When and How Teachers Communicate Growth Mindset Affordances to Adolescents

Download data and study materials from OSF

Principal investigators:

Cameron A. Hecht

University of Texas at Austin

Email: cameron.hecht@utexas.edu

Homepage: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/prc/faculty/ch49232

David S. Yeager

University of Texas at Austin

Email: dyeager@utexas.edu

Homepage: https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/psychology/faculty/yeagerds


Sample size: 803

Field period: 05/15/2020-05/06/2021

Abstract
A growth mindset is the belief that academic ability can be improved with effort, good strategies, and mentoring or support from others. A fixed mindset—the opposite of a growth mindset—is the belief that academic ability is fixed and cannot be substantially changed. A recent randomized controlled trial revealed heterogeneity in an intervention that taught students the growth mindset in a large, multi-context, nationally-representative sample of 9th grade students. The intervention improved students’ math grades more strongly when their math teachers also reported more of a growth mindset. The findings are informative, but also limited because measures of a context cannot provide causal evidence. Instead, they imply that some set of teachers’ practices encourage students to act on their growth mindset beliefs, but do not tell us which ones. This means that researchers do not know which practices to target in future interventions aimed at teachers. In this study, we tested an efficient method for simulating and assessing the causal moderating effect of contextual variables, such as teachers’ practices. We crafted faithful depictions of hypothetical teachers that varied whether their practices were supportive of the growth or fixed mindset. We then randomly assigned adolescent participants to different teacher descriptions and tested whether these moderated the association between their growth mindset beliefs and learning-oriented choices. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that students’ growth mindset beliefs were more positively associated with learning-oriented choices in the context of a growth mindset-supportive teacher, as compared to a fixed mindset-supportive teacher.
Hypotheses

H1: Manipulation check: Participants will perceive a growth mindset-supportive teacher to have more of a growth mindset and provide more affordances for a growth mindset than a fixed mindset-supportive teacher.

H2: Participants will make more learning-oriented choices (e.g., choosing a harder assignment, expressing more comfort raising their hand when confused) in the context of a growth mindset-supportive teacher, as compared to a fixed mindset-supportive teacher.

H3: The effects of a growth (vs. fixed) mindset-supportive teacher on participant perceptions and learning-oriented choices will interact with (a) participants’ mindset beliefs and/or (b) participants’ awareness of the growth mindset concept. For example, the association between participants’ mindset beliefs and learning-oriented behaviors will be more positive in the growth mindset-supportive teacher condition than in the fixed mindset-supportive teacher condition.

Experimental Manipulations
Participants read an interview with a math teacher about what they would say to their students on the first day of class, and they were told that they would subsequently provide their opinions about this teacher. The content of the teacher’s first-day speech depended on condition. In the growth mindset-supportive teacher condition, the teacher described their approach to teaching the class in a way that was consistent with the growth mindset. The teacher provided both messages that supported the growth mindset (e.g., “I believe that all students can learn and do well in the class, no matter where they started out”) and formal opportunities for students to be rewarded for using a growth mindset (e.g., “If you show improvement in your exam grades over the course of the term, I’ll raise your final grade”). In the fixed mindset-supportive teacher condition, the teacher described their approach to teaching the class in a way that was consistent with the growth mindset. The teacher’s practices provided both messages that supported a fixed mindset (e.g., “Students who do the best at the beginning of the year are typically the same ones who do well at the end”) and did not provide formal opportunities for students to be rewarded for using a growth mindset (e.g., “You cannot make up for problems missed on previous tests, so make sure you’re prepared for each test”).
Outcomes
Perceived teacher mindset beliefs were assessed with one item: “This math teacher seems to believe that students can’t really change how good they are at math” (reversed). Perceived teacher affordances were also assessed with one item: “This math teacher seems like they would only give good grades to students who have a natural ‘talent’ for math” (reversed). Comfort with academic risk-taking was assessed on a two-item scale: “If I were in this teacher’s class, I would feel comfortable raising my hand when I am confused,” “If I were in this teacher’s class, I would feel comfortable going to the teacher for help after class”; r = .77, α = .87. Assignment choice was measured with the same hypothetical decision task as in Study 1a. We did not measure challenging course seeking. We measured assignment choice with a hypothetical decision task adapted from previous research (Rege et al., 2020; Yeager et al., 2019). Students were asked to imagine that the teacher handed out two extra credit assignments from which the student could choose, and that they would get the same number of points for trying either one. One assignment was framed as an easy review on which students would probably get most of the problems right without having to think very much. The other assignment was framed as a hard challenge on which students would probably get most of the problems wrong but might learn something new. We assessed students’ choice of assignment (0 = easy assignment, 1 = hard assignment).
Summary of Results
We regressed each of the four outcomes on condition (growth teacher = .5, fixed teacher = -.5), students’ growth mindset beliefs (standardized; measured with a three-item composite of students’ growth mindset “motivational framework”), and the Condition  Growth Mindset Beliefs interaction. There was a significant positive main effect of condition on each of the four outcomes (ps < .001). In addition, there was a significant Condition  Growth Mindset Beliefs interaction on each of the four outcomes (ps < .013), indicating that growth mindset beliefs were more positively associated with each of the outcomes in the growth mindset-supportive teacher condition than in the fixed mindset-supportive teacher condition. A secondary model tested awareness of the growth mindset concept as an alternative moderator and found that it did not significantly moderate condition effects on any of the outcomes.
References
Hecht, C. A., Yeager, D. S., Dweck, C. S., Murphy, M. C., & Kroeper, K. M. (2022). Investigating contextual heterogeneity with vignette experiments reveals new insights into growth mindset effects. In preparation.