Background and aims

1. The theory: Dweck's mindset theory says a fixed mindset treats intelligence as unchangeable.
2. A growth mindset treats intelligence as something that develops through effort.
3. Blackwell et al. (2007) set out to test whether that belief shows up in real school grades.
4. Study 1 prediction: students' beliefs about intelligence, fixed or growth, would correlate with their achievement grades on a maths test.
5. Study 2 prediction: students taught that intelligence is malleable would show more positive classroom motivation and achieve better.

Study 1 method

1. Design: a longitudinal correlational study carried out over five years.
2. Sample: 373 students from four successive seventh-grade classes at a public secondary school in New York.
   1. They varied in ethnicity, socio-economic status and achievement.
3. Ethics: students and their parents gave informed consent and knew they could withdraw.
4. Procedure: at the start of seventh grade the students completed a motivational questionnaire in lesson time.
   1. It used a rating scale to measure theory of intelligence, learning goals, effort beliefs and helpless responses to failure.
5. Maths scores in seventh and eighth grade were compared with a sixth-grade test used as a baseline.

Study 1 results

1. There was no significant correlation between theory of intelligence and maths scores at the start of seventh grade.
2. By the autumn term of seventh grade and the spring term of eighth grade, mindset had become a significant predictor of maths scores.
3. Students with a growth mindset showed greater improvement than students with a fixed mindset.

Study 2 method

1. Design: a correlational study with an experimental section, using independent measures.
   1. The independent variable was whether a student was in the intervention group or the control group.
   2. The dependent variables were motivation and achievement on a maths test.
2. Sample: 99 students from a seventh-grade class at a different New York public secondary school, again varied by ethnicity and socio-economic group.
3. Procedure: every student completed the motivational questionnaire first.
   1. They were then told they could take part in an eight-week workshop about the brain to help with revision skills, and were randomly assigned to a group.
   2. The intervention group was taught that learning changes the brain, and the control group was taught about memory.
   3. Undergraduates acted as teachers and mentors to both groups.
4. Measures: afterwards the students re-took the questionnaire and sat a multiple-choice test on the workshop content.
   1. Teachers were blind to condition and were asked to comment on changes in motivational behaviour, and their comments were coded for positive changes.

Study 2 results

1. There was no difference between the groups on recall of general workshop content.
2. The intervention group scored significantly higher on the growth-mindset content.
3. The intervention group had more positive mindsets at the end, and more of them were picked out by their blind teachers as showing positive motivation.
4. The intervention group achieved significantly higher maths scores after the workshop.
5. Some of the control group declined over the same period.

Conclusions

1. Mindset cannot be a by-product of being good at maths, because there was no correlation at baseline.
2. Mindset predicts achievement over time.
3. Teaching students that intelligence is flexible has a positive effect on their motivation and their maths achievement.
4. Link to the theory: this supports Dweck's mindset theory, because achievement changed when beliefs about effort changed.

Criticisms

1. Strength: Study 2's control group and random allocation support a cause-and-effect claim.
2. The blind teacher ratings remove a major source of bias, since the teachers did not know who had been taught what.
3. It also ran in real schools with real grades as the outcome, which gives high ecological validity.
4. Informed consent came from both students and parents, with the right to withdraw.
5. The longitudinal design across 373 students in four cohorts shows the effect builds over time.
6. Cultural bias: both samples came from one part of the USA, and different states and countries run different education systems.
7. Age bias: all the participants were seventh-grade students, so the findings may not apply to younger or older learners.
8. Narrow measure: achievement was measured only in maths, so it cannot be generalised to other subjects.
9. Control: variables are hard to control in a real school.
   1. Teachers may respond more warmly to students with a can-do attitude, which is an alternative explanation for the progress.
10. Nature and nurture: this is the debate the study runs into.
    1. Dweck's and Willingham's ideas over-weight nurture, since some people achieve on innate ability.

Turning this into marks

1. This is two studies in one paper, so check which one the question names before you start writing.
2. Name the design of the study you are using, because writing that Blackwell tested mindsets does not secure the knowledge mark.
3. When two results are asked for, take one from motivation and one from maths scores rather than the same result reworded.
4. The mark most often lost is giving a conclusion with no result behind it, so state the finding first.