The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of providing mindset intervention in addition to reading intervention compared with only reading intervention for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Reading intervention was provided daily in 45 min sessions throughout the school year. Mindset intervention occurred in small groups for 24–30 min lessons. Multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) via n-level SEM was used to account for the latent variable representation of constructs, and the complex nesting and cross-classification structure of the data. Students in the reading intervention plus mindset condition significantly outperformed the business as usual condition on nonword reading (d = 0.35) as did students in the reading intervention condition (d = 0.20), who also outperformed the business as usual condition on phonological processing (d = 0.28). There were no significant differences among students in the three conditions on nonword reading, word reading, phonological processing, reading comprehension, or growth mindset. Initial reading achievement, mindset, and problem behavior did not generally moderate these findings.
AckermanB. P.IzardC. E.KobakR.BrownE. D.SmithC. (2007). Relation between reading problems and internalizing behavior in school for preadolescent children from economically disadvantaged students. Child Development, 78, 581–596.
2.
AronsonJ.FriedC.GoodC. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
BearG. G.MinkeK. M.ManningM. A. (2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 31, 405–427.
5.
BerkeleyS.ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities 1995-2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31, 423–436. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v43i8.6690
6.
BlackwellL.TrzesniewskiK.DweckC. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
BorkowskiJ. G.EstradaM. T.MilsteadM.HaleC. A. (1989). General problem-solving skills: Relations between metacognition and strategic processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510252
9.
CarneyK. J.StiefelG. S. (2008). Long-term results of a problem-solving approach to response to intervention: Discussion and implications. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 6, 61–75.
10.
CassidyA. R. (2014). Executive function and psychosocial adjustment in healthy children and adolescents: A latent variable modelling investigation. Child Neuropsychology, 22, 292–317.
11.
CirinoP. T.MiciakJ.GerstE.BarnesM. A.VaughnS.ChildA.Huston-WarrenE. (2017). Executive function, self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension: A training study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 450–467.
12.
ClauserS. B.TaplinS. H.FosterM. K.FaganP.KaluznyA. D. (2012). Multilevel intervention research: Lessons learned and pathways forward. Journal of National Cancer Institute Monographs, 44, 127–133.
13.
DentonC. A.MontroyJ. J.ZuckerT. A.CannonG. (in press). Designing an intervention in reading and self-regulation for students with significant reading difficulties, including dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly.
14.
DoneganR. E.WanzekJ. (submitted). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
DweckC. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
16.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset. Random House.
17.
DweckC. S.ChiuC.HongY. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
18.
EdmondsM.BriggsK. L. (2003). The instructional content emphasis instrument: Observations of reading instruction. In VaughnS.BriggsK. L. (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for the observation of teaching and learning (pp. 31–52). Brookes.
19.
ElbaumB. (2002). The self–concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of comparisons across different placements. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00047
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
22.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 stat. 1177. (2015).
23.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford.
24.
FlynnL. J.ZhengX.SwansonH. L. (2012). Instructing struggling older readers: A selective meta-analysis of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00347.x
25.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2015). Rethinking service delivery for students with significant learning problems: Developing and implementing intensive instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514558337
26.
GerstenR.ComptonD.ConnorC. M.DiminoJ.SantoroL.Linan-ThompsonS.TillyW. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades (NCEE 2009-4045). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
27.
GoddardR.GoddardY.KimE. S.MillerR. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121, 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/681925
28.
GoodC.AronsonJ.InzlichtM. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662.
29.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.) (Administration and scoring guide). Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
30.
GreshamF. M.ElliottS. N. (2008). Social skills improvement system rating scales. NCS Pearson.
31.
GwetK. (2001). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: How to estimate the level of agreement between two or multiple raters. STATAXIS.
32.
HendersonV. L.DweckC. S. (1990). Achievement and motivation in adolescence: A new model and data. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 308–320). Harvard University Press.
33.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).
LindamoodP. C.LindamoodP. D. (2011). The Lindamood phoneme sequencing program for reading, spelling, and speech. Pro-Ed.
37.
LohrS.SchochetP. Z.SandersE. (2014). Partially nested randomized controlled trials in education research: A guide to design and analysis (NCER 2014-2000). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncer/pubs/20142000/pdf/20142000.pdf
38.
MaagJ. W.ReidR. (2006). Depression among students with learning disabilities: Assessing the risk. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390010201
MehtaP. D.NealeM. C. (2005). People are variables too: Multilevel structural equations modeling. Psychological Methods, 10, 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.3.259
41.
MiciakJ.RobertsG.TaylorW. P.SolisM.AhmedY.VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2018). The effects of one versus two years of intensive reading intervention implemented with late elementary struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12159
42.
Mindset Works. (2016). The Brainology curriculum elementary guide to implementation. https://www.mindsetworks.com
43.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). National assessment of educational progress: The nation’s report card. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
44.
NelsonJ. M.HarwoodH. (2011). Learning disabilities and anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 3–17. https://10.1177/0022219409359939
45.
NelsonJ. R.BennerG. J.LaneK.SmithB. W. (2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 71, 59–73.
46.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK. M.BeachK. D.SanchezV.FlynnL. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year response to intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12013
47.
O’ConnorR. E.HartyK. R.FulmerD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380060901
48.
OkoloC. M. (1992). The effects of computer-based attribution retraining on the attributions, persistence, and mathematics computation of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500507
49.
Page-VothV.GrahamS. (1999). Effects of goal-setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.230
50.
PauneskuD.WaltonG. M.RomeroC.SmithE. N.YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26, 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
51.
PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.WanzekJ.RivasB.JonesF. (2017). The relation between global and specific mindset with reading outcomes for elementary school students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1313846
52.
PetscherY.SchatschneiderC. (2019). Using n-level structural equation models for causal modeling in fully nested, partially nested, and cross-classified randomized controlled trials. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 79, 1075–1102. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cythz
53.
RidgwayJ. (2016). Implications of the data revolution for statistics education. International Statistical Review, 84, 528–549.
54.
RobertsonJ. S. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom intervention for K-12 students with learning difficulties?Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009089118008
55.
SarrasinJ.NencioviciL.FoisyL. B.Allaire-DuquetteG.RiopelM.MassonS. (2018). Effects of teaching the concept of neuroplasticity to induce a growth mindset on motivation, achievement, and brain activity: A meta-analysis. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 12, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2018.07.003
56.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.StuebingK. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
57.
SchrankF. A.MatherN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Riverside.
58.
SchunkD. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308219
59.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
60.
SiskV. F.BurgoyneA. P.SunJ.ButlerJ. L.MacnamaraB. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29, 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
StevensJ.PrattC.BoyingtonJ.NelsonC.TruesdaleK. P.WardD. S.. . . MurrayD. M. (2016). Multilevel interventions targeting obesity: Research recommendations for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 52, 115–124.
63.
SuggateS. P. (2010). Why what we teach depends on when: Grade and reading intervention modality moderate effect size. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1556–1579.
64.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. S.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58, 78.
65.
TorgesenJ. K.LichtB. G. (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and prospects. In McKinneyJ. D.FeagansL. (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 3–31). Ablex.
66.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency—Second Edition. Pro-Ed.
67.
TraininG.SwansonH. L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and achievement of college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 261–272.
68.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.MurrayC. S.RobertsG. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531907.pdf
69.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.BarthA.CirinoP.FletcherJ. M.. . . FrancisD. J. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 931–956.
70.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Pro-Ed.
71.
WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS.SchatschneiderC.*DoneganR. E.RivasB.JonesF.PetscherY. (2020). Intensive intervention for upper elementary students with severe reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13, 408–429.
72.
WanzekJ.PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.RivasB. K.JonesF. G.KentS. C.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (2017). Effects of a year long supplemental reading intervention for students with reading difficulties in fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 1103–1119.
73.
WanzekJ.StevensE. A.WilliamsK. J.ScammaccaN.VaughnS.SargentK. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110
74.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with reduced placement in special education?Remedial and Special Education, 32, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361267
75.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
76.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.MetzK.MurrayC.RobertsG.DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195.
77.
WanzekJ.WexlerJ.VaughnS.CiulloS. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9179-5
YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47, 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
81.
YeagerD. S.HanselmanP.WaltonG. M.MurrayJ. S.CrosnoeR.MullerC.. . . DweckC. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573, 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
82.
ZhengC.EricksonA. G.KingstonN. M.NoonanP. M. (2014). The relationship among self-determination, self-concept, and academic achievement for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 462–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412469688
