Research suggests growth mindset interventions can support student achievement, particularly among students at risk of academic struggle, but it remains underspecified which at-risk populations will benefit from such interventions.
Objectives
This study aimed to experimentally evaluate whether highly (vs. moderately or minimally) nontraditional community college students would benefit from a growth mindset intervention and whether their performance differed at baseline and after the intervention.
Method
A sample of 155 students in introductory psychology at a 2-year community college was randomly assigned to complete a growth mindset or control intervention, and all participants completed an extensive background survey.
Results
Results showed improved exam performance among highly nontraditional students in the mindset (vs. control) condition but no benefit among other students. Highly nontraditional students showed similar pre-intervention performance to peers, but their exam scores declined more over the semester than did control peers.
Conclusion
Growth mindset interventions may offer a low-cost strategy for supporting nontraditional community college students at risk of a downward performance trajectory.
Teaching Implications
Instructors can use easily administered mindset interventions to support at-risk students’ academic performance. They may also wish to evaluate the performance-related messages they convey to students and work to create a growth-oriented classroom environment.
AditomoA. (2015). Students’ response to academic setback: ‘Growth Mindset’ as a buffer against demotivation. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 4(2), 198–222. https://doi.org/10.17583/ijep.2015.1482.
2.
AronsonJ.FriedC. B.GoodC. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491.
3.
BahníkŠ.VrankaM. (2017). Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic aptitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and Individual Differences, 117(1), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.046.
4.
BazelaisP.LemayD. J.DoleckT.HuX. S.VuA.YaoJ. (2018). Grit, mindset, and academic performance: A study of pre-university science students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/94570.
5.
BinningK. R.WangM. T.AmemiyaJ. (2019). Persistence mindset among adolescents: Who benefits from the message that academic struggles are normal and temporary?Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0933-3.
6.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x.
7.
BostwickK. C.MartinA. J.CollieR. J.DurksenT. L. (2019). Growth orientation predicts gains in middle and high school students’ mathematics outcomes over time. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58(1), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.010.
8.
BowlM. (2001). Experiencing the barriers: Nontraditional students entering higher education. Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520110037410.
9.
BurgoyneA. P.HambrickD. Z.MacnamaraB. N. (2020). How firm are the foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence. Psychological Science, 31(3), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619897588.
10.
BurnetteJ. L.HoytC. L.RussellV. M.LawsonB.DweckC. S.FinkelE. (2020). A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619841631.
11.
BurnetteJ. L.O'BoyleE. H.VanEppsE. M.PollackJ. M.FinkelE. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 655–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029531.
12.
CanningE. A.MuenksK.GreenD. J.MurphyM. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734.
13.
ChaoM. M.VisariaS.MukhopadhyayA.DehejiaR. (2017). Do rewards reinforce the growth mindset?: Joint effects of the growth mindset and incentive schemes in a field intervention. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 146(10), 1402–1419. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000355.
14.
ChoyS (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from the condition of education 2002. NCES 2002-012. National Center for Education Statistics.
15.
ClaroS.LoebS. (2019). Students with growth mindset learn more in school: Evidence from California's CORE school districts:[Working Paper]. Policy Analysis for California Education.
16.
ClaroS.PauneskuD.DweckC. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113.
17.
CostaA.FariaL. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1), 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829.
18.
DillP. L.HenleyT. B. (1998). Stressors of college: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional students. The Journal of Psychology, 132(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599261.
19.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A.MarshE. J.NathanM. J.WillinghamD. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
20.
DupeyratC.MarinéC. (2005). Implicit theories of intelligence, goal orientation, cognitive engagement, and achievement: A test of Dweck’s model with returning to school adults. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.01.007.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
23.
EpplerM. A.HarjuB. L. (1997). Achievement motivation goals in relation to academic performance in traditional and nontraditional college students. Research in Higher Education, 38(5), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024944429347.
24.
FinkA. (2021, September 29). Growth mindset intervention improves performance of highly nontraditional introductory psychology students at a community college. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S56RW.
25.
FinkA.CahillM. J.McDanielM. A.HoffmanA.FreyR. F. (2018). Improving general chemistry performance through a growth-mindset intervention: Selective effects on underrepresented minorities. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(3), 783–806. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00244K.
26.
FlaniganA. E.PeteranetzM. S.ShellD. F.SohL. K. (2017). Implicit intelligence beliefs of computer science students: Exploring change across the semester. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48(1), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.003.
27.
GoodC.AronsonJ.InzlichtM. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002.
28.
HongY.ChiuC.DweckC. S.LinD. M.-S.WanW. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588.
29.
HornL.CarrollC. D. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates. US Department of Education.
30.
KennettD. J.KeeferK. (2006). Impact of learned resourcefulness and theories of intelligence on academic achievement of university students: An integrated approach. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500342062.
31.
Kohler GiancolaJ.GrawitchM. J.BorchertD. (2009). Dealing with the stress of college: A model for adult students. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(3), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713609331479.
32.
LiY.BatesT. C. (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that’s how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 148(9), 1640–1655. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000669.
33.
McCabeJ. A.Kane-GerardS.Friedman-WheelerD. G. (2020). Examining the utility of growth-mindset interventions in undergraduates: A longitudinal study of retention and academic success in a first-year cohort. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(2), 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000228.
34.
McNeilJ. C.OhlandM. W.LongR. A. (2016, October). Entry pathways, academic performance, and persistence of nontraditional students in engineering by transfer status. In 2016 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757548
35.
MesaV. (2012). Achievement goal orientations of community college mathematics students and the misalignment of instructor perceptions. Community College Review, 40(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111435663.
36.
MoreauD.MacnamaraB. N.HambrickD. Z. (2019). Overstating the role of environmental factors in success: A cautionary note. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418797300.
37.
MuenksK.CanningE. A.LaCosseJ.GreenD. J.ZirkelS.GarciaJ. A.MurphyM. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 149(11), 2119–2144. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000763.
38.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results. What school life means for students’ lives (Vol. III): OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
39.
PauneskuD.WaltonG. M.RomeroC.SmithE. N.YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017.
40.
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
41.
RadfordA. W.CominoleM.SkomsvoldP. (2015). Demographic and enrollment characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates: 2011-12. Web tables. NCES 2015-025. National Center for Education Statistics.
42.
RobinsR. W.PalsJ. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805.
43.
RomeroC.MasterA.PauneskuD.DweckC. S.GrossJ. (2014). Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14(2), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035490.
44.
ShivelyR.RyanC. (2013). Longitudinal changes in college math students’ implicit theories of intelligence. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9208-0.
45.
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(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704.
46.
SkomsvoldP.RadfordA. W.BerknerL. (2011). Web tables: Six-year attainment, persistence, transfer, retention, and withdrawal rates of students who began postsecondary education in 2003–04. National Center for Education Statistics.
47.
SolomonE. D.BuggJ. M.RowellS. F.McDanielM. A.FreyR. F.MattsonP. S. (2021). Development and validation of an introductory psychology knowledge inventory. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000172.
48.
SpitzerT. M. (2000). Predictors of college success: A comparison of traditional and nontraditional age students. NASPA Journal, 38(1), 82–98. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1130.
49.
SriramR. (2014). Rethinking intelligence: The role of mindset in promoting success for academically high-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 15(4), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.15.4.c.
50.
YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychology, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.
51.
YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies?American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794.
52.
YeagerD. S.HanselmanP.WaltonG. M.MurrayJ. S.CrosnoeR.MullerC.TiptonE.SchneiderB.HullemanC. S.HinojosaC. P.PauneskuD.RomeroC.FlintK.RobertsA.TrottJ.IachanR.BuontempoJ.YangS. M.CarvalhoC. M, ... DweckC. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y.
53.
YeagerD. S.RomeroC.PauneskuD.HullemanC. S.SchneiderB.HinojosaC.LeeH. Y.O’BrienJ.FlintK.RobertsA.TrottJ.GreeneD.WaltonG. M.DweckC.S. (2016a). Using design thinking to improve psychological interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000098.
54.
YeagerD. S.WaltonG. M.BradyS. T.AkcinarE. N.PauneskuD.KeaneL.KamentzD.RitterG.DuckworthA. L.UrsteinR.GomezE. M.MarkusH. R.CohenG. L.DweckC. S. (2016b). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341–E3348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524360113.
