We investigated whether a growth mindset intervention could be leveraged to promote performance and interest in computer science, through what mechanisms it might do so, and whether effects were stronger for women than for men. In particular, we explored whether the growth mindset intervention improved academic performance and career interest by increasing intrinsic value. We developed and tested a scalable, online, 4-session growth mindset intervention at 7 universities, across 16 introductory computer science classes (N = 491). The intervention did not have a significant total effect on academic performance, although it indirectly improved grades via value. Additionally, the intervention, relative to the control, improved interest in the field and value also mediated this effect. Counter to expectations, the intervention worked equally well for women and men. Theoretical and practical applications are discussed.
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. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
2.
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, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
3.
BurnetteJ. L.FinkelE. J. (2012). Buffering against weight gain following dieting setbacks: An implicit theory intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 721–725. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.020
4.
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, 655–701. doi:10.1037/a0029531
5.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
6.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.HandronC.HudsonL. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women. Sex Roles, 69, 58–71. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0296-x
7.
CostaA.FariaL. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829
8.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 10. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
9.
CranoW. D.PrislinR. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190034
10.
DonohoeC.ToppingK.HannahE. (2012). The impact of an online intervention (Brainology) on the mindset and resiliency of secondary school pupils: A preliminary mixed methods study. Educational Psychology, 32, 641–655. doi:10.1080/01443410.2012.675646
11.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
12.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 25, 109–116. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
13.
EcclesJ. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, value, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
15.
FiedlerK.SchottM.MeiserT. (2011). What mediation analyses can (not) do. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1236. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.007
16.
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, 179–196. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.003
17.
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. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
18.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659
19.
GottschallA. C.WestS. G.EndersC. K. (2012). A comparison of item-level and scale-level multiple imputation for questionnaire batteries. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 1–25. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.640589
20.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi:10.1177/0956797613502676
21.
HillC.CorbettC.RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women.
22.
Keogh-BrownM. R.BachmannM. O.ShepstoneL.HewittC.HoweA.RamsayC.R.…CampbellM. J. (2007). Contamination in trials of educational interventions. Health Technology Assessment, 11. Retrieved from: http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono/mon1143.pdf
23.
KinnunenP.MalmiL. (2006). Why students drop out of C1 courses. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing education research (pp. 97–108). doi:10.1145/1151588.1151604
24.
LentR. W.BrownS. D. (1996). Social cognitive approach to career development: An overview. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 310–321. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00448.x
25.
LentR. W.BrownS. D.HackettG. (1994). Toward a unified social cognitive theory of career/academic interest, choice, and performance[Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 45, 79–122.
26.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265. doi:10.1126/science.1261375
27.
LewisC. (2007). Attitudes and beliefs about computer science among students and faculty. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 37–41. doi:10.1145/1272848.1272880
28.
MalteseA. V.TaiR. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 669–685. doi:10.1080/09500690902792385
29.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K.PetersK. (2015). The motivational theory of role modeling: How role models influence role aspirants’ goals. Review of General Psychology, 19, 465–483. doi:10.1037/gpr0000059
30.
MurphyM. C.DweckC. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 283–296. doi:10.1177/0146167209347380
31.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007) Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
32.
National Research Council. (2010). The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12955
33.
National Science Foundation. (2015). Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966–2012. The National Science Foundation. Retrieved April 11, 2016, fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15326/
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.
36.
RattanA.GoodC.DweckC. S. (2012). “It’s ok—Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 731–737. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012
37.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S.CongdonR. (2013). HLM 7.01 for Windows [Computer software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
38.
RezvanP. H.LeeK. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2015). The rise of multiple imputation: A review of reporting and implementation of the method in medical research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0022-1
39.
RuckerD. D.PreachreK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5/6, 359–371. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
40.
SaddlerP. M.SonnertG.HazariZ.TaiR. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96, 411–427. doi:10.1002/sce.21007
41.
SaundersS. A. (2013). The impact of a growth mindset intervention on the reading achievement of at-risk adolescent students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3573523)
42.
SchlomerG. L.BaumanS.CardN. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082
43.
ScottM. J.GhineaG. (2014). On the domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship between aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57, 169–174. doi:10.1109/TE.2013.2288700
44.
ShapiroJ. R.WilliamsA. M. (2012). The role of stereotype threat in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles, 66, 175–183. doi:10.1007/ s11199-011-0051-0
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, 4, 549–571. doi:10.1177/0956797617739704
46.
SriramR. (2014). Rethinking intelligence: The role of mindset in promoting success for academically high-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4, 515–536. doi:10.2190/CS.15.4.c
47.
SuR.RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884. doi:10.1037/a0017364
TofighiD.MacKinnonD. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavioral Research Methods, 43, 692–700. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x
50.
WaltonG. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 73–82. doi:10.1177/0963721413512856
51.
WeberK. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24, 18–33. doi:10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.2
52.
YeagerD. S.JohnsonR.SpitzerB.TrzesniewskiK.PowersJ.DweckC. S. (2014). The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 867–884. doi:10.1037/a0036335
53.
YeagerD. S.WaltonG. M. (2011). Social–psychological interventions in education: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301. doi:10.3102/0034654311405999
54.
YeagerD. S.WaltonG. M.BradyS. T.AkcinarE. N.PauneskuD.KeaneL.…DweckC. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, E3341–E3348.
55.
ZwebenS.BizotB. (2016). 2015 Taulbee survey. Computing Research News, 28, 1–59.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
