David Valentiner Northern Illinois University

Increasing Student Motivation and Engagement Using a Mindset Approach: Rationale and Empirical Basis David Valentiner Northern Illinois University

Presentation Outline • A Request • Rationale and Empirical Basis • Introduction to the theory • Selective review of the evidence -- four studies • Feedback • Strategies for your curriculum • Curriculum modules • Shifting the paradigm • Building your own curriculum

A Request • I would like your help in identifying the most important information to give to faculty members about mindset interventions. As you participate in this workshop, please make notes of what you view as the most important information. Try not to think about whether the information is persuasive or convincing, but focus on how to best explain the information to future workshop participants.

Introduction to the theory • Intelligence Mindset Theory proposes that the degree to which intelligence is viewed as “fixed” versus “malleable” has important consequences for academic achievement. • The terms “growth” and “incremental” mean are used interchangeably with “malleable.”

First StudyBlackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck (2007) • The sample of junior high students (N = 91) was relatively diverse, low achieving, and low income. • Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental condition (n = 48) or a control condition (n = 41). • The experimental condition consisted of completing an eight-session online course (see brainology.com). • Three time points: • spring sixth grade (Time 1) • fall seventh grade (Time 2 – pre-intervention) • spring seventh grade (Time 3 – post-intervention)

Second StudyAronson, Fried, & Good (2002) • College students (N = 79) were randomized into three conditions: • Malleable pen pal – “employed numerous attitude change techniques designed to teach them, help them internalize, and make cognitively available the notion that intelligence is expandable” (p. 116) • Control pen pal • No pen pal control

Grade Point Average in subsequent semester, adjusted for SAT (n = 16) (n = 12) (n = 14) (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 14)

Third StudyMangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, & Dweck (2006) • 22 students that endorsed an entity theory view and 25 that an endorsed incremental theoryview were selected from a group of 535 undergraduates. • Participants were fitted for EEG assessment and completed a tutorial in which they completed a series of general knowledge questions. • At the end of the session, participants completed a surprise retest on the items that they had answered incorrectly during the tutorial.

Continuous EEG assessment with a QuickCap

Online Tutorial Procedure General knowledge test question presented Type in your best answer Fixation crosshair presented (2.5 seconds) Performance interest Performance-relevant feedback presented (1 second) * (high tone) * (low tone) OR Fixation crosshair presented (2.5 seconds) Learning interest Learning-relevant feedback presented (1 second) Correct answer presented

Results • Behavior • No differences in test scores between groups. • On a surprise retest of questions answered incorrectly, both groups corrected a majority of their errors, but incremental theorists performed better than entity theorists. • Electrophysiology • No differences during performance interest period. • Incremental theorists had sustained attention during the learning interest period, but entity theorists did not.

Fourth StudyGood, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2002) • 138 seventh-grade students enrolled in a computer skills class (emailing, web page design, etc.), supplemented by a college student mentor (n = 25). • Randomly assigned to create a web page conveying information about: • Incremental theory condition • Attribution condition • Combination (incremental and attribution) condition • Anti-drug control condition

Mindset Theory and Intelligence • In the first study, “Brainology” changes intelligence mindset and results in about a 1/3 grade point change in test scores for seventh graders • In the second study, the Malleable Pen Pal condition increased college grades about 1/4 of a grade point.

Mindset Theory and Intelligence • Mindset shifts attention from self to task, and from self-worth to learning. • Mindset interventions are especially effective for stigmatized groups – they appear to substantially close the achievement gap.

References • Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 113-125. • Blackwell, L.S., Trzesniewski, K.H., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict academic achievement acress an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263. • Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645-662. • Mangels, J.A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C.S. (2006). Why do beliefs about intelligence influence success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 1, 75-86.

A Request I would like your help in identifying the most important information to give to faculty members about mindset interventions. As you participate in this workshop, please make notes of what you view as the most important information. Try not to think about whether the information is persuasive or convincing, but focus on how to best explain the information to future workshop participants.

Feedback On a piece of paper, please write in your own words the three most important things that a faculty member considering using a mindset intervention will need to know. Try not to think about whether the data is convincing or persuasive -- your help is needed to explain to future workshop participants why a mindset approach will be effective.

David Valentiner Northern Illinois University