Background The extent to which students view their intelligence as improvable (i.e., their “mindset”) influences students’ thoughts, behaviors, and ultimately their academic success. Thus, understanding the development of students’ mindsets is of great interest to education scholars working to understand and promote student success. Recent evidence suggests that students’ mindsets continue to develop and change during their first year of college. We built on this work by characterizing how mindsets change and identifying the factors that may be influencing this change among upper-level STEM students. We surveyed 875 students in an organic chemistry course at four points throughout the semester and interviewed a subset of students about their mindsets and academic experiences. Results Latent growth modeling revealed that students tended to shift towards viewing intelligence as a stable trait (i.e., shifted towards a stronger fixed mindset and a weaker growth mindset). This trend was particularly strong for students who persistently struggled in the course. From qualitative analysis of students’ written survey responses and interview transcripts, we determined that students attribute their beliefs about intelligence to five factors: academic experiences, observing peers, deducing logically, taking societal cues, and formal learning. Conclusions Extensive prior research has focused on the influence of mindset on academic performance. Our results corroborate this relationship and further suggest that academic performance influences students’ mindsets. Thus, our results imply that mindset and academic performance constitute a positive feedback loop. Additionally, we identified factors that influence undergraduates’ mindset beliefs, which could be leveraged by researchers and practitioners to design more persuasive and effective mindset interventions to promote student success.

Undergraduate research experiences in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields are championed for promoting students’ personal and professional development. Mentorship is an integral part of undergraduate research, as effective mentorship maximizes the benefits undergraduates realize from participating in research. Yet almost no research examines instances in which mentoring is less effective or even problematic, even though prior research on mentoring in workplace settings suggests negative mentoring experiences are common. Here, we report the results of a qualitative study to define and characterize negative mentoring experiences of undergraduate life science researchers. Undergraduate researchers in our study reported seven major ways they experienced negative mentoring: absenteeism, abuse of power, interpersonal mismatch, lack of career support, lack of psychosocial support, misaligned expectations, and unequal treatment. They described some of these experiences as the result of absence of positive mentoring behavior and others as actively harmful behavior, both of which they perceive as detrimental to their psychosocial and career development. Our results are useful to mentors for reflecting on ways their behaviors might be perceived as harmful or unhelpful. These findings can also serve as a foundation for future research aimed at examining the prevalence and impact of negative mentoring experiences in undergraduate research.

In diverse classrooms, stereotypes are often “in the air,” which can interfere with learning and performance among stigmatized students. Two studies designed to foster equity in college science classrooms ( Ns = 1,215 and 607) tested an intervention to establish social norms that make stereotypes irrelevant in the classroom. At the beginning of the term, classrooms assigned to an ecological-belonging intervention engaged in discussion with peers around the message that social and academic adversity is normative and that students generally overcome such adversity. Compared with business-as-usual controls, intervention students had higher attendance, course grades, and 1-year college persistence. The intervention was especially impactful among historically underperforming students, as it improved course grades for ethnic minorities in introductory biology and for women in introductory physics. Regardless of demographics, attendance in the intervention classroom predicted higher cumulative grade point averages 2 to 4 years later. The results illustrate the viability of an ecological approach to fostering equity and unlocking student potential.

Identifying as a “science person” is predictive of science success, but the mechanisms involved are not well-understood. We hypothesized that science identity predicts success because it fosters a sense of belonging in science classrooms. Thus, science identity should be particularly important for first-generation and racial-minority students, who may harbor doubts about belonging in science. Two field studies in college Introductory Biology classes ( Ns = 1368, 639) supported these hypotheses. A strong science identity predicted higher grades, particularly for minority students. Also consistent with hypotheses, Study 2 found that self-reported belonging in college mediated the relationship between science identity and performance. Furthermore, a social belonging manipulation eliminated the relationship between science identity and performance among minority students. These results support the idea that a strong science identity is particularly beneficial for minority students because it bolsters belonging in science courses. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Whether students view intelligence as a fixed or malleable trait (i.e., their “mindset”) has significant implications for their responses to failure and academic outcomes. Despite a long history of research on mindset and its growing popularity, recent meta-analyses suggest that mindset does a poor job of predicting academic outcomes for undergraduate populations. Here, we present evidence that these mixed results could be due to ambiguous language on the mindset scale. Specifically, the term “intelligence” is a referent in every item of the mindset scale but is never defined, which could result in differing interpretations and measurement error. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, qualitative study to characterize how undergraduate students define intelligence and how their definitions may influence how they respond to the mindset scale. We uncovered two distinct ways that undergraduates define intelligence: knowledge and abilities (e.g., ability to learn, solve problems). Additionally, we found that students’ definitions of intelligence can vary across contexts. Finally, we present evidence that students who define intelligence differently also interpret and respond to the items on the mindset scale differently. We discuss implications of these results for the use and interpretation of the mindset scale with undergraduate students.