Mindset and standardized testing over time

McCutchen, Krystal L.; Jones, Martin H.; Carbonneau, Kira J.; Mueller, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.027

Cited by 53 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our mindset surveys were based largely on the Dweck (1999) survey, with slight changes including that we used "smart" in place of "intelligent," making the language less complex as modeled by Gunderson et al (2013). That said, the mindset surveys in the elementary mindset literature are far from standardized, with researchers incorporating several modifications such as adding domain-specific items (McCutchen et al, 2016), making surveys more age-appropriate (Gunderson et al, 2013), or removing items (e.g., Project for Education Research That Scales, 2015). Prior to our work, no survey had been developed to measure EM.…”

Section: Mindset Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school

Lottero‐Perdue

Lachapelle

2020

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Students may exhibit growth mindsets, where intelligence is seen as malleable and failures prompt more effort and new approaches, or fixed mindsets, where intelligence is seen as immutable and failures indicate lack of intelligence. One's mindset in general may be different from that for a particular domain such as engineering. Having a growth mindset predicts more positive learning outcomes. Purpose: We described the general and engineering mindsets of students in fifth-grade U.S. classrooms (ages 10 and 11) who received engineering instruction. We explored how general mindsets may predict engineering learning outcomes and how engineering mindsets may be predicted by general mindset and other variables. Design/Method: We collected General Mindset (GM) and Engineering Mindset (EM) surveys from 2,086 fifth graders. We analyzed and correlated their GM and EM scores and survey item responses. Using hierarchical linear modeling, we measured the contribution of GM to models predicting EM and engineering learning outcomes and identified factors that predicted EM. Results: Almost three quarters of students who submitted EM surveys agreed with a growth mindset. Students with higher GM scores had higher engineering postassessment scores. Those who had a higher socioeconomic status did not receive special education services, experienced more whole-class discussion and activity, or had a higher GM score were more likely to have a more growth-minded EM score. Conclusions: Engineering education should help students see that they can grow in their capacities to engineer. Instructional interventions may positively impact mindset, which could be particularly important for some students. Engineering design may encourage an especially growth-minded approach to failure experiences.

show abstract

Section: Mindset Surveysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school

Lottero‐Perdue

Lachapelle

2020

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Drawing on the theoretical framework of implicit theories (see Dweck, , and, for a meta‐analysis, Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, ) as well as empirical evidence suggesting the relationship between individuals’ mindsets and their academic achievement, such as math and reading (e.g., McCutchen, Jones, Carbonneau, & Mueller, ), L2 researchers have operationalized mindsets in dichotomy—fixed mindset (a belief that intelligence is a fixed trait) and growth mindset (a belief that intelligence can be developed)—and investigated their impact on learners’ approaches to L2 learning. Among a limited number of studies is Mercer and Ryan () who operationalized mindsets as “assumptions individuals make about various human attributes, such as intelligence or personality” (p. 437).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

Sato

2016

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This classroom‐based study explored links among second language (L2) learners’ interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development in the context of peer interaction. While peer interaction research has revealed that certain interactional behaviors (e.g., receiving corrective feedback and engaging in collaborative interaction) assist L2 learning, it is yet unknown why some learners exhibit these interactional behaviors or how learners’ affective states impact their L2 development. The participants were two Grade 10 English as a foreign language classes in Chile (N = 53). Three data sets were collected: (a) interaction mindset data based on pretask interviews with focus groups from each class (n = 10); (b) interaction data pertaining to the communicative tasks of the focus groups; and (c) L2 development data from both classes consisting of oral and written production tests focusing on grammar and lexis. Results indicated that L2 development was mediated by learners’ interaction mindsets, which in turn affected their interactional behaviors. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. All materials are publicly accessible in the IRIS digital repository at http://www.iris-database.org. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

show abstract

“…The idea of mindset, "beliefs people have about the nature of human characteristics" (Murphy & Dweck, 2016, p. 127), was popularized by Dweck (2006), who posited that mindsets can affect one's motivation, and in turn, can have an impact on academic resilience and performance. Both grit (e.g., Duckworth et al, 2007;Strayhorn, 2013) and mindset (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016;McCutchen, Jones, Carbonneau, & Mueller, 2016) have been linked to academic achievement. However, the recent literature on the link between these motivational constructs and academic performance has reported mixed findings (Bazelais, Lemay, & Doleck, 2016;West et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grit, Mindset, and Academic Performance: A Study of Pre-University Science Students

Bazelais

Lemay

Doleck

et al. 2018

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies in educational psychology highlight the role of motivational variables such as trait-like perseverance. Studies have linked such variables (e.g., grit and mindset) to academic performance. However, research has reported inconsistent findings in explaining academic achievement differences. Drawing from a sample of pre-university students (N = 309), the present study assesses the efficacy of both grit and mindset in predicting academic achievement. The results suggest that neither grit, nor mindset was predictive of academic achievement. These findings have significant theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

Mindset and standardized testing over time

Cited by 53 publications

References 20 publications

Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school

Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school

Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model

Grit, Mindset, and Academic Performance: A Study of Pre-University Science Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About