Intellectual risk-taking, the act of engaging in learning by contributing an idea, question, or creative thought regardless of potential errors or judgments, is associated with many positive student outcomes; however, there is limited guidance on how to create an environment in which students feel empowered to be courageous in this way. In the present qualitative study, we examine the Harkness Method with the goal of identifying the specific elements of this complex, discussion-based, pedagogical approach that contribute to intellectual risk-taking. We ultimately present an empirically grounded theoretical framework to serve as a guide for building a culture of intellectual risk-taking.
AmesC. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
2.
BaehrJ. (2015). Cultivating good minds: A philosophical & practical guide to educating for intellectual virtues. Educating for Intellectual Virtues. intellectualvirtues.org
3.
BeghettoR. A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210–223.
4.
BransfordJ. D.DonovanM. S. (2005). Scientific inquiry and how people learn. In DonovanM. S.BransfordJ. D. (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 397–420). The National Academies Press.
5.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE.
6.
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchaferW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383.
7.
CetinB.IlhanM.YilmazF. (2014). An investigation of the relationship between the fear of receiving negative criticism and of taking academic risk through canonical correlation analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 146–158.
8.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
9.
CliffordM. M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 263–297.
10.
Duncan-AndradeJ. M.MorrellE. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. Peter Lang.
11.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
12.
DweckC. S. (2016). The remarkable reach of growth mind-sets. Scientific American Mind, 27, 36–41.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine De Gruyter.
16.
HallL. (2010). The negative consequences of becoming a good reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, teachers, and reading instruction. Teachers College Record, 112(7), 1792–1829.
17.
HouseD. J. (2002). An investigation of the effects of gender and academic self-efficacy on academic risk-taking for adolescent students [Doctoral dissertation]. Oklahoma State University.
18.
LawrenceJ.SnowC. (2011). Oral discourse and reading. In KamilM.PearsonP. D.MojeE. B.AfflerbachP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 320–338). Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
LemovD. (2015). Teach like a champion 2.0. Jossey-Bass.
20.
MarkeyA.LoewensteinG. (2014). Curiosity. In PekrunR.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 228–245). Taylor & Francis.
21.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
22.
MehtaJ.FineS. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.
23.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
24.
MuellerC.DweckC. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52.
25.
NakkulaM.ToshalisE. (2010). Understanding youth: Adolescent development for educators. Harvard Education Press.
26.
NgB. (2018). The neuroscience of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Brain Sciences, 8(2), 20.
27.
SeidmanI. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. Teachers College Press.
28.
SteeleC. (2010). Whistling Vivaldi: How stereotypes affect us and what we can do. W.W. Norton.
29.
SteinbergL. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 216–224.
30.
SteuerG.DreselM. (2015). A constructive error climate as an element of effective learning environments. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57(2), 262–275.
31.
StreitmatterJ. (1997). An exploratory study of risk-taking and attitudes in a girls-only middle school math class. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 15–26.
WaltonG. M.YeagerD. S. (2020). Seed and soil: Psychological affordances in contexts help to explain where wise interventions succeed or fail. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 219–226.
WilliamsG. (2014). Harkness learning: Principles of a radical American pedagogy. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 4(3), 58–67.
36.
WillinghamD. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. Jossey-Bass.
37.
YeagerD. S.HanselmanP.WaltonG. M.MurrayJ.CrosnoeR.MullerC.TiptonE.SchneiderB.HullemanC.S.HinojosaC.P.PauneskuD.RomeroC.FlintK.RobertsA.TrottJ.IachanR.BuontempoJ.YangS.M.Carvalho. . .DweckC. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573, 364–369.
