Hey Teachers, the Marshmallow test was wrong. – EDUWELLS
I covered the disastrous impact that eugenic thinking had on high school design in my previous post. So, I was interested to see its continuing impact in the highest echelons of academia in regards to the quite famous “Marshmallow Test” and how a team more recently had proved the eugenic-style conclusions to be quite wrong.
The original Marshmallow Test and its wrong conclusions
In the early 1970s, Stanford University isolated individual children (ages 3 to 5) in a room with a single Marshmallow and left the room on the promise they would return with a 2nd marshmallow, which they would hand over if the child had not eaten the first. They then timed how long the child could delay the gratification of getting the second by not eating the first marshmallow.
A subsequent longitudinal study on those same children over 40 years proclaimed that ‘innate’ ability (think eugenics) to delay gratification led to more successful outcomes in life. For example, a 1990 study said that “the ability to delay gratification also correlated with higher SAT scores.” (Shoda et al, 1990). Notice how prior experience and environmental factors that might impact on behavior are not a focus.
The Marshmallow Test debunked.
The video below shows how a prior experience had immediate impact on children’s ability to delay gratification. This is important as it showed trust and being able to rely on the current circumstances was what determined ability to delay gratification. An experience in reliability immediately before the test increased this delay ability by a factor of four!
Are schools really only a measure of delayed gratification?
When I think about it, school is just one long list of promises that some students are willing to trust and some are not. Promises like:
- “This information might be valuable someday”
- “If you study hard, I will probably award you an A”
- “Keep working and I promise you will be proud of yourself”
- “If you complete this I will reward you with …”
- “University is worth working hard to get to”
Acting on these promises is determined not only by the trust a student has in teachers but also in the system overall. It is especially vital for us to realise that any willingness to trust is determined by prior experiences of promises anywhere in life that were kept or not.
Now consider the obvious differences in life’s reliability and trust in public systems that are felt by people in different circumstances regarding their status in socio-economic, gender, and/or race terms. Imagine how many more times a parent in poorer conditions has to break a promise to a child due to unforeseen events. Consider how much more white males can trust that the room they are in isn’t judging them for who they are.
What does this mean for teaching?
It is important for teachers and schools to recognise this unseen factor in each student’s approach to and belief in education. Students who live in comfortable, reliable circumstances are far more likely to trust promises by teachers and schools that the delayed “rewards” will both appear in time and be worth waiting/working for.
Teachers can increase equity and outcomes with frequent examples in class of being trustworthy and creating regular experiences that the student can come to rely on. If you are setting a large project ensure there are mini, achievable steps that can be celebrated in each lesson. These kept promises are important for all learners but especially those whose life doesn’t provide them.
Ensure that every student experiences small successes everyday and that they are noticed. Some need more regular assurance that gratification does come after any effort or delay. Like any issue of equity, this can mean identifying those learners who might need more input and reassurance than others.
Relationships are important but maybe the most important part is to ensure the system itself and its teachers appear to be trustworthy on any promises and are worth delaying gratification for.
