Changing mindsets to improve pupil attainment

Rienzo, Cinzia

doi:10.1186/isrctn14702744

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They showed a nonsignificant positive effect, namely, a 4-month gain in academic achievement, p = .07, in the growth mindset group relative to the controls. The estimated effect size (and pattern of moderation results by student prior achievement reported by Rienzo et al, 2015) was larger than the online growth mindset intervention effects. Therefore, the Rienzo study is not exactly evidence against mindset effects (see a discussion of this statistical argument in McShane et al, 2019).…”

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Correlational research has indicated a role for educators’ mindsets and mindset-related practices in student achievement (Canning et al, 2019; Leslie et al, 2015; Muenks et al, 2020). Nevertheless, two recent mindset interventions, delivered to and by classroom teachers, have not had any discernable effects on student achievement (Foliano et al, 2019; Rienzo et al, 2015). We examine the issue of teacher-focused interventions and ask: Why might it be so difficult to coach teachers to instill or support a growth mindset?…”

Section: Preview Of Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rienzo, Rolfe, and Wilkensom (2015) evaluated a face-to-face growth mindset intervention in a sample of 5th grade students ( N = 286), resembling the face-to-face method in Blackwell et al (2007). They showed a nonsignificant positive effect, namely, a 4-month gain in academic achievement, p = .07, in the growth mindset group relative to the controls.…”

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the Rienzo study is not exactly evidence against mindset effects (see a discussion of this statistical argument in McShane et al, 2019). But Rienzo et al, 2015, also reported a second, teacher-focused intervention with null effects (see Controversy 4 below).…”

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?

Yeager¹,

Dweck²

2020

American Psychologist

387

270

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth mindset is the belief that intellectual ability can be developed. This article seeks to answer recent questions about growth mindset, such as: Does a growth mindset predict student outcomes? Do growth mindset interventions work, and work reliably? Are the effect sizes meaningful enough to merit attention? And can teachers successfully instill a growth mindset in students? After exploring the important lessons learned from these questions, the article concludes that large-scale studies, including preregistered replications and studies conducted by third parties (such as international governmental agencies), justify confidence in growth mindset research. Mindset effects, however, are meaningfully heterogeneous across individuals and contexts. The article describes three recent advances that have helped the field to learn from this heterogeneity: standardized measures and interventions, studies designed specifically to identify where growth mindset interventions do not work (and why), and a conceptual framework for anticipating and interpreting moderation effects. The next generation of mindset research can build on these advances, for example by beginning to understand and perhaps change classroom contexts in ways that can make interventions more effective. Throughout, the authors reflect on lessons that can enrich metascientific perspectives on replication and generalization. Public Significance StatementResearch on growth mindset-the belief that intellectual ability can be developed-has found that a growth mindset can lead to greater resilience and academic achievement among students facing difficulties. The present article reviews the evidence and shows that highly quality studies, and independent analyses, have supported the conclusion that growth mindset effects are replicable, meaningful, and theoretically grounded, but interventions targeting teachers (rather than students)have not yet been effective. The article concludes with a discussion of why it has been difficult to change teachers or schools and why new research is needed on this topic.

show abstract

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Preview Of Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Controversiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?

Yeager¹,

Dweck²

2020

American Psychologist

387

270

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One sign that scientists engage in socially motivated research is the replication crisis and subsequent discovery of widespread p -hacking and other QRPs (Camerer et al, 2018; Ebersole et al, 2020; Flake & Fried, 2020; Ioannidis, 2012; Nosek et al, 2021; Open Science Collaboration, 2015; Simmons et al, 2011; Simmons & Simonsohn, 2017; Simonsohn et al, 2014; Singal, 2021; Vazire, 2018). Since 2012, the field has been rattled by a surge of nonreplications of oft-cited findings, including growth mindset (Bahník & Vranka, 2017; Rienzo et al, 2015; Sisk et al, 2018; Stoet & Geary, 2012), power posing (Jonas et al, 2017; Simmons & Simonsohn, 2017), ego depletion (Hagger et al, 2016), priming (Pashler et al, 2012; Shanks et al, 2013; Steele, 2014), the influence of incidental disgust on moral evaluations (Jylkkä et al, 2021; Landy & Goodwin, 2015), the Mozart effect (Pietschnig et al, 2010), mortality salience effects (Klein et al, 2019; Sætrevik & Sjåstad, 2019), the relation between ovulatory phase and numerous outcomes (Bleske-Rechek et al, 2011; Hahn et al, 2020; Thomas et al, 2021; Wood et al, 2014), and the influence of analytic thinking on religious belief (Sanchez et al, 2017). Numerous in-depth investigations have uncovered questionable analytic techniques scholars use to generate publication-worthy findings, including running multiple studies and only writing up the impressive findings, playing the statistical significance lottery by including multiple dependent variables and only reporting those that “worked,” and flat-out fraud by fabricating data or dropping participants from datafiles for erroneous reasons (Blanton & Mitchell, 2011; Simonsohn et al, 2021), among other tactics.…”

Section: Scientists Are Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

Clark¹,

Costello²,

Mitchell³

2022

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral scientists enjoy vast methodological freedom in how they operationalize theoretical constructs. This freedom may promote creativity in designing laboratory paradigms that shed light on real-world phenomena, but it also enables questionable research practices that undercut our collective credibility. Open Science norms impose some discipline but cannot constrain cherry-picking operational definitions that insulate preferred theories from rejection. All too often scholars conduct performative research to score points instead of engaging each other’s strongest arguments—a pattern that allows contradictory claims to fester unresolved for decades. Adversarial collaborations, which call on disputants to codevelop tests of competing hypotheses, are an efficient method of improving our science’s capacity for self-correction and of promoting intellectual competition that exposes false claims. Although individual researchers are often initially reluctant to participate, the research community would be better served by institutionalizing adversarial collaboration into its peer-review process.

show abstract

Investigating the association of school type and gender with adolescent's mindsets

Kwon

Ryoo

2023

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mindset is a key factor affecting personality and learning for adolescents, especially those living in countries focusing heavily on human resources, such as Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. We examined associations of fixed intelligence mindset, fixed creative mindset, students' gender and school type via a structural equation modeling. The sample included 301 Korean adolescents: students in their second year at a gifted high school, general high school students, and vocational high school students. To confirm construct validity and examine the associations of gender and school type with both fixed intelligent and creative mindsets, we fit a two‐factor model within the structural equation model. We found significant associations of school type and gender with students' fixed intelligence mindset and fixed creative mindset. Three paths—gender → fixed intelligence mindset, school type → fixed intelligence mindset, and school type → fixed creative mindset—were significant. In Western countries where mindset research originated and developed, there have already been efforts to manage students' mindsets with policies. However, Asian countries still lack understanding of and basic research on mindset management. Therefore, these countries should pay closer attention to policies regarding students' mindset management. Simultaneously, a practical school‐level program is required to address the associations of school type and gender with student's mindsets revealed through this study.

show abstract

Changing mindsets to improve pupil attainment

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?

What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

Investigating the association of school type and gender with adolescent's mindsets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About