![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sisk, V.F., Burgoyne, A.P., Sun, J., Butler, J.L. and Macnamara, B.N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth-mindsets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science 29(4), 549-571. [The version I have is numbered 1-23 with no volume or issue number. Page numbers below will reflect this numbering.]
Mind-sets are somewhat trendy right now. Carol Dweck’s books and Jo Boaler’s book are pop culture phenomena. The paper being discussed here mentions some things I was unfamiliar with, namely the push at a governmental level in the US for development and support of interventions aimed at encouraging a growth mind-set, given a widely accepted view that growth mind-sets have a substantial positive effect on academic achievement. This paper discusses two large meta-analyses which, after careful and detailed investigation, conclude that, thought there might be something there, mind-sets overall are hyped up a bit too much.
The authors begin with defining mind-sets: “Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes” (p. 1)”, the underlying premise being that people with a growth mind-set believe attributes are malleable (holding this mind-set can lead to positive outcomes) while people with a fixed mind-set belief attributes are stable (holding this mind-set can lead to negative outcomes).
Meta-analysis 1 (273 effect sizes, student population N =365 915) addressed the research question “What is the magnitude of the relationship between mind-sets and academic achievement, and under what circumstances does the relationship strengthen or weaken?” They considered four potential moderating variables : Academic risk status, student developmental stage, socioeconomic status and type of academic achievement measure. They also used several measures to check for publication bias. Of the 273 effect sizes, 157 are not significantly different from zero, 16 are negative and 100 are positive. Overall the effect was positive, but only slightly. Academic risk status and socioeconomic status did not affect the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement. Developmental stage had a slight effect, for younger students not for post-secondary. There was also a possible suggestion that students with a growth mind-set choose more challenging courses when they have the opportunity. So, in conclusion, there is either no relationship between mind-set and academic achievement or a very slight one, mostly for children.
Meta-analysis 2 (k =43, N = 57 155) addressed the research question “Do mind-set interventions positively impact academic achievement, and under what circumstances does the impact increase or decrease?” They considered 6 potential moderating factors: developmental stage, academic risk status, socioeconomic status, control group, type and mode of intervention and once again they checked for publication bias. Of the 43 effect sizes, 37 are not significantly different from zero, 1 is negative and 5 are positive. Overall the effect is positive, but only just barely. The only moderating factor which had a significant effect was socioeconomic status. For students from low-SES households (for which there were 7 effect sizes in the data) “academic achievement was significantly higher for students who received growth-mind-set interventions relative to controls” (p. 17). Another significant effect was “mind-set interventions administered via reading materials were significantly more effective than when administered via computer programs” (p. 19). Another significant effect was administering the intervention outside regular classroom activities.
Two interesting points raised in the general discussion were (1) that not all mind-set research makes broad claims, but rather focuses on specific principles of mind-set theory, which is probably a good idea, and (2) that it is possible that “unmeasured factors are suppressing effects”. Certainly anecdotal stories in support of the mind-set effect abound, but then where is the hard evidence? The paper closes with this sobering paragraph:
Do not treat this blog entry as a replacement for reading the paper. This blog post represents the understanding and opinions of Torquetum only and could contain errors, misunderstandings or subjective views.
Mind-sets are somewhat trendy right now. Carol Dweck’s books and Jo Boaler’s book are pop culture phenomena. The paper being discussed here mentions some things I was unfamiliar with, namely the push at a governmental level in the US for development and support of interventions aimed at encouraging a growth mind-set, given a widely accepted view that growth mind-sets have a substantial positive effect on academic achievement. This paper discusses two large meta-analyses which, after careful and detailed investigation, conclude that, thought there might be something there, mind-sets overall are hyped up a bit too much.
The authors begin with defining mind-sets: “Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes” (p. 1)”, the underlying premise being that people with a growth mind-set believe attributes are malleable (holding this mind-set can lead to positive outcomes) while people with a fixed mind-set belief attributes are stable (holding this mind-set can lead to negative outcomes).
Meta-analysis 1 (273 effect sizes, student population N =365 915) addressed the research question “What is the magnitude of the relationship between mind-sets and academic achievement, and under what circumstances does the relationship strengthen or weaken?” They considered four potential moderating variables : Academic risk status, student developmental stage, socioeconomic status and type of academic achievement measure. They also used several measures to check for publication bias. Of the 273 effect sizes, 157 are not significantly different from zero, 16 are negative and 100 are positive. Overall the effect was positive, but only slightly. Academic risk status and socioeconomic status did not affect the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement. Developmental stage had a slight effect, for younger students not for post-secondary. There was also a possible suggestion that students with a growth mind-set choose more challenging courses when they have the opportunity. So, in conclusion, there is either no relationship between mind-set and academic achievement or a very slight one, mostly for children.
Meta-analysis 2 (k =43, N = 57 155) addressed the research question “Do mind-set interventions positively impact academic achievement, and under what circumstances does the impact increase or decrease?” They considered 6 potential moderating factors: developmental stage, academic risk status, socioeconomic status, control group, type and mode of intervention and once again they checked for publication bias. Of the 43 effect sizes, 37 are not significantly different from zero, 1 is negative and 5 are positive. Overall the effect is positive, but only just barely. The only moderating factor which had a significant effect was socioeconomic status. For students from low-SES households (for which there were 7 effect sizes in the data) “academic achievement was significantly higher for students who received growth-mind-set interventions relative to controls” (p. 17). Another significant effect was “mind-set interventions administered via reading materials were significantly more effective than when administered via computer programs” (p. 19). Another significant effect was administering the intervention outside regular classroom activities.
Two interesting points raised in the general discussion were (1) that not all mind-set research makes broad claims, but rather focuses on specific principles of mind-set theory, which is probably a good idea, and (2) that it is possible that “unmeasured factors are suppressing effects”. Certainly anecdotal stories in support of the mind-set effect abound, but then where is the hard evidence? The paper closes with this sobering paragraph:
However, from a practical perspective, resources might be better allocated elsewhere than mind-set interventions. Across a range of treatment types, Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie (1996) found that the meta-analytic average effect size for a typical educational intervention on academic performance is 0.57. All meta-analytic effects of mind-set interventions on academic performance were < 0.35, and most were null. The evidence suggests that the “mindset revolution” might not be the best avenue to reshape our education system. (p. 21)
The paper came out very recently, yet has already been cited three times (according to Google Scholar, 01/06/2018). I’ll watch this paper’s effect on the field with interest. My first take away from this paper is that I do not faintly have the skills to conduct a meta-analysis. I have enormous respect for the authors for carrying out this meticulous and well-described study. They even made their data open access. My second take away is that mind sets are not closely correlated with academic achievement and mind set interventions are unlikely to have much effect except in quite specific circumstances. That is quite a depressing conclusion, but it is important to know, given the amount of cherry picking and pseudoscience there is clustered around this theory.Do not treat this blog entry as a replacement for reading the paper. This blog post represents the understanding and opinions of Torquetum only and could contain errors, misunderstandings or subjective views.
