Running head: MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 1

A Correlational Research Study:

The Effects of Mindset on Student Achievement

Cambria Smith

University of La Verne

A Paper Prepared for EDUC 596

In Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirements for the Degree

Master of Education

December 2019
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 2

Table of Contents

Cover Page 1
Table of Contents 2
Abstract 3
Section I: The Problem 4

Introduction 4
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions/Hypotheses 4
Importance of the Study 5
Definition of Terms 5
Scope of the Study 5

Section II: Literature Review 7

Introduction 7
Literature Review 8
Summary 14

Section III: Methodology 16

Description of the Type of Research 16

Research Design 16
Selection of Subjects 16
Instrumentation 17
Data Gathering 17
Data Analyses 18

Section IV: Data Presentation and Analysis 19

Presentation of Data 19
Analysis of Results 20

Section V: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations 21

Summary of Previous Sections 22

Conclusions 22
Implications 23
Limitations 24
Recommendations for Future Research 24

References 26
Appendices 29
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 3

Abstract

Education has shifted to a focus on student mindsets within the past decade, with an

emphasis on fixed versus growth mindsets. Teachers have begun to teach students to have

a what is known as a growth mindset. With this mindset, students believe their abilities

and skills are not entirely innate but rather can be developed through hard work. The

purpose of this study is to determine whether or not mindset correlates to student

achievement, based on state test scores and a mindset questionnaire.

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 4

Section I: The Problem

Introduction

In 2006, Carol Dweck released her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of

Success. With this came a flurry in the education realm as people began to consider how

a certain type of mindset can effect a student’s success. Since then, there have been a

plethora of studies conducted to determine exactly how one’s mindset and beliefs about

his or her abilities and skills affects other aspects of his or her life such as academic

achievement, stress levels, career paths, etc.

Statement of the Problem

Pomona Unified has low test scores in Mathematics and Language Arts. The

district only had 39.91% exceed or meet state standards in Language Arts, which is

10.96% below the state average. They also only had 25.73% exceed or meet state

standards in Mathematics, which is 14% below the state average. In analyzing these low

scores and attempting to identify the factors affecting them, mindset should be

considered. Running a correlational study on the two variables may present the district

with a plausible solution to increasing test scores.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to compare 4th to 6th grade student mindsets and

California state test scores in Mathematics and Language Arts in order to determine the

effect of mindset on student achievement.

Research Questions/Hypotheses

This study addresses the question on if the mindset of a student affects their

achievement in school, specifically looking at student test scores. The research

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 5

hypothesis for this study is that there will be a statistically significant positive correlation

between growth mindset and student achievement. This hypothesis is grounded on the

premise of Carol Dweck’s research. Claro, Paunesku, and Dweck (2016) found that

students who hold more of a growth mindset consistently outperform students who hold a

more fixed mindset.

Importance of the Study

This study is important in the idea that the mind is a powerful asset that can direct

students down different paths. With certain mindsets and beliefs come certain actions and

outcomes for students. Unlocking the power of their minds can help them utilize it to

reach their full potential and guide them down a successful path. The data gathered from

this study can help educators determine the importance of mindset in education and if an

intentional focus or intervention would be helpful for students.

Definition of Terms

1. Growth Mindset- The belief that one’s most basic abilities, such as

intelligence and talent, can be developed through dedication and hard work

2. Fixed Mindset- The belief that one’s most basic abilities, such as intelligence

and talent, are fixed traits that cannot be developed

3. Student Achievement- Measures the amount of academic content a student

learns in a determined amount of time

Scope of the Study

This study focuses on Decker Elementary, a K-6 school in the Pomona Unified

School District. Data was gathered on upper elementary students in 4th, 5th, and 6th grade

who attend Decker. This study focuses on student achievement and mindset. For these
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 6

two variables, students’ California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress

(CAASPP) scores in English Language Arts and Mathematics were collected and student

mindsets were assessed using a Mindset Questionnaire.

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 7

Section II: Literature Review

Introduction

Carol Dweck is known for coining the terms growth mindset and fixed mindset.

She conducted a plethora of research and wrote a book, encompassing what these two

mindsets are and how they affect us as individuals. In her book, Dweck (2006) defines a

fixed mindset as believing your qualities are “carved in stone” (p. 6). This is the belief

that your abilities, intelligence, and skills are all innate and do not change. She then went

on to define a growth mindset as the belief that your abilities and qualities are things you

“cultivate through your efforts, your strategies, and help from others” (Dweck, 2006, p.

7).

As these terms and the concept in general gained more recognition, many

researchers followed in Dweck’s footsteps to determine the importance and/or effects of

these mindsets. Many researchers have focused on implications with students and success

within the confines of a classroom. We can all recognize the benefits of a growth

mindset, and so naturally we look next to how to instill it in our children. While some

researchers have moved into intervention strategies and how to teach or pass on a growth

mindset, some are still debating and testing whether there is in fact a correlation between

these types of mindsets and success or achievement in different areas.

However, many researchers overlook the effects of mindset on educators. Growth

and fixed mindsets are now common terms within primary classrooms, but there is a lack

of emphasis on ensuring educators are themselves modeling for the students. Teachers

need to be able to determine, reflect on, and develop their own mindsets in order to pass

these important skills onto students.

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 8

The Effects of Mindset on Academic Achievement

While all students aim to succeed academically and score well on exams, there is

increasing evidence that academic achievement is influenced not only by ability but by

beliefs about intelligence and other psychological factors as well. Some researchers argue

there is a correlation between a more malleable mindset and academic achievement,

while others find there is not a strong relationship between the two. West, Kraft, Finn,

Martin, Duckworth, Gabrieli, and Gabrieli (2016) found growth mindset to be positively

correlated with test scores. The researchers used self-report surveys and test scores to

gather data on 1,300 eighth-grade students within the city of Boston. Data showed

significant positive correlations for both Mathematics and Language Arts. Mindset and

Mathematics had a correlation of r = 0.66 and mindset and Language Arts had a

correlation of r = 0.48. West et al. believe that students with growth mindsets who

believe their intelligence can improve with effort, seek out a “rigorous academic

environment” (2016, p. 166). This is an attribute we desire from all students, to push and

challenge themselves in the classroom. This attitude will lead to greater learning and thus

higher test scores, as shown by the data in this study. With this, an argument can be made

for the importance of teaching students not only the power of a growth mindset but how

to develop one.

Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic, and McDougall (2003) found in their study that

there was in fact not a strong relationship between growth mindset and academic

achievement. They sampled 93 undergraduate students in London. Over the span of two

years, the researchers collected academic performance data on the students, using their

files to look at their exam scores. Their beliefs about intelligence were collected using a
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 9

self-report scale. They found that beliefs about intelligence were not significantly

correlation with academic performance. Similar to them, Bahnik and Vranka (2017)

found no strong correlation between the two variables. The researchers studied university

applicant (N = 5,653) through the use of a questionnaire and test scores. After running the

data, there was no positive association between the two. In fact, the results were slightly

negatively skewed (r = -0.03). These results could be used against the push growth

mindset in classrooms. Some could argue it is not time well spent because there is data

showing no real correlation.

The Effects of Mindset on Error Correction

A large part of having a growth mindset is showing the ability to view mistakes as

learning opportunities and move beyond their errors and grow from them, as well as

continue to challenge themselves instead of shying away and sticking to what they know.

There are a couple studies that focus on student errors and how different kinds of students

respond and are able to correct their errors. Mangels, Butterfield, Lamb, Good, and

Dweck (2006) collected data on 535 Columbia undergraduates. The participants were

scored on their mindsets based on a questionnaire and then given a test and then a re-test.

It was discovered that although participants scored higher on the re-test across the board,

participants with a more malleable belief regarding intelligence scored significantly

higher when it came to error correction on the re-test. Moser, Schroder, Heeter, Moran,

and Yu-Hao Lee (2011) aimed to expand upon Mangels et al. findings. They highlighted

the idea that for those with a growth mindset, “mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn

and improve but for those with a fixed mindset, they “indicate a lack of ability” (Schroder

et al., 2011, p. 1484). With this concept, the researchers studied differing reactions to
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 10

mistakes and how they relate to the two types of mindset. They discovered that

participants with more of a growth mindset showed better accuracy after mistakes were

made. Looking at brain activity, those with growth mindset actually had “a brain signal

reflecting conscious attention allocation to mistakes” (Schroder et al., 2011, p. 1487).

This data illuminates that those with growth mindset respond better to mistakes and are

more likely to learn from them. Both of these studies show how a malleable belief of

intelligence or growth mindset can lead to better error correction. This is most likely due

to an emphasis on mistakes being seen as learning opportunities rather than a feeling of

discouragement. Because of this mindset, these students aim to understand their mistakes

and improve more moving forward. This is relevant and powerful when it comes to the

classroom setting. An emphasis on growth mindset could lead to better error correction,

which would in turn lead to more learning and higher test scores.

Mindset Intervention

Some researchers have also studied the effects of mindset intervention. This is the

idea that through an intervention with an emphasis on developing a malleable concept of

thinking and abilities, success and achievement are more highly attained. Some studies

found this to be true, while others argued its fallibility.

Some researchers believe mindset intervention to be a useful learning tool for

students to improve their learning, interest, and overall achievement. Schmidt, Shumow,

and Kackar-Cam (2016) ran a quasi-experimental study to discover if a mindset

intervention effected students’ quality of experience in a classroom. Seventh and ninth

grade students (N = 726) were randomly assigned to either a classroom focusing on

mindset intervention or one that did not. Using self-reports provided by students, they
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 11

discovered that students who were not in the mindset intervention classrooms showed

less interest, control skill, and learning than the juxtaposed mindset intervention groups.

Looking at students in the same age range, Blackwell, Trzesniwski, and Dweck (2007),

also conducted a study involving mindset intervention. They collected data on 373

students in four successive 7th grade classes. The researchers distributed questionnaires

and compiled test scores from the Citywide Achievement Test (CAT) to collect data. At

the beginning of seventh grade, there was no strong correlation between student theories

of intelligence and their mathematics scores. However, as the intervention throughout

junior high proceeded, Blackwell et al. (2007) found an interesting correlation

specifically with mathematics scores. Students’ theories of intelligence and motivational

variables became significant predictors of their mathematic scores in junior high. These

results show the impact of mindset intervention and how it can be used as one variable to

increase student achievement.

Not every researcher found mindset intervention to be significantly correlated

with student achievement. Mindset intervention seems to be a decent design to try to

minimize the educational gap and improve academic achievement from underperforming

students. A study conducted by Corradi, Nicolai, and Levrau (2019) focused on minority

students and how mindset intervention correlated with their academic achievement.

Studies typically show ethnic minorities having a “significantly lower chance of attaining

academic success” (Corradi et al., 2019, p. 492), so the researchers chose to focus on how

this intervention would affect those students. They found a significant difference between

minority and majority students when it came to mindset scores. Minority students tended

to show higher mindset scores than majority students. Although the researchers did find
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 12

that mindset positively correlated with academic outcome for majority students, the same

was not true for minority students. These results indicate that while mindset intervention

may be beneficial for some, it is not for all students. It appears minority students from

low-income backgrounds typically have stronger growth mindsets, but are still facing

lower test scores than the majority. For them, a focus on growth mindset will not benefit

them academically. This sort of conclusion was interestingly enough found among other

researchers as well. Claro, Paunesku, and Dweck (2016) were actually the first

researchers to explore the relationship between mindset and socio-economic standing. All

10th grade public school students in Chile were administered standardized tests and

surveys. The tests focused on measuring mathematics and language skills while the

survey gathered information on the student’s mindset and background. They found an

association between mindset and student achievement as well as between mindset and

income background. Students with higher growth mindsets, showed better achievement

on the exams. However, unlike Corradi et al., they found that low income students tended

to have more fixed mindsets. With these two differing sets of data, it is unclear just how

significantly socioeconomic circumstances affect student mindsets. While it is mainly

agreed upon that lower income students tend to under-perform academically, there needs

to be more data run to determine how their socio-economic background ties into their

mindsets and beliefs about intelligence.

Mills and Mills (2017) focused on mindset intervention with college students.

They wanted to discover if implementing a focus on growth mindset would improve

passing rates of a remedial math course. The study was conducted at a small liberal arts

college over the course of three semesters. The researchers analyzed eight treatment
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 13

groups (N = 98) and four control groups (N = 57). All groups completed a mindset

questionnaire but then the treatment groups participated in further intervention. When

looking at end-of-semester grades and retention rates for the following semester, students

receiving the mindset intervention did slightly out-perform students in the control groups,

but retention rates were not affected. Although there was some difference, it was not

significant, so some could argue mindset intervention to be ineffective when aiming to

improve student achievement.

Mindset and Educators

While most research emphasizes the importance of growth mindset among

students, their needs to be a shift in focus to educators as well. If we should practice what

we preach so to say, educators first need to delve within their own psychological

understandings to determine where they are with their mindset. As Dweck (2006)

discusses in her book, people are not fully one mindset or the other but rather a mixture

of both. People lie on this spectrum between growth to fixed and they slide up and down

as they explore different areas or take on different tasks. Dweck (2006) explains how

people may have different mindsets in different areas such as thinking their “artistic skills

are fixed but that [their] intelligence can be developed” (p. 47). With this understanding,

educators then need to discover their strengths and weaknesses in relation to mindset.

They need to determine where they have a more fixed mindset and work to develop more

towards a growth mindset in those areas, because they cannot expect students to do that if

they cannot or have not done it themselves. Zilka, Grinshtain, and Bogler (2019) created

a study that focused on how malleable teachers viewed their own skills to be. The

researchers examined the factors affecting the different mindsets among educators in
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 14

order to better enhance educator growth mindsets. They discovered several factors

enhancing and inhibiting growth mindsets among educators. Those with more fixed

mindsets were most likely experiencing burnout, issues with ego, an unsupportive

environment, or a lack of appreciation. Those with more growth mindsets were most

likely experiencing mentorships, feedback, and support while being driven by inner

motivation and grit. With this data, those in the school system from administration to

classroom teachers can work to develop their own growth mindsets and create an

environment where educators can succeed and pass on such beliefs about intelligence to

their students. With that research, there are statements and questions teachers should

consider when aiming to be intentional about their own mindsets. Heik (2018)

recommends considering some of the following statements.

1. I can use technology to make both my own and my students’ learning richer.

2. I can risk trying new learning activities.

3. I can bring my own and my students’ passions into learning activities.

4. I can make one small change at a time in my learning environment.

5. I can let go of my need to control all variables.

These are just several of the recommended statements for educators to reflect on to

develop a growth mindset in all areas of their lives and pass it on to their students.

Summary

While there is a decent amount of research on this concept, it is still being

continually understood and developed. While data may vary from study to study, overall,

there appears to be positive effects with students demonstrating a growth mindset and

then educators taking the time to instill this sort of mindset in students. Since it can be
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 15

proved to increase student achievement as well as help educators develop life-long

learners, there should be time made in the classroom to teach and develop growth

mindsets. With the data on mindset interventions, they may not be the best use of time

because there is not a guarantee in academic improvement as well as some students may

not need a full intervention program. A more successful path for ensuring student success

with growth mindset would be to incorporate it into the curriculum and intertwine it with

other lessons or even just conversations. Educators should continually be modeling what

a growth mindset looks and sounds like, as well as intentionally making those known so

students can develop it themselves as they work within the classroom.

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 16

Section III: Methodology

Description of the Type of Research

This correlational study analyzed the two independent variables—student mindset

and student achievement—to determine if there was a relationship between the two.

Student mindset was assessed as a variable using a 10 statement questionnaire adapted

from Carol Dweck. Student achievement was assessed as a variable by gathering

California Assessment of Student Performance (CAASPP) scores in Mathematics and

English Language Arts. A Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, rs, was used to

measure the linear association of the ordinal data.

Research Design

Two 4th grade classes, two 5th grade classes, and three 6th grade classes were

analyzed in a correlational research design to determine the relationship between student

mindsets and achievement. All classes completed a Mindset Questionnaire and each

student’s CAASPP scores in Mathematics and Language Arts were gathered. These two

variables for each student were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

The population was assessed as a whole, by grade level, and by subject matter.

Selection of Subjects

The subjects for this study were 4th, 5th, and 6th grade students at Decker

Elementary in the Pomona Unified School District. Upper grade students were selected to

ensure more accurate data because they are more likely to be able to understand the types

of questions as well as selecting a single answer on a Likert Scale. I selected multiple

upper level grades to create a larger sample size to more accurately represent the

population. There were a total of seven classes used to collect data—two 4th grade
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 17

classes, two 5th grade classes, and three 6th grade classes. Data were collected from 59 4th

grade students, 51 5th grade students, and 76 6th grade students. The total sample size for

this research study was N = 186.

Instrumentation

The instruments used to collect data in this study were a Mindset Questionnaire

and student CAASPP scores. Google Classroom was used to distribute the questionnaire

virtually to all 4th through 6th grade students. Students entered their classroom number to

allow for a correlation to be run and then selected an option on the Likert Scale from

strongly agree to strongly disagree for each statement. Only one option could be selected

for each statement. CAASPP scores were printed and student numbers were written by

the scores.

Data Gathering

A Mindset Questionnaire consisting of 10 statements scored using a Likert Scale

was distributed to students through Google Classroom. Their answers to each of the

statements was scored on a scale from 0-3 and they were given a total score out of 30

points. The higher their score, the more malleable their mindset appeared to be. Lower

scores meant students had more of a fixed mindset and higher scores meant students had

more of a growth mindset. These scores were tallied by hand, adding the value scored for

each statement on the questionnaire. Student CAASPP scores were obtained using an

online student assessment portal known as Educator’s Assessment Data Management

System (EADMS). Each student’s Mathematics and Language Arts scores were

collected. These scores ranged on a scale from 1-4. Each student used their classroom

number assigned to them by their teacher when answering the questionnaire to ensure
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 18

they remained anonymous to the researcher. Teachers also wrote each student’s

classroom number on the test scores so the two variables could be matched and then

correlated.

Data Analyses

Once the data were obtained, it was analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation

coefficient to determine if there was a relationship between student mindset and

achievement. The p value was also run to determine if the variables were statistically

significant or not. Mindset Questionnaire data were gathered using the 0-3 scale for each

question and scoring each student out of 30 points. These two pieces of ordinal data were

run through this formula:

Data were organized into tables broken down by grade level and subject as well as for the

population as an entirety. A boxplot was also created to illuminate the distribution of

scores.
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 19

Section IV: Data Presentation and Analysis

Presentation of Data

Table 1

Total Population

Subject N Coefficient, rs p value

ELA 183 0.27 0.00028
Math 186 0.22 0.00246
Note. Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

Table 2

4th Grade

Subject N Coefficient, rs p value

ELA 59 0.34 0.00789
Math 59 0.36 0.00575
Note. Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

Table 3

5th Grade

Subject N Coefficient, rs p value

ELA 48 0.12 0.40795
Math 51 -0.07 0.64811
Note. Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

Table 4

6th Grade

Subject N Coefficient, rs p value

ELA 76 0.33 0.00356
Math 76 0.32 0.00471
Note. Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 20

Figure 1. Boxplot of mindset scores.

Analysis of Results

A Spearman Rank-Order Correlation was run to determine the relationship

between student mindset and achievement. The tables present these findings and show

the sample size, n, the correlation coefficient, rs, and the p value. Looking at the p values

in Tables 1, 2, and 4, it can be determined that there is a statistically significant

correlation between mindset and achievement because p < 0.05. However, Table 3’s data

were not statistically significant. Looking at the correlation coefficients for Tables 1, 2,

and 4, there is a weak, positive correlation between mindset and achievement for both

Language Arts and Mathematics. Looking at Table 3 though, there is a very weak, positive

correlation for Language Arts and a very weak, negative correlation for Mathematics. Figure

1 shows the distribution of mindset scores (N = 186). It shows median of 21 with a range

from 10 to 29. The first quartile is at 18, the third quartile is at 24.25, and the interquartile

range is 6.25. The Figure 1 boxplot also shows how students mostly scored in the growth
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 21

mindset area, with scores greater than 17. The scores were so high that the first quartile

was even within the confines of having a growth mindset. This showed that very few

students scored as having a fixed mindset.

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 22

Section V: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Summary of Previous Sections

The purpose of this study was to determine the strength of the relationship

between student mindset and academic achievement. A population of 186 4th through 6th

grade students were scored using a Mindset Questionnaire and a Likert scale to determine

if they had more of a growth or fixed mindset. Then, their test scores were gathered and

compared to their mindset scores using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. I

hypothesized that there would be a significant positive correlation between the two

variables. While the data did prove to be significant due to a p-value < 0.05, there was

only a weak positive association between the scores.

Conclusions

The data collected and assessed throughout this study pose an interesting

conclusion. It can be concluded that there was no strong correlation between mindset and

academic achievement. Beyond that though, the data shows that many students who were

scoring low on the CAASPP assessments, were still scoring high on the Mindset

Questionnaire, portraying a growth mindset. The data were also skewed more towards the

growth mindset end of the spectrum. When looking at the range of scores and skewness

in Figure 1, one can see that even the lower quartile (Q1 = 18) tested as having a growth

mindset. Only 14% of participants scored as having a fixed mindset, which is incredibly

low. So now the question is, why did the data skew like this?

Similar to what Corradi et al. (2018) discovered, it can be concluded that student

scores represent their backgrounds. Pomona Unified is a district with the majority of the

students from low socio-economic backgrounds and of minority ethnicities. A staggering

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 23

96% of students are of a minority background. With this, over 20% of the population in

Pomona live below the poverty level. These students experience what is known as the

achievement gap. These students tend to under-perform and score lower on state tests

than those from the majority or higher socio-economic backgrounds. This could be one of

the factors affecting the low test scores within Pomona Unified. However, as Corradi et

al. (2018) concluded in their study as well, students from these backgrounds, although

they score lower on state exams, tend to score higher when it comes to assessing mindset.

This could be due to their experiences and background with having to work harder for

things, knowing things are not innate or handed to them. They are more likely to discover

early on that they need to put in the effort if they want to achieve something, which in

turn leads to a more malleable mindset. This conclusion can be made for the participants

in this student and be the reason for the skewed mindset scores as well as a factor

affecting the low correlation between mindset and achievement.

Implications

This research study implies that while growth mindset shows a significant

positive relationship with test scores, it is not that strong. This relationship is most likely

due to the population. Since most students are of the minority and from low socio-

economic backgrounds, they scored higher in mindset but low in test scores. The high

mindset scores are most likely from having to work harder to achieve something or

watching others around them have to do so. They are not told from a young age how

smart or talented they are, but are told to work hard instead, which leads to a more

malleable mindset. The low test scores are most likely from the academic gap between

minority and majority students. Research has continuously shown the gap that appears
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 24

between students of minority backgrounds and those within the majority when taking

state tests. The tests are designed to have the majority score higher than others of the

minority. This could be one of the factors leading to lower test scores within Pomona

Unified. Because of how these to variables are affected, there was not a strong correlation

between the two, but it is still significant.

Limitations

Within this study, there were several validity threats and limitations. There were

threats to validity regarding instrumentation and testing. Data collected using the Mindset

Questionnaires was scored by hand, which could lead to errors. It would have been more

accurate and valid to run some sort of algorithm on to calculate the mindset scores. Also,

when distributing the questionnaires, students initially displayed confusion when asked

for their classroom number and several put their classroom door number. Due to repeated

numbers, students had to retake the questionnaire. After this realization, the wording on

the questionnaire was changed to “computer number” for all subsequent classes. The first

group that tested that had to do the most re-takes because of this error was the 5th grade

population.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research should run a similar study with students from higher socio-

economic standings who do not have many minority students. It would be interesting to

see how these students compare with those from this student in regards to mindset scores

as well as the relationship between mindset and achievement. It would also be ideal to

base achievement off of more than just test scores. A longitudinal study analyzing the
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 25

growth of students in particular subject areas over the course of the year and comparing

their growth to their mindset scores, may provide more accurate data on achievement.
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 26

References

Bahník, Š., & Vranka, M. (2017). Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic

aptitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and Individual

Differences, 117, 139–143. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/ptf97

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of

intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal

study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of

poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1608207113

Corradi, D., Nicolaï, J., & Levrau, F. (2018). Growth mindset and its predictive

validity—do migration background and academic validation matter? Higher

Education, 77(3), 491–504. doi: 10.1007/s10734-018-0286-6

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random

House.

Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Mcdougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive

ability, and beliefs about intelligence as predictors of academic performance.

Learning and Individual Differences, 14(1), 47–64. doi:

10.1016/j.lindif.2003.08.002

Heick, T. (2018, August 2). Establishing a growth mindset as a teacher: 9 affirming

MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 27

statements. Retrieved December 8, 2019, from

https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/establishing-growth-mindset-teacher-9-

statements-affirmation/.

Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do

beliefs about intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive

neuroscience model. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 75-86.

doi: 10.1093/scan/nsl013

Mills, I. M., & Mills, B. S. (2018). Insufficient evidence: Mindset intervention in

developmental college math. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1045–1059.

doi: 10.1007/s11218-018-9453-y

Moser, J. S., Schroder, H. S., Heeter, C., Moran, T. P., & Lee, Y.-H. (2011). Mind your

errors. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1484–1489. doi:

10.1177/0956797611419520

Pomona Unified School District. (2013). Retrieved December 8, 2019, from

https://www.publicschoolreview.com/california/pomona-unified/631320-school-

district.

Pomona, CA. (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2019, from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/po

mona-ca/.

Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. Z. (2016). Does mindset intervention

predict students’ daily experience in classrooms? A comparison of seventh and

ninth graders’ trajectories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 582–602.

doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0489-z
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 28

West, M. R., Kraft, M. A., Finn, A. S., Martin, R. E., Duckworth, A. L., Gabrieli, C. F.

O., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2016). Promise and paradox: Measuring students’ non-

cognitive skills and the impact of schooling. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 38(1), 148–170. doi: 10.3102/0162373715597298

Zilka, A., Grinshtain, Y., & Bogler, R. (2019). Fixed or growth: Teacher perceptions of

factors that shape mindset. Professional Development in Education. doi:

10.1080/19415257.2019.1689524
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 29

Appendix A

Mindset Questionnaire

Teacher: _________________

Class Number: _______

Read each statement and mark the box you feel best represents your thinking.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1. Your intelligence is
something about you
that you cannot
change very much.
2. No matter how
much intelligence you
have, you can always
change it quite a bit.
3. Only a few people
will be truly good at
sports, you have to be
born with the ability.
4. The harder you
work at something,
the better you will be.
5. I often get angry
when I get feedback
about my
performance.
6. I appreciate when
people, parents,
coaches or teachers
give me feedback
about my
performance.
7. Truly smart people
do not need to try
hard.
8. You can always
change how
intelligent you are.
9. You are a certain
kind of person and
there is not much that
MINDSET ON ACHIEVEMENT 30

can be done to really

change that.
10. An important
reason why I do my
school work is that I
enjoy learning new
things.

Adapted from:

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random

House Inc.