Carol Dweck’s theory of growth mindset has revolutionized methods of education since its publication in her 2006 book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Growth mindset interventions have become increasingly popular to decrease poor performance rates and reduce the achievement gap. However, recent research has brought into question the validity of the theory, as scientists were unable to fully replicate her original study. It’s key to understand the details of the theory and its counterarguments to decide how it can best be used currently.
The Growth Mindset Theory
Dweck’s theory of growth mindset hinges on the belief that intelligence is not fixed, and can improve through hard work. It uses the metaphor of the brain as a muscle—it responds to rigorous learning rather than physical exercise to grow stronger and smarter. The theory references the more general idea of neuroplasticity. As scientists have discovered more proof that neural networks can shift, leading to change in function, educators have incorporated growth mindset theory into their curricula in hopes of motivating students and ensuring further academic success.
These inclusions often take the form of interventions, which are used to educate students about the brain’s adaptive capacities and reduce the negativity associated with effort. Students commonly believe that needing help or significant effort is due to a lack of ability, and should therefore be avoided. However, growth mindset theory argues that such situations can strengthen one’s mind and should come up frequently within education. A growth perspective in the classroom can also appear in graphics or motivational posters, often featuring phrases such as “Every mistake you make is progress.”
The implementation of growth mindset theory in schools has decreased the presence of fixed attitudes among students and has increased GPAs. In a nationwide study, researchers found that lower-achieving students saw GPA increases of around 0.10 grade points in their core courses. Additionally, when considering poor performance rates (defined as having a GPA of below 2.0), they found that 5.3% of the 1.5 million students in the U.S. would be “on track” for graduation as a result of brief growth mindset interventions. This represents a relative risk reduction of 11%.
Controversy
However, the theory of growth mindset is not a cure-all for the issues our education system faces. During this past year, Dweck’s conclusions have drawn skepticism after two meta-analyses were conducted to examine the effectiveness of growth mindset interventions across many cases.
The first review was led by Jeni L. Burnette, a professor of psychology at North Carolina State University. Their meta-analysis considered 53 independent samples, and determined that growth mindset interventions caused a standardized effect of 0.14 for academic achievement and 0.32 for mental health. These values indicate that these interventions have some positive effects, but also show that effectiveness is quite varied. Furthermore, this meta-analysis found that the interventions are most effective among low-achieving students, but don’t work as well for those who are already somewhat high-achieving.
A second meta-analysis spearheaded by psychologist Brooke Macnamara from Case Western Reserve University and cognitive scientist Alexander P. Burgoyne adds further complexity to the situation. The study claims that positive results from interventions are rare, despite their widespread use and effective appearance. The researchers observed a standardized overall effect of only 0.05. This was further rendered insignificant by the central shortcoming they identified in the original study: publication bias. Macnamara and Burgoyne found that authors who benefited financially from releasing positive findings published larger effects than those who didn’t have this incentive.
Conclusions
While both of these meta-analyses call into question the validity of growth mindset theory in improving academic performance and mental health, they differ in the extent of their critiques. Burnette et al. closed their review by saying that a growth-oriented perspective can be effective, but its degree of success varies depending on the group that it is being used on. On the other hand, Macnamara and Burgoyne claimed that any effects of growth mindset interventions could be attributed to flaws in study design and reporting bias.
To settle this debate, statistician Elizabeth Tipton from Northwestern University published an online paper outlining the best practices for conducting a meta-analysis and evaluating both reviews on growth mindset in this context. In her commentary, Tipton concludes that while Macnamara and Burgoyne don’t find evidence for growth mindset’s efficacy within their model, it’s too limited to prove that it has no effectiveness at all. Burnette et al. conduct a more inclusive review and therefore come to a more correct conclusion, which is that growth-focused stances can be effective, especially in at-risk or low-performing groups. While Macnamara and Burgoyne plan to defend their research, it appears that the most comprehensive takeaway from this controversy is that educators must be thoughtful about utilizing growth mindset theory, as it’s not a perfect solution for the challenges in our education systems.
References
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000368
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000352
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1466-y#Sec7
https://www.mindsetworks.com/science/
Written By Meher Bhandari.
Leave a Reply