Growth mind-set interventions and approaches – are they worth the effort?
In this article I present a very brief overview of growth and fixed mind-sets, the conflicting evidence around them and how they can be applied to teaching practice with the support of an educational psychologist.
In your day to day practice you will come across students who avoid challenge, fear making mistakes, try to avoid looking incompetent at all costs and give up too easily. Can knowledge of mind-sets help? How can you support school staff to have the most meaningful impact?
Growth mind-set – what is it?
Carol Dweck, through her research on motivation, found that what children and adults believe about their ability has a significant influence on their actual achievement, motivation, views of success and failure and subsequent approach to future tasks which led her to coin the term ‘self-theory’. Self-theories relate to an individual’s core beliefs (meaning systems) about their basic qualities such as intelligence and personality, particularly around the malleability of intelligence and personality.
Whilst beliefs about intelligence, fixed (entity) and growth (incremental), can be thought of as relatively stable, Dweck argued that in fact they could be primed and taught. Through a series of different longitudinal studies Dweck showed evidence of the difference that holding a fixed belief has on subsequent learning orientations and dispositions, namely, goal setting, effort, attribution style and actual grades (Blackwell et al. 2007, Dweck and Molden 2007, Dweck 2017).
Dweck proposed that students with fixed mind-sets believe that their ability is fixed, probably at birth, and there is very little if anything they can do to improve it. In the face of difficulty one might as well not try, avoid risking failure and protect self-worth. In contrast those with a growth mind set believe that ability and success are due to learning, and learning requires time and effort and therefore in the case of difficulty one must try harder, try another approach or seek help.
For teachers, getting their students to think about mistakes, embrace challenges, respond to feedback and apply effort for improvement based goals, whilst maintaining a positive sense of self, is extremely important so this appears to be an area of research which can be helpful.
Interrogating the research evidence for growth mind-sets
After initial interest some of the core ideas have not been replicated in large scale studies and results from meta-analyses have been mixed.
Macnamara & Rupin (2017) did not find evidence to support the notion that holding more of a growth mind set results in greater academic persistence. Burgoyne et al. (2020) found no evidence for persistence or bounce back and found those with fixed mind-set responded better to negative feedback. Bahnik and Vranka (2017) found that mind-set showed no relationship with the number of test administrations participants (university applicants) signed up for and it did not predict change in the test results.
Li & Bates (2019) concluded that:
‘In all cases, including examinations of low-achieving subgroups, we found that growth mind-set either had no effect on performance or appeared to be explained by motivation to work hard rather than beliefs about the malleability of intelligence (i.e., mind-set)’.
In a further study which replicated Blackwell et al. (2007), Li and Bates (2020) concluded that
‘in two near-replication studies, we found that mind-set does not appear to influence educational attainment… while mind-set theorists have claimed that mind-set should be particularly beneficial for low-achieving students, we found that for low achieving students who encountered the greatest challenge when entering university, growth mind-set did not increase their educational attainment’.
The Education Endowment Trust (2015) found some positive impact of a mind-set thinking pupil workshop but no effect following a professional development course. Sisk et al (2018) found a weak relationship between mind-set and academic achievement but some overall benefit for those children from low socio-economic backgrounds.
There have been recent studies with very robust designs (control group, pre and post measures, randomisation) which have shown small but positive results. Yeager et al. (2019), using a short online intervention, showed that students chose a difficult maths course with the greatest impact on lowest attaining students, if it was aligned with peer norms around challenge seeking. Porter et al. (2022) in a teacher led intervention showed that teachers can impart growth mind-set beliefs and create a supportive classroom environment where those beliefs could flourish.
Most research appears to have been conducted with students who are of secondary/ upper secondary school age. Savvides & Bond (2021) carried out a systematic literature review and reported that research in a primary school context and evaluation of specific interventions is lacking. Foliano et al (2019) did not find evidence for additional progress in literacy, numeracy or non-cognitive skills such as intrinsic value, self-efficacy, or test anxiety in Year 6 children who took part in the intervention compared to controls. Seaton (2018) delivered training sessions for self-selected schools (one high school and five primary schools), conducted semi-structured interviews and concluded that there was some reflection on the part of teachers in terms of how to use feedback and choice of language following training.
Are the reasons for lack of replication of Dweck’s original studies to do with the way mind-set thinking has been conceptualised, operationalised and implemented or is it that mind-set based thinking has no real usefulness to schools?
Is it in the implementation?
Fraser (2018) commented that several factors were influential when thinking about mind-set implementation:
- embarking on the process
- awareness of existing classroom culture
- factors outside the classroom
- pupil approach to learning.
Perhaps growth mind-set thinking has been the victim of its own success but it is important for theories to have strong predictive elements and be subject to falsification (disproving a theory). Perhaps Dweck’s research has been misinterpreted or applied in contexts beyond the boundaries of the original experiments. This is an important and sometimes over looked point.
Research studies, even with robust designs (randomisation, outcome measures, active control group) are situated within a particular context and cannot be neatly applied or generalised across different contexts and age groups. This is where the concept of effect heterogeneity is important i.e. the differential impact of an intervention on different groups, and schools need to be aware of how and who to target for specific approaches.
These are essentially probabilistic decisions which have to be balanced against other approaches and strategies, which may have their own specific evidence without any direct comparative data.
Campbell & Green (2022) offer a more detailed discussion about competing and conflicting evidence as well as specific implementation prompts.
False growth mind-sets?
Dweck (2017), in her updated edition of the mind-set book, devotes a section to false growth mind-sets (p.214) and clarifies some misconceptions.
Dweck alerts practitioners to some important points to avoid misinterpreting the original research such as: conflating growth mind-set with some overall positive self-view; implying that it is simply the case of applying individual effort; a failure to recognise that mind-set fluctuates and changes depending on different contexts, and stressed the importance of making explicit links to trialling new strategies, seeking help and persevering with challenging tasks.
It is also clear that growth mind-set interventions cannot overcome the obstacle of peer culture (Yeager 2021) nor can these social-psychological approaches fix difficulties of day to day practice, curriculum sequence, instructional practices and the general classroom climate. Yeager et al. (2013) concluded that ‘psychological interventions complement- and do not replace- traditional teaching reform’.
It is also important to appreciate that our decisions and openness to ideas are heavily influenced by our underlying beliefs and values. We tend to be more critical of ideas which do not align with our pre-existing beliefs and less critical of ideas which do (Schuetze 2022) so having a pre-implementation planning group composed of a diverse range of staff to counter any biases is important.
What can teachers and schools do?
Whatever teachers and schools decide to do, this will involve a combination of individual, class, school and home/community factors (Kapasi & Pei 2022). It is what you do in regular interactions that form habits, particularly beliefs around competence acquisition (learning goals) and competence validation (performance goals) which influence strategies particularly in the face of challenge.
I find blogs by teachers very direct and useful in terms of what to do and avoid in terms of implementation (for example, blog posts by David Didau and Harry Fletcher-Wood).
School based professionals (teachers, teaching assistants, pastoral members of staff) can start by
- Looking at how to bring mistakes out in the open
- Support students to target their effort by enabling a high initial success rate
- Offer specific and actionable feedback
- Link language of effort with successful outcome
- Connect challenge with mistakes
- Support mastery goal setting.
Perhaps school based staff do not need knowledge about Dweck’s self-theory and they are already implementing some of these actions to create an environment which is likely to produce particular learning dispositions, habits and a willingness to work hard. In addition, whole school factors such as the impact of ability grouping, feedback policy, different assessment methods, differential merit and worthiness attached to different subjects need to be reflected upon so that a particular culture can be cultivated.
Concluding thoughts
It has become apparent that applying a specific intervention to change mind-sets is extremely difficult despite claims of poor implementation. The conflicting evidence can make it difficult to navigate and make decisions within dynamic school environments; teachers and leaders often do not have time to go to the primary sources and read all the papers.
Some schools have started to create additional responsibilities to incorporate evidence of research and possible classroom implications (or not), and I think that educational psychologists can help develop this role in schools.
Based on my reading so far it appears that students who may be classified as low attaining, have greater propensity for fixed mind-set thinking and those individuals who may experience intense threat to their competency can benefit from a relatively low cost and brief intervention.
Next steps
Educational psychologists can support teachers through action research, case studies and learning groups to explore strategies for giving feedback, setting goals, making mistakes visible, whole school assessment practices, whole school grouping practices and optimal ways to encourage effort.
This will mean collaborating with senior leaders alongside special needs co-ordinators using a range of different motivational frameworks such as self-efficacy, self-determination theory, habit formation, behavioural science and attribution theory. EPs can also support critical reflection on what constitutes evidence, and how to make operational decisions when research evidence is conflicting or insufficient.
References
Bahnik, S. & Vranka, M. (2017). Growth mind-set is not associated with scholastic attitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and individual Differences, 117, 139-143
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development., 78 (1), 246-263
Burgoyne, A., Hambrick, D., & Macnamara, B. (2020). How firm are the foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence. Psychological Science, 31(3), 258-267
Campbell, I., & Green, R. (2022). A role for educational psychologists in extending research insights from experimental contexts to real-world educational settings. Educational Psychology in Practice, 38(2), 125-150
Chidley, S. & Stringer, P. (2020). Addressing barriers to implementation: An Implementation Framework to help educational psychologists plan work with schools. Educational Psychology in Practice, 36(4), 443-457
Didau, D. (2017). Is Growth mindset bollocks?. Accessed 19.05.2023 https://learningspy.co.uk/psychology/growth-mindset-bollocks/
Didau, D. (2018). The nail in Growth Mindset’s coffin?. Accessed 19.05.2023 https://learningspy.co.uk/psychology/nail-growth-mindsets-coffin-2/
Dweck, C. (2017). Mind-set. Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential. Random House.
Dweck, C. & Molden, D (2007). Self Theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In: A. Eliot, & C. Dweck (Eds)., Handbook of competence and motivation. The Guildford Press.
Fletcher-Wood, H. (2022). Is growth mind-set real? New evidence, new conclusions. Accessed on 19.05.2023 https://improvingteaching.co.uk/2022/03/06/is-growth-mindset-real-new-evidence-new-conclusions/
Foliano, F., Rolfe, H., Buzzeo, J., Runge, J. & Wilkinson, D. (2019). Changing mind-sets: Effectiveness trail. Education Endowment Foundation. National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Fraser, D. (2018). An exploration of the application and implementation of growth mind-set principles within a primary school. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 645-658
Kapasi, A. & Pei, J. (2022). Mindset Theory and School Psychology. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37 (1), 57-74 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08295735211053961
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that’s how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mind-set on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1640-1655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000669
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). Testing the association of growth mind-set and grades across a challenging transition: Is growth mind-set associated with grades? Intelligence, 81
Macnamara, B., & Rupani, N. (2017). The relationship between intelligence and mind-set. Intelligence, 64, 52-59
Rienzon, C., Rolfe, H., & Wilkinson, D. (2015). Changing mind-sets: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Savvides, H., & Bond, C. (2021). How does growth mind-set inform interventions in primary schools. A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology in Practice, 37(2), 134-139
Schuetze, B, A (2022). The research- practice divide is not only an issue of communication, but of values: The case of growth mind-set. Texas Education Review, 10(1), 92-104
Seaton, F. (2017). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mind-set. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(1), 41-57
Sisk, V., Burgoyne, A., Sun, J., Butler, J., & Macnamara, B. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Association for Psychological Science, 29(4), 549-571
Porter, T., Molina, D., Cimpian, A., Roberts, S., Fredericks, A., Blackwell, L., & Trzesniewski, K. (2022). Growth mind-set intervention delivered by teachers boosts achievement in early adolescence. Manuscript accepted in Psychological Science.
Yeager, D., Walton, G., & Cohen, G. (2013). Addressing achievement gaps with psychological interventions. Kappan Magazine. Accessed https://labs.la.utexas.edu/adrg/files/2013/12/PDK-Yeager-Walton-Cohen-2013.pdf
Yeager, D., Carrol, J., Hanselman, P., Buontempo, J., Cimpian, A., Walton, G., Murray, J., Spencer, W., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C… Dweck, C. (2022). Teacher mind-sets help explain where a growth mind-set intervention does and doesn’t work. Psychological Science, 1 (33), 18-32
Yeager, D., Hanselman, P., Walton, G., Murray, J., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hullman, C., Hinojosa, C., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Yang, S., Carvalho, C, Dweck, C. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mind-set improves achievement. Nature., 573 (7774), 364-369
More from edpsy:
