All those enthusiasts felt quite a shock in 2018, when two mega-meta-analysis<\/a> crunched all the numbers and found that<\/p>\n a) mindset doesn’t really have much of an effect on academic performance, and<\/p>\n b) all those mindset interventions don’t really do anything anyway.<\/p>\n In some academic quarters, loud praise gave way to ridicule and — in some cases — snark. (The loaded claim that “all the research showing a positive effect was done by Dweck herself” simply isn’t true.)<\/p>\n Since then, competing camps wave conflicting studies<\/a> to support their pro\/anti Growth Mindset position.<\/p>\n I’d like to advocate for an alternative approach. I believe Dr. Dan Willingham said something like this:<\/p>\n “Some studies suggest that a growth mindset helps some students; other studies suggest that creating the conditions to develop and enact that mindset is REALLY TRICKY.<\/p>\n We shouldn’t simply abandon this approach. We should focus our efforts on finding\u00a0when it does<\/strong> and doesn’t\u00a0<\/strong>help which<\/strong> students<\/em>, and\u00a0how to foster those conditions for them<\/em>.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words: a growth mindset won’t promptly and easily cure all motivation problems. But let’s try to find where and how and whom it benefits.<\/p>\n With that goal in mind, I want to explore a recent study. My goal is NOT to say “this team is right; that one is wrong.”<\/p>\n Instead, I want to show\u00a0how this study gives us reasons to be hopeful and curious — but should still not return us to the days of A\u00a0Poster in Every Classroom.<\/p>\n In this study<\/a>\u00a0from 2022, roughly 80 children aged 7-10 had 2 fMRI scans separated by four weeks.<\/p>\n They also filled out a mindset survey, agreeing or disagreeing with statements like \u201cI can get better at math if I work hard to solve problems,\u201d or \u201cpeople are born smart or not smart, and there\u2019s not much they can do to change that.\u201d<\/p>\n For half of those children \u2013 the control group \u2013 that was that.<\/p>\n The other children — during the intervening four weeks — went through a specially designed math tutoring program.<\/p>\n This tutoring program emphasized progress and understanding, not simply scores or comparisons to others. If you know from growth mindset, you know the terminology here: the program emphasized \u201cmastery\/learning goals,\u201d not \u201cperformance goals.\u201d<\/p>\n So, what did the research team find after four weeks?<\/p>\n Several important findings jump out from all the data and charts:<\/p>\n BOTH GROUPS saw an increase in their growth mindset \u201cscore.\u201d For instance, they were likelier to disagree<\/em> with the statement that \u201cpeople can\u2019t do much to change their math ability.\u201d<\/p>\n However \u2013 and this is an important however \u2013 the GROUP IN THE TUTORING PROGRAM saw a bigger change. If you think having a growth mindset is good, you\u2019d interpret these data to say that the tutoring group \u201cmade more progress.\u201d<\/p>\n In other words: contrary to that big-news meta-analysis from 2018, this study found that\u00a0— under these conditions —\u00a0growth mindset training did help students develop more of a growth mindset<\/em>.<\/p>\n We care about mindset because it should motivate students to learn more<\/em>. To say the same thing in different words: if students who do have a growth mindset learn as much as those who don\u2019t, why would we focus so much energy on developing that mindset?<\/p>\n The research team wanted to know if students who had a more of a growth mindset before<\/em> the tutoring program learning more math\u00a0during<\/em> the tutoring program.<\/p>\n The technical answer to this question is: “yup.”<\/p>\n When the research team compared changes in fMRI scans after four weeks, they found that the changes in growth mindset<\/em> correlated with specific changes in neural regions and networks<\/em>.<\/p>\n If you want to get your neuro-geek on: in the scans of children with higher mindset scores, they found<\/p>\n They also found that changes in the circuitry connecting these regions \u201cemerged as the strongest predictor of growth mindset gains.\u201d<\/p>\n Yes: we have had reasonable doubts about the importance of mindset. (Reasonable doubts = that 2018 meta-analysis, among other studies.)<\/p>\n But, this study arrives at three striking conclusions:<\/p>\n a) a well-designed math tutoring program\u00a0can<\/em>\u00a0foster a growth mindset,<\/p>\n b) growth mindset before the tutoring program results in greater math learning during that program, and<\/p>\n c) we see brain regions both activating and connecting differently in conjunction with growth mindset self-report.<\/p>\n Even for skeptics, that’s an impressive combination!<\/p>\n I can see at least two reasons this study isn\u2019t a slam dunk for Team Mindset.<\/p>\n When researchers compare two groups — as they did in this case — we want those groups to be as much alike as possible.<\/p>\n While these groups did resemble each other in lots of important ways (average age, average mindset score, average IQ, etc.), they differed in a crucial one: one group got something<\/em>; the other group got nothing<\/em>.<\/p>\n That is: one group received four weeks of tutoring. The control group simply went about “business as usual.”<\/p>\n They did not — for instance — get a different kind of tutoring that did NOT focus on a growth mindset.<\/p>\n We can therefore wonder if these students developed a growth mindset not because they got a special kind of<\/em> tutoring, but because they got\u00a0any<\/em> tutoring. Maybe the tutoring, not the mindset ingredients, made the difference.<\/p>\n If you read this blog often, you know that I\u2019m very wary<\/em> of people who make strong claims based on neuroscience research.<\/p>\n Lots of people make claims like these: \u201cwhen teachers do X, students get a hit of oxytocin<\/em>. So everyone has to X!\u201d<\/p>\n Here’s my argument: until we test X with actual students doing something in actual classrooms, we don\u2019t know whether or not extra oxytocin does anything beneficial in these circumstances. (Yes, someone is ACHING to call oxytocin the \u201clove hormone.\u201d No, it\u2019s really not<\/a>.)<\/p>\n So, can we think of other reasons these students\u2019 brain structures and networks might have changed?<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a possibility: perhaps their brains responded to extra math tutoring<\/em>.<\/p>\n Because they had different experiences for four weeks, it\u2019s not wholly shocking that their brains developed differently from those in the control group.<\/p>\n In other words: just because this study includes complicated brain terminology does NOT mean that we must be persuaded by its conclusions. LOTS of people make strong claims about neuroscience; not all of them hold up well.<\/p>\n![\"Little](\"https:\/\/braindevs.net\/blog\/\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/AdobeStock_667861053-300x200.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nBest Case Scenario<\/h2>\n
First<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n
Second<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n
Third<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n
\n
Recapping the Best Case<\/h2>\n
Pushing Back<\/h2>\n
Reason A<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n
Reason B<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n