Growth mindset theory was essentially an extension of Dweck's self-theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2006). Schools have been adapting lessons and curricula to advance their students and teach growth mindset theory. Participating in the Brainology intervention program will result in an increase in growth mindset for all students.
Students who subscribed to a fixed mindset will show a greater change than students who began the study endorsing a growth mindset. However, Dweck's growth mindset theory offers an additional conceptualization of the traits of intelligence, one that has gained popularity in recent years. In addition to growth mindset theory, Dweck identified through her work three components that will promote a growth mindset in students.
In each of the following sections, all three will be discussed in detail to determine how each contributes to the development of a growth mindset. Duckworth also reasoned that one of the ways to become tougher is, in essence, to develop a growth mindset. Half of the students were placed in a control group, while the other half received a growth mindset intervention.
Wilkins (2014) conducted a study to examine the effects of a growth mindset on academic achievement using the Brainology curriculum. Students in elementary schools are increasingly exposed to growth mindset theory; however, there has been no research using these computer-based programs with elementary-aged students.
METHODOLOGY
Although the MAP has not previously been used in research with third graders, all participating third grade teachers reviewed the wording and vocabulary of the measure before beginning the intervention and agreed that the MAP was appropriate for their students. The design of the experiment was both a within-subjects design and a between-subjects comparison. Because this is a school-based intervention and the researcher has a previous working relationship with the school, a convenience sample was used to study the effects of mindset after implementing the Brainology program.
The intervention program was administered in the classroom via each student's individual laptop computer, which was distributed at the beginning of the year. Training was provided to the teachers implementing this program prior to the intervention. During this time, a thorough evaluation of the Brainology computer program was conducted and each teacher completed the introductory module to establish the structure of the program.
At the end of the individual trainings, this researcher provided both teachers with a written copy of the schedule to confirm that the implementation of the intervention was simultaneous. All this was done to facilitate the delivery of the intervention for the teachers. At the beginning of the intervention and after completion, the researcher administered the paper version of the Mindset Assessment Profile (MAP) to all third grade students.
The log was designed to keep track of the lessons they completed each week, which students participated in the lesson, and whether the lesson was completed in the allotted time frame. In addition to attending their lessons, teachers were asked to email the researcher at the end of each week with an update on the progress of the intervention. The teachers agreed to all these conditions before the start of the study.
During the introduction, students are asked to complete a Mindset Assessment Profile before the start of the programme. Upon completion of the unit's three activities, students are expected to be able to connect how effort and practice lead to the development of new neural pathways.
Results
At the beginning of the analyses, a survey of the frequencies of pretest scores was conducted to determine how many students entered the experiment with a growth mindset or a fixed mindset. To determine equivalence between groups prior to the intervention, all classrooms completed the paper version of the MAP while the researcher was present in the classroom. Overall, the sample means indicated that the pretest scores reported by the MAP were, on average, within the range indicative of a growth mindset.
Specifically, it was determined that 74% of students who participated in this study reported a score that decreased. In addition, a one-way analysis of variance was performed to test for differences between classrooms at the start of the intervention. The results were not statistically significant (F p= .788), therefore at the start of the intervention there were no significant differences between the groups.
This study was designed to determine the impact that a growth mindset intervention would have on students' mindsets, when controlling for gender, prior mindset, and participation in the intervention. Results from preliminary analyzes confirmed that there were no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. This finding indicates that placement in neither the experimental nor the control group produced a significant effect in relation to the outcome of the intervention.
This showed that mindset at the start of the intervention significantly influenced mindset change. In particular, as a result of the intervention, girls' MAP scores changed an average of 2,654 points more than boys. After performing the multiple regression analysis, paired t-tests were performed on the data from each class in order to investigate the possibility that one of the classes performed better than the other.
While the results of the analyzes did not yield any statistically significant differences, one classroom approached significance in the findings. The analyzes will be discussed in further detail as well as an examination of the study design and implications for future research.
Discussion
It is possible that the higher initial scores on the MAP in this study were a result of the same phenomenon that Dweck experienced with the initial scale. In relation to the current study, both the experimental and comparison groups scored within the growth mindset range on the MAP prior to implementation of the intervention. Several barriers to program implementation became apparent both before and during the study.
Similar to Baldrige (2010) and Wieland (2011), difficulties in implementing the program may have contributed to the results of the study, and therefore should not rule out the use of this program in future research. First, a convenience sample was used, which limited the generalizability of the findings to the sample used. The demographic information reported by the school is similar to the overall racial makeup of the county where the students reside.
Another limitation of this study was the use of pre-existing groups, which may have contributed to the study's findings. While the validity of the study is being investigated, it is possible that both external and internal factors may have contributed to the results. Overall, it was determined that 74% of students who participated in this study scored in the growth mindset, while only 19% of students entered the study with a fixed mindset.
As previously discussed, Baldridge (2010) suggested that the design of the Brainology program may have influenced the reception it received among students. Therefore, by removing some barriers to intervention implementation (e.g., time of year, duration of intervention), it is possible that Brainology could facilitate a change in mindset. Random assignment of participants to the experimental and comparison groups can address these concerns and prevent teacher mindset from influencing the intervention and study results.
Regarding the study design itself, many of the breakout sessions were not utilized due to time constraints. Exposing students to the concepts of growth mindset for the first time can give the students a deeper understanding of the topics. One barrier to implementation was the distance between the school and the home of the researcher.
Future research should consider using this program to reinforce growth mindset concepts through the use of Brainology intervention for elementary school students.
MINDSET ASSESSMENT PROFILE TOOL
No grade is associated with the survey and the “score” you receive is not a percentage correct. Be sure to emphasize that the survey is an indicator (like measuring the temperature with a thermometer) of their thinking right now. For questions with odd numbers, write the number of your answer in the boxes in the right column.
For even numbered questions use the table below to fill in the gray boxes in the right column. If you chose this answer: Then write this number in the gray box on the right (Profile Number Strongly Disagree (1) 6. Add up all the numbers in the Profile column on the right and write the total in the last box in the lower corner of right
You prefer not to make mistakes if you can help it, and you don't really like to put in a lot of work either. All the lessons will be taught at school and there is no home requirement. Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study This program will be provided to your child at no additional cost to you or the district.
You may discontinue and remove your child from participating in this study at any time. In the unlikely event that this happens, please do not hesitate to contact me, I may be available at [email protected] or XXXX. All identifying information will remain private at the time of publication and no information will be included that would allow any participant to be identified.
The data will be kept for at least three years after the end of the research. If you decide to participate, you can withdraw at any time without penalty.
