Mindsets and Brainology: Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention
-
Upload
kathy-boehm -
Category
Documents
-
view
106 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Mindsets and Brainology: Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention
Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 1
Mindsets and Brainology®:
Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention
Kathryn W. Boehm
EG536V: Action Research
Lipscomb University
July 25, 2012
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 2
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the software program Brainology® (n.d.)
on student mindsets and math achievement scores. Students with a fixed mindset held that
intelligence could never be changed; whereas, students with a growth mindset believed that
intelligence could grow with effort. The study used a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods
approach, wherein 62 seventh graders were provided the opportunity to experience the online
software program Brainology® (n.d.). The participants were enrolled in a low socio-economic
status middle school. Students who completed all four levels of the program formed the
experimental group, and the remainder comprised the control. The students in the experimental
group demonstrated a greater tendency toward a growth mindset, and most students with an
initial fixed mindset developed a growth mindset by the end of the study. The results of the
achievement portion of the study were mixed. Fewer than half of the students who completed
Brainology® (n.d.) with a growth mindset showed increased achievement scores. On the other
hand, the great majority of students who had a growth mindset and additional math instruction
improved their scores. The study concluded that the combination of challenging instruction and a
growth mindset led to improved scores. The recommendation was that teachers educate
themselves about mindsets and foster growth mindsets in challenging classrooms. Further
research would include following these students for a longer time or comparing their
achievement scores to those from another similar school.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 3
Chapter 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Vanderbilt University Professor Dr. Tamra Stambaugh’s primary research field has been
gifted education and the effect of accelerated curriculum, with a focus on low-income students
(Vanderbilt University, n.d.). Dr. Stambaugh held that a fixed mindset could be just as
detrimental to the gifted child as it would be to the low-performing student, because students
with fixed mindsets have demonstrated a tendency to give up when faced with challenging
problems. These students believed that they simply weren’t intelligent enough to succeed
(personal communication, June 13, 2010). The problem with possessing a fixed mindset was that
it led to defeatism in the classroom and lower student achievement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first purpose of the study was to measure the
participating students’ mindsets both before and after the intervention in order to determine the
effect of the Brainology® (n.d.) software on mindset. Secondly, the study compared the students’
predicted levels of achievement on TCAP, as determined by Discovery Education Assessments
(DEA), with the actual level of achievement on TCAP, in order to examine whether or not
students with a newly developed growth mindset achieved at a higher than predicted level on the
TCAP.
Significance of the Study
Educators in urban schools have faced a persistent achievement gap between white
students and students of color (USDOE, 2009). Obtaining a quality education has traditionally
been the most direct road out of poverty, yet many low socio-economic status (low-SES)
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 4
students failed to complete their education. If simply possessing a growth mindset leads to higher
academic achievement and if changing the mindsets of students into growth mindsets can be
accomplished by utilizing Brainology® (n.d.), which can feasibly be implemented in any school,
then educators would possess a powerful approach to narrowing the achievement gap.
Theoretical Framework
Dr. Carol Dweck, a Stanford University professor of psychology, has studied self-
theories of learning since the early 1980s. Dweck’s more recent work supported a statistically
significant connection between the student’s self-theory of intelligence, or mindset, and
academic achievement. In “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an
Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention,” Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and
Dweck, (2007) demonstrated that an incremental theory, or growth mindset, in seventh grade
students predicted an upward trend in academic achievement over the course of seventh and
eighth grade. This result was compelling, but it begged the question: Could mindset be changed
to create conditions which were conducive to success?
These same researchers also focused on two groups of low-achieving seventh graders in
New York City. A time-consuming, eight-week intervention was undertaken with these students.
The experimental group showed marked improvement in mathematics achievement and learned
that their brains can get stronger, like a muscle.
Research Questions
Using the software rendered the intervention engaging and enjoyable for the students, and
it made the research process manageable; in fact, the school computer teacher managed the entire
intervention on behalf of this researcher. This study addressed the following two questions:
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 5
1) Did the seventh graders who completed the study have a growth mindset afterward, or did
they view intelligence as immutable and innate?
2) Did completing the software program, Brainology® (n.d.), result in statistically significant
gains in seventh grade math scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program
(TCAP), as compared with students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.)?
Hypotheses
Completing the Brainology® (n.d.) software program will lead to a statistically
significant increase in the number of students who possess a growth mindset. Student entries in
the software journal will reveal changes in mindset and evidence that students had learned
specific study skills. Students will report fewer challenges to learning upon completion of
Brainology® (n.d.).
Students took three Discovery Education Assessments throughout the school year, and
these assessments predict achievement levels on TCAP. Students who complete Brainology®
(n.d.) and develop a growth mindset will exceed expected levels of achievement on the TCAP
Math test.
Delimitation
Prior to data collection, the school administration decided to group students according to
demonstrated performance on DEA assessments. Higher-achieving students were given two
additional math classes per week. This practice was called “double-dosing,” and the student
grouping was considered in the data analysis for this study.
Literature Search procedures
The focal point of the search was Black, Trzesniewski, and Dweck’s 2007 study;
therefore, the search involved an ERIC keyword search, looking for articles on middle school
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 6
students, mathematics achievement, low-income students, self-theories of intelligence,
attribution theory, and achievement gap. Searching on any one of the above keywords yielded so
many articles that the logical “AND” connector was utilized to combine search terms in various
ways and narrow the results. The articles were written between the mid-1970s and the present.
The search results led to an understanding of attribution theory of intelligence’s development as
a research topic.
C. S. Dweck’s name came up frequently, both in the ERIC search and in the reference
sections of articles. An ERIC search for the author name Dweck revealed 35 articles either
authored or co-authored by C. S. Dweck between 1975 and the present. The abstracts for those
articles traced Dweck’s progression as a researcher from 1975 to the present. Dweck was clearly
a well-known, frequently cited expert in her field. This phase of the research placed the questions
of this study in the educational research tradition and clarified Dweck’s place in that tradition.
Dweck’s publication, Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and
Development (2000) turned up in the search. The chapter entitled “Is Intelligence Fixed or
Changeable? Students’ Theories about Their Intelligence Foster Their Achievement Goals” was
particularly useful in understanding the development of Dweck’s ideas. Black, Trzesniewski,
and Dweck’s 2007 study flowed naturally out of the research cited in this particular essay. The
reference section of the 2007 study included sources ranging in date from 1961 to 2006. J.
Aronson was clearly a key researcher, and he contributed to a study on racial stereo-typing
(Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). The greatest struggle was
finding full-text publications of Dweck’s work; however, Dweck’s Stanford University webpage
listed numerous articles with full-text links and complete publication information. Dweck’s web
site was a valuable resource.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 7
The professional publications, Educational Leadership (ASCD) and Mathematics
Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM), were available online and were an additional resource
for useful articles. The Jensen book, Teaching with Poverty in Mind (2009), included a wealth of
useful information related to working with low-SES students. The U. S. Department of
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (2010) contained all of the data necessary to
define and examine the Achievement Gap. Finally, this author had a Brainology® subscription
and was able to experience the software and access the entire website.
Self-Theories of Intelligence, or Mindsets
Throughout the abstracts of numerous research pieces which preceded the 2007 study,
there were multiple references to the terms “learned helplessness vs. mastery,” “learning goals
vs. mastery goals,” and “entity theorist vs. incremental theorist.” There has been an evolution of
terminology in the research over the years. According to Dweck, each student has an implicit
theory, or self-theory, of intelligence. That is, we each have an underlying notion of the nature of
our own intelligence. This notion is the self-theory of intelligence. There are two essential types
of self-theory of intelligence. A student who holds an entity theory of intelligence believes that
intelligence is a fixed quantity and that each person possesses a given amount of intelligence. An
incremental theory of intelligence reflects the belief that intelligence is changeable and that a
person can become more intelligent through effort, concentration, experience and other factors
(Dweck, 2000). Dweck now refers to an entity theory of intelligence as a fixed mindset and an
incremental theory as a growth mindset (2009). In this paper, entity theory and fixed mindset
were used interchangeably, as were incremental theory and growth mindset.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 8
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
The Middle School Student
Prior to 1963, junior high school was exactly like high school, except with younger
students. There was no concept that the young adolescent’s developmental and academic needs
might differ in quality from those of the high school student. The middle school movement in the
U.S. began in 1963 with a landmark address by William Alexander of George Peabody College,
and the number of middle schools in the U.S. has exploded since that time. In 1970, there were
2,080 middle schools; there were 10,944 in 1998 and nearly 12,000 by 2002 (Armstrong, 2006).
Alexander recognized the need for middle schools which would address the developmental needs
of the young adolescent. According to Armstrong:
Educators need to understand the developmental needs of young adolescents, and in
particular their neurological, social, emotional, and metacognitive growth. Some of these
developmental needs are ignored or subverted by inappropriate educational practices such
as fragmented curricula, large impersonal schools, and lesson plans that lack vitality.
Practices at the best schools honor the developmental uniqueness of young adolescents,
including the provision of a safe school environment, student-initiated learning, student
roles in decision making, and strong adult role models. (Armstrong, 2006, p. 113)
In our current educational environment, with the strong emphasis on standards and test scores,
we have run the risk of removing student-initiative from the learning process. Middle school
students who have had little input into the learning process and who were viewed as mere
receivers of knowledge have disengaged from their own learning, disowned the process, and
sought stimulation outside of the school walls.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 9
All young adolescents experienced the awkwardness of impending puberty, exploding
cognitive development, increasing self-consciousness and emotional unevenness, yet minority
students carried the additional burden of negative racial stereotypes (Aronson, Cohen,
McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). These students may have attributed their
natural academic struggles to these stereotypes. These researchers had concrete
recommendations for mitigating the negative effects of stereotypes. First, teach and emphasize
that intelligence grows stronger like a muscle. Greater effort would result in greater intellectual
growth. Also, explain to children that their difficulties are the result of a normal learning curve,
not attributable to the student or the student’s racial group. Finally, assist students in identifying
values outside of school which contribute positively to the individual’s self-esteem (Aronson, et
al., 2009). The study of racial stereotyping supported Dweck’s call for developing a growth
mindset. Such a mindset not only improved academic achievement, but it was also an antidote
for racial or gender stereotyping (Dweck, 2006).
There were informal ways to encourage a growth mindset and tap into students’
individual strengths. One useful technique was to draw a parallel between school work and
students’ extracurricular activities. Students frequently believed that practice and effort would
lead to improvement in sports, music, or art but not in academics. Pointing out this dichotomy to
students and referring to homework as “practice” and the teacher as “academic coach” might
have encouraged a growth mindset (Atwood, 2010).
Middle school children have striven for competence in all areas of their lives, and,
although their growth was naturally uneven, they wanted to be trusted and given responsibilities
whenever appropriate. They also needed support and a sense of safety in case they failed to meet
expectations. The developmental changes which occurred during middle school could enhance
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 10
the learning process when educators possessed a deep understanding of the middle school child.
The difficulties inherent in middle school education became opportunities for growth.
The Achievement Gap in Mathematics
There has been a well-documented and persistent achievement gap in standardized test
scores, not only between white students and students of color, but also between students in low-
poverty schools vs. students in high-poverty schools. According to The Condition of Education:
2000-2010 (U. S. Department of Education, 2010), an internet publication of the United States
Department of Education (USDOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 2009
white eighth-graders scored an average of 32 points higher than their black counterparts on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), despite the fact that both groups showed
improvement over the previous year. This achievement gap has existed at least since 1992
(USDOE, 2009). NCES reported that in 2005 the average fourth-grade score on the mathematics
NAEP assessment was 221 for students in schools with greater than 75% free or reduced lunch
and 255 for schools in which the free or reduced lunch rate was less than 10% (USDOE, 2009).
Not only was there an achievement gap in mathematics scores on the NAEP, but the U.S.
also lagged behind other developing nations on the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study,
particularly in the area of measurement. Middle school students have not been exposed to
enough hands-on measurement activities and classroom experiences which required higher-order
thinking skills or which integrated measurement in math and science (Thompson & Preston,
2004).
Eric Jensen delineated the effects of poverty on brain development in both the emotional
and intellectual realms. He described the practical difficulties that low-SES parents have. For
example, they may have had to work multiple jobs or long hours, and so they didn’t have
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 11
adequate time to spend with their children. The parents were often stressed or even depressed,
and, thus, not emotionally available to their children. It was common for parents to work nights,
for example, and for children in fifth grade or younger to get up on their own, dress for school,
lock the house, and walk to the bus stop or to school. The children themselves didn’t develop a
full range of emotions, and the children may have lived in dangerous neighborhoods or difficult
home situations which overdeveloped the amygdala and made the children overly emotional.
Meanwhile, the other areas of the brain, such as the visual cortex, temporal lobe, parietal
lobe, and occipital lobe, didn’t develop as many neurological connections as the brains of higher-
SES children. Thus, lower-SES children experienced diminished cognitive capacity. In response
to this bleak outlook for student outcomes, however, Jensen proposed that schools foster an
“enrichment mind-set”:
Your school will get results only when you and your staff shift your collective mind-set
from “those poor kids” to “our gifted kids.” Stop thinking remediation and start thinking
enrichment. The enrichment mind-set means fostering intellectual curiosity, emotional
engagement, and social bonding . . . . Essentially, the enrichment mind-set means
maximizing students’ and staff members’ potential, whatever it takes. Whether or not
students choose to go to college, enrichment programs prepare them to succeed in life.
(Jensen, 2009, p. 94)
This enrichment mind-set was a classroom and school-wide approach designed to create a
learning environment which would mitigate the effects of poverty and accelerate student
learning. Considering that Jensen did not cite Dweck, he defined “mind-set” differently than she;
rather, he was concerned with students’ attitudes, academic capacities, and thought-processes
about school.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 12
How Does Mindset Affect Learning and Achievement?
In 1981, Dweck, Bandura and Leggett embarked on a series of studies regarding self-
theories of intelligence. The framing question was: Why do students become so focused on
grades? Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as “Your intelligence is
something about you that you can’t change very much”; “you can learn new things but you can’t
really change your basic intelligence”; and “you have a certain amount of intelligence and you
can’t really do much to change it” (Dweck, 2000, p. 21). Students were classified as either entity
theorists or incremental theorists based on their responses.
Later, students were given three choices: one activity which was described as so simple
that students probably wouldn’t make mistakes, the second was described as a bit harder but a
chance to demonstrate intelligence, and the third was described as “hard, new, and different—
you might get confused and make mistakes, but you might learn something new and useful”
(Dweck, 2000, p. 21).
In the study with eighth graders, over 80% of the entity theorists chose one of the first
two tasks, and 50% chose the easier task. That is, only 20% of the entity theorists chose the
learning-oriented, more challenging task. On the other hand, 60% of the incremental theorists
chose the more difficult, learning-goal task. This type of result was consistent over multiple
studies, ranging from fifth and sixth graders to college students to English-language learners in
Hong Kong (Dweck, 2000). Dweck has performed or reviewed multiple studies which indicate
that a student’s self-theory of intelligence is deeply and integrally related to the student’s
learning goals, motivation and willingness to take on academic challenges.
Having determined that there is a relationship between mindset and learning goals,
Dweck moved on to exploring the connection between mindset and achievement. In 2007,
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 13
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck undertook a research project involving two studies. In the
first study (Study 1), the sample was 373 seventh grade students, in four cohort waves, who were
all enrolled in public schools in the New York City area. The sample was diverse racially and
economically, and it was gender-balanced. These students standardized test scores were
moderately high, at about the 75th percentile on average, and 53% of the students were eligible
for free or reduced lunch (FRL).
At the beginning of seventh grade, each student was given a questionnaire in order to
determine the individual’s mindset, as well as other information about student motivation and
effort. Self-theory of intelligence was measured using a six-point scale with a score of 1
representing a pure entity theorist and 6 indicating a pure incremental theorist. The mean score
was 4.45, and the standard deviation was 0.97.
The students’ sixth grade math achievement scores were available to the researchers as a
baseline measure. The measure of mathematics achievement was student grades at the end of the
fall and the spring semesters during seventh and eighth grade. Thus, Dweck and her colleagues
obtained data for four waves, or cohorts, of seventh graders over the course of two years each. A
statistical analysis was undertaken in order to determine the academic growth trajectories of the
incremental theorists and the entity theorists. The results are best represented in graphical form,
as seen in Figure 1.
Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 251
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 14
Intervention and Results
The second phase of the 2007 study (Study 2) addressed the following hypothesis:
If the different theories of intelligence are indeed associated with contrasting
motivational patterns, then teaching students to think of their intelligence as malleable
should cause them to display more positive motivation in the classroom, and in turn to
achieve more highly. (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 253)
The sample in Study 2 was markedly different from the sample in Study 1. There were 91
seventh grade students who completed the study, all enrolled in a public school in New York
City, which was a different school than the school in Study 1. The sample was gender-balanced
and racially diverse; however, this group was low-achieving, with sixth-grade math achievement
scores at the 35th national percentile. The school’s FRL percentage was 79%, as compared to
53% for the school in Study 1. As in Study 1, students were given a six-point questionnaire to
determine self-theory of intelligence with, again, a score of 1 indicating a perfect entity theorist
and 6 a perfect incremental theorist.
After the initial assessment, the students were divided into experimental (N = 48) and
control groups (N = 43). Sixteen research assistants were assigned to perform an eight-week
intervention, holding workshops during a time normally reserved for students to receive extra
help. The experimental group and control group both received four sessions on brain structure,
study skills, and the negative results of stereotyping. The experimental group also had four
sessions entitled “You Can Grow Your Intelligence,” “Neural Network Maze,” “Learning Makes
You Smarter,” and “labels should be avoided;” whereas, the control group had lessons on
mnemonic devices, “academic difficulties and successes,” and “memory and the brain”
(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 255).
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 15
Post-intervention analysis was in-depth and statistically thorough. Students were re-
assessed three weeks later to measure self-theory of intelligence. They were also given an
assessment over the content of the intervention lessons. Although students’ scores over the
general workshop content didn’t vary significantly—73.0% for the experimental group and
70.5% for the control group, students in the experimental group, as expected, scored significantly
higher—83.5% vs. 53.9%—on items which covered the “incremental theory intervention
content” (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 256). The researchers also measured the
effect of the intervention on students’ self-theories of intelligence. For the experimental group,
there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score for self-theory—4.36 to 4.95;
whereas, the control group’s scores were 4.62 pre-intervention and 4.68 post-intervention, not a
statistically significant change (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007).
The most startling result is readily seen in the following graph (Figure 3) of mathematics
achievement. The intervention occurred between the second and third points on the graph, and
the measure was students’ mathematics grades.
Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 257.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 16
The abrupt upward trajectory in student math achievement after the intervention was
clearly delineated (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007). Study 2, however, did not have
the longitudinal aspect of Study 1, and it would have been instructive to follow these students for
a longer time. On the other hand, given the results of Study 1, it was reasonable to hypothesize
that students in Study 2 who were incremental theorists post-intervention would continue to
follow a positive achievement trajectory.
The results of this study were encouraging and impressive; however, there were
drawbacks inherent in this type of intervention—time and resources. Sixteen research assistants
were trained to implement the intervention workshops. Granted, the intervention appeared to
have been successful, but what school or school system would have resources to implement such
a program? It is possible that finances, time issues and lack of teacher buy-in would stop the
program before it could begin.
Brainology®: Both a measure and an intervention
Dweck and her associates have developed a web-based software program called
Brainology® (n.d.), which not only measures the student’s mindset, but it also provides the
incremental theory intervention in an engaging, colorful, quest-oriented series of four computer
sessions. The teacher has the ability to track each student’s progress throughout the program;
thus, a researcher could use this as a tool to determine mindset and perform an incremental
theory intervention; then, he or she could track student test data in order to measure the effect of
the intervention.
Discussion
The review of literature supports the notion that a student’s mindset impacts academic
achievement. The major researcher in this field, Carol S. Dweck, has carried out numerous
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 17
studies on the effects of mindset on achievement. She has developed methods of measuring and
changing mindsets. In order to place her work in context, the literature review includes studies
on middle school students, the achievement gap, and the effects of poverty on learning. The
literature demonstrates that poverty negatively impacts student performance and changes the
brains of young students. The research also explored the negative effects of racial stereotyping
on student mindsets. Dweck’s research indicated that changing the student’s mind set
significantly improves academic performance, despite the student’s SES or previous
achievement.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 18
Chapter 3
Methods
Research Design
This study employed an approach that was primarily quantitative, yet the study could be
classified as mixed-methods. The Brainology® (n.d.) software administered a pre- and post-
survey in order to determine each student’s mindset. The data collected from these surveys were
utilized to demonstrate potential changes in mindset and information learned as a result of
completing Brainology® (n.d.). The software, however, also afforded students the opportunity to
keep a personal journal throughout the process, and student comments provided qualitative data
to analyze further the impact of the Brainology® (n.d.) intervention.
The second phase of the study was completely quantitative, as it consisted entirely of
comparing Discovery Education Assessment (DEA) predicted levels of achievement with actual
achievement on TCAP Math testing. In order to make this comparison, it was necessary to
convert DEA raw scores into a percentage score similar to the TCAP quick scores.
The proposed study followed a quasi-experimental design. All seventh grade students at a
public charter school in Nashville, Tennessee were given access to Brainology® (n.d.) and the
opportunity to complete the program. All students who took the DEA tests and the TCAP were
included in the analysis. All seventh graders did not complete Brainology® (n.d.), and the results
of students who completed the program were compared with those who did not complete the
program. Only students who completed the entire software program were included in the change
of mindset analysis. All seventh grade students at the school were included in the portion of the
study that compared DEA predicted performance with TCAP actual achievement.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 19
Before the study began, the school administration decided to group all students into
higher-achieving and lower-achieving groups. The high-achievers were given a second math
class two days a week, in order to prepare them for the TCAP test. This practice was called
“double-dosing,” and the idea behind this division was that students who were performing on a
level of proficiency or near-proficiency would be given additional assistance to boost their
performance. Students who were performing at a lower level were placed in a group with
students of similar ability, thus assuring that their particular academic needs were met.
Although this arrangement was out of this researcher’s control, the facts were considered
in the data analysis. Students who completed the Brainology® (n.d.) program and were in the
double-dose math group were examined separately from the students who completed the
program and were not in the double-dose math group.
Sampling and Participants
All seventh graders from the same Nashville charter school were invited to participate.
The group initially consisted of 63 students, but one student withdrew from the school prior to
the end of the study. Of the 62 remaining students, 61 participated in the Free and Reduced Meal
program. Twenty-five of the students were male, and thirty-seven were female. There were two
Hispanic students, and the balance of the student sample (39) was comprised of African-
American students. Six students received services for Exceptional Education and, therefore, took
the Tennessee Modified Alternative Assessment Standards (TCAP MAAS) test.
Variables
The pre- and post-assessments in Brainology® (n.d.) consist of statements such as, “I
work hard in school,” and “I believe that the harder I study in school, the more successful I will
be in school,” that were to be rated on a six-point Likert scale. These statements were the
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 20
independent variables and the student ratings were the dependent variables. In addition, students
were asked to list challenges to their own success in school. The student challenges are
qualitative in nature, yet the software grouped them into constructs and created a frequency chart
of student challenges. The entire Brainology® (n.d.) intervention represents the independent
variable.
The change in performance from DEA test C to the TCAP test was the dependent
variable. In this portion of the study, students were analyzed in four groups: students who
showed an initial fixed mindset and did not receive math double-dosing, students who completed
Brainology® (n.d.) with a growth mindset and did not receive math double-dosing, students who
demonstrated a fixed mindset and received math double-dosing, and students who demonstrated
a growth mindset and received math double-dosing.
Measures
Students in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) took three district-funded,
standardized TCAP-predictor tests called Discovery Education Assessments (DEA). The
baseline measure of achievement was DEA C, which was given in February, to determine the
effects of this researcher’s intervention. The DEA Math section has a median reliability of 0.82
with a median sample size of 30,390, the test is criterion referenced, and it has content validity.
In addition, the test utilizes a vertical scale which incorporates a proprietary growth formula, so
that the assessments get harder as the year goes on (DEA, 2010). This eliminates the need to
control for maturation and student learning.
The TCAP, given in late April, was also a criterion-referenced test, rather than a norm-
referenced test, which means that students taking TCAP were tested on their performance on a
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 21
given set of state curriculum standards. Students taking the TCAP were not compared to their
peers but are only scored on their individual performance (TNDOE, n.d.).
Data Collection
The Brainology® (n.d) intervention took place between Discovery Assessment C and
TCAP testing, during regularly scheduled computer lab time. The school’s computer lab teacher
managed the students’ participation in Brainology® (n.d.). The software covered a variety of
topics, including the structure of the brain, the process of learning and remembering, breathing
techniques to relieve test anxiety, and applying this knowledge to improve study skills. In
addition, the students had the opportunity to reflect on what they learned by utilizing an online
journal (Brainology®, n.d.). The Brainology® (n.d.) questionnaire was also given after the
students completed the intervention. The software had an export feature, so that this researcher
could examine individual and group responses and results in the form of various spreadsheets
and graphs, including Likert scale responses and journal entries.
Data Analysis
The Brainology® (n.d.) questionnaire results were analyzed first in order to determine
both the initial student mindsets and whether the intervention affected student mindsets to a
statistically significant degree. DEA scores were converted from raw scores to percentages and
compared to TCAP percentage scores. Two-variable descriptive statistics were utilized to
determine the impact of Brainology® (n.d.) on TCAP scores. Student journal responses and
challenges to learning were examined pre- and post-intervention in order to determine the effect
of Brainology on student self-perceptions.
Ethical Behavior
All seventh grade students were given an informed consent form to take home, and the
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 22
study was approved by the expedited Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board. The
anonymity of students was protected at all times. The Brainology® (n.d.) software was
purchased from the website www.brainology.us, and the website management staff assisted this
researcher by inputting user names and giving each student a password; however, the website
staff was given only first names and last initials, in order to protect anonymity.
Ethical Considerations
Equity in education is the civil rights issue of our generation. Regardless of strides which
have been made in many areas of our society, many children, “the least of these,” suffer the
burden of poverty and fail to connect with our education system. Both the black-white and high-
poverty-low poverty achievement gaps are evident in elementary school and middle school
(USDOE, 2010). For the approximately 27.4% of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools’
students who fail to complete high school (MNPS, 2010), the gap grows into a chasm. When
students fail in school, they risk failing in life. Dweck’s work is the first research this author has
read which addresses the self-theories of intelligence and offers a promising, direct
interventional strategy for low SES students, an underserved group of young people who deserve
the same chance as every other group of American children.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 23
Chapter 4
Results
A Shift in Mindset
The Brainology® (n.d.) software provides the teacher or researcher with raw data, student
journal entries and summary tables. Out of an initial sample of 63 seventh graders, one student
left the school in the middle of the study. Thirty-nine students completed all four levels of
Brainology® (n.d.), and 33 of those students completed both the pre- and post-questionnaires,
which consisted of six statements to be rated on a 6-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree,”
or 1, to “strongly agree,” or 6. The statements, abbreviated in the charts below, were as follows:
“I work hard to learn new things”; “I know study techniques that help me learn effectively when
I study”; “If an assignment is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot doing it”; “I have trouble
paying attention in class”; “I believe that the harder I study in school, the more successful I will
be in school”; and “I believe that I can succeed in school (Brainology® (n.d.)).”
Pre/Post Survey for All Students
4.0
3.5 3.4
2.9
4.54.8
4.5 4.44.2
2.8
4.64.8
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
I work hard I knowstudy
techniques
Hard meansI'l l learn
Troublepaying
attention
The harder Istudy, the
moresuccessful
I cansucceed in
school
Pre-Program
Post-Program
In the chart above, a higher score indicates more of a growth mindset, with the exception
of “Trouble paying attention,” which was reverse-coded. The mean mindset score pre-program
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 24
was 3.8, and the median was 3.9. The mean and median post-intervention were 4.2 and 4.3,
respectively. Most notably, the greatest increase was in the student response to “If an assignment
is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot doing it.” The score for this statement increased from 3.4
to 4.2, indicating that the average student trended toward a growth mindset post-intervention. In
addition, the response to “I know study techniques” increased from 3.5 to 4.4, indicating that
students expressed greater knowledge of how to study.
For students who expressed an initial fixed mindset, the results of the pre- and post-
program responses were even more dramatic than the responses for the entire group.
Pre/Post Survey for Students with Initial Fixed Mindset
2.3 2.32.0
1.5
2.42.0
4.3 4.13.8
2.3
4.7
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
I work hard I knowstudy
techniques
Hard meansI'l l learn
Troublepaying
attention
The harder Istudy, the
moresuccessful
I cansucceed in
school
Pre-Program
Post-Program
The mean mindset for this group on the pre-program questionnaire was 2.1, and the
median was 3; whereas, post-program, the mean and median were 3.8 and 4, respectively.
Students demonstrated the greatest gains in their responses to “I work hard to learn new things;”
“I know study techniques;” and “If an assignment is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot.” The
information in this chart supports the notion that students with a fixed mindset moved
significantly toward a growth mindset through their experience with Brainology® (n.d.).
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 25
Student Challenges to Learning
During the introduction to the Brainology® (n.d.) program, students were asked to select
from a list of challenges to success in school; for example, “I have trouble concentrating on
school work.”
# of students indicating each challenge
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
I hav
e trouble
concen
trating o
n sch
ool work
I get r
eally
nervous w
hen I t
ake a
test
I forge
t thing
s that
I read
or hea
r in cla
ss
Some su
bjects
are v
ery ha
rd for m
e to le
arn
I’m to
o far b
ehind in
my c
lass
I’m ju
st not a
good st
udent
I don’t k
now how to ta
ke notes in
class
I don't h
ave e
nough
time to d
o everyt
hing
I lose
pape
rs, no
tes or a
ssign
ments
I don’t l
ike sc
hool
There’s n
obody t
o help m
e
I don’t k
now how to st
udy fo
r a te
st
I don’t h
ave a
good p
lace t
o study o
r do h
omework
Persona
l pro
blems g
et in th
e way
Thirty-eight students indicated that “Some subjects are very hard for me to learn,” yet only two
stated that they just weren’t good students. At the outset of Brainology® (n.d.), 14 students listed
challenges in three or more areas, but after completing the program, only 3 students listed more
than three challenges. Brainology® (n.d.) affected the students’ perceptions of school and their
ability to be successful in school.
Student Journal Responses
During the introduction to Brainology® (n.d.) and each of the four levels of the program,
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 26
students had access to a journal. Students were encouraged to write down what they learned,
whether or not it was helpful, and why it was helpful. All 62 participants made at least one
journal entry. Twenty-six of these students commented that the brain can grow or that a person
can get smarter. After completing Unit 3, one student said, “I learned that the brain grows every
time you gain knowledge.” Examples of similar journal entries are: “When you learn your brain
gets stronger;” “How you can make your brain a lot smarter;” “How you get smarter when your
brain get (sic) exercise like learning;” and “I learned that my brain gets bigger and smarter as I
learn more in school.” The prevalence of these statements indicated that many students grasped
the core of the growth mindset.
Another trend in the student journal entries was study techniques and managing test-
anxiety. For example, one student wrote, “When you are going to take a test you need to count to
10 and say something positive not negative.” Another commented, “Instead of having so much
anxiety you can think positive about the things you need to do. Even if you’re nervous you can
still think about the good things or what you know about the subject.” Yet another student wrote,
“When you’re having a test don’t get scared because it will send a message to the brain thinking
something is wrong.” According to this student, the information helped her because, “When I
take my TCAP I will say I can pass this . . . and when you take a test do the ones you know first
then go back to the ones you don’t so you won’t run out of time.” Most of the journal entries
concerning test-taking focused on positive thinking and eliminating negative thoughts so that the
brain could function at its best. Many students demonstrated that they had learned specific test-
taking and anxiety-reducing techniques.
The Effect on Student Achievement
The effect on student achievement was mixed and was complicated by the school’s
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 27
decision to introduce the double-dose math class intervention. As stated above, higher-achieving
students were grouped together and given two additional math classes per week, a practice called
double-dosing. These classes were geared specifically toward TCAP review and preparation. The
chart below summarizes achievement data for all students in the seventh grade.
Student Increase/Decrease from DEA C to TCAP
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Overa
ll
Incr
ease
Decre
ase
Comple
ted
Braino
logy
Incr
ease
Decre
ase
Growth
Mind
set
Incr
ease
Decre
ase
The two columns on the left represent all students. Overall, 32 students demonstrated an increase
over predicted scores and 30 decreased. Of the students who completed Brainology® (n.d.), 21
increased and 18 decreased, and the students who ended the program with a growth mindset
actually did worse than the group as a whole: Eleven increased and fourteen decreased. The
results indicated that Brainology® (n.d.) is no “magic bullet,” and, although the program
changed students’ self-theories of intelligence and affected their journal entries, the impact on
achievement was the reverse of what this researcher hypothesized.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 28
Digging Deeper
In order to understand more fully the impact of the Brainology® (n.d.) intervention, it is
necessary to consider different student groupings.
TCAP Double Dose vs. Non-double Dose
0
5
10
15
20
25
TCAP dd Increase Decrease TCAP ndd Increase Decrease
The school provided one group of students with two extra math classes per week, so-called
double-dosing, and this intervention must be considered. The double-dose group included 22
students, or 59%, who increased their scores and 15 students, or 40%, who decreased their
scores. The non-double-dose group consisted of 10 students who increased their scores and 15
who decreased their scores from DEA C to TCAP, at a rate of 40% and 60%, respectively.
Apparently double-dosing had a significant positive impact on achievement scores, as the
practice was designed to do.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 29
The combination of Brainology® (n.d.) and double-dosing was also examined.
Students Who Completed Brainology
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
TCAP dd Increase Decrease TCAP ndd Increase Decrease
Students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and also experienced double-dose math classes
increased their achievement scores at a rate of 18 increases, or 62%, compared to 11 decreases,
or 38%. On the other hand, students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) but did not receive
additional math instruction demonstrated the opposite result, with three students’ increasing and
seven students’ decreasing their scores, at rates of 30% and 70%, respectively. The combination
of the Brainology® (n.d.) program and math double-dosing had the greatest positive impact on
student achievement from DEA C to TCAP.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 30
Achievement results for students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.) are
summarized in the following chart.
Students Who Did Not Complete Brainology
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TCAP dd Increase Decrease TCAP ndd Increase Decrease
Of the 23 students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.), seven were in the double-dose
math classes and sixteen were not. Three students in the double-dose classes increased their
score and four decreased; whereas, eight students in the non-double-dose class increased and
eight decreased. Results for this group of students were split almost evenly between those who
increased and those who decreased their scores.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 31
Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusions
Summary of the Study
Experiencing and completing the Brainology® (n.d.) software program led to a
statistically significant increase in the mean and median mindset measure of the students.
Students who demonstrated an initial fixed mindset with a median score of 3 increased the
median mindset score to 4 by the end of the program. Student journal entries supported this
change in mindset and also demonstrated that students were learning study techniques. The
number of students reporting three or more learning challenges decreased from 14 to 3 upon
completion of Brainology® (n.d.).
In contrast, students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and demonstrated a growth
mindset did not fair as well as the overall group when comparing achievement scores. Only 11
students with a growth mindset increased their scores from DEA C to TCAP; whereas, 14
students’ scores decreased. The greatest growth was demonstrated by the group of students who
received double-dose math instruction and completed the Brainology® (n.d.) program.
Interpretation of Results
The Brainology® (n.d.) program affected the participating students’ self-theories of
intelligence: only eight students retained a fixed mindset at the end of the program. Students
expressed their understanding of the growth mindset in journal entries, and many students also
indicated that they had learned study skills. Although the students’ mindsets, as measured by the
pre- and post-questionnaire, did change significantly, the change in itself did not positively affect
the achievement of a majority of students.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 32
The short-term experience of the Brainology® (n.d.) was not sufficient to promote
significant gains in student achievement; however, students who had the added support of
additional, targeted math instruction demonstrated a much higher percentage of increase in
achievement from DEA C to TCAP. Thus, the combination of instruction and software
intervention was powerful in improving student achievement.
Conclusions
The Brainology® (n.d.) intervention was insufficient to affect achievement scores
significantly; however, the software did give students new understandings about how the brain
works. These new understandings are not harmful and could help students in the affective
domain over the long-term. The changes that were expressed in journals and in survey responses
did not, in and of themselves, affect the achievement of a majority of students.
Students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and had access to double-dose math
instruction showed significant improvement in achievement from DEA C to TCAP. When all of
the students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) were considered, 54% increased their scores, as
compared to 62% of the students in the double-dose group who also completed Brainology®
(n.d.). Students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.) showed no significant difference,
whether they were in the double-dose classes or not; therefore, the combination of Brainology®
(n.d.) and the double-dose of math was a powerful intervention.
Brainology® (n.d.) should not be used in isolation; rather, it should be employed in
conjunction with the curriculum so that students have an opportunity to apply their growth
mindsets. Students in the double-dose math classes were told that they were high achievers.
Perhaps this knowledge and the growth mindset worked together to spur these students to
increased scores on high-stakes tests.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 33
Links to Literature Review
In order to mitigate the effects of poverty on students’ brains, Jensen suggests that
schools create an “enrichment mindset” that encourages creativity and strong emotional ties
(Jensen, 2009). Student journal responses to the Brainology® (n.d.) software levels demonstrated
that the students learned new material about how their brains work. The students were
encouraged to talk to someone about what they learned, an act that would foster social bonding.
The software covered material ranging from how the brain physically looks to developing one’s
intelligence to avoiding test-anxiety. Not only would this information foster a growth mindset,
but it would also contribute to the enrichment mindset which Jensen described.
Dweck (2000) found that 60% of incremental theorists would choose a challenging task,
as opposed to 20% of entity theorists. This result was consistent over cultures and multiple
iterations of the study. The seventh graders in this researcher’s study demonstrated a change in
mindset which may result in a greater willingness to accept challenges in the future. The students
who were challenged by taking additional math classes rose to that challenge and demonstrated a
higher percentage of increase in test scores.
Recommendations for Practice
Brainology® (n.d.) taught the participants how the brain works, and the software fostered
a growth mindset. In practice, teachers should educate themselves about types of mindsets and
the impact of a student’s mindset on learning and achievement. The Brainology® (n.d.) website,
www.brainology.us, has a multitude of resources for parents, teachers, and students in order to
foster a school-wide growth mindset. The Mindset Works® Toolkit (n.d.) includes activities for
students and professional development for teachers.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 34
The students who benefitted the most from Brainology® (n.d.) had additional instruction,
and those students were told that they were high-achievers. In order to reap the greatest
achievement gains from Brainology® (n.d.), teachers need to tell students that they can achieve
at the highest level, and teachers must believe that. Students must be convinced that their brains
can get stronger with effort, just as athletes get better with practice. Teachers must exhibit high
expectations and offer students challenging activities in order to activate the growth mindset. In
other words, a growth mindset is useless without challenging educational experiences.
Action Plan
This researcher had hoped that a simple software intervention would be adequate to affect
achievement gains, but the data do not support that notion. In order for Brainology® (n.d.) to
have the greatest possible impact, the entire school must adopt a growth mindset and participate
in the Mindset Works® (n.d.) programs. Mindset Works® (n.d.) is a comprehensive program
that involves professional development as well as the Brainology® (n.d.) program. The cost of
the software itself is $20 per student, an amount that would be cost prohibitive for many schools.
If the entire program could not be implemented, then this researcher would recommend
that colleagues read the material available on the website. Whenever possible, teachers could
seek to participate in research opportunities. There are small ways to affect student mindsets like
using growth mindset language in the classroom. This researcher plans to share the results of this
study with colleagues and form a group to study methods of promoting growth mindsets and
integrating the notion of a growth mindset into the existing curriculum.
Implications for Further Research
One approach to further research would be to follow this group of students through the
end of 8th grade. Perhaps the effects of Brainology® (n.d.) would be more readily apparent as
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 35
time went on. The achievement scores of this school’s 7th graders could be compared to the
scores of another school’s 7th graders, thus introducing a true control group into the study. This
researcher could also investigate and implement the recommendations of the Mindset Works®
(n.d.) program, as well as foster the integration of the Brainology® (n.d.) curriculum into the
classroom. Given Dweck’s success with her 2007 intervention and the partial success of this
study, further research into the subject would certainly be warranted.
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 36
References
Armstrong, T. (2006). Best schools: How human development research should inform
educational practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?
id=bmsbReA56NIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=armstrong+best+schools&source=bl&ots
=KQhOHdEpuW&sig=cMfHjAIN48yBtNitKPyDjc5twUc&hl=en&ei=u2_ATIPNE4Wcl
gff4Y2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=on
epage&q&f=false
Aronson, J., Cohen, G., McColskey, W., Montrosse, B., Lewis, K., & Mooney, K. (2009).
Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: A review of social-psychological intervention
studies on improving the achievement of black students (Issues & Answers Report, REL
2009–No. 076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Atwood, J. R. (2010, April-May). Mindset, motivation and metaphor in school and sport:
Bifurcated beliefs and behavior in two different achievement domains. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Brainology® . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainology.us/login/needLogin.aspx
Discovery Education Assessment. (2010). Discovery Education Assessment Research. Retrieved
from static.discoveryeducation.com/de/docs/assessment/14111_Tennessee Research.pdf
MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 37
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New
York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.
(Eds.) Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dweck, C.S. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada, 49(4), 56-57, 59-
61.
Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and
what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2010). Graduation rate: MNPS way ahead of the curve
for graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page58227.aspx
Mindset Works® Toolkit. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mindsetworks.com/mindset-school/
Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the middle grades: Insights from
NAEP and TIMSS, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(9), 514-519.
U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics (2009). Mathematics Achievement Gaps. The condition of education 2000-
2010. (NCES Report No. 2009-081). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/indicator12.asp
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.) Frequently asked questions about the achievement
test. What are criterion-referenced tests (CRT)? Retrieved from
http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/ach_faq.shtml
Vanderbilt University. (n.d). Tamra Stambaugh. Retrieved from
http://pty.vanderbilt.edu/about/pty-staff/tamra-stambaugh/