Conditions for success: Fostering first-year students' growth mindset in developmental mathematics
Suh, E. K., Dahlgren, D. J., Hughes, M. E., Keefe, T. J., & Allman, R. J. (2019). Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 31(2), 63-78.
-
examining157Students, gradePS
Growth Mindset Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: October 2021
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Growth Mindset.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course passing rate |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Intervention vs. laughter/stress comparison;
|
64.80 |
32.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Final exam test score |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Intervention vs. laughter/stress comparison;
|
73.68 |
74.24 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Course passing rate |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Intervention vs. advice-only comparison;
|
64.80 |
55.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Retention to the following semester |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Intervention vs. laughter/stress comparison;
|
74.20 |
80.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Retention to the following academic year |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Intervention vs. laughter/stress comparison;
|
59.10 |
60.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Retention to the following academic year |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Intervention vs. advice-only comparison;
|
59.10 |
69.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Retention to the following semester |
Growth Mindset vs. Business as usual |
20 Weeks |
Intervention vs. advice-only comparison;
|
74.20 |
84.30 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 69%
Male: 31% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Indiana
-
Race Black 8% Other or unknown 13% White 78%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at a public four-year university in Indiana within seven sections of a developmental mathematics course required for graduation.
Study sample
Among 227 students in the seven course sections that were included in the study, 8% were Black, 78% were White, and race was not specified for 13% of the sample. Sixty-nine percent of these students were female, and 51% were first-generation college students. Information about the characteristics of the analytic samples for main findings was unavailable.
Intervention Group
During the second and third weeks of the fall semester, students in the Growth Mindset intervention group read a short article describing research showing that the brain is malleable and that intelligence can grow if students exert effort when facing a challenge. Next, students wrote three short essay responses to prompts in which they (1) summarized the article, (2) described a personal experience about learning something new, and (3) gave advice to a hypothetical student who was feeling “dumb.”
Comparison Group
Within the second and third weeks of the fall semester, students in the laughter/stress comparison group read a short article describing the role of laughter in health and stress management. Next, students wrote short replies to essay prompts in which they (1) summarized the article and (2) described a personal situation in which they used laughter to relax and improve their health. Students in the advice-only comparison group did not read an article before writing short replies to two essay prompts in which they (1) described a personal situation in which they succeeded in a class and explained the reasons for their success, and (2) wrote a letter to a friend who was feeling “dumb” and offered advice for how to learn and become smarter.
Support for implementation
No additional information provided.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).