each group. From the statement “If

someone is clever, it’s because they work hard in school”, almost all of the participants

agreed. This shows that while the ‘lower’ attaining children believed that ‘natural ability’

was an important factor in being intelligent, they appreciated that effort was an important

attribute to strive for also. The statement was also worded negatively – “If someone isn’t

very clever, it’s because they don’t work hard at school”. Figure 3 (below) shows the

responses.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 18

Figure 3. The relationship between academic attainment and perspectives on effort and ability

The responses were slightly different this time, with more ‘lower

attaining’ children disagreeing with the statement. This further shows that the

‘higher attainers’ have a more concrete view of effort being the determining

factor, whereas the ‘lower attainers’ seem to acknowledge effort as being

important but not the only factor.

In the interviews, most participants felt that clever children work hard in

school. When asked if children that aren’t very clever work hard in school, all

participants explained that anyone could work hard apart from one child from

the ‘higher attaining’ group. Aaron stated:

“Yes, clever children work hard, really hard. People who aren’t clever don’t,

it’s because they’re always messing around” (Aaron, interview 5).

His view showed that he explicitly felt effort was the main factor.

However, the other participant’s views seemed to suggest they felt other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lower Medium Higher

If someone isn't very clever, it's because they don't work hard in school

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Tom Oxenham

Page | 19

factors were involved, as they agreed that children who are not clever still

work hard. This is not completely consistent with the opinions collected from

the questionnaire, which could be to do with the wording of the questions.

Because of this, not many conclusions can be drawn. However, there was a

slight lean once again for effort being a more dominant factor from the ‘higher

attaining’ pupils.

Furthermore, when pupils in the interview were asked “If someone isn’t

very clever, can they change to become cleverer?” only pupils from the

‘medium’ and ‘higher’ attainment groups used words such as “practice” and

“try harder” – interventions related to effort. Isobel, a ‘lower’ attaining child

stated:

“Yes, their parents could tell them what to do and at school you would know

the answer. Maybe grandparents telling you what to do or a teacher” (Isobel,

interview 2).

This view seems to show the child believes that having someone to tell

you the ‘answer’ is how someone would improve their intelligence. It seems to

suggest a view of intelligence based on memorising facts and repeating them

in the classroom. Boaler (2009) discusses this view of learning as a major

barrier. She argues that pupils must learn to deduce their own understandings

which can then be summarised and used easily throughout their learning,

rather than having an endless lists of facts which are impossible to remember

and which will inevitably lead to the pupil feeling more helpless and frustrated.

No major trends were found in relation to the stability of intelligence,

with just over half the participants from each group believing that if someone

Tom Oxenham

Page | 20

is clever, they will always be clever. Interestingly, most pupils commented on

the fact that you either can or cannot forget things once you’ve learnt them,

with only 1 pupil (from the ‘higher attaining’ group) discussing that a pupil may

get less clever as they may stop working as hard:

“Could change and be dumb because they don’t do many multiplications, they

stop trying to do anything” (Aaron, interview 5).

Overall summary of results

The findings from the research in this study go a small way into showing the

comparisons that can be made between children’s academic attainment and

their perspectives of intelligence. The outcomes showed that the children who

had higher attainment levels seemed to have a more incremental view of

intelligence, believing that effort played the major role in determining how

someone can become more intelligent. It showed that the children who had

lower attainment levels had more of an entity view of intelligence and believed

that some people were ‘naturally’ clever and that intelligence was quite a fixed

attribute.

Two main points can be taken from this. The first is that the results

show that having a notion of intelligence relating closely with effort will lead to

improved attainment. Stimulating learners to be mentally active can be

achieved through promoting the idea that learning is incremental and not fixed

(Dweck, 1975). It is essential that children believe success comes from effort

put in and that intelligence is not fixed (like an IQ) in order for children to make

progress. How learners think about themselves determines how well they will

do, so a teacher responding to a child’s work saying “you must be really

Tom Oxenham

Page | 21

clever” is giving fixed praise, whereas saying “you must have tried really hard”

is giving growth praise (Dweck, 1975). Teachers need to imply that effort is

the main factor in determining what a child can achieve in order to motivate

children to progress and open up success as a possibility to all.

The second point is that seating pupils in ability groups and therefore

labelling children as low-attainers makes children lose confidence in what they

can achieve and set barriers to their learning (Boaler, 2009). Because a

child’s perception of intelligence can change what they then achieve, it is the

same to say that being a high or low achiever can lead to children changing

their perceptions of intelligence. It is therefore crucial that pupils feel they

have control over their own learning and don’t slip into “learned helplessness”

(Dweck, 1999).

The findings show that whilst effort should be pushed as a major

determining factor for academic success, there are other factors to consider.

Specific competence and general competence should be acknowledged to

ensure a balanced view, as effort alone is not sufficient to ensure progress

and persistence (Gipps & Tunstall, 1998).

Analysis and critical reflection of research methodology

Using triangulation helped strengthen my study, as collecting data using two

different methods meant that the qualitative methods were heightened to their

deserved prominence and at the same time, demonstrated that quantitative

methods can be utilised to complement the other data (Jick, 1979). Linking

the two helped them to strengthen each other, though careful consideration

had to be made not to look for tenuous links between them or jump to early

Tom Oxenham

Page | 22

conclusions. When analysing the data, individual opinions were looked into in

order for me to try and understand deeper meanings behind the pupils views

(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). This helped to pick out specific reasons for

views as well as see patterns of what was mentioned and compare the groups

in this way.

The sample size was only of thirteen children so this in itself was a

limiting factor. It meant that trends were not always found where expected.

For example, only a small variation in views regarding effort were found when

the question was worded in a positive way. Over a larger sample, more

differences may have been noted. It also means that the outcomes are hard

to generalise due to individual pupils factors having too great an effect. Some

reasons looked into for the pupils responses could be deemed too vague as

so many other factors are involved. The other factors that could have affected

pupil’s views range from the teacher, others in the class, ability groups, school

ethos, parents and many more. It is hard to pick out just one and argue this is

the main factor with such a small participant sample.

Whilst there was fairly strong correlation between certain opinions

relating to effort and attainment levels, all children agreed that effort was

important and the opinions collected were not completely split between

sample groups. The conclusions that have been made are from looking at the

information generally and taking into account individuals responses as well as

looking at all responses as a whole. A much larger sample would be needed

to make more definite statements as well as taking pupils from different

classes and different schools. A useful comparison would be to compare a set

of pupils from a classroom without any ability groupings to see what different

Tom Oxenham

Page | 23

perspectives they have compared to pupils that have been grouped and

labelled in certain ways. Pupils are highly influenced by the way they are

perceived by their teacher and other adults through comments and

expectations. Even without ability groupings, pupils are likely to be aware of

their ‘status’ within the classroom in relation to their perceived intelligence

(Steele & Aronson, 1995).

The questionnaire and questions used in interviews may have had

social desirability issues by influencing children to answer in a way that they

felt was wanted or expected, rather than being truly honest.

The final factor was the attainment levels themselves, which were all

formative assessments made by the class teacher. However, these

assessments had been ongoing over a long period of time and averaged over

many subjects so was the most practical way to give a general indication of

the pupil’s attainment. A closer look into the progress pupils had been making

was beyond the scope of this research but could be useful to measure

achievement different pupils had made over time.

Implications of the research for my own professional development

While the findings from this research are not particularly strong in their goal of

comparing children’s attainment levels to their perceptions of intelligence,

some conclusions can be drawn from the outcomes. This is especially true

when we add it to the bigger picture of research that has been happening

trying to show what different perceptions mean for learning.

In my own teaching, I think the most important aspect I can take from

this research is inspiring children to have confidence. The most crucial start

Tom Oxenham

Page | 24

point is having a classroom environment where children are not afraid to

share ideas and be wrong at times. There are many measures that need to be

put in place in order to foster this kind of environment.

One of the first things is to set up talk with children on a daily basis and

engage them in meaningful discussions. Through talk, the children can share

ideas, consolidate understanding, compare different views and seek reasons

for them. The kinds of questions used by the teacher in prompting talk needs

to be very open so that it inspires prolonged talk and not just a closed answer.

To further promote this view of sharing what we each understand, I

believe that seating within the class should be mixed without any hierarchy of

groupings. This will help children who are struggling by modelling to them how

to learn more effectively and will further consolidate understanding for a child

who is helping another child through explanations.

I think it is important to address the conceptions of intelligence and

ideas of how learning is achieved head on with the class. Through discussing

learning techniques, children can understand what works for them and what

doesn’t. They will hopefully come to understand that learning is more than

memorising facts.

Focus needs to be placed on helping those children who fear being

‘wrong’ and therefore don’t attempt certain tasks. More activities need to be

given that don’t have a wrong or right answer. Activities with multiple

outcomes that require creative thinking can help children see that through trial

and perseverance, their understanding will have progressed.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 25

A deepening of awareness for strategies of learning is key, with a focus

on removing any notion children have that acquiring intelligence is a passive

activity.

References

Alvesson, M. Skoldberg, K. (2009) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for

Qualitative Research. Sage.

Boaler, J. (2009) The Elephant in the classroom: Helping children learn and

love maths. Souvenir press.

Burke, L. Williams, J (2009). Developmental changes in children’s

understandings of intelligence and thinking skills, Early Child Development

and Care, 179:7, 949-968

Droege, K.L. Stipek, D.J. (1993). Children’s use of dispositions to predict

classmates’ behaviour. Developmental Psychology, 29, 646–654.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and

development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the

alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 31, 674-685.

Gipps, C. Tunstall, P (1998). Effort, Ability and the Teacher: young children's

explanations for success and failure, Oxford Review of Education, 24:2, 149-

165

Grotzer, T.A., Perkins, D.N. (2000). Teaching intelligence: A performance

conception. In R.J.Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 492–518).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hallam, S. Ireson, J. Lister, V. Chaudhury, I.A. Davies, J (2003). Ability

Grouping Practices in the Primary School: A survey, Educational Studies,

29:1, 69-83

Herrnstein, R J. Murray, C. (1994) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in

American Life. Simon & Schuster Ltd.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 26

Heyman, G.D., Gee, C.L., & Giles, J.W. (2003). Preschool children’s reasoning about

ability. Child Development, 4(2), 516–534.

Hornby, G. Witte, C. Mitchell, D. (2011). Policies And Practices Of Ability Grouping In

New Zealand Intermediate Schools. Support for Learning · Volume 26 · Number 3

Jick, T. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods : Triangulation in

Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Qualitative

Methodolgy (Dec 1979), pp. 602-611

Kinlaw, C.R., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2003). The development of children’s beliefs

about intelligence. Developmental Review, 23, 125–161.

Kurtz-Costes, B., McCall, R.J., Kinlaw, C.R., Wiesen, C.A., & Joyner, M.H.

(2005). What does it mean to be smart? The development of children’s beliefs

about intelligence in Germany and the United States. Applied Developmental

Psychology, 26, 217–233.

Mercer, N., Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children's

Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routeledge.

Neisser, U. Boodoo, G. Bouchard, T. J. , Boykin, A. W, Brody, N, Ceci, S. J, Halpern, D.

F.; Loehlin, J. C. et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American

Psychologist - 51 (2)

Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative

methods can really be mixe. , in Holborn, M. (ed.), Developments in

Sociology: An Annual Review, Ormskirk, Lancs, UK, Causeway Press

Raty, H., K. Kasanen, J. Kiiskinen, M. Nykky, P. Atjonen. (2004). Children’s

notions of the malleability of their academic ability in the mother tongue and

mathematics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 48: 413–26.

Rosenholtz, S. J., & Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability conceptions:

Developmental trend or social construction? Review of Educational Research, 54, 31-

63.

Snellman, L. Raty, H. (1995). Conceptions of intelligence as social

representations. European Journal of Psychology of Education 10: 273–87.

Tom Oxenham

Page | 27

Steele, C. Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (5): 797–811

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New

York: Springer.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.