Post on 12-Sep-2014
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 1
Mindsets and Brainology®:
Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention
Kathryn W. Boehm
EG5103: Data-Driven Learning Culture
Lipscomb University
October 18, 2010
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 2
Chapter 1
Introduction
At the outset, I must credit Vanderbilt University Professor Dr. Tamra Stambaugh for
introducing me to the work of Dr. Carol S. Dweck. Dr. Stambaugh’s primary research field is
gifted education and the effect of accelerated curriculum, with a focus on low-income students
(Vanderbilt University, n.d.). Although I will be studying the effect of mindset on the low-
achieving student, T. Stambaugh told me that a fixed mindset can be just as detrimental to the
gifted child as it is to the low-performing student (personal communication, June 13, 2010).
Dweck is a Stanford University professor of Psychology who has studied self-theories of
learning since the early 1980’s. Her more recent work supports a statistically significant
connection between the student’s self-theory of intelligence, or mindset, and academic
achievement. In “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an Adolescent
Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention,” Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck
(2007) demonstrate that an incremental theory, or growth mindset, in seventh grade students
predicts an upward trend in academic achievement over the course of seventh and eighth grade.
This result is compelling, but it begs the question: Can mindset be changed to create conditions
which are conducive to success? These same researchers also focused on two groups of low-
achieving seventh-graders in New York City. A time-consuming, eight-week intervention was
undertaken with these students. The experimental group was taught that their brains can get
stronger, like a muscle. The experimental group showed marked improvement in mathematics
achievement.
As the No Child Left Behind Program Specialist in an urban charter school, I find the
results of Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck’s 2007 study intriguing and encouraging. The
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 3
purpose of this current study is to replicate the 2007 study, but I will take advantage of Dweck’s
web-based software program Brainology® (n.d.), which provides both a questionnaire to
measure each student’s self-theory of intelligence and an intervention to develop a growth
mindset. Using the software will render the intervention engaging and enjoyable for the students,
and it will make the research process manageable not only for me, but also for other practitioners
who might wish to employ the same intervention. I shall address the following two questions:
1) Do the seventh graders at my school have a growth mindset or do they view intelligence as
immutable and innate?
2) Would completing the software program Brainology® (n.d.) result in statistically
significant gains in seventh grade math scores on Discovery Education Assessments at my
school, as compared to seventh-graders at a demographically similar school?
My hope is that Brainology® (n.d.) may afford teachers in other schools with a predominantly
low socio-economic status (SES), low-performing student body an elegant and powerful
intervention to encourage a growth mindset and produce more learners who are willing to accept
academic challenges and risks in order to learn more. Such students will be more resilient
academically and, thus, more successful learners. Obtaining a quality education is the most direct
road out of poverty, yet many of our low-SES students fail to complete their educations. If
simply possessing a growth mindset leads to higher academic achievement and if changing the
mindsets of students into growth mindsets can be accomplished by the proposed intervention of
utilizing Brainology® (n.d.), then we will possess a powerful approach to narrowing the
achievement gap which can feasibly be implemented in any school.
Search procedures
I had already identified a particular study to replicate, so I used search terms related to
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 4
the topics addressed in Black, Trzesniewski, and Dweck’s 2007 study, which was my main
primary source. I employed an ERIC keyword search first, looking for articles on middle school
students, mathematics achievement, low-income students, self-theories of intelligence,
attribution theory, and achievement gap. Searching on any one of the above keywords yielded so
many articles that I used the logical “AND” connector to combine search terms in various ways
and narrow the results. The articles I found were written between the mid-1970s and the present.
The search results helped me to understand the development of attribution theory of intelligence
as a research topic. C. S. Dweck’s name came up frequently both in my ERIC search and in the
reference sections of the articles I found. I utilized ERIC to search for the author name Dweck,
and I found 35 articles either authored or co-authored by C. S. Dweck between 1975 and the
present. Through reading all of the abstracts for those articles, I was able to trace Dweck’s
progression as a researcher from 1975 to the present. She is clearly a well-known, frequently
cited expert in her field. This phase of my research helped me to place my questions in the
educational research tradition and to understand Dweck’s place in that tradition.
During that search, I found Dweck’s publication, Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation,
Personality, and Development (2000). This collection of essays is not only readable but also
well-researched. The chapter entitled “Is Intelligence Fixed or Changeable? Students’ Theories
about Their Intelligence Foster Their Achievement Goals” was particularly useful to me in
understanding the development of Dweck’s ideas. Black, Trzesniewski, and Dweck’s 2007
study flows naturally out of the research cited in this particular essay. I searched the reference
section of the 2007 study in order to determine which of those references might be useful to me.
These sources ranged in date from 1961 to 2006. It was through this process that I identified J.
Aronson as a key researcher, and I was able to locate a study on racial stereo-typing to which
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 5
Aronson contributed (Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). My
greatest struggle was finding full-text publications of Dweck’s work, and I discovered rather late
in the process that Dweck’s Stanford University webpage lists numerous articles with full-text
links and complete publication information. I availed myself of that resource as well.
The professional publications Educational Leadership (ASCD) and Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM) are available online, and I searched for articles on those
websites as well. The Jensen book, Teaching with Poverty in Mind (2009), was recommended by
a colleague, and I found a wealth of useful information in that book. I felt it essential to define
what “achievement gap” means, and there is no better source for that than the U. S. Department
of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (2010). I have a Brainology®
subscription, and so I was able to experience the software myself and access the entire website. I
used additional internet resources to obtain statistics and facts necessary to back up or explicate
my claims.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 6
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Self-Theories of Intelligence, or Mindsets
As stated above, my proposed research is based on Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and
Dweck’s 2007 study; therefore, I reviewed the reference section of that article. I scanned the
abstracts of numerous research pieces which preceded the 2007 study. I noted the use of the
terms “learned helplessness vs. mastery,” “learning goals vs. mastery goals,” and “entity theorist
vs. incremental theorist.” There has been an evolution of terminology, and so I take this
opportunity to make a few definitions. According to Dweck, each student has an implicit theory,
or self-theory, of intelligence. That is, we each have an underlying notion of the nature of our
own intelligence. This notion is the self-theory of intelligence. There are two essential types of
self-theory of intelligence. A student who holds an entity theory of intelligence believes that
intelligence is a fixed quantity and that each person possesses a given amount of intelligence. An
incremental theory of intelligence reflects the belief that intelligence is changeable and that a
person can become more intelligent through effort, concentration, experience and other factors
(Dweck, 2000). Dweck now refers to an entity theory of intelligence as a fixed mindset and an
incremental theory as a growth mindset (2009). In this paper, entity theory and fixed mindset will
be used interchangeably, as will incremental theory and growth mindset.
The Middle School Student
Prior to 1963, junior high school was exactly like high school, except with younger
students. There was no concept that the young adolescent’s developmental and academic needs
might differ in quality from those of the high school student. The middle school movement in the
U.S. began in 1963 with a landmark address by William Alexander of George Peabody College,
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 7
and the number of middle schools in the U.S. has exploded since that time. In 1970, there were
2,080 middle schools; there were 10,944 in 1998 and nearly 12,000 by 2002 (Armstrong, 2006).
Alexander recognized the need for middle schools which would address the developmental needs
of the young adolescent. According to Armstrong:
Educators need to understand the developmental needs of young adolescents, and in
particular their neurological, social, emotional, and metacognitive growth. Some of these
developmental needs are ignored or subverted by inappropriate educational practices such
as fragmented curricula, large impersonal schools, and lesson plans that lack vitality.
Practices at the best schools honor the developmental uniqueness of young adolescents,
including the provision of a safe school environment, student-initiated learning, student
roles in decision making, and strong adult role models. (Armstrong, 2006, p. 113)
In our current educational environment, with the strong emphasis on standards and test scores,
we run the risk of removing student-initiative from the learning process. Middle school students
who have little input into the learning process and who are viewed as mere receivers of
knowledge disengage from their own learning, disown the process, and seek stimulation outside
of the school walls.
All young adolescents experience the awkwardness of impending puberty, exploding
cognitive development, increasing self-consciousness and emotional unevenness, yet minority
students carry the additional burden of negative racial stereotypes (Aronson, Cohen, McColskey,
Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). These students may attribute their natural academic
struggles to these stereotypes. These researchers have concrete recommendations for mitigating
the negative effects of stereotypes. First, teach and emphasize that intelligence grows stronger
like a muscle. Greater effort will result in greater intellectual growth. Also, explain to children
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 8
that their difficulties are the result of a normal learning curve, not attributable to the student or
the student’s racial group. Finally, assist students in identifying values outside of school which
contribute positively to the individual’s self-esteem (Aronson, et al., 2009). The study of racial
stereotyping supports Dweck’s call for developing a growth mindset. Such a mindset not only
improves academic achievement, but it is also an antidote for racial or gender stereotyping
(Dweck, 2006).
There are informal ways to encourage a growth mindset and tap into students’ individual
strengths. One useful technique is to draw a parallel between school work and students’
extracurricular activities. Students frequently believe that practice and effort will lead to
improvement in sports, music, or art but not in academics. Pointing out this dichotomy to
students and referring to homework as “practice” and the teacher as “academic coach” may
encourage a growth mindset (Atwood, 2010).
Middle school children strive for competence in all areas of their lives, and, although
their growth is naturally uneven, they want to be trusted and given responsibilities whenever
appropriate. They also need support and a sense of safety in case they fail to meet expectations.
The developmental changes which occur during middle school can enhance the learning process
when educators possess a deep understanding of the middle school child. The difficulties
inherent in middle school education become opportunities for growth.
The Achievement Gap in Mathematics
Before undertaking this research, we must examine and define the so-called achievement
gap. There is a well-documented achievement gap in standardized test scores, not only between
white students and students of color, but also between students in low-poverty schools vs.
students in high-poverty schools. According to The Condition of Education: 2000-2010 (U. S.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 9
Department of Education, 2010), an internet publication of the United States Department of
Education (USDOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 2009 white eighth-
graders scored an average of 32 points higher than their black counterparts on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), despite the fact that both groups showed
improvement over the previous year. This achievement gap has existed at least since 1992
(USDOE, 2009). NCES reports that in 2005 the average fourth-grade score on the mathematics
NAEP assessment was 221 for students in schools with greater than 75% free or reduced lunch
and 255 for schools in which the free or reduced lunch rate was less than 10% (USDOE, 2009).
Regardless of whether we consider the achievement gap between racial groups or consider the
SES of our students, there is clearly a gap in achievement. We must address this problem in the
interest of equity, opportunity and social justice.
Not only is there an achievement gap in mathematics scores on the NAEP, but the U.S.
also lags behind other developing nations on the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study,
particularly in the area of measurement. Middle school students are not exposed to enough
hands-on measurement activities and classroom experiences which require higher-order thinking
skills or which integrate measurement in math and science (Thompson & Preston, 2004).
Eric Jensen delineates the effects of poverty on brain development in both the emotional
and intellectual realms. He describes the practical difficulties that low-SES parents have. For
example, they may have to work multiple jobs or long hours, and so they don’t have adequate
time to spend with their children. The parents are often stressed or even depressed, and, thus, not
emotionally available to their children. It is common for parents to work nights, for example, and
for children in fifth grade or younger to get up on their own, dress for school, lock the house, and
walk to the bus stop or to school. The children themselves don’t develop a full range of
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 10
emotions, and the children may live in dangerous neighborhoods or difficult home situations
which overdevelop the amygdala and make the children overly emotional. Meanwhile, the other
areas of the brain, such as the visual cortex, temporal lobe, parietal lobe, and occipital lobe, don’t
develop as many neurological connections as the brains of higher-SES children. Thus, lower-
SES children experience diminished cognitive capacity. In response to this bleak outlook for
student outcomes, however, Jensen proposes that schools foster an “enrichment mind-set”:
Your school will get results only when you and your staff shift your collective mind-set
from “those poor kids” to “our gifted kids.” Stop thinking remediation and start thinking
enrichment. The enrichment mind-set means fostering intellectual curiosity, emotional
engagement, and social bonding….Essentially, the enrichment mind-set means
maximizing students’ and staff members’ potential, whatever it takes. Whether or not
students choose to go to college, enrichment programs prepare them to succeed in life.
(Jensen, 2009, p. 94)
This enrichment mind-set is a classroom and school-wide approach designed to create a learning
environment which will mitigate the effects of poverty and accelerate student learning.
Considering that Jensen does not cite Dweck, I conclude that he defines “mind-set” differently
than she; rather, he is concerned with students’ attitudes, academic capacities, and thought-
processes about school.
How Does Mindset Affect Learning and Achievement?
In 1981, Dweck, Bandura and Leggett embarked on a series of studies regarding self-
theories of intelligence. The framing question was: Why do students become so focused on
grades? Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as “Your intelligence is
something about you that you can’t change very much;” “you can learn new things but you can’t
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 11
really change your basic intelligence;” and “you have a certain amount of intelligence and you
can’t really do much to change it” (Dweck, 2000, p. 21). Students were classified as either entity
theorists or incremental theorists based on their responses. Later, students were given three
choices: one activity which was described as so simple that students probably wouldn’t make
mistakes, the second was described as a bit harder but a chance to demonstrate intelligence, and
the third was described as “hard, new, and different—you might get confused and make
mistakes, but you might learn something new and useful” (Dweck, 2000, p. 21).
In the study with eighth graders, over 80% of the entity theorists chose one of the first
two tasks, and 50% chose the easier task. That is, only 20% of the entity theorists chose the
learning-oriented, more challenging task. On the other hand, 60% of the incremental theorists
chose the more difficult, learning-goal task. This type of result was consistent over multiple
studies, ranging from fifth and sixth graders to college students to English-language learners in
Hong Kong (Dweck, 2000). Dweck has performed or reviewed multiple studies which indicate
that a student’s self-theory of intelligence is deeply and integrally related to the student’s
learning goals, motivation and willingness to take on academic challenges.
Having determined that there is a relationship between mindset and learning goals,
Dweck moved on to exploring the connection between mindset and achievement. In 2007,
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck undertook a research project involving two studies. In the
first study (Study 1), the sample was 373 seventh grade students, in four cohort waves, who were
all enrolled in public schools in the New York City area. The sample was diverse racially and
economically, and it was gender-balanced. These students standardized test scores were
moderately high, at about the 75th percentile on average, and 53% of the students were eligible
for free or reduced lunch (FRL). At the beginning of seventh grade, each student was given a
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 12
questionnaire in order to determine the individual’s mindset, as well as other information about
student motivation and effort. Self-theory of intelligence was measured using a six-point scale
with a score of 1 representing a pure entity theorist and 6 indicating a pure incremental theorist.
The mean score was 4.45, and the standard deviation was 0.97. The students’ sixth grade math
achievement scores were available to the researchers as a baseline measure. The measure of
mathematics achievement was student grades at the end of the fall and the spring semesters
during seventh and eighth grade. Thus, Dweck and her colleagues obtained data for four waves,
or cohorts, of seventh graders over the course of two years each. A statistical analysis was
undertaken in order to determine the academic growth trajectories of the incremental theorists
and the entity theorists. The
results are best represented in
graphical form, as seen in Figure 1.
Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 251
Intervention and Results
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 13
The second phase of the 2007 study (Study 2) addressed the following hypothesis:
If the different theories of intelligence are indeed associated with contrasting
motivational patterns, then teaching students to think of their intelligence as malleable
should cause them to display more positive motivation in the classroom, and in turn to
achieve more highly. (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 253)
The sample in Study 2 was markedly different from the sample in Study 1. There were 91
seventh grade students who completed the study, all enrolled in a public school in New York
City, which was a different school than the school in Study 1. The sample was gender-balanced
and racially diverse; however, this group was low-achieving, with sixth-grade math achievement
scores at the 35th national percentile. The school’s FRL percentage was 79%, as compared to
53% for the school in Study 1. As in Study 2, students were given a six-point questionnaire to
determine self-theory of intelligence with, again, a score of 1 indicating a perfect entity theorist
and 6 a perfect incremental theorist. After the initial assessment, the students were divided into
experimental (N = 48) and control groups (N = 43). Sixteen research assistants were assigned to
perform an eight-week intervention, holding workshops during a time normally reserved for
students to receive extra help. The experimental group and control group both received four
sessions on brain structure, study skills, and the negative results of stereotyping. The
experimental group also had four sessions entitled “You Can Grow Your Intelligence,” “Neural
Network Maze,” “Learning Makes You Smarter,” and “labels should be avoided;” whereas, the
control group had lessons on mnemonic devices, “academic difficulties and successes,” and
“memory and the brain” (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 255).
Post-intervention analysis was in-depth and statistically thorough. Students were re-
assessed three weeks later to measure self-theory of intelligence. They were also given an
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 14
assessment over the content of the intervention lessons. Although students’ scores over the
general workshop content didn’t vary significantly—73.0% for the experimental group and
70.5% for the control group, students in the experimental group, as expected, scored significantly
higher—83.5% vs. 53.9%—on items which covered the “incremental theory intervention
content” (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 256). The researchers also measured the
effect of the intervention on students’ self-theories of intelligence. For the experimental group,
there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score for self-theory—4.36 to 4.95;
whereas, the control group’s scores were 4.62 pre-intervention and 4.68 post-intervention, not a
statistically significant change (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007).
The most startling result is readily seen in the following graph (Figure 3) of mathematics
achievement. The intervention occurred between the second and third points on the graph, and
the measure was students’ mathematics grades.
Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 257.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 15
We clearly see the abrupt upward trajectory in student math achievement after the intervention
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007). Study 2, however, did not have the longitudinal
aspect of Study 1, and it would be instructive to follow these students for a longer time. On the
other hand, given the results of Study 1, it is reasonable to hypothesize that students in Study 2
who were incremental theorists post-intervention would continue to follow a positive
achievement trajectory.
The results of this study are encouraging and impressive; however, there are drawbacks
inherent in this type of intervention—time and resources. Sixteen research assistants were trained
to implement the intervention workshops. Granted, the intervention appears to have been
successful, but what school or school system has resources to implement such a program?
Finances, time issues and lack of teacher buy-in would stop the program before it could begin.
Brainology®: Both a measure and an intervention
Dweck and her associates have developed a web-based software program called
Brainology® (n.d.), which not only measures the student’s mindset, but it also provides the
incremental theory intervention in an engaging, colorful, quest-oriented series of four computer
sessions. The teacher has the ability to track each student’s progress throughout the program;
thus, a researcher could use this as a tool to determine mindset and perform an incremental
theory intervention; then, he or she could track student test data in order to measure the effect of
the intervention.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 16
Chapter 3
Methods
Design
Given that this study involves an intervention which I expect to enhance student
achievement, it is unethical for me to offer the intervention to some of my students and not to
others; therefore, the proposed study will follow a quasi-experimental design. The experimental
group will be all seventh grade students, given that the students have parental consent, at my
charter school in Nashville, TN. The control group will be the seventh grade students at another
charter school in Nashville.
Charter schools legislation varies widely from state to state, and so it is worthwhile to
discuss briefly what constitutes a charter school in Tennessee. According to the Tennessee State
Board of Education website (n.d.), Tennessee Charter Schools are authorized by the Local
Education Authority (LEA), sponsored by a non-profit group or agency, and funded on the same
per-pupil basis as all other public schools in Tennessee. In addition, charter schools are granted
greater flexibility of curricular, instructional and organizational frameworks than traditional
public schools in exchange for great accountability. For example, a traditional public school can
fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for up to six consecutive years before being in
danger of School Restructuring and TNDOE takeover; whereas, a charter school which fails to
make AYP for two consecutive years can be lawfully closed. In addition to innovation and
greater accountability, charter schools are designed to provide parents with greater school choice
and to re-engage parents in their children’s educations (TN State Board of Education, n.d.).
There are four eligibility criteria for charter school admission in Tennessee, and these
tend to create schools with low-performing, low-SES students, at least at the outset. The charter
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 17
school applicant must meet at least one of the following criteria:
1) The student has been previously enrolled in a charter school.
2) The student is zoned to a school which has failed to meet AYP for more than two
consecutive years. (High Priority School)
3) The student has failed to reach the level of proficient or advanced on either the Math or
Reading section of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) in the
preceding year.
4) The student is eligible for FRL (TN State Board of Education, n.d.).
Students who meet the above criteria are, by definition, low-performing or of low-SES.
Sample
All seventh graders from two Nashville, TN charter schools will be invited to participate.
This study includes an intervention, and all seventh grade students from my school will get this
intervention, while students from the other school will not. The two schools should have similar
demographics, by virtue of the fact that they are both charter schools, and I will obtain
information sufficient to disaggregate data by gender, ethnicity, SES, exceptional education, and
limited English proficiency wherever disaggregation is useful or informative. I will control for
demographics as needed. The other participating school will agree to give me anonymous data
by randomly assigned student number. I will have complete access to my students’ data, but I
will maintain anonymity in the final report.
Measures
Students in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) take three district-funded,
standardized TCAP-predictor tests called Discovery Education Assessments (DEA). My baseline
measure of achievement will be DEA A, which is given in late August or early September each
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 18
year. I will utilize DEA B and C, given in November and February respectively, to determine the
effects of my intervention. The DEA Math section has a median reliability of 0.82 with a median
sample size of 30,390, the test is criterion referenced, and it has content validity. In addition, the
test utilizes a vertical scale which incorporates a proprietary growth formula, so that the
assessments get harder as the year goes on (DEA, 2010). This eliminates the need to control for
maturation and student learning.
What is Brainology®, and How Does It Work?
The Brainology® intervention will take place between Discovery Assessments A and B,
during our afterschool tutoring and test-preparation time. Only students who complete the web-
based software program Brainology® (n.d.) will be included in the results. When a student
begins the program, he or she answers six questions which give the participant a score on a six-
point Likert scale. This score indicates what sort of mindset the student has at the outset. The
student then progresses through a series of four brain challenges, posed by the “Brain Orb,” with
the help of two teenaged cartoon characters, Chris and Dahlia. The software covers a variety of
topics, including the structure of the brain, the process of learning and remembering, breathing
techniques to relieve test anxiety, and applying this knowledge to improve study skills. In
addition, the students have the opportunity to reflect on what they’ve learned by utilizing an
online journal (Brainology®, n.d.). The Brainology® (n.d.) questionnaire will also be given after
the students complete the intervention. I will analyze the results of the Brainology® (n.d.)
questionnaire in order to determine whether or not the intervention affects student mindsets to a
statistically significant degree. I will utilize two-variable descriptive statistics to determine the
impact of Brainology® (n.d.) on DEA scores. I will collect TCAP scores and 8th grade DEA
scores for all students in the sample, if feasible, in order to determine if the impact of the
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 19
intervention has long-term results. I will interview students and teachers in order to collect their
thoughts and anecdotes after the Brainology® (n.d.) intervention.
Hopes and Dreams
Equity in education is the civil rights issue of our generation. Regardless of strides which
have been made in many areas of our society, many children, “the least of these,” suffer the
burden of poverty and fail to connect with our education system. Both the black-white and high-
poverty-low poverty achievement gaps are evident in elementary school and middle school
(USDOE, 2010). For the approximately 27.4% of Metropolitan Nashville Public School’s
students who fail to complete high school (MNPS, 2010), the gap grows into a chasm. When
students fail in school, they risk failing in life. I have been convinced for my entire professional
life that everyone can learn if they want to learn. Dweck’s work is the first research I’ve read
which addresses the self-theories of intelligence and offers a promising, direct interventional
strategy for my student population, an underserved group of young people who deserve the same
chance as every other group of American children.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 20
References
Armstrong, T. (2006). Best schools: How human development research should inform
educational practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?
id=bmsbReA56NIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=armstrong+best+schools&source=bl&ots
=KQhOHdEpuW&sig=cMfHjAIN48yBtNitKPyDjc5twUc&hl=en&ei=u2_ATIPNE4Wcl
gff4Y2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=on
epage&q&f=false
Aronson, J., Cohen, G., McColskey, W., Montrosse, B., Lewis, K., & Mooney, K. (2009).
Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: A review of social-psychological intervention
studies on improving the achievement of black students (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2009–No. 076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Atwood, J. R. (2010, April-May). Mindset, motivation and metaphor in school and sport:
Bifurcated beliefs and behavior in two different achievement domains. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
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.
Brainology® . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainology.us/login/needLogin.aspx
Discovery Education Assessment. (2010). Discovery Education Assessment Research. Retrieved
from static.discoveryeducation.com/de/docs/assessment/14111_Tennessee Research.pdf
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 21
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.
(Eds.) Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dweck, C.S. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada, 49(4), 56-57, 59-
61.
Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and
what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2010). Graduation rate: MNPS way ahead of the curve
for graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page58227.aspx
Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the middle grades: Insights from
NAEP and TIMSS, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(9), 514-519.
U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (2009). Mathematics Achievement Gaps. The condition of education 2000-
2010. (NCES Report No. 2009-081). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/indicator12.asp
Tennessee State Board of Education. (n.d.) Frequently asked questions. What are public charter
schools? Who may attend public charter schools in Tennessee? Retrieved from
http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/faq.html#CharterSchools
Vanderbilt University. (n.d). Tamra Stambaugh. Retrieved from
http://pty.vanderbilt.edu/about/pty-staff/tamra-stambaugh/