| A comparative case study was used to understand how the experiences of teachers who support an entity view of intelligence (i.e., teachers believe that intelligence is a fixed trait) compare with teachers who support an incremental view of intelligence (i.e., teachers believe that intelligence is malleable) as they evaluate students' written work. Three entity teachers and four incremental teachers were interviewed from career-focused colleges, and each shared samples of their feedback to students. Using thematic analysis, several themes emerged from each case and were then compared. This study's findings indicated that entity and incremental teachers shared similar experiences when evaluating students' written work, but also experienced differences. When students failed, the most remarkable finding was that entity teachers cited the cause as inadequate skills of students, whereas incremental teachers explained that it was challenges facing students (i.e., other non-school responsibilities). Further, entity teachers used feedback as a tool for students to learn more about their performance, while incremental teachers preferred to use feedback as a dialogue, supported by encouragement. While some similarities were found with regard to the evaluation process and the role of feedback, it was less clear if these similarities were due to: (a) teachers' more professional stance on feedback, (b) self-presentation motivations, or (c) the possibility that teachers' views of intelligence do not significantly impact how teachers evaluate students' written work. The findings of the study suggest that teachers may benefit from an exploration of their views of intelligence and feedback practices. By teachers understanding their implicit views of intelligence and the subtle messages that students may perceive in their feedback markings, teachers may be able to adjust their methods to better support students. |
