![\"\"](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/AdobeStock_60425282_Credit.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn many professions, we can easily distinguish between key terms.<\/p>\n
The difference between a kidney and a pancreas? Easy.<\/p>\n
The difference between a 2×4 and a 1×6? Easy.<\/p>\n
The difference between an altimeter and speed indicator? Easy.<\/p>\n
But:<\/p>\n
The difference between grit and resilience?<\/p>\n
Between self-control and self-regulation?<\/p>\n
Between an adolescent and a teen-ager? Um\u2026.<\/p>\n
And, if we can\u2019t define and distinguish among concepts easily, we\u2019ll struggle to talk with each other sensibly about the work we\u2019re doing.<\/em><\/p>\n I think of naming problems in several categories:<\/p>\n Occasionally, psychologists come up with a name that seems to have been market tested for maximum sales.<\/p>\n Take, for instance, \u201cwise feedback.\u201d<\/p>\n Many researchers have explored a particular feedback structure that combines, first, an explicit statement of<\/em> high standards<\/em>, and second, an explicit statement of support<\/em>.<\/p>\n For instance:<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve made these suggestions on your essay because we have very high standards in the history department. And, I\u2019m quite confident that \u2013 with the right kind of revision \u2013 this essay will meet those standards.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (You can find research into this strategy here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n I myself find the research quite persuasive. The strategy couldn\u2019t be easier to implement. It couldn\u2019t cost any less \u2013 it\u2019s free! And, it\u2019s particularly helpful for marginalized students.<\/p>\n But the phrase \u201cwise feedback\u201d rankles. Whenever I talk with teachers about this strategy, I feel like I\u2019m participating in a late-night cable TV sales pitch.<\/p>\n Couldn\u2019t we find a more neutral name? \u201cTwo-step feedback\u201d? \u201cSupportive standards feedback\u201d?<\/p>\n Another example: \u201cengagement.\u201d Blake Harvard recently posted<\/a> about this word, worrying that it\u2019s too hard to define.<\/p>\n I agree. But, I also worry the name itself tries to prohibit debate. Who could be opposed to \u201cengagement\u201d?<\/p>\n In science world, however, we should always look for opposing viewpoints<\/em> on any new suggestion. If a brand name \u2013 like \u201cengagement\u201d \u2013 feels too warm and fuzzy to oppose, the name itself inhibits scientific thinking.<\/p>\n By the way, almost everything that includes the word \u201cbrain\u201d in it is a sales-pitch name: \u201cBrain Gym.\u201d \u201cBrain Break.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, the right kind of exercise and activity<\/em> do benefit learning. Short cognitive breaks<\/em> do benefit learning. We don\u2019t need to throw the word \u201cbrain\u201d at those sentences to improve those strategies.<\/p>\n If I\u2019ve got a new idea, and no one pays attention to it, how might I get eyeballs on my website?<\/p>\n I know! I can use a pre-existing popular name, and staple it on to my concept \u2013 even if the two aren\u2019t factually related to one another!<\/p>\n That way, readers will think that my<\/em> new ideas has links to that other<\/em> well-known idea. Voila \u2013 instant credibility.<\/p>\n This \u201cpoaching\u201d happens most often with \u201cMindset.\u201d<\/p>\n You\u2019ve probably read about an \u201cempathy\u201d mindset. Or a \u201ctechnology\u201d mindset. Or a \u201ccreative\u201d mindset. Maybe, an \u201cinternational\u201d mindset. Or a \u201cyour product name here\u201d mindset.<\/p>\n To be clear, these ideas might in fact help students learn. Empathy and creativity and an international perspective can certainly improve schools.<\/p>\n But, Dweck\u2019s word \u201cmindset\u201d has a very particular<\/em> meaning. She has done quite specific<\/em> research to support a handful of quite specific<\/em> theories.<\/p>\n Calling my new thing \u201ca Watson mindset\u201d implies that my work links with Dweck\u2019s. But, that implication needs careful, critical investigation. If you trust Dweck, you don\u2019t<\/em> have to believe everything called \u201cmindset.\u201d<\/p>\n (Of course, not everyone does trust Dweck. But: that\u2019s a different post<\/a>.)<\/p>\n These names make sense to the people who coin and use them. But, they\u2019re not obviously connected to the concepts under discussion \u2013 especially to visitors in the field.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a crazy example: entity theorists<\/em>.<\/p>\n Believe it or not, one of the best-known concepts in educational psychology used to distinguish between entity theorists and (not joking here) incremental theorists<\/em>.<\/p>\n But then, in the late 1990s, Carol Dweck started a rebranding project, and now calls those things a fixed mindset<\/em> and a growth mindset<\/em>.<\/p>\n I rather suspect her ideas wouldn\u2019t have gotten such traction without the new names.<\/p>\n (Imagine teachers earnestly encouraging their students: \u201cremember to adopt an incremental theory<\/em>!\u201d I don\u2019t see it\u2026)<\/p>\n In the bad old days (the 2000s), psychologists did a lot of research into \u201cthe testing effect<\/a>.\u201d It\u2019s a terrible name. No one in schools wants anything to do with more testing.<\/p>\nSales-Pitch Names<\/h2>\n
Poaching Names<\/h2>\n
Confusing Names<\/h2>\n
A Really Good Name<\/h2>\n