HELPING STUDENTS TRANSITION TO MIDDLE SCHOOL: …
Transcript of HELPING STUDENTS TRANSITION TO MIDDLE SCHOOL: …
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education
HELPING STUDENTS TRANSITION TO MIDDLE SCHOOL:
EFFICACY OF AN ATTRIBUTIONAL INTERVENTION
A Dissertation in
School Psychology
by
Gordon Emmett Hall
© 2019 Gordon Emmett Hall
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May 2019
The dissertation of Gordon Emmett Hall was reviewed and approved* by the following:
James C. DiPerna Professor of Education Professor in Charge for Graduate Programs in School Psychology Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee
Karen Bierman Evan Pugh University Professor Professor of Psychology and Human Development and Family Studies
Barbara A Schaefer Associate Professor of Education, Educational and School Psychology
Scott Gest Professor of Human Services at the University of Virginia
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
Although students’ causal attributions yield divergent trajectories in achievement and well-being
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager & Walton, 2011; Yeager et al., 2014), few
attribution intervention studies to date have focused on the transition to middle school, during
which time students often experience losses in achievement and sense of social belonging
(Eccles, 2004; Kingery, Erdley, & Marshall, 2011). As such, the purpose of the current study was
to develop and test the efficacy of an attributional intervention on students’ attributions,
motivation, social belonging, and achievement during the transition to middle school. The sample
consisted of 133 fifth and sixth grade students enrolled at two public middle schools. Students
were randomly assigned to treatment and control modules, which were modeled on previous
attributional interventions. Both modules consisted of information regarding the process of
transitioning to middle school. Measures of attribution, academic motivation, social belonging,
and academic achievement were collected immediately following implementation and at short-
and long-term follow-up.
Hierarchical linear regression was used to test if the intervention positively changed
students’ attribution, motivation, social belonging, and academic achievement. Results indicated
that the intervention was not successful in shifting attributions or impacting motivation, social
belonging, and achievement. There was a significant interaction effect between treatment status
and identification with minority status in predicting academic achievement at one time point. In
exploring the interaction, there is some evidence to suggest the treatment was successful for a
local minority population, which is a group that is a minority within the specific context of the
school. Implications for future research are discussed.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Review of Literature ........................................................................................................ 3Attributional Theory ................................................................................................. 3Attributional Interventions in Education .................................................................. 6Characteristics of Successful Attributional Interventions ........................................ 15 Adapting Attributional Interventions for the Middle School Transition .................. 17 Effects of Mind-set Interventions ............................................................................. 20 Theory of Change ..................................................................................................... 21 Rationale, Purpose, and Hypotheses ........................................................................ 24
Chapter 2 Method ................................................................................................................... 27
Participants ....................................................................................................................... 26Measures .......................................................................................................................... 28
Attribution (Proximal Outcome) .............................................................................. 28Motivation (Medial Outcome) ................................................................................. 29Social belonging (Medial Outcome) ........................................................................ 29Academic achievement (Distal Outcome) ................................................................ 30
Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 30 Intervention development ......................................................................................... 30Intervention implementation .................................................................................... 31Data collection and timeline ..................................................................................... 32
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 33 Missing Data .................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 3 Results .................................................................................................................... 36
Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 35Proximal Outcome ........................................................................................................... 37
Attribution (Hypothesis 1) ....................................................................................... 37Medial Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 38
Motivation (Hypothesis 2) ....................................................................................... 38Social belonging (Hypothesis 3) .............................................................................. 39
Distal Outcome ................................................................................................................. 40 Achievement (Hypothesis 4) .................................................................................... 40
Follow-up Analyses ......................................................................................................... 43
v
Chapter 4 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 48
Post-treatment Effects ...................................................................................................... 47Proximal outcomes ................................................................................................... 47Medial outcomes ...................................................................................................... 48Distal outcomes ........................................................................................................ 48Interpretation of key post-treatment findings ........................................................... 48
Follow-up Effects ............................................................................................................. 49 Medial outcomes ...................................................................................................... 49Distal outcomes ........................................................................................................ 49Interpretation of key findings at follow-up .............................................................. 49
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 52 Implications and Future Research .................................................................................... 56 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 57
References ................................................................................................................................ 60
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 71
Example survey questions and responses ........................................................................ 71 Example screen shot of attribution measure developed in the present study ................... 74 Two example screen shots of a welcome page and content pages from Yeager,
Paunesku, Walton, and Dweck (2013) ..................................................................... 75 Estimated marginal means of attribution by race/ethnicity at post-treatment .................. 76 Estimated marginal means of motivation by race/ethnicity at short-term follow-up ....... 77 Estimated marginal means of motivation by race/ethnicity at long-term follow-up ....... 78 Estimated marginal means of social belonging by race/ethnicity at short-term
follow-up .................................................................................................................. 79 Estimated marginal means of social belonging by race/ethnicity at long-term follow-
up .............................................................................................................................. 80
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theory of Change. .................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2: Flow of Participants Through Study Protocol. ......................................................... 28
Figure 3: Estimated Marginal Means of Achievement at Short-term Follow-up. ................... 43
Figure 4: Estimated Marginal Means of Achievement by Race/Ethnicity at Post-treatment. .......................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5: Estimated Marginal Means of Achievement by Race/Ethnicity at Short-term Follow-up. ........................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 6: Estimated Marginal Means of Achievement Race/Ethnicity at Long-term Follow-up. ........................................................................................................................ 47
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Effect Size Data in Attributional Intervention Research by Sample Type. ................................................................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Demographic Variables for Treatment and Control. ................................................. 29
Table 3: Time Points for Collection of Primary Outcome Variables. ..................................... 34
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Primary Outcome Variables by Time and Condition. ......................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5: Intervention Effects on Attributions at Post-treatment. ............................................. 39
Table 6: Intervention Effects on Student Motivation at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up. ...................................................................................................... 40
Table 7: Intervention Effects on Social Belonging at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up. ...................................................................................................... 41
Table 8: Intervention Effects on Achievement at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up. ................................................................................................................ 42
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My wife has been a pillar of support through this entire process. This dissertation has
been a whole-family effort, and that help means more than I can put on this page. I love you,
Molly, and thank you for everything. Thank you, also, Mom and Dad, for the encouragement and
the willingness to pitch in: watching Ellie; buying meals; being there. In lifelong learning, I am
inspired by your example, and I love you both. Thank you, Dr. DiPerna for the advice about the
dissertation and your professional mentorship. I have certainly doubted myself, but I always left
my meetings with you feeling inspired and ready to finish. Thank you to my committee members,
Dr. Bierman, Dr. Gest, and Dr. Schaefer. Your time and expertise are deeply appreciated. Thanks
to all of the students who put in time to participate in my research. Lastly, thank you to the
teachers and administrators who made this research possible, specifically, Jonathan Myler and
Shradha Patel, two individuals who bent over backward to help me for no other benefit than
helping a fellow educator.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Student attributions about academic and social outcomes can have a profound impact on
later behavior. Causal attributions are beliefs about the perceived causes of successes or failures.
Interventions aimed at student attributions have been associated with altered trajectories for
academic achievement and motivation (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Attributional interventions also
have been linked with changes in a student’s sense of social belonging, stress, shame, aggressive
retaliation, and even health outcomes (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager et al.,
2014; Yeager et al., 2016; Yeager, Miu, Powers, & Dweck, 2013). Attributions play a powerful
role in shaping students’ experience of the school environment. Although many attributional
intervention studies have targeted the transition to college (e.g. Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002;
Menec et al., 2004; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Wilson & Linville, 1985), less research has been
focused on the transition to middle school.
Students experience changes in school structure and student motivation at the onset of
middle school. Transitioning to middle school is often associated with moving from a small
elementary school with self-contained classrooms to a larger middle school with subject-based
classrooms (Kingery, Erdley, & Marshall, 2011). Peer relationships take on greater importance
as youth begin to seek approval from peers and independence from adults (Farmer, Hamm,
Leung, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2011). Students’ connection to school and feelings of social
belonging decline after the transition (Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991; Witherspoon & Ennett,
2011), and middle school is marked by a period of achievement loss (Alspaugh, 1998; Eccles,
Lord, & Midgley, 1991).
2
Student attributions influence motivation. Building on the earlier work of Dweck and
Leggett (1988), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) hypothesized that differing implicit
theories of intelligence, or attributions about the causes of achievement, result in distinct
motivational patterns. Specifically, students with a malleable theory of intelligence (i.e. students
who believe that intelligence can be changed) are less susceptible to frustration or
discouragement in the face of adversity. In a longitudinal study, Blackwell et al. (2007) found
that students who identified with a malleable theory of intelligence were associated with a growth
trajectory for mathematics achievement over a 2-year period, and students who identified with a
fixed theory of intelligence were associated with a gradually declining trajectory of mathematics
achievement (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).
Attributional interventions in education target students’ attributions about school and the
social world. These interventions are typically brief and do not replace high quality instruction
and evidence-based curricula. Rather, attributional interventions seek to alter self- and social
perceptions, such as a student’s sense of social belonging or theory of intelligence, in order to
promote positive behavior within the environment. The intervention tested in the present study is
based on studies of social-psychological interventions targeting attributions by Wilson and
Linville (1985), Blackwell et al. (2007), and Walton and Cohen (2011). Wilson and Linville
(1985) designed an intervention to disrupt negative attributions about adversity experienced
during the transition to college, and Walton and Cohen (2011) designed an intervention targeting
negative attributions about social belonging during the transition to college.
The results from these, and other intervention studies (e.g., Martens, Johns, Greenberg, &
Schimel, 2006), have demonstrated that attributions play a powerful role in shaping student
motivation and achievement, especially during periods of academic and social transition.
Students are at great risk for making negative attributions during the transition to middle school
because of the myriad changes associated with adolescence and middle school (Eccles, 2004). As
3
such, an intervention was developed for the present study addressing student fears regarding
academic achievement and social belonging during the transition to middle school. The core
intervention strategy was an adaptation of the intervention protocol developed by Wilson and
Linville (1985) and implemented immediately following the start of middle school. The purpose
of this study was to test the effectiveness of this attributional intervention on students’
motivation, achievement, and social belonging during the transition to middle school.
Review of Literature
The literature review begins with an overview of attributional theory and the evolution of
attributional interventions. Next, recent attributional interventions in education are described.
The subsequent two sections highlight the adverse experiences that are possible during the
transition to middle school: the structural, social, and pedagogical differences between
elementary and middle schools and the social and developmental changes that occur during the
onset of puberty.
Attributional Theory
The attributional interventions featured in the present study have been informed by
attributional research. Early attribution theorists (e.g. Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley,
1967) argued that human behavior can best be predicted by first understanding how people
explain to themselves the reasons for their own and others’ behavior. Attributions are the
perceived causes for success or failure. Once an individual identifies a cause to an outcome, then
behaviors that led to success can be repeated and behaviors that led to failure can be altered.
Thus, the attribution serves as a basis for how an individual reacts to the event, as well as for
expectations regarding future events (Weiner, 1985).
One of the first theorists to focus attributional theory on the area of academic
achievement was Bernard Weiner (Wilson, Damiani, & Shelton, 2002). Previous theorists had
focused on the locus dimension of attributions (e.g., Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley,
4
1967). The locus dimension reflects whether the perceived cause of the success or failure is an
internal quality (i.e., a factor occurring within the person), or an external quality (i.e., a factor
occurring within the environment). Weiner (1985) proposed that stability and controllability
offered a more fruitful avenue to intervention. Stability describes whether the perceived cause is
changeable, and controllability describes the degree to which the individual is able to influence
the cause. Weiner hypothesized that shifting attributions for poor performance from stable causes
to unstable ones would lead to greater effort and higher performance (Weiner, 1986).
Specifically, when a student receives a poor grade and attributes the poor grade to a lack of
ability, which is a stable and uncontrollable cause, they are likely to be demoralized. Shifting the
attribution to an unstable cause, such as bad luck or low effort, would increase the perceived
likelihood of future high performance for the student.
Carol Dweck (1975) was one of the first researchers to demonstrate that shifting poor
performance attributions to unstable causes could improve motivation, effort, and subsequent
academic performance for students. A study was conducted with children exhibiting signs of
learned helplessness. Learned helplessness occurs when children, who have experienced a
failure, do not perform a subsequent task despite having the skills necessary to complete the task.
Dweck demonstrated that an attributional retraining intervention increased academic performance
despite prior failure. The gains were significantly different from a success only treatment where
students were provided a series of academic tasks that were designed to be completed without
error by the students.
Dweck and Leggett (1988) proposed that individuals hold implicit theories about
intelligence that guide attributions and establish a goal framework. Their work expanded on
Weiner’s (1972) attribution theory and Seligman, Maier, and Solomon’s (1971) research in the
area of learned helplessness. Dweck and Leggett developed a model to explain why certain
students respond to adverse experience with “helpless” behavior and others respond with
5
“mastery-oriented” behavior. A “helpless” response is one in which the individual’s performance
and motivation declines in the face of challenge; whereas a “mastery-oriented” response
maintains or increases performance and motivation in the face of failure. Students with an
implicit theory of intelligence as an entity, or fixed and stable quality, attribute academic failure
to a lack of intelligence. As a result, these students avoid academic tasks because they have
learned to anticipate failure despite effort. By contrast, students with an implicit theory of
intelligence as malleable, or a changeable and unstable quality, attribute academic failure to a
lack of effort. Consequently, these students pursue academic challenges with even greater
motivation because these students have learned that experiencing failure does not necessarily
predict failure in future performances.
In addition, Dweck and Leggett proposed an alternative to the notion from Weiner’s
attribution theory that certain factors were, by definition, stable and uncontrollable (Weiner,
1985). Specifically, in Weiner’s (1974) theoretical framework, intelligence was viewed as an
inherently stable factor. In contrast, Dweck proposed that individuals hold implicit theories about
all factors and individuals make attributions based on the implicit theory. Individuals who view
abilities as malleable are incremental theorists, and those who view abilities as fixed are entity
theorists. Incremental and entity theorists may blame the same factor, but one will view it as
controllable and unstable, just as the other views it as uncontrollable and stable. Thus, it is up to
each individual to determine whether or not a particular cause is controllable. In Dweck’s model,
an individual’s implicit theory determines whether an individual makes an attribution to a stable
or unstable factor (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Self-efficacy theory, by Albert Bandura (1997), builds on attribution theory and has
implications for attributional interventions in education. According to Bandura, self-efficacy is
an individual’s belief in his or her ability to successfully complete a given task. Bandura argued
that attributional interventions are successful inasmuch as they are able to shift an individual’s
6
sense of self-efficacy. Only when an individual believes that they are capable of successfully
completing a given task, will they commit to completing the task. Similarly, Dweck’s entity
theorists are successful because the implicit theory allows for greater self-efficacy.
One final theory relevant to the development of attributional interventions is field theory
(Lewin, 1951). Field theory was developed as way to describe the social environment. Behavior,
according to Lewin, is a function of the person and the environment. Behavior exists within a
complex field of forces. Some forces promote a behavior and other forces restrain that same
behavior, such that there are two ways to promote behavior change. The first is to increase forces
that promote a certain behavior, for example by rewarding the behavior. An oft-overlooked route
to behavior change is to consider which forces are restraining a behavior. When students worry
about whether or not an assessment determines their intelligence, it creates a force that restrains
success. Restraining forces, such as an entity theory of intelligence or stereotype threat, can
disrupt student success (Lewin, 1951; Yeager & Walton, 2011). Attributional interventions seek
to remove forces that restrain student success in the school environment.
Attributional Interventions in Education
Attribution theory is relevant to school practitioners because student attributions
regarding success and failure at school impact achievement and motivation (Yeager & Walton,
2011). Attribution theory explains how one student can present with a motivated response to
adversity, and a second student of similar ability can present with a helpless response. In fact, as
Carol Dweck (1975) demonstrated, students often possess the skills necessary to complete
required tasks, but fail to do so because they do not believe that their effort will be rewarded.
Attributional interventions target thoughts about causal relationships to shift attributions from
stable factors like ability to unstable factors like effort and experience and to aid the student in
building an implicit theory that views effort as a controllable factor.
7
The studies presented in the Table 1 (N = 25) took place in a school setting and targeted
attributions regarding achievement, motivation, and sense of social belonging. Collectively, these
studies demonstrate the success of attributional interventions in raising student achievement
across age ranges and subject matter with effect sizes that range from small (d = .17) to large (d =
1.50). Although academic outcomes were measured immediately following intervention
implementation in some studies (e.g., Menec et al., 1994) and several months or even years after
the intervention had been implemented in others (e.g., Ruthig, Perry, Hall, & Hladkyj, 2004;
Walton & Cohen, 2011), the results are positive and consistent with theory.
8
Table 1 Summary of Effect Size Data in Attributional Intervention Research by Sample Type
Study Purpose
Sample
Effect Sizes
Achievement Motivation Social
Belonging Post-Secondary
Wilson & Linville (1982, 1985) (combined results)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
First-year (n = 776)
d = .27
ns
--
Noel, Forysth, & Kelley (1987)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
Psychology Students (n = 36)
d = .81 -- --
Van Overwalle, Segebarth, & Goldchstein (1989)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
First-year (n = 130)
d = .43
-- --
Van Overwalle & De Metsenaere (1990)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
First-year (n = 124) d = .52 -- --
Perry & Penner (1990) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
First-year (n = 198) d = .37 -- --
Menec et al. (1994) (Study 2) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention with low-expressive instructor on high-risk and low-risk students
Psychology Students (n = 120)
d = .41 -- --
Aronson, Fried, & Good (2002)
Test the effect of an attributional intervention targeting implicit theories of intelligence on
Undergraduate Students (n = 79)
d = .53 -- --
9
stereotype threat
Martens, Johns, Greenberg, & Schimel (2006)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention on women’s stereotype threat
Psychology Students (n = 100)
d = .44 -- --
Miyake et al. (2010) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting the effects of stereotype threat for students in a physics class
Undergraduate Students (n = 399)
d = .31 -- --
Perry et al. (2010) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting the controllability of unsatisfactory performance in academic settings
First-year Psychology Students (n = 357)
d = .73 -- --
Haynes et al. (2011) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting concerns about academic performance
First-year (n = 661) d = .78 -- --
Ruthig, Perry, Hall, & Hladkyj (2004)
Test the longitudinal effects of an attributional retraining intervention targeting test anxiety and achievement
First-year (n = 256) d = .28 -- --
Harackiewicz et al. (2014) Test the efficacy of a values affirmation intervention targeting attributions of first-generation students
Biology Students (n = 798)
d = .17 -- --
Struthers &Perry (1996)
Test the longitudinal effects of an attributional retraining intervention on motivation and achievement
Psychology Students (n = 257)
d = .22 d = .23 --
Hall, Hladkyj, Perry, & Ruthig (2004)
Test the efficacy of an attributional retraining and elaborative learning intervention on the motivation and achievement attributions
First-year (n = 150) d = .35 d = .51
d = .46 d = .41
--
10
Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin (2014)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting attributions regarding academic performance
First-generation Students (n = 168)
d = .46 -- d = .26
Walton & Cohen (2011) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting doubts about social belonging
First-year (n = 37) -- d = .85 d = .20
Haynes et al. (2015) Test the efficacy of an attributional retraining intervention targeting motivation and achievement attributions
First-year (n = 336) -- d = .38 d = .22
--
High School
Yeager et al. (2014) (Study 2) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting incremental theory of personality on stress, health, and achievement
Ninth-grade Students (n = 78)
d = .34 -- --
Middle School
Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht (2003)
Test the effect of an attributional intervention targeting middle school’s implicit theories of intelligence on stereotype threat (using three treatment conditions)
Seventh-grade Students (n = 138)
d = 1.13 d = 1.50 d = 1.30
-- --
Ziegler & Heller (2000) Test the efficacy of an attributional retraining intervention targeting task motivation in physics
Eighth-grade Students (n = 164)
d = .35 d = .35 --
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck (2007)
Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention on implicit theories of intelligence (Study 2)
Seventh-grade Students (n = 91)
d = .62 r = .23 --
Cohen et al. (2009) Test the efficacy of an attributional intervention targeting the effects of stereotype threat
Three Cohorts of Seventh-grade Students (n = 133,
d = .57 d = .61 --
11
149, 134) Sherman et al. (2013) Test the efficacy of a values affirmation and
attributional retraining intervention targeting stereotype threat
Sixth-, Seventh-, and Eighth-grade Students (n = 199)
d = .34 -- d = .36
Cook, Purdie-Vaughns, Garcia, & Cohen (2011)
Test the efficacy of a values affirmation exercise targeting student sense of belonging
Seventh-grade Students (n = 361)
-- --
d = .30
12
As highlighted in Table 1, the majority of the extant attribution intervention research has
focused on the transition to college and examined how attributional interventions impact
academic achievement. Although a number of the studies have targeted adolescence, none of the
attributional interventions have explicitly targeted the middle school transition. All of the
identified studies feature interventions that directly attempted to re-frame the perceived causes of
success or failure. Three studies, however, directly informed the development of the intervention
tested in the current study. These studies (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Walton &
Cohen, 2011; Wilson & Linville, 1985) feature attribution interventions that are brief, easily
implemented in schools, target a transition period, and could be adapted to the middle school
transition. These studies also included three outcomes of interest in the current study:
achievement, motivation, and social belonging.
Wilson and Linville (1985) conducted a study testing the efficacy of a brief social-
psychological intervention for first-year college students. They hypothesized that freshman
college students were more susceptible to negative attributions because the transition to college
often involves a greater amount of studying and planning than high school academic work. The
academic problems students experience may serve as confirmation of fears about a lack of ability
or low intelligence. Wilson and Linville designed an intervention to disrupt these beliefs by
providing information demonstrating that many people experience problems early in college but
find success in subsequent semesters.
Specifically, individuals were eligible to participate in the study if they had a GPA below
the median (3.0) and indicated that they worried about their academic performance. Participants
were informed that they were going to be part of a large-scale survey of students about college
experiences and that they would become familiar with the survey process by reviewing the results
of a survey of upperclassmen. It was made clear that the participants would need to attend to the
information because questions about it would be asked later. Participants were shown edited
13
results from an actual survey of upperclassmen at Duke University. The results conveyed that
many students experience academic struggles during their first year of college but these problems
improve over time. Then, participants were shown videotaped interviews in which
upperclassmen described how they received low grades during freshman year but steadily
improved each year following freshman year. The purpose of the videotaped interviews was to
demonstrate that the upper-year students also initially struggled but ultimately found academic
success, thereby disrupting the belief that personal characteristics are causing academic struggles.
Finally, participants were asked about their general impressions regarding the survey. The
authors found that 1 year following the intervention students in the treatment group earned higher
GPAs (d = .27) and were less likely to drop out of college than the students in the control group
(Wilson & Linville, 1985).
Blackwell et al. (2007) conducted an intervention study regarding the relationship
between student theory of intelligence and mathematics achievement with junior high school
students. The authors hypothesized that differing theories of intelligence cause distinct
motivational patterns, wherein students with a malleable theory of intelligence are less
susceptible to frustration or discouragement in the face of adversity. In contrast, students with a
fixed theory of intelligence believe that individuals have a certain amount of ability and that
challenging tasks will reveal the limits of intelligence. As a result, students with a fixed theory
avoid challenging tasks and experience anxiety during assessments. In the Blackwell et al. study,
students who identified with a malleable theory of intelligence were found to be associated with a
growth trajectory for mathematics achievement over 2 years, and students who identified with a
fixed theory of intelligence were found to be associated with a gradually declining trajectory of
mathematics achievement.
Blackwell et al. (2007) then designed an intervention to teach students about a malleable
theory of intelligence. The intervention was delivered in the form of one 25-minute instructional
14
period per week for 8 weeks. Lessons included information about the structure and function of
the brain, the incremental theory of intelligence, and study skills. The overarching message was
that learning alters the brain. The intervention was based upon experimental materials developed
in previous lab studies (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997). Results from the study demonstrated that
teaching students about a malleable theory of intelligence had a significant impact on a student’s
implicit theory of intelligence. The intervention group also demonstrated an association between
a belief in the malleable theory of intelligence and a growth trajectory in math achievement (d =
.62; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007).
Walton and Cohen (2011) tested the efficacy of a brief intervention targeting college
freshman’s sense of social belonging. The authors hypothesized that African Americans, Latino
Americans, and other non-Asian ethnic minorities may be at greater risk for concern about social
belonging at school and that these concerns lead to higher levels of frustration and anxiety.
Similar to the Wilson and Linville (1985) intervention, participants were shown survey results
demonstrating that senior students at their school had initially worried about social belonging but
grew confident over time. Based on previous research indicating that people tend to endorse
messages they have advocated (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002), participants were asked to write
an essay describing how their own experiences in college matched the results of the survey.
Results indicated that the GPAs of African American students in the treatment condition showed
a significant increase over time (d = .20), whereas the GPAs of African American students in the
control condition showed no change. In addition, African American students in the treatment
condition reported a significantly higher sense of social belonging than African American
students in the control condition, following intervention (Walton & Cohen, 2011).
Each intervention targets specific cognitions during transition periods, and each of the
cognitions targeted are relevant to the middle school transition. The intervention developed by
Wilson and Linville targeted fears about capability during the transition to college. Blackwell et
15
al. (2007) developed an intervention targeting implicit theories about the malleability of
intelligence, and Walton and Cohen’s (2011) intervention targeted the sense of social belonging
experienced by college freshman. The interventions were successful due not only to the
cognitions targeted but also the structure of intervention delivery.
Characteristics of Successful Attributional Interventions
Yeager and Walton (2011) published a review of research on attributional interventions
in education, and described the qualities of successful attributional interventions. Successful
attributional interventions in education directly reflect the lived experience of students, target
critical transition periods, enlist students in the creation of intervention materials, utilize elements
of the psychology of persuasion to deliver the treatment message, and deliver the treatment
message in a way that Yeager and Walton (2011) characterized as “stealthy” (p. 284).
Successful attributional interventions in education begin with a precise understanding of
students’ subjective experience in the school environment, not just as it appears to teachers,
parents, or researchers. The intervention can only be successful inasmuch as it speaks directly to
how the school is perceived by the student (Yeager & Walton, 2011). Interventions can achieve
these effects by enlisting students in the production of the intervention materials, themselves. For
example, Wilson and Linville (1985) implemented an intervention conveying that students
struggle during the first year of college but gradually improve their grades. Rather than providing
direct instruction of this material, the researchers videotaped older students describing their
transition to college.
The Wilson and Linville (1985) example is instructive because it also includes elements
of both subtlety and persuasion. For example, students in the Wilson and Linville study were not
initially informed that they were participating in an intervention. Rather, participants were told
they were needed to help interpret the results of a study of upper-year students. The intervention
employed a form of mild deception to communicate the treatment message. Yeager and Walton
16
(2011) suggested that direct instruction of a treatment message can actually be counterproductive
to the goals of the intervention. Participants may feel stigmatized by direct appeals because they
signal to the students that they are in need of intervention. In addition, the intervention can be
considered “stealthy” because students may not be aware that the intervention has shifted
attributions, and may not be capable of actively recalling the treatment message of the
intervention. Lastly, students take greater ownership of subsequent success and feel less
controlled by the message when they attribute success to self-derived thought and motivation
(Yeager & Walton, 2011).
Participants in successful attributional interventions in education are often asked to
advocate the treatment message to a fictional audience, such as younger students. Walton and
Cohen (2011) asked participants to write an essay, making connections to their own lives,
describing the results of the survey and what it might mean for students just starting college. This
written portion was included because, as noted by Walton and Cohen (2011), individuals are
more likely to endorse messages that they have freely advocated (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002).
Participants are more likely to internalize and believe in the treatment message of the intervention
if they repeat the message in their own words. Thus, the mechanism for shifting attributions is
inherent in the process of rephrasing the survey results.
Attributional interventions purportedly generate long-lasting benefits by setting into
motion recursive psychological processes when implemented during a transition period (Yeager
& Walton, 2011). Storms and McCaul (1976) described negative attributions as the start of an
exacerbation cycle. In this cycle, people experience an adverse event, and make a negative
attribution about the cause of the adverse event. Then, the negative attribution causes the
individual to experience anxiety, which makes performance of the desired behavior even more
difficult (Storms & McCaul, 1976). The converse is also possible wherein an individual
experiences a positive event, makes an attribution about high-effort behaviors that led to the
17
success, high-effort behaviors are reinforced, and the individual continues to experience success.
Thus, shifting attributions to effortful behavior and experiencing small gains will open the door to
further success.
The timing of attributional interventions is crucial because they aid students in
interpreting new experiences. As such, Yeager and Walton (2011) suggested it may be necessary
to implement attributional interventions during educational transitions. Many studies have
focused on the transition to college (e.g., Aronson et al., 2002; Menec et al., 2004; Nelum-Hart et
al., 1999; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Wilson & Linville, 1985) because it represents a period during
which students are expected to assume new responsibilities and achieve at a higher level of
academic rigor. The transition to middle school represents a similar period of increased
responsibility and academic rigor for students, but fewer attributional interventions have
addressed the fears associated with middle school and adolescence.
Adapting Attributional Interventions for the Middle School Transition
Adolescent students making the transition to middle school are particularly susceptible to
negative attributions because this transition period involves many changes for students as well as
aspects of their experiences in school. Adolescence is a period of rapid physical maturation.
Adolescents typically experience significant weight gain, growth in height, and changes to the
body associated with sexual maturation (Santrock, 2009). The brain also undergoes several
structural changes during adolescence. The connective tissue between the right and left
hemispheres of the brain, known as the corpus callosum, is strengthened (Gied et al., 2006). The
amygdala, a structure within the brain linked with emotional response, matures during
adolescence (Santrock, 2009).
Beyond the physical changes to the body, there are changes to the structure of the school
environment (Simmons & Blyth, 1987), changes in academic expectations (Eccles, 2004), and
changes in social experience (Farmer, Hamm, Leung, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2011). Mistakes are
18
a natural and common aspect of adapting to the new expectations placed on students in middle
school. However, when problems first occur, students are at risk of attributing their cause to
internal and unchangeable traits or personality characteristics. Successful attributional
interventions in education begin with a clear understanding of the student’s experience of the
school environment.
Students making the transition to middle school will typically move from several,
smaller-population elementary schools to a single, larger-population middle school. Students in
elementary school classrooms spend the majority of the day in a single room learning different
subjects with one teacher, whereas middle school students move between classrooms throughout
the day, interact with several subject-based teachers, and independently manage their belongings
with the use of a locker (Simmons & Blyth, 1987). In addition, elementary school classrooms
eschew ability tracking, favoring within-classroom ability grouping for reading and math. A
single elementary school classroom is typically heterogeneous for ability levels. Beginning in
middle school, it is more common to find between-class tracking, such that students will begin to
take classes in separate tracks during high school (Eccles, 2004).
The start of middle school often entails a change in academic expectations. When
grading student academic work, middle school teachers are stricter and employ more social
comparison-based standards than elementary school teachers (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks,
1995). Teacher control and discipline are given greater emphasis by middle school teachers, and
the typical middle school classroom offers fewer opportunities for student decision making,
choice, and self-management in comparison to late elementary school classrooms (Eccles, 2004).
Middle school teachers are less likely than their elementary counterparts to view responsibility
for students’ mental health concerns as a part of their role (Roeser & Midgley, 1997). At a
school-level, it is more common for middle schools to emphasize relative ability, competition,
and social comparison through the use of public honor rolls, assemblies for the highest achieving
19
students, class rankings, and even ability-level tracking of classes (Eccles, 2004). These
practices promote a focus on ability and can favor an entity view over an incremental view of
intelligence (Wilson & Buttrick, 2016).
When students believe that school promotes an ability-focus over mastery-focus,
achievement and self-esteem decline whereas anger, depressive symptoms, and school truancy
increase (Roeser & Eccles, 1998). In contrast, when students believe that school promotes a
mastery-focus, students’ and teachers’ sense of personal efficacy is increased, achievement
increases, and teachers are viewed by students as friendly, caring, and respectful (Eccles, 2004;
Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). The features that are common to most middle schools
(Eccles, 2004) promote an ability-focus. These results dovetail with the work conducted by
Dweck and Leggett (1988).
The transition to middle school coincides with changes in social experience. As noted in
the previous paragraphs, the relationships between teachers and students are affected by the
transition to middle school (Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995; Roeser & Midgley, 1997). Peer
relationships are also altered during the transition. Adolescents begin to seek approval from peers
above teachers and parents, and peer relationships are given greater emphasis by middle school
students (Farmer, Hamm, Leung, Lambert, & Gravelle, 2011). Witherspoon and Ennett (2011)
found, in a longitudinal study, that adolescents’ sense of belonging declined during the first year
of middle school. In similar fashion, middle school students have demonstrated lower levels of
connection to school than their elementary school counterparts (Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991).
In an international comparison, students in U.S. middle schools, on the whole, considered the
peer culture of the school to be unkind and unsupportive (Juvonen et al., 2004).
Negative social and academic outcomes associated with transitioning to middle school
are believed to be products of the constructed environment. For example, scores on standardized
achievement tests do not show the same marked decline during the transition to middle school
20
which may suggest that declines in grades are a product of changes in grading policies (Eccles,
2004). In contrast to the goals of all school professionals involved, the middle school
environment may actually contribute to negative recursive processes, setting many students up to
believe that they will fail regardless of effort and setting others up to believe that they will
succeed only by ability. As a consequence, students who believe they will fail in school may
choose not to try at all, and students who believe they have ability will choose only those tasks
that affirm their ability. However, a brief attributional intervention targeting the experience of
elementary school students transitioning to middle school may disrupt the negative recursive
processes and set students up for success during middle and high school.
Effects of Mind-set Interventions
Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, and Macnamara (2018) completed two meta-analyses to
determine the size of the relationship between growth mind-sets and achievement and mind-set
interventions and achievement. The first meta-analysis focused on examining the relationship
between growth mind-set and academic achievement, and the second focused on the relationship
between growth mind-set interventions and academic achievement. The results from the first
meta-analysis (n = 129 studies) indicated the relationship between growth mind-sets and
academic achievement is weak (r = .1). The authors then examined the relationship between
growth mind-set interventions and academic achievement. Results of this second meta-analysis (n
= 29 studies) indicated that mind-set interventions did not yield significant gains in academic
achievement for adolescents, typical students, and students facing situational challenges, such as
those transitioning from one school to another.
Despite these findings, Sisk et al. noted that growth mind-set interventions might still be
effective for certain subgroups. Specifically, they found that growth mind-set interventions may
benefit students with high risk for academic failure or those from families with fewer economic
resources. Interventions containing interactive components, such as reading about growth mind-
21
set and writing a reflection also were more effective than passive interventions where students
simply read about growth mind-set.
Lastly, the Sisk et al. meta-analyses restricted their focus to the relationship between
mind-set interventions, a subset of the broader attributional research, and a single student
outcome variable, academic achievement. The studies outlined in Table 1, however, feature many
types of attributional interventions. In addition, results from these studies demonstrate that
attributional interventions have been associated with a variety of outcomes, such as reductions in
stress, shame, aggressive retaliation, and negative health outcomes. These types of interventions
also have been associated with improvements in sense of social belonging, motivation, and
academic achievement (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager et al., 2014; Yeager et
al., 2016; Yeager, Miu, Powers, & Dweck, 2013).
Theory of Change
The present study is rooted in the field of attribution theory. Figure 1, adapted from the
work of Kelley and Michela (1980), provides a helpful framework for understanding the
relationship between attributions, outcomes, and the target of the intervention. The foci of
attribution theory can be divided into four main parts: antecedents, implicit theories, attributions,
and consequences. Antecedents are all of the elements that lead an individual to attribute one
cause to an event. Implicit theories, described by Dweck and Leggett (1988) as an “implicit
conception about the nature of ability” (p. 262), appear between antecedents and attributions.
Implicit theories provide a quick framework for interpreting the causes for success and failure.
Consequences are the experiences of the individual after making a particular attribution. In
Dweck and Leggett’s (1988) model, a low grade on an assignment in school would be considered
an antecedent, the student’s implicit theory about intelligence would guide the attribution, the
actual perceived cause for the low grade is the attribution, and any subsequent behavior or
emotional state prompted by the attribution are the consequences. Notably, a distinction exists
22
between “attribution” research, which focuses on how people make attributions, and
“attributional” research, which focuses on how attributions shape consequences (Kelley &
Michela, 1980).
23 Figure 1
Prior
Experience
Beliefs
Ability
Personality
Perceived Causes
of Success and
Failure
Behavior
Affect
Expectancy
Antecedents Implicit Theories Attributions Consequences
Self-perpetuating Processes
Point of Intervention
Attribution
Attributional
24
The attributional process can be recursive. The arrow labeled self-perpetuating processes
acknowledges this fact. When students have antecedents that result in an implicit theory of fixed
intelligence, a low grade is attributed to fixed intelligence. Within the implicit theory of fixed
intelligence effort is viewed as useless because the outcome is predetermined by the fixed
intelligence. The low grade is attributed to ability not effort. Students facing a new academic
challenge after a low grade have decreased motivation and engagement resulting in a greater
likelihood for a second low grade. The second low grade serves as further evidence of low, fixed
intelligence; it is now the antecedent for the next academic task. Thus, the process repeats itself.
Recursive processes can work for and against a student. In the previous example, the
antecedents leading to an implicit theory of fixed intelligence set in motion a negative recursive
process that harmed the student’s achievement. However, antecedents yielding to implicit theory
of malleable intelligence would lead a student to attribute a low grade to lack of effort. The
student facing a new academic challenge after a low grade would likely have higher motivation to
study and a greater likelihood for a higher grade. The higher grade affirms the attribution to
effort, and the positive recursive process repeats itself. It is important to distinguish between the
positive and negative recursive processes because the goal of the intervention is to set in motion a
positive recursive process.
The present study is “attributional” research in that the goal of the intervention is to
change attributions to achieve a series of desired outcomes in school. The previous section
detailed the many ways students can experience adversity during the transition to middle school.
The challenges of the middle school environment, along with the previous experiences and beliefs
of each student, make up the antecedents, as seen in Figure 1, for the current study. The students’
implicit theories about personality formation and intelligence are based on the antecedents. The
student’s sense of social belonging, academic motivation, and achievement are the consequences
of interest. The current intervention is intended to direct student attributions during a critical time
25
period in order to establish a positive recursive process. The intervention will provide a
framework for students to interpret the challenges posed by the middle school environment, such
that failures can be attributed to transient and changeable factors and success can be attributed to
individual effort.
Rationale, Purpose, and Hypotheses
The transition to middle school is often characterized by turmoil. It is a time associated
with achievement loss, increases in teacher control, and decreases in the quality of student-
teacher relationships (Alspaugh, 1998; Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991). It is also a period of
remarkable physical, mental, and social growth. Given previous studies have indicated that
attribution interventions can alter trajectories of growth, particularly during periods of transition,
the purpose of the present study was to develop and test an intervention targeting student
attributions regarding adversity experienced during the transition to middle school.
The intervention developed as part of the present study focused on the attributions
students make regarding achievement loss and feelings of social alienation during the transition to
middle school. Specifically, the present study addressed the following research question, “Does
an attributional intervention targeting social belonging and achievement loss during the transition
to middle school improve academic achievement, motivation, and sense of social belonging?” To
answer this question, I developed an intervention targeting student attributions and tested
hypotheses regarding proximal (attribution), medial (belonging & motivation), and distal
(academic achievement) outcomes for middle school students.
Specifically, hypothesis for the proximal outcome was that exposure to the attribution
intervention changes student attributions about social belonging and achievement. This
hypothesis was based on the findings of Aronson et al. (2002), Blackwell et al., (2007), and Perry,
Stupnisky, Hall, Chipperfield, and Weiner (2010). The second hypothesis was that exposure to
the attribution intervention increases academic motivation, and this hypothesis was based on the
26
work of Dweck and Leggett (1988), Dweck (1975), and Mueller and Dweck (1998). Based on
the findings of Miu and Yeager (2014), Walton and Cohen (2007), and Yeager et al. (2014), the
third hypothesis was that the attribution intervention increases students’ sense of social belonging
during the first year of middle school. The fourth hypothesis was that the attribution intervention
improves academic achievement during the first year of middle school (Blackwell et al., (2007),
Martens, Johns, Greenberg, and Schimel (2006), Mueller and Dweck (1998), Wilson and Linville,
1985). A final set of hypotheses was tested. The attribution intervention was hypothesized to
yield larger gains for students with low prior achievement (Blackwell et al., 2007; Wilson &
Linville, 1985), students of minority status (Walton & Cohen, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011),
and female students (Martens et al., 2006).
27
Chapter 2
Method
Participants
Participants were drawn from a public middle school and a charter middle school, part of
the Uncommon Schools, Inc. (USI) in the mid-Atlantic U.S. Power was calculated based upon a
post hoc achieved power analysis of a fixed model, linear multiple regression using the G*Power
software package. Based upon these analyses the achieved power was 0.24.
As mentioned previously, 550 students from three middle schools were invited to
participate. However, one school dropped out owing to technological difficulties associated with
the treatment and control modules host website. In total, 460 students were invited to participate
from the two remaining schools. The sample consisted of 129 fifth- and sixth-grade (81 5th and
52 6th) students.
Figure 2 shows the flow of participants through the present study. Figure 2 is adapted
from the CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram (Moher et al., 2010).
28
Figure 2. Flow of participants through study protocol
Assessed for eligibility (n = 550)
Excluded (n = 417) ♦ One middle school dropped out
owing to technological difficulty in implementation (n = 93)
♦ Did not complete module (n = 23) ♦ Did not return an informed consent
/ declined to participate (n = 304)
• Lost to follow-up (students left school; n = 2) • Did not return paper forms for motivation and
social belonging (student nonresponse; n = 30)
• Did not return paper forms for motivation and social belonging (one school site did not distribute forms; n = 38)
• Allocated to intervention (n = 66) • Did not receive allocated intervention (n =
0)
• Lost to follow-up (students left school; n = 1) • Did not return paper forms for motivation and
social belonging (one school site did not distribute forms; n = 34)
• Allocated to control (n = 67) • Did not receive allocated intervention (n =
0)
• Lost to follow-up (students left school; n = 1) • Did not return paper forms for motivation and
social belonging (student nonresponse; n = 32)
Long-termFollow-up
Short-TermFollow-Up
Randomized (n = 133)
Enrollment
Treatment Control
• Analysed (achievement data was not impacted by student nonresponse; n = 64)
• Multiple imputation was used with missing data
• Analysed (achievement data was not impacted by student nonresponse; n = 65)
• Multiple imputation was used with missing data
AnalyzedSample
29
Demographic characteristics by condition are reported in Table 2. Participants were 133
(73 female, 56 male, and 4 individuals for whom no gender information was available). The
treatment and control groups contained similar percentages of female and male students, students
of each racial/ethnic group, and students from each school site.
Table 2 Demographic Variables for Treatment and Control Treatment Control Variable % (N = 64) %(N = 65) Gender Female 53 60 Male 47 40 Race/Ethnicity Black/African American
44 49
White/Caucasian 42 38 Hispanic 8 14 Asian 0 2 Other 0 2 Site School 1 41 40 School 2 64 62
Measures
Multiple measures were used to assess the hypothesized proximal (attributions), medial
(social belonging & academic motivation) and distal (academic achievement) outcomes.
Attribution (Proximal outcome). Attribution was measured using a questionnaire based
on a measure developed by Blackwell et al. (2007). Students read a brief hypothetical scenario
wherein they are asked to imagine the first week at a new school and several experiences that
could prompt feelings of social rejection and academic failure. Students were then asked to rate
their likely response to items on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Agree Strongly) to 6
(Disagree Strongly). Items included positive attributions, such as, “The first week at this school
was hard, but it was only one week. I’ll give this school a chance,” and negative attributions, such
30
as, “I don’t fit in at this school.” Internal consistency was calculated based on the present sample.
The attribution measure consisted of 6 items (α = .708).
Motivation (Medial outcome). Motivation and engagement were measured using two
scales from the student version of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales (ACES; DiPerna
& Elliott, 1999). The scores between the two scales were found to have correlations ranging from
.52 - .71 at each of the three time points in the present study. The two measures were combined
into a single score for the present study. Internal consistency was calculated based on the present
sample. The engagement subscale consisted of 8 items (α = .763). The motivation subscale
consisted of 9 items (α = .827).
The self-report was selected despite being slightly below the intended age range, because
self-report measures will give greater insight regarding student self-perceptions. Exploratory
factor analyses supported the hypothesized five-factor structure of academic competence, and
reliability estimates (internal consistency) are high (>.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated
through moderate correlation of the ACES teacher ratings with the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS), ranging from .31 - .84, and the Academic Competence scale of the Social Skills Rating
System – Teacher Form (SSRS-T), ranging from .43 - .87 (DiPerna & Elliott, 1999). Cronbach’s
alpha for the two scales was .785
Social belonging (Medial outcome). Social belonging was assessed using the Child and
Adolescent Social Support Scale (CASSS), a 60-item measure divided into six subscales
(Malecki, Demaray, & Elliott, 2014). The CASSS is intended for children from third through
twelfth grade. Two subscales of the CASSS were used: Social Belonging to People at School and
Social Belonging to Classmates. The correlations between the two subscales ranged from .63 to
.68 at each of the three time points in the present study. Similar to the score for motivation, the
two measures were combined into a single score for social belonging for the current study.
Internal consistency was calculated based on the present sample. The Social Belonging to
31
Classmates subscale consisted of 12 items (α = .949). The Social Belonging to People at School
subscale consisted of 12 items (α = .967).
Internal consistency estimates for the CASSS are adequate (>.87). The Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha for the Level 1 scale was .94 and ranged from .87 to .93 on the four subscales
(Malecki & Demaray, 2002). Factor analyses conducted by Malecki and Demaray (2002) and
Rueger, Malecki, and Demaray (2010) supported a Source-Based Model of social support.
Convergent validity was demonstrated by the correlation of total scores on the CASSS with the
Social Support Scale for Children (SSSC; Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray, 2010). Correlation
between the total scale scores was .70. Validity was further supported via moderate to high
intercorrelations among the subscales, ranging from .20 to .54 (Malecki & Demaray, 2002).
Academic achievement (Distal outcome). Academic achievement was measured via
grades. Student grades are summarized and reviewed quarterly throughout the year at School 1
and School 2. Grades were calculated at each quarter based on student achievement in Math,
English Language Arts, History, and Science classes. A grade point average system ranging from
0.0 to 4.0 (A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, B+ = 3.3, B = 3.0, B- = 2.7, C+ = 2.3, C = 2.0, C- = 1.7, D+ = 1.3, D
= 1.0) was used to calculate a cumulative GPA for each quarter.
Procedures
Intervention development. Intervention materials were based on previous research
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Walton & Cohen, 2011; Wilson & Linville, 1985)
and informed by a focus group of seventh- and eighth-grade students. Focus group questions
were modeled after those in the Wilson and Linville (1985) survey of upper-year students,
although the questions were modified to ensure an age-appropriate reading level and middle
school transition content. Specifically, participants responded to questions regarding
achievement and social belonging during the initial transition to middle school. In addition,
participants were asked to describe how perceptions of achievement and social belonging
32
changed during their middle school experience. The results and videotaped interviews were
edited to highlight the treatment message, which is that most students experience academic
struggles and a decrease in sense of social belonging during the transition to middle school, but
these feelings are temporary and most students make friends and improve grades. A copy of the
questions used with the focus group of seventh- and eighth-grade students is included in the
appendix. These questions were informed by the survey questions utilized by Wilson and
Linville (1985) in their intervention targeting college student fears about academic achievement.
Intervention implementation. As shown in Figure 2, fifth-grade students with parental
permission were randomly assigned to the treatment and control conditions. Both the web-based
treatment and control computer modules took approximately 30 minutes to complete. A laptop
cart was brought to each classroom, and each student was given a laptop and headphones. The
researcher presented brief instructions about how to sign in to the module. In addition, all
students were told that the computer module would present information about adjusting to middle
school, and each student’s task was to communicate these results to future students. Once
students completed the login to the computer module, they were routed to the treatment or control
condition. The module presented information via slides, audio dictation, and brief video clips of
upper-year students. The instructions, login, and presentation of information took approximately
15 minutes to complete. Students were given an additional 15-20 minutes to respond to the brief
writing prompt and complete the Time 1 surveys. The responses were stored on the server, and
students then returned to school activity. Examples of screenshots from web-based treatment
conditions from model interventions can be found in the appendix.
Students in the treatment condition were presented with a screen welcoming students to
middle school and informing them that they would now receive information about what it means
to be a middle school student. Students were presented with the edited results of a focus group
with upper-year students, and students were instructed to aid future students in understanding the
33
results. The results of the survey were presented visually and orally over the course of several
screens. Three brief video clips comprised the final three screens. The clips displayed upper-
year students (1 male and 2 females) communicating the treatment message regarding academic
motivation, sense of social belonging, and achievement. The brief writing prompt asked students
in the treatment condition to describe the results of the survey and what it means for students just
starting middle school in a two- or three-paragraph essay. Students were asked to make
connections to their own lives. The writing activity was included in the intervention protocol
because, as noted by Walton and Cohen (2011), individuals are more likely to endorse messages
that they have freely advocated (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). Participants are more likely to
internalize and believe in the treatment message of the intervention if they repeat the message in
their own words. Thus, the mechanism for shifting attributions is inherent in the process of
rephrasing the survey results.
Students in the control condition were also presented with the same initial screen
welcoming students to middle school and informing them that they were about to receive
information about what it means to be a middle school student. Students were then presented
with information about the academic demands of the middle school environment and study
strategies to accommodate those demands. The information was presented visually and audibly
over the course of several screens. The brief writing prompt asked students in the control
condition to describe the study skills necessary for success in the middle school environment.
Data collection and timeline. Data were collected at four time points during the year
(pre-treatment, post-treatment, short-term follow-up, and long-term follow-up). Table 3 shows
when the primary outcome variables were collected. The planned initiation of treatment and
control modules was after the first quarter of the year so that students would have already
received their initial report cards. Both school sites completed baseline data collection,
intervention implementation and the immediate post-treatment data collection over a 4-week
34
period in late fall (owing to difficulties stemming from the schools’ firewalls blocking the hosting
website). Short-term follow-up achievement was collected 10 weeks following baseline data
collection, and short-term follow-up academic motivation and social belonging measures were
collected 13 weeks following intervention implementation. Long-term follow-up measures were
completed just prior to the end of the school year at both schools. These measures were collected
approximately 10 weeks after short-term follow-up measures were collected (the school year
ended on different dates and there was slight variation in data collection as a result).
Table 3
Time Points for Collection of Primary Outcome Variables
Variables Pre-treatment Post-treatment Short-term Follow-up
Long-term Follow-up
Attribution √ √ -- --
Motivation √ √ √ Social Belonging
√ √ √
Academic Achievement
√ √ √ √
Data Analyses
Hierarchical linear regression was used to test the hypotheses related to intervention
effects on attribution, motivation, social belonging, and academic achievement. The following is
a Level 1 regression equation for each student, represented by the subscript j, to predict academic
achievement.
Υij = β0 + β1j(prior achievement) + β2(gender) + β3(race) + β4j(intervention) +
β5j(interaction) + eij
where Υ represents each of the three outcome variables; β1j represents the main effect of prior
achievement on the outcome variable, β2j represents the main effect of gender status on the
outcome variable, β3j represents the main effect of race/ethnicity status on the outcome variable,
35
β4j represents the main effect of intervention status on the outcome variable, and β5j represents an
interaction term. Interaction terms were entered into the model to test the hypotheses that the
treatment would be more effective for female students, students with low prior achievement, and
students of minority status. These interaction terms were tested separately given the size of the
model. No prior measure or baseline was available for the measures of social belonging and
motivation. As such, the equation was the same for these measures, but the pretest for the
measure was not included as a predictor.
Missing Data
Percentage of missing values ranged from 0 for some baseline measures (e.g.,
achievement) to 54.9% for the measure of motivation at short-term follow-up. 15.34% of all
values in the study were missing. Missingness was largely confined to the measures of motivation
and social belonging at the two follow-up time points. Data were missing at short-term follow-up
because of administrator failure to distribute the rating scales to students at School 1 within the
time specified, and data were missing at long-term follow-up primarily because of student
nonresponse. As such, a multiple imputation (MI) procedure (Manly & Wells, 2013) was used to
address missing data. Specifically, MI was used to address the missing social belonging and
motivation data at short-term and long-term follow-up. The problem of missing data is addressed
using the MI technique including all analysis variables under the assumption that missing values
are missing at random (Schafer & Graham, 2002). SPSS was used to generate 40 imputed
datasets, and visual inspection of imputation convergence led to the choice of 100 burn-in
iterations. Analyses from each dataset were pooled according to Rubin’s (1987) guidelines.
Pooling was completed using SPSS. Results using listwise deletion are similar to MI; so imputed
results are presented for the social belonging and motivation measures at short-term and long-
term follow-up.
36
Chapter 3
Results
Assumptions
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for the key outcome variables. Prior to running the
primary analyses, data were examined to determine if they met assumptions for each of the
analyses conducted. Linearity was tested by plotting the residuals against the independent
variables in each of the analyses. The lowess fit lines were close to the regression lines for each
of the independent variables, indicating no departure from linearity. Boxplots of the residuals,
clustered by school site, were examined to test the assumption of independence of errors.
Variability was evident by school site in achievement, motivation, and sense of social belonging.
As such, school site was initially included as a covariate. However, given the fact that students of
minority status were grouped almost entirely within one school site, the school site covariate was
dropped. Normality of the residuals were examined via the histograms and p-p plots. Although
the histograms showed some heteroscedasticity, the p-p plots show straight lines. As a result, the
assumption of independence of errors was not violated.
37
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for the Primary Outcome Variables by Time and Condition Treatment Control Predictor Variable n M (SD) Skew Kurtosis n M (SD) Skew Kurtosis Attribution
Pre-treatment 66 7.08 (5.01) .956 .854 67 6.76 (5.63) 1.154 .806
Post-treatment 63 7.29 (5.25) .279 -.788 62 7.05 (5.97) .721 -.013
Achievement
Baseline 66 3.03 (.694) -.547 -.576 67 2.99 (0.85) -.368 -1.128
Post-treatment 66 3.07 (.64) -.712 -.057 66 3.04 (.745) -.437 -.901
Short-term 66 3.09 (.64) -.655 -.256 65 3.09 (.714) -.548 -.744
Long-term 64 3.08 (.76) -1.27 .978 64 3.06 (.891) -.952 -.299
Motivation
Post-treatment 66 32.6 (5.89) -.534 -.236 66 32.31 (5.23) -.757 .595
Short-term 28 34.55 (5.55) -.953 .259 32 33.5 (6.02) -.230 -.980
Long-term 35 30.74 (7.09) -.624 .635 34 34.6 (5.86) -.723 .060
Social Belonging Post-treatment 59 47.94 (14.63) -.136 -1.01 64 48.87 (15.45) -.368 -.669
Short-term 30 50.82 (14.92) -.585 -.448 34 50.33 (17.1) -.619 -.363
Long-term 36 43.82 (16.34) .058 -.623 33 48.26 (15.72) -.392 -.692
Note. Smaller sample sizes for short- and long-term follow-up for social belonging and motivation due to technological difficulties.
38
Skew and kurtosis were analyzed to determine if data met assumptions of normality. A
significance level of p < .01 was selected based on recommendations from Field (2009). Several
of the outcome variables had statistically significant values of skewness (i.e., achievement at
post-intervention, short-term and long-term follow-up, attribution at baseline, and motivation at
post-intervention). The values of skewness indicate moderate skewness. The significant values do
not indicate a concern. Field (2009) recommends visual inspection of histograms. As noted
above, data met assumptions of normality. None of the outcome variables had significant values
for kurtosis at p < .01. Data met assumptions of normality for kurtosis. All variables also were
examined for outliers, and none were identified. In addition, the variables were examined by
ethnic/racial groups and treatment status to determine if there were outliers within groups. One
potential outlier was identified at a single time point; however, dropping this outlier did not alter
the findings, and the individual’s scores from other time points were not outliers. As such, the
score was included in the analyses.
Myers (1990) indicated when any VIF > 10 there is cause for concern regarding
multicollinearity. Bowerman and O’Connell (1990) suggested that if the average VIF is much
greater than 1 there may also be a problem with multicollinearity. Neither condition was met in
the current data. Menard (2002) provides guidelines indicating that tolerance values below 0.2
indicate potential problems. All tolerance values were > 0.2. The suggested criteria indicate the
data did not demonstrate multicollinearity. Thus, the data met assumptions of normality and were
appropriate for analysis and interpretation.
Proximal Outcome
Attribution (Hypothesis 1). Table 5 presents results of the multiple regression analyses
of treatment status predicting a post-treatment measure of attribution. Baseline measure of
attribution was a positive predictor of post-intervention measure of attribution indicating that
students with a higher score on the baseline measure of attribution scored higher on the post-
39
intervention measure of attribution. The relationships between the remaining predictor variables
and post-intervention measure of attribution were not statistically significant.
Each of the interaction terms was tested separately. The only interaction term that was
found to have a significant relationship was the interaction between treatment status and minority
status. As a result, this model is the one presented in the tables. Other models were run with the
treatment status by gender interaction and the treatment status by prior achievement interaction.
These models are not presented in the tables because the interaction terms were not significant.
Table 5 Intervention Effects on Attributions at Post-treatment
Predictor Variable β p ∆R2
Baseline .690 .000 .503 Female -.020 .760 .000 Minority Status .064 .338 .004 Treatment .024 .723 .000 Treatment X Minority Status
-.089 .189 .007
Note. N=125; nTreatment= 63, ncontrol= 62
Medial Outcomes
Motivation (Hypothesis 2). Table 6 presents results of the multiple regression analyses
of treatment status predicting student-rated motivation at post-treatment, short-term follow-up,
and long-term follow-up. None of the relationships were significant at post-treatment or short-
term follow-up. Treatment status was a negative predictor of motivation at long-term follow-up.
The interactions between treatment and achievement, treatment and race/ethnicity, and treatment
and gender were tested to determine if the intervention was more effective for students of
minority status, students with low prior achievement, and for female students. None of the
interaction terms were significant at post-treatment, short-term follow-up, or long-term follow-up.
40
Table 6 Intervention Effects on Student Motivation at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up Predictor Variable β p ∆R2
Post-treatment Female -.02 .833 .000 Minority Status -.052 .581 .002 Treatment .017 .864 .000 Treatment x Minority Status
-.032 .744 .001
Short-Term Female -.011 .902 .000 - .011 Minority Status .212 .465 .000 - .121 Treatment -.126 .328 .000 - .209 Treatment x Minority Status
.182 .274 .000 - .319
Long-Term Female .055 .585 .000 - .022 Minority Status .057 .55 .000 - .025 Treatment -.217 .008 .025 - .197 Treatment x Minority Status
.061 .723 .000 - .037
Note. N= 133
Social belonging (Hypothesis 3). Table 7 presents results of the multiple regression
analyses of treatment status predicting student-rated social belonging at post-treatment, short-
term follow-up, and long-term follow-up. The results for social belonging follow a similar pattern
to the relationships between treatment status and motivation. None of the relationships were
statistically significant, and none of the interaction terms were significant at all time points.
41
Table 7 Intervention Effects on Social Belonging at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up Predictor Variable β p ∆R2
Post-treatment Female -.147 .105 .022 Minority Status .037 .677 .001 Treatment .014 .879 .000 Treatment X Minority Status
.025 .788 .001
Short-Term Female .071 .444 .000 - .014 Minority Status .003 .99 .000 - .18 Treatment .116 .344 .000 – 264 Treatment X Minority Status
-.122 .372 .000 - .316
Long-Term Female -.01 .914 .000 - .03 Minority Status .101 .297 .000 - .116 Treatment -.052 .522 .000 - .081 Treatment X Minority Status
.102 .463 .000 - .049
Note. N= 133
Distal Outcome
Achievement (Hypothesis 4). Table 8 presents results of the multiple regression analyses
of treatment status predicting achievement at post-treatment, short-term follow-up, and long-term
follow-up. After controlling for baseline achievement, minority status had a significant
relationship with academic achievement at short-term follow-up (∆R2 = .02), whereby students
identified as belonging to a racial minority group exhibited greater achievement. None of the
other main effects were significant at any time point.
The interaction between treatment status and minority status was significant at short-term
follow-up (∆R2=.012), indicating that students in a racial minority in the treatment group had
greater achievement than their peers in the control group at short-term follow-up. In addition,
students who identify as Caucasian in the treatment group had lower achievement than their peers
42
in the control group. Figure 3 presents a plot of the interaction between treatment status and
minority status. The interaction between treatment status and minority status was not significant
at either post-treatment or long-term follow-up. The interactions between treatment and
achievement and treatment and gender were tested to determine if the intervention was more
effective for students with low prior achievement and for female students. None of the interaction
terms were statistically significant at post-treatment, short-term follow-up, or long-term follow-
up.
Table 8 Intervention Effects on Achievement at Post-treatment, Short-term, and Long-term Follow-up Predictor Variable β p ∆R2
Post-Treatment Baseline .929 .000 .808 Female .036 .371 .001 Minority Status .062 .246 .003 Treatment -.007 .859 .000 Treatment X Minority Status
.053 .195 .003
Short-Term Baseline .905 .000 .661 Female .072 .156 .006 Minority Status .174 .012 .020 Treatment -.031 .541 .000 Treatment X Minority Status
.113 .030 .012
Long-Term Baseline .737 .000 .587 Female .048 .416 .002 Minority Status -.020 .801 .000 Treatment -.020 .732 .000
Treatment X Minority Status
.066 .271 .004
Note. N= 126.
43
Figure 3 Estimated marginal means of achievement at short-term follow-up
44
Follow-up Analyses
The significant interaction effect between minority status and intervention on academic
achievement was explored in a follow-up analysis. Specifically, a six-group orthogonal planned
comparison using multiple regression was run to examine if the intervention was more effective
for students who identify as Black or students who identify as Hispanic. The results were not
statistically significant at p < .05, but two of the time points (i.e., post-intervention and long-term
follow-up) met a less stringent threshold of p < .10.
Given these findings and the exploratory nature of these analyses, the estimated marginal
means of the three main ethnic/racial groups (i.e., African American, Hispanic, & Caucasian)
were plotted to explore the interaction between treatment status and minority status. Figures 4, 5,
and 6 present plots of the estimated marginal means of the ethnic/racial groups by treatment
status at post-intervention, short-term follow-up, and long-term follow-up, respectively. As
shown in the figures, students who identify as Caucasian in the treatment group had slightly lower
achievement than their peers in the control group at all time points. Students who identify as
African American in the treatment group had slightly better achievement than their peers in the
control group at all time points, and students who identify as Hispanic in the treatment group had
higher achievement than their peers in the control group at all three time points. In addition, the
difference between the treatment and control group widened at each time point for the Hispanic
students.
45
Figure 4 Estimated marginal means of achievement at post-treatment
46
Figure 5. Estimated marginal means of achievement by race/ethnicity at short-term follow-up
47
Figure 6 Estimated marginal means of achievement by race/ethnicity at long-term follow-up
48
Chapter 4
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of an intervention targeting student
attributions about academic achievement and social belonging during the transition to middle
school. The intervention was patterned after social-psychological interventions that have been
used to target student attributions during the transition to junior high school (e.g., Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007) and college (e.g., Wilson & Linville, 1985). The primary
hypothesis was that the treatment message would change students’ perceptions regarding the
causes for academic failure and feelings of social belonging. This change in attribution was then
hypothesized to yield improvements in academic motivation, students’ sense of social belonging,
and academic achievement (i.e., student’s GPA). To test these hypotheses students in the study
were randomly assigned to participate in treatment or control modules during their first semester
of middle school. Grades were collected over the course of four marking periods, and surveys of
motivation and social belonging were collected at three time points.
Post-treatment Effects
Proximal outcomes. Contrary to predictions, there was no significant relationship
between treatment status and attributions regarding academic achievement. The only significant
relationship was between baseline attributions and post-intervention attributions (∆R2 = .503).
The treatment was hypothesized to be most beneficial to students with lower initial achievement,
female students, and students of color. Interaction terms were entered into the model to test each
of these hypotheses, and none were statistically significant. As such, these hypotheses were not
supported.
49
Medial outcomes. Contrary to predictions, no immediate significant positive relationship
emerged between treatment status and motivation. Similarly, no statistically significant
relationship existed between treatment status and social belonging. Interaction terms were entered
in to both models, and none of the interaction terms were significant. As such, the hypotheses
regarding targeted benefits for students with lower prior achievement, female students, and
students of minority status were not supported.
Distal outcomes. Students in the treatment group were expected to demonstrate greater
gains in academic achievement relative to their peers in the control group based on the
assumption that attributions had shifted. Consistent with the results for attribution, motivation,
and social belonging, the academic achievement hypothesis was not supported. In addition,
students with low prior achievement, female students, and students of color did not demonstrate
greater benefit from the treatment message.
Interpretation of key post-treatment findings. The immediate post-treatment outcomes
indicate that the treatment did not have the hypothesized effects. Previous research (e.g., Perry &
Penner, 1990; Yeager & Walton, 2011), however, has indicated that social-psychological
interventions in education do not always yield immediate shifts in students’ outward expression
of attributions. Yeager and Walton (2011) argued that attributional interventions act as self-
reinforcing recursive processes over time. The self-reinforcing aspect of the treatment message
causes subsequent improvements in motivation and achievement. Walton and Cohen (2011)
found that participants in a 3-year follow-up study did not always remember the treatment
message - or even participating in the intervention – yet members of the treatment group
demonstrated significant changes in achievement and health outcomes.
In the present study, the proximal outcome (attributions) did not immediately change
after the intervention message. Following this pattern, the medial (motivation and social
belonging) and distal outcome (achievement) demonstrated no significant difference between the
50
treatment and control groups at post-treatment. Unfortunately, no follow-up measure of
attributions was collected so it cannot be determined if the treatment message in the current study
acted as a recursive process of building relationships and experiencing academic success and
failure in middle school over time. However, follow-up measures of motivation, social
belonging, and achievement were collected and are reviewed next.
Follow-up Effects
Medial outcomes. Contrary to predictions, there was no significant positive relationship
between the treatment status and motivation at short-term (13-17-week) follow-up. In addition,
there was no significant relationship between treatment status and student ratings of social
belonging at either short-term or long-term follow-up. There was a significant relationship
between treatment status and motivation at long-term follow-up. However, the relationship was
opposite of the expected direction, whereby students in the treatment group reported lower ratings
of motivation in comparison to their peers in the control group (∆R2 = .025 - .197). Interaction
terms for students with low prior achievement, female students, and students of minority status
were entered in to the model at both time points, and none of the interaction terms were
significant.
Distal outcomes. The results also did not support the hypothesis that students in the
treatment group experienced long-term gains in academic achievement relative to their peers in
the control group, and no interactions were observed based on gender or prior achievement. A
significant interaction effect was found between identification as a member of a racial/ethnic
minority and treatment condition at short-term follow-up but not long-term follow-up. These
findings indicate that students in the treatment group who identify as a member of racial/ethnic
minority exhibited greater academic achievement than their peers in the control group.
Interpretation of key findings at follow-up. The follow-up findings demonstrate the
treatment message was ineffective as a universal intervention. One potential explanation for this
51
finding is that the treatment materials, including the videos of upper-year students, were
developed in a middle school environment that is different from the two schools where they were
implemented. Stephens, Hamedani, and Destin (2014) concluded that treatment messages were
more effective when delivered by older students who emphasized similarities between themselves
and the individuals in the treatment group. As such, differences between the individuals
presenting the treatment message and the receivers of that message, as was the case in the present
study, may reduce the efficacy of the treatment message.
Specifically, all of the students filmed for the video interviews in the present study were
youth of color attending a middle school in a major metropolitan area. These student
demographic characteristics and school context are different from both of the participating school
sites but particularly so for School 1, which is located in a rural area, and its student population is
primarily White, Non-Hispanic (93%). School 2 is located in a smaller city in the mid-Atlantic,
and the student population is primarily comprised of individuals who identify as racial/ethnic
minorities in the U.S. As such, the students at School 1, and possibly at School 2, may not have
identified with the struggles presented in the video, and they may not have identified with the
students presenting the information, resulting in no change in attributions.
Alternatively, universal social psychological interventions in education to address
transition difficulties may not be as powerful as previously suggested in several studies (e.g.,
Berkely et al., 2011; Horner & Gaither, 2004; Morris, 2013). As noted previously, Sisk et al.’s
(2018) recent meta-analyses indicated that mind-set interventions were statistically and
practically non-significant for adolescents, typical students, and students facing a situational
challenge (e.g., transitioning to a new school). The current results are consistent with these
findings and suggest that attributional interventions may not be effective as a universal
intervention for early adolescents entering a new school.
52
Notably, a significant interaction emerged between treatment status and identification as
a member of a racial/ethnic minority in predicting academic achievement. This result lends some
support to the hypothesis that students of minority status may yield greater benefit from the
treatment message than peers who identify as White. However, results from the present study
indicated that students who identify as Hispanic yielded greater benefit than any other group. One
explanation for this finding is that students who identify as Hispanic occupy a unique position
within the two participating schools. Although both Black and Hispanic students are recognized
as members of a minority population within the U.S., the majority of the student population at
School 1 was comprised of White students (93%), and the majority of the student population at
School 2 was comprised of Black students (80%). As such, Hispanic students were a local
minority at both sites, making up less than 1% of the student population at School 1 and 16% at
School 2.
Social psychological interventions in education are hypothesized to work best for
students who are at greater risk for making negative attributions (Sisk et al., 2018; Walton &
Cohen, 2011; Yeager & Walton, 2011). The interaction effect was greatest for Hispanic students
in the treatment group. In addition, the effect is apparent immediately following the treatment and
became stronger over time, as demonstrated in Figures 5, 6, and 7. These results indicate that
Hispanic students experienced the greatest benefit from the treatment. In contrast, Black students,
though members of a minority group within the U.S., represented the racial majority at School 2.
The perception of belonging to the majority may have given students who identify as Black the
opportunity to make mistakes without attributing those mistakes to inherent qualities within
themselves. This could explain the difference in results between students who identify as
Hispanic and students who identify as Black.
Though not statistically significant, observed differences between the racial/ethnic groups
on the attribution measure paralleled the observed differences in achievement between groups.
53
Both Black and Hispanic students in the treatment group had lower ratings of helpless attributions
than their peers in the control group. The Hispanic students had the greatest difference in
attributions between treatment and control at post-treatment. Similarly, this group also
demonstrated increases in motivation and social belonging at short-term follow-up and in social
belonging at long-term follow-up. Plots of these marginal means have been included in the
appendix.
The group of students who identify as Hispanic represented a small portion of the total
sample (11%). The present study has limited statistical power owing to the small overall sample
size and the even smaller size of the subgroups. Further study appears warranted, though, to
confirm if a local minority population experiences a greater benefit from social psychological
interventions. Given the small sample size and lack of replication, it would be inappropriate to
draw firm conclusions; however, the current results suggest that the local minority (Hispanic
students) in the treatment group may have internalized the treatment message and made fewer
helpless attributions. These students then may have experienced a greater sense of social
belonging at the school and greater academic motivation, yielding higher academic achievement
than their peers in the control group.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that must be considered. First, one of the recruited
middle schools dropped out after initially agreeing to participate due to concerns about the
inability of their technology to deliver the intervention. As a result, the sample size was smaller
than anticipated. Second, there were significant missing data (15%). Multiple imputation allows
for statistically valid inferences despite the missing data. However, multiple imputation cannot
recreate the dataset that would have existed had the data been obtained.
A third limitation is that no baseline data were able to be collected for the motivation and
social belonging measures. The motivation and social belonging baseline measures were initially
54
going to be collected prior to intervention implementation; however, schools experienced
difficulty in accessing the website due to difficulties stemming from the schools’ firewalls
blocking the hosting website (i.e., Penn State’s Qualtrics account). Consequently, these measures
were not completed at baseline. Similarly, follow-up measures of attribution were unable to be
collected, and these same problems contributed to the missing data at short-term and long-term
follow-up. The lack of a baseline data point for motivation and social belonging means that the
results of the measures of motivation and social belonging could simply be attributable to
systematic initial differences between the two groups. Given the randomized design, baseline
differences should have been minimal; however, this cannot be confirmed given the lack of a
baseline measure. The lack of short-term and long-term follow-up measures of attribution make it
difficult to know if the treatment message became more powerful over time. Medial and distal
outcomes suggest that this is unlikely, though, with the possible exception for local minority
(Hispanic) students.
A fourth limitation, which is shared by many of the prior studies in this area as well, is a
lack of a standardized, psychometrically validated measure of attributions. Without such a
measure, it is difficult to determine if the results of the current study are due to a failure of the
treatment message or limitations of the measurement tool. Several of the prior school-based
attributional intervention studies did not collect any information about attributions (e.g., Miyake
et al., 2010). More commonly the research reviewed for the present study used a measure specific
to the negative attributions being targeted (e.g., Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). Some of the
studies provided psychometric information for the attribution measures (e.g. Blackwell et al.,
2007); whereas others did not (e.g., Perry, Stupnisky, Hall, Chipperfield, & Weiner, 2010). When
no measure of attribution was included, data from distal outcomes often have been used to infer
that attributions have been impacted. The most common indicator of success in shifting
attributions for each of the studies with no measure of attribution was a change in academic
55
achievement (Haynes et al., 2008; Martens et al., 2006; Miyake et al., 2010; Ruthig et al., 2004;
Van Overwalle & De Metsenaere, 1990).
Without validity data, it is unclear that the instruments are actually measuring
attributions, and without information about reliability, changes in the measures of attribution over
time may not correspond to actual changes in the construct. The lack of studies with a
psychometrically-sound attribution measure limits the evidence-base regarding the theory of
attributional interventions. One limitation to the broader field of attributional research is that
social-psychological interventions require targeting specific attributions, making the development
of a universal measure of attributions impractical. As such, further exploration is needed
regarding the process by which student achievement and motivation is affected by attributional
interventions.
A fifth potential limitation is that the treatment materials were developed at one school
site and then implemented at two other school sites. The students who were surveyed and
participated in the creation of the treatment module were drawn from an urban charter middle
school in the Northeastern United States. This charter school was in the same charter school
network and same state as School 2, and, the teachers and staff used similar curricula, disciplinary
practices, and even class schedules. However, School 2 is in a much smaller city, and the specific
demographic make up of the school population is different from the site where the treatment
materials were developed. Students from School 1 attended a rural public middle school in a
different state altogether, and the student population at School 1 was comprised primarily of
White students who transitioned to middle school in sixth grade.
In similar fashion, the messaging of the schools, as well as staff and school culture, could
have masked the efficacy of the treatment. School 1 is a public middle school, and the teachers at
the school did not engage in any form of consistent messaging from classroom to classroom
regarding behavioral expectations, school wide goals, or the purpose of the school. By contrast,
56
School 2, a charter middle school with a mission for all students to enter, succeed in, and graduate
from a four-year college or university, used consistent messaging across classrooms regarding the
mission of the school, behavioral expectations, and disciplinary practices. Perhaps most
importantly, staff members at School 2 receive professional development regarding the “growth
mindset,” and the research conducted by Blackwell et al. (2007). Teachers are encouraged to
teach lessons regarding the malleability of intelligence and challenge the idea of “fixed traits.” It
is possible that the students in both the treatment and control groups at School 2, having received
explicit instruction in the “growth mindset,” were already experiencing the benefit of the
treatment message.
There is some data to suggest that this could be the case. Table 2 shows the descriptive
data for the primary variables of the study. The mean achievement score for students at School 1,
a public middle school, declines over the course of the year, following the national trend of
declining achievement in middle school, whereas the mean achievement scores at School 2 rise
over the course of the year.
Data from the study suggest that the treatment was ineffective at both schools. For
several reasons, students from School 2 were hypothesized to have received greater benefit from
treatment. Students at School 1 were recruited during their computer class, and they were
individually responsible for bringing the informed consent paperwork to their homes and then
returning the paperwork to the computer classroom teacher. By contrast, students at School 2
were recruited during homeroom, and a folder for communicating with parents was used to send
the informed consent paperwork to the home. As a result, the student sample from School 1, a
small portion of the total student population, likely represented a more responsible subset of the
students in the school, whereas the student sample from School 2, comprising almost the entirety
of the fifth grade, represented a more typical population. Baseline differences in achievement
across the school sites bear this out (Initial GPA at School 1 = 3.9; Initial GPA at School 2 = 2.6).
57
The very population for whom the treatment message was hypothesized to be most powerful may
have already been receiving some aspects of the treatment message. In addition, the only students
for whom the treatment would be beneficial would be those who would potentially feel like
outsiders.
Implications and Future Research
Funding mind-set intervention research has been deemed a “national education priority”
(Rattan, Savani, Chugh, & Dweck, 2015, p. 723). Results from the present study indicate that a
mind-set intervention, however, may not be an effective universal intervention. The results are
consistent with a recent meta-analysis suggesting that social psychological interventions in
education provide a mild benefit for academically at-risk and economically disadvantaged
students but little benefit for other students (Sisk et al., 2018).
Many aspects of the attributional theory warrant further investigation, starting with the
theory of change outlined in Figure 1. Attributions are theorized to influence behavior, affect, and
expectancy. These variables, in turn, affect motivation. Motivation influences implicit perceptions
of ability and personality. Future studies are necessary to examine each component in this
theoretical model. Future research must systematically determine if changes in behavior are
directly attributable to changes in attribution. One challenge, though, is the lack of a validated
measure capable of detecting changes in attribution over time.
To address this need, another important future research direction is the development of
psychometrically sound measures of attribution. Doing so would enhance further study of the
theory underlying social psychological interventions. The meta-analysis by Sisk et al. (2018)
suggested that successful social psychological interventions may not be attributable to the
students’ mind-sets or attributions. Psychometrically-sound measures of attributions would allow
for examination of the theory supporting the social psychological interventions.
58
Dosage is another area in need of further exploration. Many of the interventions upon
which the present study was based were brief (i.e., ~45 minutes). However, Blackwell et al.
(2007) conducted their intervention over a period of several weeks. Notably, the students in the
Blackwell et al. study were in junior high school. It may be the case that younger students require
a greater amount of exposure to the treatment message. Further research is necessary to determine
the appropriate amount of exposure at each age level.
Lastly, the results from this study may indicate that an attributional intervention will yield
particular benefit to a local minority population. Future studies ought to confirm this result, as
well as expand the local minorities targeted for intervention. In this study, the local minority
population (i.e., students who identify as Hispanic) also happened to be a population that is a
minority group within the U.S. Future studies could explore if attributional interventions provide
benefit to individuals who are members of the national majority population (i.e., students who
identify as White/Caucasian) and are also members of a local minority population, such as
students with disabilities or students who identify as LGBTQ+.
Conclusions
The results of this study indicate that the attributional intervention for students making
the transition to middle school was not effective as a universal intervention. The treatment
message did not demonstrate the expected effect on the reported attributions of the students, and
no relationship was observed between the treatment message and motivation, social belonging, or
academic achievement. This study lends further evidence to the recent finding that attributional
interventions have little to no benefit as a universal intervention (Sisk et al., 2018). There is some
indication, though, that attribution interventions may provide some benefit to individuals who are
a local minority within their middle school. The present study, however, is a single study with a
small sample size, and the local minority in this study makes up an even smaller subset of the
sample population. Researchers interested in developing social psychological interventions in
59
education targeting attributions would do well to explore the preliminary finding that local
minority populations derive benefit from attributional interventions.
60
References
Alspaugh, J. W. (1998). Achievement loss associated with the transition to middle school and
high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 20–25.
doi:10.1080/00220679809597572
Anderson, L. W., Jacobs, J., Schramm, S., & Splittgerber, F. (2000). School transitions:
Beginning of the end or a new beginning? International Journal of Educational
Research, 33(4), 325–339. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00020-3
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, 38(2), 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Benner, A. D. (2011). The transition to high school: Current knowledge, future directions.
Educational Psychology Review, 23(3), 299–328. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9152-0
Benner, A. D., Crosnoe, R., & Eccles, J. S. (2014). Schools, peers, and prejudice in adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(1), 173-188. doi:10.1111/jora.12106
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2011). Reading comprehension strategies for
secondary students’ with learning & other mild disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 44(1), 18–32. doi:10.1177/0022219410371677
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
Bowerman, B. L., & O'connell, R. T. (1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach.
Brooks/Cole.
61
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.155
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P. (2009). Recursive
processes in self-affirmation: Intervening to close the minority achievement gap. Science,
324(5925), 400–403. doi:10.1126/science.1170769
Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent
belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 479–496. doi:10.1037/a0026312
DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. (1999). Development and validation of the academic competence
evaluation scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(3), 207–225.
doi:10.1177/073428299901700302
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 674.
doi:10.1037/h0077149
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Eccles, J. S. (2004). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R.M. Lerner &
L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, (pp. 125-153). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Eccles, J. S., Lord, S., & Midgley, C. (1991). What are we doing to early adolescents? The impact
of educational contexts on early adolescents. American Journal of Education, 521–542.
Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1085558?uid=3739864&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739
256&sid=21106133429521
62
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit.
In R.M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. (pp. 404-
434). doi:10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy001013/full
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 225–241. doi:10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00725.x
Farmer, T. W., Hamm, J. V., Leung, M. C., Lambert, K., & Gravelle, M. (2011). Early adolescent
peer ecologies in rural communities: Bullying in schools that do and do not have a
transition during the middle grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(9), 1106-1117.
doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9684-0
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications.
Gied, J. N., Clasen, L. S., Lenroot, R., Greenstein, D., Wallace, G. L., Ordaz, S., ... & Chrousos,
G. P. (2006). Puberty-related influences on brain development. Molecular and Cellular
Endocrinology, 254, 154-162. doi:10.1016/j.mce.2006.04.016
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Hall, N. C., Hladkyj, S., Perry, R. P., & Ruthig, J. C. (2004). The role of attributional retraining
and elaborative learning in college students' academic development. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 144(6), 591-612. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.6.591-612
Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Giffen, C. J., Blair, S. S., Rouse, D. I., &
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Closing the social class achievement gap for first-generation students
in undergraduate biology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 375–389.
doi:10.1037/a0034679
63
Haynes Stewart, T. L., Clifton, R. A., Daniels, L. M., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., & Ruthig,
J. C. (2011). Attributional retraining: Reducing the likelihood of failure. Social
Psychology of Education, 14(1), 75–92. doi:10.1007/s11218-010-9130-2
Haynes, T. L., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., & Hladkyj, S. (2008). The effect of
attributional retraining on mastery and performance motivation among first-year college
students. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 198–207.
doi:10.1080/01973530802374972
Heider, F. (2013). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Psychology_of_Interpersonal_Relation.html?i
d=Zh6TDmayL0AC (Original work published 1958)
Horner, S. L., & Gaither, S. M. (2004). Attribution retraining instruction with a second-grade
class. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 165-170. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ECEJ.0000012134.58050.2a
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person
perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 219-266.
doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60107-0
Juvonen, J., Le, V., Kaganoff, T., Augustine, C., & Constant, L. (2004). Focus on the wonder
years: Challenges facing the American middle school. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on
motivation. University of Nebraska Press. Retrieved from
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1968-13540-001
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31(1), 457-501. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325
64
Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., & Marshall, K. C. (2011). Peer acceptance and friendship as
predictors of early adolescents’ adjustment across the middle school transition. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 57(3), 215–243. doi:10.1353/mpq.2011.0012
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Oxford, England:
Harpers.
Malecki, C. K., Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (2014). A working manual on the development
of the child and adolescent social support scale (2000). Unpublished manuscript.
Northern Illinois University.
Malecki, C.K., & Demary, M.K. (2002). Measuring perceived social support: Development of the
child and adolescent social support scale (CASSS). Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 1–
18. doi:10.1002/pits.10004
Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J., & Schimel, J. (2006). Combating stereotype threat: The
effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42(2), 236–243. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.010
Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (Vol. 106). Sage.
Menec, V. H., Perry, R. P., Struthers, C. W., Schonwetter, D. J., Hechter, F. J., & Eichholz, B. L.
(1994). Assisting at-risk college students with attributional retraining and effective
teaching. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(8), 675–701. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1994.tb00607.x
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle
school teachers and students: A goal theory approach. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 15(1), 90-113. doi:10.1177/0272431695015001006
Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2014). Preventing symptoms of depression by teaching adolescents
that people can change: Effects of a brief incremental theory of personality intervention
at 9-month follow-up. Clinical Psychological Science. doi:10.1177/2167702614548317
65
Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A.
(2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of
values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237. doi:10.1126/science.1195996
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., ... &
Altman, D. G. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines
for reporting parallel group randomised trials. The BMJ, (p. 340). doi:10.1136/bmj.c869
Morris, M. M. (2013). A naturalistic investigation into the effectiveness of an attributional
retraining programme for academic performance. Social Sciences Directory, 2(2), 16-30.
doi:10.7563/SSD_02_02_02
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's
motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
Myers, R. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Duxbury Press.
Noel, J. G., Forsyth, D. R., & Kelley, K. N. (1987). Improving the performance of failing students
by overcoming their self-serving attributional biases. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 8(1-2), 151–162. doi:10.1080/01973533.1987.9645882
Pearson. (2013). New York State Testing Program 2013: English Language Arts Mathematics
Grades 3-8. Retrieved from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/reports/2013/ela-
math-tr13.pdf
Perry, R. P., & Penner, K. S. (1990). Enhancing academic achievement in college students
through attributional retraining and instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(2), 262. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.262
Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., Hall, N. C., Chipperfield, J. G., & Weiner, B. (2010). Bad starts
and better finishes: Attributional retraining and initial performance in competitive
66
achievement settings. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 668–700.
doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.668
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Chugh, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Leveraging mindsets to promote
academic achievement: Policy recommendations. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
10, 721–726. doi:10.1177/1745691615599383
Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of middle school: Relation to
longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 8(1), 123-158. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0801_6
Roeser, R. W., & Midgley, C. (1997). Teachers' views of issues involving students' mental
health. The Elementary School Journal, 115-133. doi:10.1086/461887
Romero, C., Master, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Academic and
emotional functioning in middle school: The role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14(2),
(227–234). doi:10.1037/a0035490
Rueger, S. Y., Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2010). Relationship between multiple sources
of perceived social support and psychological and academic adjustment in early
adolescence: Comparisons across gender. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 47-
61. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9368-6
Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Hladkyj, S. (2004). Optimism and attributional
retraining: Longitudinal effects on academic achievement, test anxiety, and voluntary
course withdrawal in college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 709-
730. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02566.x
Santrock, J. W. (2009). Life-span development. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S. F., & Solomon, R. L. (1971). Unpredictable and uncontrollable
aversive events. In F.R. Brush (Ed.), Aversive conditioning and learning (pp.347-400).
New York: Academic Press.
67
Sherman, D. K., Hartson, K. A., Binning, K. R., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., Taborsky-
Barbara, S., Tomassetti, S., Nussbaum, A. D., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Deflecting the
trajectory and changing the narrative: How self-affirmation affects academic performance
and motivation under identity threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
104(4), 591–618. doi:10.1037/a0031495
Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change
and school context. Aldine Transaction.
Spitzer, B., & Aronson, J. (2015). Minding and mending the gap: Social psychological
interventions to reduce educational disparities. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/bjep.12067
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement
gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic
performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943–953.
doi:10.1177/0956797613518349
Storms, M. D., & McCaul, K. D. (1976). Attribution processes and emotional exacerbation of
dysfunctional behavior. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions
in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 143-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Struthers, C. W., & Perry, R. P. (1996). Attributional style, attributional retraining, and
inoculation against motivational deficits. Social Psychology of Education, 1(2), 171–187.
doi:10.1007/BF02334731
Van Overwalle, F., & De Metsenaere, M. (1990). The effects of attribution-based intervention
and study strategy training on academic achievement in college freshmen. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 60(3), 299-311. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1990.tb00946.x
68
Van Overwalle, F., Segebarth, K., & Goldchstein, M. (1989). Improving performance of
freshmen through attributional testimonies from fellow students. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 59(1), 75-85. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1989.tb03078.x
Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 23(1), 73–82. doi:10.1177/0963721413512856
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic
and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.
doi:10.1126/science.1198364
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Oxford, England:
Markham.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological review, 92(4), 548. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the academic performance of college
freshmen: Attribution therapy revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
42(2), 367. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.367
Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with
attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 287.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.287
69
Witherspoon, D., & Ennett, S. (2011). Stability and change in rural youths’ educational outcomes
through the middle and high school years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(9),
1077–1090. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9614-6
Yeager, D. S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B. J., Trzesniewski, K. H., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S.
(2014). The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of
personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 867–884. doi:10.1037/a0036335
Yeager, D. S., Miu, A. S., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). Implicit theories of personality and
attributions of hostile intent: A meta-analysis, an experiment, and a longitudinal
intervention. Child Development, 84(5), 1651-1667. doi:10.1111/cdev.12062
Yeager, D. S., Paunesku, D., Walton, G., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). How can we instill productive
mindsets at scale? A review of the evidence and an initial R&D agenda. In white paper
prepared for the White House meeting on “Excellence in Education: The Importance of
Academic Mindsets,” available here. Retrieved from
https://intranet.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/Files/medewerkersportal/os/Onderwijscentrum_OC_F
ocus/Lunchlezingen_Studiesucces/Dweck_White_Paper_2013_How_Can_We_Instill_Pr
oductive_Mindsets_at_Scale.pdf
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re
not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267–301.
doi:10.3102/0034654311405999
Yeager, D., Walton, G., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Addressing achievement gaps with psychological
interventions. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 62–65. Retrieved from
https://web.stanford.edu/~gwalton/home/Welcome_files/Yeager%20Walton%20Cohen%
202013.pdf
70
Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Effects of an attribution retraining with female students gifted
in physics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(2), 217–243. doi: 10.4219/jeg-
2000-572
71
Appendix
Example Survey Questions and Responses
Survey Results
Questions • During the first year of middle
school, did you ever feel like the work you did wasn’t good enough?
• During the first year of middle
school, did you ever feel like you weren’t smart enough?
• During the first year of middle
school, did you ever feel like you didn’t belong in school?
Responses • Half (50%) of the middle
school students felt like their work wasn’t good enough
• More than half (66%) of
middle school students felt like they weren’t smart enough for middle school.
• Most (83%) middle school students felt like they didn’t belong at school
Next =>
72
Survey Results
Questions • During the first year of middle
school, were you satisfied with your grades?
• During the first year of middle
school, did you ever get any bad grades?
• Were the grades you received
in the first year of middle school above or below what you expected?
Responses • Most (83%) middle school
students were dissatisfied with their grades
• Most (83%) middle school
students had at least one bad grade in their first year.
• More than half (66%) of middle school students felt their grades were below what they expected
Next =>
73
Survey Results
Questions • Have your grades improved or
declined since the start of middle school?
• Have your feelings of belonging improved or declined since the start of middle school?
• Do you feel like you know what you’re doing in middle school now?
Responses • Most (83%) middle school
students’ grades improved from the first year of middle school.
• More than half (66%) of the middle school students felt like their feelings of belonging improved.
• Every student (100%) we spoke with said they felt like they knew what they were doing in middle school by 7th and 8th grade.
Next =>
74
Example Screen Shot of Attribution Measure Developed in the Present Study
75
Two Example Screen Shots of a Welcome Page and Content Pages from Yeager, Paunesku,
Walton, and Dweck (2013)
76
Estimated Marginal Means of Attribution by Race/Ethnicity at Post-treatment
77
Estimated Marginal Means of Motivation by Race/Ethnicity at Short-term Follow-up
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Control Intervention Control Intervention Control Intervention
Black Hispanic White
Series1
78
Estimated Marginal Means of Motivation by Race/Ethnicity at Long-term Follow-up
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Control Intervention Control Intervention Control Intervention
Black Hispanic White
Series1
79
Estimated Marginal Means of Social Belonging by Race/Ethnicity at Short-term Follow-up
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Control Intervention Control Intervention Control Intervention
Black Hispanic White
Series1
80
Estimated Marginal Means of Social Belonging by Race/Ethnicity at Long-term Follow-up
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Control Intervention Control Intervention Control Intervention
Black Hispanic White
Series1
81
VITA GORDON EMMETT HALL
2321 Abington Circle, State College, PA 16801 | (717) 682 4820 | [email protected]
EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania Ph.D, candidate in School Psychology, Certificate in College Teaching 2016 Certificate in Online Instruction 2016 M.Ed. in School Psychology, 2013 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania M.S. in Urban Education 2008 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York B.A. in Anthropology 2002
ACADEMIC AWARDS Training Interdisciplinary Educational Scientists Fellowship, Pennsylvania State University 2011 – 2015 Americorps VISTA Award, University of Pennsylvania 2006 - 2008 Cornell Tradition Fellowship, Cornell University 2002 – 2006 Hadden Scholarship, Cornell University 2002 – 2006
PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIENCE School Psychologist Mifflin County School District, Lewistown, PA 2015 – Present
5th and 6th Grade Science Teacher / Academy Director Excellence Boys Charter School, Uncommon Schools, Inc., Brooklyn, New York 2008 –2011
7th and 8th Grade Science Teacher, Teach For America Corps Member Barratt Middle School, School District of Philadelphia 2006 –2008
PUBLICATIONS – MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW Hall, G. E., & DiPerna, J. C. (2016). Childhood social skills as predictors of middle school academic
adjustment. The Journal of Early Adolescence, doi:0272431615624566. Nelson, P. M., Hall, G., & Christ, T. J. (2016). The Stability of Student Ratings of the Class
Environment. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 32(3), 254-267.doi: 10.1080/15377903.2016.1183543 Hall, G., & Woika, S. (2017) The fight to keep evolution out of schools, the law, and classroom instruction.
Manuscript accepted for publication at American Biology Teacher