AUTORES ALTURA CORONAL

Although some researchers claim that language beliefs are a fixed system of knowledge that is formed and developed at an early age and thus cannot be easily changed (Wenden, 1998) or that language beliefs do not change significantly over years (Peacock, 2001), other researchers, recently, argue that the language beliefs are dynamic and can change according to interaction with contextual constraints (e.g., Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Kalaja, Barcelos, Aro, & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2015; Mystkowska, 2014; Paunesku, Walton, Romero,

52

Smith, Yeager, & Dweck, 2015; Yeager et al., 2016). These studies on mindsets allow many researchers to conclude that it is possible to change someone’s mindset.

In addition, mindsets could exhibit some degree of fluctuation (Franiuk, Pomerantz, & Cohen, 2004). Several researchers have primed different mindsets (e.g., Burnette, 2010; Hong et al., 1999), and were able to change them in both short-term laboratory experiments (e.g. Spray, Wang, Biddle, Chatzisarantis, & Warburton, 2006) and longer-term classroom

interventions (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; Burnette & Finkel, 2012). For example, Blackwell et al. (2007) found that students who participated in workshops to learn about the growth mindset and the malleability of intelligence continued to report strong incremental beliefs of intelligence three weeks later and showed a significant improvement in their motivation and grades.

Reviewing the intervention studies conducted to change the students’ mindsets in the literature has shown that changing students’ mindsets can have a significant impact on their motivation and achievement test score. Dweck (2008) suggests that it is important to follow students over longer periods of time to see whether the improvements last. She believes that environmental support (e.g. teachers’ presenting materials in a growth mindset framework and giving feedback that enhance a growth mindset) is essential for them to do so. Growth mindset interventions mainly aims at conveying two key messages to increase participants’ motivation and promote resilience: (a) intelligence and ability can grow through working hard on challenging and difficult tasks; and (b) faliures and mistakes are opportunities for growth, not a sign of lacking ability. Because mindset interventions typically target a single core belief (i.e. malleability of intelligence or ability), they can be brief and flexible (e.g., an hour or less) and can be delivered using standardised materials or ostensible methods that include direct and indirect messages. Therefore, these interventions can use common narratives (stories from older students) and logical information (scientific concepts). According to the educational psychology literature, a typical mindset intervention is expected to encourage students to read an article or watch a film that describes the brain’s ability to grow through hard work on challenging tasks. The article or the film focus on the implications of

neuroscience findings for students’ potential to become smarter through study and practice. They should also stress the fact that failures and setbacks in school provide opportunities to learn and grow rather than indicate lack of ability or talent. The message should be reinforced indirectly through asking the students to participate in writing short essays that summarise the scientific findings in their own words or writing letters to advise another hypothetical

53

In the control condition, students read and complete materials that lack the key psychological message that intelligence is malleable.

In their study, Blackwell et al. (2007) developed an eight-session intervention

protocol, where students in both the experimental and control groups participated in similarly structured workshops. The workshops included instruction in the physiology of the brain, study skills, and antistereotypic thinking. In addition, students in the experimental group were directly taught that intelligence is malleable and can be developed through science-based readings, activities, and discussions. On the other hand, students in the control group had an alternative memory lesson and engaged in discussions of other academic issues. The

intervention was developed building on theory-altering experimental materials that were previously developed in lab studies (e.g. Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997) and in the Aronson et al. (2002) theory-changing intervention (i.e. the representation of growing neural pathways). The main lessons that was taught in the workshop was that learning changes the brain by forming new connections and that students can control this process. The message about the malleability of intelligence was also delivered indirectly through an interesting reading that included clear and powerful analogies and examples (e.g. how muscles become stronger with excerise or how ignorant babies become smarter with continuous learning). They found that promoting an incremental theory generated increased motivation in the classroom, supporting the idea that the student’s mindset is a key factor in achievement motivation. Within a single semester, the incremental theory intervention succeeded in raising the math grades of low- achieving seventh-grade students and preventing the decline in mathematics achievement, according to teacher reports. Aronson et al. (2002) addressed the implicit beliefs that students have about intelligence in an effort to improve the academic performance of minority college students. In their intervention study, they encouraged students in three one-hour laboratory sessions to watch an exciting film that portrays the ways the brain changes every time something new is learned. Then, the message was reinforced and internalised using in an indirect method by asking the same students to participate in an ostensible pen pal program in which they wrote a letter to a struggling junior high student. They were asked to emphasise the concept that intelligence is malleable and can increase with mental excerices. The findings showed that students who received growth mindset training reported increased enjoyment of their academic work and valued academics in general more than students in the control group. In line with Blackwell et al. (2007), interventions in malleability training have resulted in the improvement of the students GPA which clearly improved over the other groups.

54

It is worth noting that although many researchers have suggested that priming

mindsets predicts people’s behaviours and emotions in difficult situations (i.e., goal operating and goal monitoring (Burnette et al., 2013), other researchers perceive the relationship as being a more complex interconnection among various variables that work collectively as a motivational and self-regulatory system. For example, the relationship between mindsets and goals can be mediated by self efficacy and attributions (Baird, Scott, Dearing & Hamill, 2009), while goal setting meditates the relationship between mindsets and responses to failure (e.g., Dinger, Dickhauser, Spinath, & Steinmayr, 2013; Robins & Pals, 2002; Spray et al., 2006).

In sum, the findings that showed that students’ mindsets can be primed, changed and taught is of vital importance for educators in different domains. It has several pedagogical implications because it demonstrated that teaching a growth mindset can enhance the

students’ motivation and thus improve their school achievement (e.g. Chen & Pajares, 2010; Dupreyat & Marine, 2005).