# data[].attributes.body
PRE CLASS VIDEO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance | Angela Lee Duckworth | TED

# data[].attributes.body
PRE CLASS VIDEO

# data[].attributes.body
PRE CLASS VIDEO

# data[].attributes.headline
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement 

# data[].attributes.subject
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement 

# data[].attributes.body
Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Main

About 20% of students in the United States will not finish high school on time1. These students are at a high risk of poverty, poor health and early mortality in the current global economy2,3,4. Indeed, a Lancet commission concluded that improving secondary education outcomes for adolescents "presents the single best investment for health and wellbeing"5.

The transition to secondary school represents an important period of flexibility in the educational trajectories of adolescents6. In the United States, the grades of students tend to decrease during the transition to the ninth grade (age 14-15 years, UK year 10), and often do not recover7. When such students underperform in or opt out of rigorous coursework, they are far less likely to leave secondary school prepared for college or university or for advanced courses in college or university8,9. In this way, early problems in the transition to secondary school can compound over time into large differences in human capital in adulthood.

One way to improve academic success across the transition to secondary school is through social-psychological interventions, which change how adolescents think or feel about themselves and their schoolwork and thereby encourage students to take advantage of learning opportunities in school10,11. The specific intervention evaluated here-a growth mindset of intelligence intervention-addresses the beliefs of adolescents about the nature of intelligence, leading students to see intellectual abilities not as fixed but as capable of growth in response to dedicated effort, trying new strategies and seeking help when appropriate12,13,14,15,16. This can be especially important in a society that conveys a fixed mindset (a view that intelligence is fixed), which can imply that feeling challenged and having to put in effort means that one is not naturally talented and is unlikely to succeed12.

The growth mindset intervention communicates a memorable metaphor: that the brain is like a muscle that grows stronger and smarter when it undergoes rigorous learning experiences14. Adolescents hear the metaphor in the context of the neuroscience of learning, they reflect on ways to strengthen their brains through schoolwork, and they internalize the message by teaching it to a future first-year ninth grade student who is struggling at the start of the year. The intervention can lead to sustained academic improvement through self-reinforcing cycles of motivation and learning-oriented behaviour. For example, a growth mindset can motivate students to take on more rigorous learning experiences and to persist when encountering difficulties. Their behaviour may then be reinforced by the school context, such as more positive and learning-oriented responses from peers or instructors10,17.

Initial intervention studies with adolescents taught a growth mindset in multi-session (for example, eight classroom sessions15), interactive workshops delivered by highly trained adults; however, these were not readily scalable. Subsequent growth mindset interventions were briefer and self-administered online, although lower effect sizes were, of course, expected. Nonetheless, previous randomized evaluations, including a pre-registered replication, found that online growth mindset interventions improved grades for the targeted group of students in secondary education who previously showed lower achievement13,16,18. These findings are important because previously low-achieving students are the group that shows the steepest decline in grades during the transition to secondary school19, and these findings are consistent with theory because a growth mindset should be most beneficial for students confronting challenges20.

Here we report the results of the National Study of Learning Mindsets, which examined the effects of a short, online growth mindset intervention in a nationally representative sample of high schools in the United States (Fig. 1). With this unique dataset we tested the hypotheses that the intervention would improve grades among lower-achieving students and overall uptake of advanced courses in this national sample.

Between August and November 2015, 82% of schools delivered the intervention; the remaining 18% delivered the intervention in January or February of 2016. Asterisk indicates that the median number of days between sessions 1 and 2 among schools implementing the intervention in the autumn was 21 days; for spring-implementing schools it was 27 days. The coin-tossing symbol indicates that random assignment was made during session 1. The tick symbol indicates that a comprehensive analysis plan was pre-registered at https://osf.io/tn6g4. The blind-eye symbol indicates that, first, teachers and researchers were kept blinded to students' random assignment to condition, and, second, the Bayesian, machine-learning robustness tests were conducted by analysts who at the time were blinded to study hypotheses and to the identities of the variables.

A focus on heterogeneity

The study was also designed with the purpose of understanding for whom and under what conditions the growth mindset intervention improves grades. That is, it examined potential sources of cross-site treatment effect heterogeneity. One reason why understanding heterogeneity of effects is important is because most interventions that are effective in initial efficacy trials go on to show weaker or no effects when they are scaled up in effectiveness trials that deliver treatments under everyday conditions to more heterogeneous samples21,22,23. Without clear evidence about why average effect sizes differ in later-conducted studies-evidence that could be acquired from a systematic investigation of effect heterogeneity-researchers may prematurely discard interventions that yield low average effects but could provide meaningful and replicable benefits at scale for targeted groups21,23.

Sociological theory highlights two broad dimensions of school contexts that might sustain or impede belief change and enhanced motivation among students treated by a growth mindset intervention6. First, schools with the least 'formal' resources, such as high-quality curricula and instruction, may not offer the learning opportunities for students to be able to capitalize on the intervention, while those with the most resources may not need the intervention. Second, some schools may not have the 'informal' resources needed to sustain the intervention effect, such as peer norms that support students when they take on challenges and persist in the face of intellectual difficulty. We hypothesized that both of these dimensions would significantly moderate growth mindset intervention effects.

Historically, the scientific methods used to answer questions about the heterogeneity of intervention effects have been underdeveloped and underused21,24,25. Common problems in the literature are: (1) imprecise site-level impact estimates (because of cluster-level random assignment); (2) inconsistent fidelity to intervention protocols across sites (which can obscure the workings of the cross-site moderators of interest); (3) non-representative sampling of sites (which causes site selection bias22,26); and (4) multiple post hoc tests for the sources of treatment effect size heterogeneity (which increases the probability of false discoveries24).

We overcame all of these problems in a single study. We randomized students to condition within schools and consistently had high fidelity of implementation across sites (see Supplementary Information section 5). We addressed site selection bias by contracting a professional research company, which recruited a sample of schools that generalized to the entire population of ninth-grade students attending regular US public schools27 (that is, schools that run on government funds; see Supplementary Information section 3). Next, the study used analysis methods that avoided false conclusions about subgroup effects, by generating a limited number of moderation hypotheses (two), pre-registering a limited number of statistical tests and conducting a blinded Bayesian analysis that can provide rigorous confirmation of the results (Fig. 1).

Expected effect sizes

In this kind of study, it is important to ask what size of effect would be meaningful. As a leading educational economist concluded, "in real-world settings, a fifth of a standard deviation [0.20 s.d.] is a large effect"28. This statement is justified by the 'best evidence synthesis' movement29, which recommends the use of empirical benchmarks, not from laboratory studies, but from the highest-quality field research on factors affecting objective educational outcomes30,31. A standardized mean difference effect size of 0.20 s.d. is considered 'large' because it is: (1) roughly how much improvement results from a year of classroom learning for ninth-grade students, as shown by standardized tests30; (2) at the high end of estimates for the effect of having a very high-quality teacher (versus an average teacher) for one year32; and (3) at the uppermost end of empirical distributions of real-world effect sizes from diverse randomized trials that target adolescents31. Notably, the highly-cited 'nudges' studied by behavioural economists and others, when aimed at influencing real-world outcomes that unfold over time (such as college enrolment or energy conservation33) rather than one-time choices, rarely, if ever, exceed 0.20 s.d. and typically have much smaller effect sizes.

Defining the primary outcome and student subgroup

The primary outcome was the post-intervention grade point average (GPA) in core ninth-grade classes (mathematics, science, English or language arts, and social studies), obtained from administrative data sources of the schools (as described in the pre-analysis plan found in the Supplementary Information section 13 and at https://osf.io 35). Following the pre-registered analysis plan, we report results for the targeted group of n = 6,320 students who were lower-achieving relative to peers in the same school. This group is typically targeted by comprehensive programmes evaluated in randomized trials in education, as there is an urgent need to improve their educational trajectories. The justification for predicting effects in the lower-achieving group is that (1) this group benefitted in previous growth mindset trials; (2) lower-achieving students may be undergoing more academic difficulties and therefore may benefit more from a growth mindset that alters the interpretation of these difficulties; and (3) students who already have a high GPA may have less room to improve their GPAs. We defined students as relatively lower-achieving if they were earning GPAs at or below the school-specific median in the term before random assignment or, if they were missing prior GPA data, if they were below the school-specific median on academic variables used to impute prior GPA (as described in the analysis plan). Supplementary analyses for the sample overall can be found in Extended Data Table 1, and robustness analyses for the definition of lower-achieving students are included in Extended Data Fig. 1 ( Supplementary Information section 7).

Average effects on mindset

Among lower-achieving adolescents, the growth mindset intervention reduced the prevalence of fixed mindset beliefs relative to the control condition, reported at the end of the second treatment session, unstandardized B = −0.38 (95% confidence interval = −0.31, −0.46), standard error of the regression coefficient (s.e.) = 0.04, n = 5,650 students, k = 65 schools, t = −10.14, P < 0.001, standardized mean difference effect size of 0.33.

Average effects on core course GPAs

In line with our first major prediction, lower-achieving adolescents earned higher GPAs in core classes at the end of the ninth grade when assigned to the growth mindset intervention, B = 0.10 grade points (95% confidence interval = 0.04, 0.16), s.e. = 0.03, n = 6,320, k = 65, t = 3.51, P = 0.001, standardized mean difference effect size of 0.11, relative to comparable students in the control condition. This conclusion is robust to alternative model specifications that deviate from the pre-registered model (Extended Data Fig. 1).

To map the growth mindset intervention effect onto a policy-relevant indicator of high school success, we analysed poor performance rates, defined as the percentage of adolescents who earned a GPA below 2.0 on a four-point scale (that is, a 'D' or an 'F'; as described in the pre-analysis plan). Poor performance rates are relevant because recent changes in US federal laws (the Every Student Succeeds Act36), have led many states to adopt reductions in the poor performance rates in the ninth grade as a key metric for school accountability. More than three million ninth-grade students attend regular US public schools each year, and half are lower-achieving according to our definition. The model estimates that 5.3% (95% confidence interval = −1.7, −9.0), s.e. = 1.8, t = 2.95, P = 0.005 of 1.5 million students in the United States per year would be prevented from being 'off track' for graduation by the brief and low-cost growth mindset intervention, representing a reduction from 46% to 41%, which is a relative risk reduction of 11% (that is, 0.05/0.46).

Average effects on mathematics and science GPAs

A secondary analysis focused on the outcome of GPAs in only mathematics and science (as described in the analysis plan). Mathematics and science are relevant because a popular belief in the United States links mathematics and science learning to 'raw' or 'innate' abilities37-a view that the growth mindset intervention seeks to correct. In addition, success in mathematics and science strongly predicts long-term economic welfare and well-being38. Analyses of outcomes for mathematics and science supported the same conclusions ( B = 0.10 for mathematics and science GPAs compared to B = 0.10 for core GPAs; Extended Data Tables 1- 3).

Quantifying heterogeneity

The intervention was expected to homogeneously change the mindsets of students across schools-as this would indicate high fidelity of implementation-however, it was expected to heterogeneously change lower-achieving students' GPAs, as this would indicate potential school differences in the contextual mechanisms that sustain an initial treatment effect. As predicted, a mixed-effects model found no significant variability in the treatment effect on self-reported mindsets across schools (unstandardized \(\hat{\tau }=0.08\), Q ₆₄ = 57.2, P = 0.714), whereas significant variability was found in the effect on GPAs among lower-achieving students across schools (unstandardized \(\hat{\tau }=0.09\), Q ₆₄ = 85.5, P = 0.038)39 (Extended Data Fig. 2).

Moderation by school achievement level

First, we tested competing hypotheses about whether the formal resources of the school explained the heterogeneity of effects. Before analysing the data, we expected that in schools that are unable to provide high-quality learning opportunities (the lowest-achieving schools), treated students might not sustain a desire to learn. But we also expected that other schools (the highest-achieving schools) might have such ample resources to prevent failure such that a growth mindset intervention would not add much.

The heterogeneity analyses found support for the latter expectation, but not the former. Treatment effects on ninth-grade GPAs among lower-achieving students were smaller in schools with higher achievement levels, intervention × school achievement level (continuous) interaction, unstandardized B = −0.07 (95% confidence interval = 0.02, 0.13), s.e. = 0.03, z = −2.76, n = 6,320, k = 65, P = 0.006, standardized β = −0.25. In follow-up analyses with categorical indicators for school achievement, medium-achieving schools (middle 50%) showed larger effects than higher-achieving schools (top 25%). Low-achieving schools (bottom 25%) did not significantly differ from medium-achieving schools (Extended Data Table 2); however, this non-significant difference should be interpreted cautiously, owing to wide confidence intervals for the subgroup of lowest-achieving schools.

Moderation by peer norms

Second, we examined whether students might be discouraged from acting on their enhanced growth mindset when they attend schools in which peer norms were unsupportive of challenge-seeking, whereas peer norms that support challenge-seeking might function to sustain the effects of the intervention over time. We measured peer norms by administering a behavioural challenge-seeking task (the 'make-a-math-worksheet' task) at the end of the second intervention session (Fig. 1) and aggregating the values of the control group to the school level.

The pre-registered mixed-effects model yielded a positive and significant intervention × behavioural challenge-seeking norms interaction for GPA among the targeted group of lower-achieving adolescents, such that the intervention produced a greater difference in end-of-year GPAs relative to the control group when the behavioural norm that surrounded students was supportive of the growth mindset belief system, B = 0.11 (95% confidence interval = 0.01, 0.21), s.e. = 0.05, z = 2.18, n = 6,320, k = 65, P = 0.029, β = 0.23. The same conclusion was supported in a secondary analysis of only mathematics and science GPAs (Extended Data Table 2).

Subgroup effect sizes

Putting together the two pre-registered moderators (school achievement level and school norms), the conditional average treatment effect (CATEs) on core GPAs within low- and medium-achieving schools (combined) was 0.14 grade points when the school was in the third quartile of behavioural norms and 0.18 grade points when the school was in the fourth and highest quartile of behavioural norms, as shown in Fig. 2. For mathematics and science grades, the CATEs ranged from 0.16 to 0.25 grade points in the same subgroups of low- and medium-achieving schools with more supportive behavioural norms (for results separating low- and medium-achieving schools, see Fig. 2c, d and Extended Data Table 3). We also found that even the high-achieving schools showed meaningful treatment effects among their lower achievers on mathematics and science GPAs when they had norms that supported challenge seeking-0.08 and 0.11 grade points for the third and fourth quartiles of school norms, respectively, in the high-achieving schools ( P = 0.002; Extended Data Table 3).

a, c, Treatment effects on core course grade point averages (GPAs). b, d, Treatment effects on GPAs of only mathematics and science. a, b, The CATEs represent the estimated subgroup treatment effects from the pre-registered linear mixed-effects model, with survey weights, when fixing the racial/ethnic composition of the schools to the population median to remove any potential confounding effect of that variable on moderation hypothesis tests. Achievement levels: low, 25th percentile or lower; middle, 25th-75th percentile; high, 75th percentile or higher, which follows the categories set in the sampling plan and in the pre-registration. Norms indicate the behavioural challenge-seeking norms, as measured by the responses of the control group to the make-a-math-worksheet task after session 2. c, d, Box plots represent unconditional treatment effects (one for each school) estimated in the pre-registered linear mixed-effects regression model with no school-level moderators, as specified for research question 3 in the pre-analysis plan and described in the Supplementary Information section 7.4. The distribution of the school-level treatment effects was re-scaled to the cross-site standard deviation, in accordance with standard practice. Dark lines correspond to the median school in a subgroup and the boxes correspond to the middle 75% of the distribution (the interquartile range). Supportive schools are defined as above the population median (third and fourth quartiles); unsupportive schools are defined as those below the population median (first and second quartiles). n = 6,320 students in k = 65 schools.

Source data

Bayesian robustness analysis

The BCF analysis assigned a near-certain posterior probability that the population-average treatment effect (PATE) among lower-achieving students was positive and greater than zero, P PATE > 0 ≥ 0.999, providing strong evidence of positive average treatment effects. BCF also found stronger CATEs in schools with positive challenge-seeking norms, and weaker effects in the highest-achieving schools (Extended Data Fig. 3 and Supplementary Information section 8), providing strong correspondence with the primary analyses.

Advanced mathematics course enrolment in tenth grade

The intervention showed weaker benefits on ninth-grade GPAs in high-achieving schools. However, students in these schools may benefit in other ways. An analysis of enrolment in rigorous mathematics courses in the year after the intervention examined this possibility. The enrolment data were gathered with these analyses in mind but since the analyses were not pre-registered, they are exploratory.

Course enrolment decisions are potentially relevant to all students, both lower- and higher-achieving, so we explored them in the full cohort. We found that the growth mindset intervention increased the likelihood of students taking advanced mathematics (algebra II or higher) in tenth grade by 3 percentage points (95% confidence interval = 0.01, 0.04), s.e. = 0.01, n = 6,690, k = 41, t = 3.18, P = 0.001, from a rate of 33% in the control condition to a rate of 36% in the intervention condition, corresponding to a 9% relative increase. Notably, we discovered a positive intervention × school achievement level (continuous) interaction, ( B = 0.04 (95% confidence interval = 0.00, 0.08), s.e. = 0.02, z = 2.26, P = 0.024, the opposite of what we found for core course GPAs. Within the highest-achieving 25% of schools, the intervention increased the rate at which students took advanced mathematics in tenth grade by 4 percentage points ( t = 2.37, P = 0.018). In the lower 75% of schools-where we found stronger effects on GPA-the increase in the rate at which students took advanced mathematics courses was smaller: 2 percentage points ( t = 2.00, P = 0.045). Thus an exclusive focus on GPA would have obscured intervention benefits among students attending higher-achieving schools.

Discussion

The National Study of Learning Mindsets showed that a low-cost treatment, delivered in less than an hour, attained a substantial proportion of the effects on grades of the most effective rigorously evaluated adolescent interventions of any cost or duration in the literature within the pre-registered group of lower-achieving students. Moreover, the intervention produced gains in the consequential outcome of advanced mathematics course-taking for students overall, which is meaningful because the rigor of mathematics courses taken in high school strongly predicts later educational attainment8,9, and educational attainment is one of the leading predictors of longevity and health38,42. The finding that the growth mindset intervention could redirect critical academic outcomes to such an extent-with no training of teachers; in an effectiveness trial conducted in a population-generalizable sample; with data collected by an independent research company using repeatable procedures; with data processed by a second independent research company; and while adhering to a comprehensive pre-registered analysis plan-is a major advance.

Furthermore, the evidence about the kinds of schools where the growth mindset treatment effect on grades was sustained, and where it was not, has important implications for future interventions. We might have expected that the intervention would compensate for unsupportive school norms, and that students who already had supportive peer norms would not need the intervention as much. Instead, it was when the peer norm supported the adoption of intellectual challenges that the intervention promoted sustained benefits in the form of higher grades.

Perhaps students in unsupportive peer climates risked paying a social price for taking on intellectual challenges in front of peers who thought it undesirable to do so. Sustained change may therefore require both a high-quality seed (an adaptive belief system conveyed by a compelling intervention) and conductive soil in which that seed can grow (a context congruent with the proffered belief system). A limitation of our moderation results, of course, is that we cannot draw causal conclusions about the effects of the school norm, as the norms were measured, not manipulated. It is encouraging that a Bayesian analysis, reported in the Supplementary Information section 8, yielded evidence consistent with a causal interpretation of the school norms variable. The present research therefore sets the stage for a new era of experimental research that seeks to enhance both students' mindsets and the school environments that support student learning.

We emphasize that not all forms of growth mindset interventions can be expected to increase grades or advanced course-taking, even in the targeted subgroups11,12. New growth mindset interventions that go beyond the module and population tested here will need to be subjected to rigorous development and validation processes, as the current programme was13.

Finally, this study offers lessons for the science of adolescent behaviour change. Beliefs-and particularly beliefs that affect how students make sense of ongoing challenges-are important during high-stakes developmental turning points such as pubertal maturation43,44 or the transition to secondary school6. Indeed, new interventions in the future should address the interpretation of other challenges that adolescents experience, including social and interpersonal difficulties, to affect outcomes (such as depression) that thus far have proven difficult to address43. And the combined importance of belief change and school environments in our study underscores the need for interdisciplinary research to understand the numerous influences on adolescents' developmental trajectories.

Methods

Ethics approval

Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Stanford University (30387), ICF (FWA00000845), and the University of Texas at Austin (#2016-03-0042). In most schools this experiment was conducted as a programme evaluation carried out at the request of the participating school district45. When required by school districts, parents were informed of the programme evaluation in advance and given the opportunity to withdraw their children from the study. Informed student assent was obtained from all participants.

Participants

Data came from the National Study of Learning Mindsets45, which is a stratified random sample of 65 regular public schools in the United States that included 12,490 ninth-grade adolescents who were individually randomized to condition. The number of schools invited to participate was determined by a power analysis to detect reasonable estimates of cross-site heterogeneity; as many of the invited schools as possible were recruited into the study. Grades were obtained from the schools of the students, and analyses focused on the lower-achieving subgroup of students (those below the within-school median). The sample reflected the diversity of young people in the United States: 11% self-reported being black/African-American, 4% Asian-American, 24% Latino/Latina, 43% white and 18% another race or ethnicity; 29% reported that their mother had a bachelor's degree or higher. To prevent deductive disclosure for potentially-small subgroups of students, and consistent with best practices for other public-use datasets, the policies for the National Study of Learning Mindsets require analysts to round all sample sizes to the nearest 10, so this was done here.

Data collection

To ensure that the study procedures were repeatable by third parties and therefore scalable, and to increase the independence of the results, two different professional research companies, who were not involved in developing the materials or study hypotheses, were contracted. One company (ICF) drew the sample, recruited schools, arranged for treatment delivery, supervised and implemented the data collection protocol, obtained administrative data, and cleaned and merged data. They did this work blind to the treatment conditions of the students. This company worked in concert with a technology vendor (PERTS), which delivered the intervention, executed random assignment, tracked student response rates, scheduled make-up sessions and kept all parties blind to condition assignment. A second professional research company (MDRC) processed the data merged by ICF and produced an analytic grades file, blind to the consequences of their decisions for the estimated treatment effects, as described in Supplementary Information section 12. Those data were shared with the authors of this paper, who analysed the data following a pre-registered analysis plan (see Supplementary Information section 13; MDRC will later produce its own independent report using its processed data, and retained the right to deviate from our pre-analysis plan).

Selection of schools was stratified by school achievement and minority composition. A simple random sample would not have yielded sufficient numbers of rare types of schools, such as high-minority schools with medium or high levels of achievement. This was because school achievement level-one of the two candidate moderators-was strongly associated with school racial/ethnic composition46 (percentage of Black/African-American or Hispanic/Latino/Latina students, r = −0.66).

A total of 139 schools were selected without replacement from a sampling frame of roughly 12,000 regular US public high schools, which serve the vast majority of students in the United States. Regular US public schools exclude charter or private schools, schools serving speciality populations such as students with physical disabilities, alternative schools, schools that have fewer than 25 ninth-grade students enrolled and schools in which ninth grade is not the lowest grade in the school.

Of the 139 schools, 65 schools agreed, participated and provided student records. Another 11 schools agreed and participated but did not provide student grades or course-taking records; therefore, the data of their students are not analysed here. School nonresponse did not appear to compromise representativeness. We calculated the Tipton generalizability index47, a measure of similarity between an analytic sample and the overall sampling frame, along eight student demographic and school achievement benchmarks obtained from official government sources27. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with a value of 0.90 corresponding to essentially a random sample. The National Study of Learning Mindsets showed a Tipton generalizability index of 0.98, which is very high (see Supplementary Information section 3).

Within schools, the average student response rate for eligible students was 92% and the median school had a response rate of 98% (see definitions in Supplementary Information section 5). This response rate was obtained by extensive efforts to recruit students into make-up sessions if students were absent and it was aided by a software system, developed by the technology vendor (PERTS), that kept track of student participation. A high within-school response rate was important because lower-achieving students, our target group, are typically more likely to be absent.

Growth mindset intervention content

In preparing the intervention to be scalable, we revised past growth mindset interventions to focus on the perspectives, concerns and reading levels of ninth-grade students in the United States, through an intensive research and development process that involved interviews, focus groups and randomized pilot experiments with thousands of adolescents13.

The control condition, focusing on brain functions, was similar to the growth mindset intervention, but did not address beliefs about intelligence. Screenshots from both interventions can be found in Supplementary Information section 4, and a detailed description of the general intervention content has previously been published13. The intervention consisted of two self-administered online sessions that lasted approximately 25 min each and occurred roughly 20 days apart during regular school hours (Fig. 1).

The growth mindset intervention aimed to reduce the negative effort beliefs of students (the belief that having to try hard or ask for help means you lack ability), fixed-trait attributions (the attribution that failure stems from low ability) and performance avoidance goals (the goal of never looking stupid). These are the documented mediators of the negative effect of a fixed mindset on grades12,15,48 and the growth mindset intervention aims to reduce them. The intervention did not only contradict these beliefs but also used a series of interesting and guided exercises to reduce their credibility.

The first session of the intervention covered the basic idea of a growth mindset-that an individual's intellectual abilities can be developed in response to effort, taking on challenging work, improving one's learning strategies, and asking for appropriate help. The second session invited students to deepen their understanding of this idea and its application in their lives. Notably, students were not told outright that they should work hard or employ particular study or learning strategies. Rather, effort and strategy revision were described as general behaviours through which students could develop their abilities and thereby achieve their goals.

The materials presented here sought to make the ideas compelling and help adolescents to put them into practice. It therefore featured stories from both older students and admired adults about a growth mindset, and interactive sections in which students reflected on their own learning in school and how a growth mindset could help a struggling ninth-grade student next year. The intervention style is described in greater detail in a paper reporting the pilot study for the present research13 and in a recent review article12.

Among these features, our intervention mentioned effort as one means to develop intellectual ability. Although we cannot isolate the effect of the growth mindset message from a message about effort alone, it is unlikely that the mere mention of effort to high school students would be sufficient to increase grades and challenge seeking. In part this is because adolescents often already receive a great deal of pressure from adults to try hard in school.

Intervention delivery and fidelity

The intervention and control sessions were delivered as early in the school year as possible, to increase the opportunity to set in motion a positive self-reinforcing cycle. In total 82% of students received the intervention in the autumn semester before the Thanksgiving holiday in the United States (that is, before late November) and the rest received the intervention in January or February; see Supplementary Information section 5 for more detail. The computer software of the technology vendor randomly assigned adolescents to intervention or control materials. Students also answered various survey questions. All parties were blind to condition assignment, and students and teachers were not told the purpose of the study to prevent expectancy effects.

The data collection procedures yielded high implementation fidelity across the participating schools, according to metrics listed in the pre-registered analysis plan. In the median school, treated students viewed 97% of screens and wrote a response for 96% of open-ended questions. In addition, in the median school 91% students reported that most or all of their peers worked carefully and quietly on the materials. Fidelity statistics are reported in full in Supplementary Information section 5.6; Extended Data Table 2 shows that the treatment effect heterogeneity conclusions were unchanged when controlling for the interaction of treatment and school-level fidelity as intended.

Measures

Self-reported fixed mindset

Students indicated how much they agreed with three statements such as "You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can't do much to change it" (1, strongly disagree; 6, strongly agree). Higher values corresponded to a more fixed mindset; the pre-analysis plan predicted that the intervention would reduce these self-reports.

GPAs. Schools provided the grades of each student in each course for the eight and ninth grade. Decisions about which courses counted for which content area were made independently by a research company (MDRC; see Supplementary Information section 12). The GPAs are a theoretically relevant outcome because grades are commonly understood to reflect sustained motivation, rather than only prior knowledge. It is also a practically relevant outcome because, as noted, GPA is a strong predictor of adult educational attainment, health and well-being, even when controlling for high school test scores38.

School achievement level

Behavioural challenge-seeking norms of the schools

Norms of self-reported mindset of the schools

Course enrolment to advanced mathematics

We analysed data from 41 schools who provided data that allowed us to calculate rates at which students took an advanced mathematics course (that is, algebra II or higher) in tenth grade, the school year after the intervention. Six additional schools provided tenth grade course-taking data but did not differentiate among mathematics courses. We expected average effects of the treatment on challenging course taking in tenth grade to be small because not all students were eligible for advanced mathematics and not all schools allow students to change course pathways. However, some students might have made their way into more advanced mathematics classes or remained in an advanced pathway rather than dropping to an easier pathway. These challenge-seeking decisions are potentially relevant to both lower- and higher-achieving students, so we explored them in the full sample of students in the 41 included schools.

Analysis methods

Overview

We used intention-to-treat analyses; this means that data were analysed for all students who were randomized to an experimental condition and whose outcome data could be linked. A complier average causal effects analysis yielded the same conclusions but had slightly larger effect sizes (see Supplementary Information section 9). Here we report only the more conservative intention-to-treat effect sizes. Standardized effect sizes reported here were standardized mean difference effect sizes and were calculated by dividing the treatment effect coefficients by the raw standard deviation of the control group for the outcome, which is the typical effect size estimate in education evaluation experiments. Frequentist P values reported throughout are always from two-tailed hypothesis tests.

Model for average treatment effects

Analyses to estimate average treatment effects for an individual person used a cluster-robust fixed-effects linear regression model with school as fixed effect that incorporated weights provided by statisticians from ICF, with cluster defined as the primary sampling unit. Coefficients were therefore generalizable to the population of inference, which is students attending regular public schools in the United States. For the t distribution, the degrees of freedom is 46, which is equal to the number of clusters (or primary sampling units, which was 51) minus the number of sampling strata (which was 5)45.

Model for the heterogeneity of effects

To examine cross-school heterogeneity in the treatment effect among lower-achieving students, we estimated multilevel mixed effects models (level 1, students; level 2, schools) with fixed intercepts for schools and a random slope that varied across schools, following current recommended practices39. The model included school-centred student-level covariates (prior performance and demographics; see the Supplementary Information section 7) to make site-level estimates as precise as possible. This analysis controlled for school-level average student racial/ethnic composition and its interaction with the treatment status variable to account for confounding of student body racial/ethnic composition with school achievement levels. Student body racial/ethnic composition interactions were never significant at P < 0.05 and so we do not discuss them further (but they were always included in the models, as pre-registered).

Bayesian robustness analysis

A final pre-registered robustness analysis was conducted to reduce the influence of two possible sources of bias: awareness of study hypotheses when conducting analyses and misspecification of the regression model (see the Supplemental Information, section 13, p. 12). Statisticians who were not involved in the study design and unaware of the moderation hypotheses re-analysed a blinded dataset that masked the identities of the variables. They did so using an algorithm that has emerged as a leading approach for understanding moderators of treatments: BCF40. The BCF algorithm uses machine learning tools to discover (or rule out) higher-order interactions and nonlinear relations among covariates and moderators. It is conservative because it uses regularization and strong prior distributions to prevent false discoveries. Evidence for the robustness of the moderation analysis in our pre-registered model comes from correspondence with the estimated moderator effects of BCF in the part of the distribution where there are the most schools (that is, in the middle of the distribution), because this is where the BCF algorithm is designed to have confidence in its estimates (Extended Data Fig. 3).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Data availability

Technical documentation for the National Study of Learning Mindsets is available from ICPSR at the University of Michigan ( https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37353.v1). Aggregate data are available at https://osf.io/r82dw/. Student-level data are protected by data sharing agreements with the participating districts; de-identified data can be accessed by researchers who agree to terms of data use, including required training and approvals from the University of Texas Institutional Review Board and analysis on a secure server. To request access to data, researchers should contact mindset@prc.utexas.edu. The pre-registered analysis plan can be found at https://osf.io/tn6g4. The intervention module will not be commercialized and will be available at no cost to all secondary schools in the United States or Canada that wish to use it via https://www.perts.net/. Selections from the intervention materials are included in the Supplementary Information. Researchers wishing to access full intervention materials should contact mindset@prc.utexas.edu and must agree to terms of use, including non-commercialization of the intervention.

Code availability

Syntax can be found at https://osf.io/r82dw/ or by contacting mindset@prc.utexas.edu.

References

1. 5.
Patton, G. C. et al. Our future: a Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing. Lancet 387, 2423-2478 (2016).

Article Google Scholar

2. 23.
Singal, A. G., Higgins, P. D. R. & Waljee, A. K. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin. Transl. Gastroenterol. 5, e45 (2014).

CAS Article Google Scholar

3. 27.
Gopalan, M. & Tipton, E. Is the National Study of Learning Mindsets nationally-representative? https://psyarxiv.com/dvmr7/ (2018).

4. 31.
Kraft, M. Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_2018_interpreting_effect_sizes.pdf (Brown University, 2018).

5. 35.
Yeager, D. S. National Study of Learning Mindsets - One Year Impact Analysis. https://osf.io/tn6g4 (2017).

6. 36.
Alexander, L. Every Student Succeeds Act. 114th Congress Public Law No. 114-95 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text (US Congress, 2015).

7. 40.
Hahn, P. R., Murray, J. S. & Carvalho, C. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.09523 (2017).

8. 41.
Dorie, V., Hill, J., Shalit, U., Scott, M. & Cervone, D. Automated versus do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: lessons learned from a data analysis competition. Statist. Sci. 34, 43-68 (2019).

9. 45.
Yeager, D. S. The National Study of Learning Mindsets, [United States], 2015-2016 (ICPSR 37353). 10.3886/ICPSR37353.v1 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript uses data from the National Study of Learning Mindsets (principal investigator, D.Y.; co-investigators: R.C., C.S.D., C.M., B.S. and G.M.W.; https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37353.v1). The programme and surveys were administered using systems and processes developed by the Project for Education Research That Scales (PERTS ( https://www.perts.net/); principal investigator, D.P.). Data collection was carried out by an independent contractor, ICF (project directors, K.F. and A.R.). Planning meetings were hosted by the Mindset Scholars Network at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) with support from a grant from Raikes Foundation to CASBS (principal investigator, M. Levi), and the study received assistance or advice from M. Shankar, T. Brock, C. Bryan, C. Macrander, T. Wilson, E. Konar, E. Horng, J. Axt, T. Rogers, A. Gelman, H. Bloom and M. Weiss. We are grateful for feedback on a preprint from L. Quay, D. Bailey, J. Harackiewicz, R. Dahl, A. Suleiman and M. Greenberg. Funding was provided by the Raikes Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Spencer Foundation, the Bezos Family Foundation, the Character Laboratory, the Houston Endowment, the Yidan Prize for Education Research, the National Science Foundation under grant number HRD 1761179, a personal gift from A. Duckworth and the President and Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at Stanford University. Preparation of the manuscript and the development of the analytical approach were supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (10.13039/100000071 R01HD084772), P2C-HD042849 (to the Population Research Center (PRC) at The University of Texas at Austin). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

1. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

David S. Yeager, Jared S. Murray, Robert Crosnoe, Chandra Muller, Jenny Buontempo, Sophia Man Yang, Carlos M. Carvalho & Pratik Mhatre

2. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

Paul Hanselman

3. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Gregory M. Walton & Carol S. Dweck

4. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Elizabeth Tipton

5. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Barbara Schneider

6. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Chris S. Hulleman

7. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Cintia P. Hinojosa

8. Project for Education Research that Scales, San Francisco, CA, USA

David Paunesku

9. Paradigm Strategy Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA

Carissa Romero

10. ICF, Fairfax, VA, USA

Kate Flint, Alice Roberts, Jill Trott & Ronaldo Iachan

11. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

P. Richard Hahn

12. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Maithreyi Gopalan

13. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Ronald Ferguson

14. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Angela L. Duckworth

Contributions

D.S.Y. conceived the study and led the design, analysis and writing; C.S.D. was involved in every phase of the study, particularly the conception of the study, the study design, the preparation of intervention materials, the interpretation of analyses and the writing of the manuscript; G.M.W. co-conceived the study, contributed to intervention material design and assisted with the interpretation of analyses and writing of the manuscript. P.H. contributed to the design of the study and the conceptualization of the moderators, co-developed the analysis plan, carried out statistical analyses, developed the Supplementary Information and assisted with the writing of the manuscript; R.C. and C.M. contributed to study design, analysis and writing of the paper, especially with respect to sociological theory about context effects; E.T., R.I., D.S.Y. and B.S. developed the school sampling plan; C.R. co-developed the intervention content; D.P. and PERTS developed the intervention delivery and survey data collection software; K.F., A.R., J.T., and R.I. led data collection and independently cleaned and merged raw data prior to access by the analysts; J.S.M., C.M.C. and P.R.H. executed a blinded analysis of the data and contributed to the writing of the paper; C.S.H., A.L.D. and D.S.Y. co-developed the behavioural norms measure; M.G., P.M., J.B. and S.Y.H. contributed to data analysis; R.F. contributed to study design.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to David S. Yeager or Paul Hanselman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests for this study. Several authors have disseminated growth mindset research to public audiences and have complied with their institutional financial interest disclosure requirements; currently no financial conflicts of interest have been identified. Specifically, D.P. is the co-founder and executive director at PERTS, an institute at Stanford University that offers free growth mindset interventions and measures to schools, and authors D.S.Y, C.S.D., G.W., A.L.D., D.P., and C.H. have disseminated findings from research to K-12 schools, universities, non-profit entities, or private entities via paid or unpaid speaking appearances or consulting. None of the authors has a financial relationship with any entity that sells growth mindset products or services.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Peer review information Nature thanks Eric Grodsky, Luke Miratrix and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeager, D.S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G.M. et al. A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature 573, 364-369 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
Download citation

Further reading

René F. Kizilcec

, Justin Reich

, Michael Yeomans

, Christoph Dann

, Emma Brunskill

, Glenn Lopez

, Selen Turkay

, Joseph Jay Williams

& Dustin Tingley

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020)

H. Sigmundsson

, M. Haga

& F. Hermundsdottir

New Ideas in Psychology (2020)

H. Sigmundsson

, F.M. Clemente

& J.M. Loftesnes

New Ideas in Psychology (2020)

Anja Prinz

, Helene Zeeb

, Abraham E. Flanigan

, Alexander Renkl

& Kenneth A. Kiewra

Educational Psychology Review (2020)

Martin R. West

, Libby Pier

, Hans Fricke

, Heather Hough

, Susanna Loeb

, Robert H. Meyer

& Andrew B. Rice

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A global priority for the behavioural sciences is to develop cost-effective, scalable interventions that could improve the academic outcomes of adolescents at a population level, but no such interventions have so far been evaluated in a population-generalizable sample.

# data[].attributes.body
App

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We all know that the mind is a very powerful weapon that what we believe about ourselves determines who we become. The mind holds the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions. It can impact your success or failure and this is where our mindset plays an important role in determining achievement and success.

This course will help you develop a growth mindset, why mindset matters, the importance of mindset in life. How you can take appropriate actions to learn and stay motivated, the importance of failure and how to deal with setbacks.

We have packed this course with so much useful information that even experts can learn a few things from this free Growth Mindset Course.
* Why is Mindset Important
* Fixed vs Growth Mindset
* The Dangers of a Fixed Mindset
* The Power of a Growth Mindset
* Strategies to Develop a Growth Mindset

Knowing that mindset can affect the way we think about everything helps you take control of your destiny. Don't stop here, download our Growth Mindset Course today and discover how far you can go in life if you set your mind to it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Growth Mindset - Apps on Google Play

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We all know that the mind is a very powerful weapon that what we believe about ourselves determines who we become. The mind holds the power of imagination, recognition, and appreciation, and is responsible for processing feelings and emotions, resulting in attitudes and actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Jessica Sanders

Growth mindset is a phrase that's tossed around regularly in the education space-along with terms like blended learning and gamification. However, not many people understand what it is or how to promote it in the classroom.

So what is Growth is growth mindset? "It is the belief that qualities can change and that we can develop our intelligence and abilities," said Eduardo Briceno. This general definition can be broken out into various ideas such as the importance of making mistakes or reflecting on the learning process, all of which are critical in teaching students about growth mindset.

Empower your students to use and understand growth mindset in the classroom with these eight apps, broken into three main growth mindset ideals.

Briceno noted that a common misconception about growth mindset is that to foster it, teachers simply need to praise students for working hard, which is not the case.

The correct idea: "Mistakes are good; we learn from mistakes," said Briceno. More than that, reflecting on these mistakes and coming up with a new plan based on them, especially the mistakes that are made when students are outside of their comfort zone, is what makes growth mindset a powerful learning opportunity.

The Apps

Whooo's Reading: This web app allows you to help students improve their writing based on personalized feedback. After answering a standards-aligned, open-ended question, the response is sent to you for grading. You can then score the answer and give the student feedback on how he/she can improve to get a higher score-score is tied to Wisdom Coins, giving students even more motivation to take a second swing at it.

Kaizena: Use this app to provide immediate, real-time feedback to students, noting mistakes and giving them a chance to fix them for a better grade. While you can do this with Google Docs (comments), Kaizena allows you to track and compare your feedback history, over multiple assignments, providing insight on student growth that they can benefit from seeing as well.

Mind Games: This brain games app is a great way to encourage mistakes in a way that's fun for students. Students can choose from 17 different puzzles and 180 levels-encourage them to play one level higher than they think they should. If they lose, they'll have to consider what went wrong and how they can improve to win next time. If they win, they'll be encouraged to try for an ever harder level next time.

Reflective thinking is just as important as critical thinking-but with reflective thinking, students are focused on how they approach the problem, rather than the outcome itself. This is a critical aspect of facilitating growth mindset in the classroom.

The Apps

GoSoapBox: This clickr tool increases engagement, while helping teachers promote growth mindset. "This tool provides multiple assessment tools that students can access through their devices. These tools include short answer and a thumbs-up and thumbs-down indicator," explains Josh Elliott, adjunct professor and edtech professional.

"This indicator is an icon that conveys a level of understanding in regards to whatever topic is being discussed in class. This presents an opportunity for the teacher to discuss the misunderstanding and talk with them about how they're addressing the problem."

Haiku Deck: An important part of "focusing on the process" is giving students a chance to look back at what they did and reflect upon their choices. Haiku Deck provides them with a great platform for gathering, presentencing, and ultimately understanding these reflections.

Students can use Haiku Deck (Google Slides and Emaze provide many of the same features for free) to present their reflections. Having to put these reflections into a presentation forces them to truly understand what they mean in terms of growth.
More: 3 Online Resources for Promoting Student Reflection
Show students that they can change and develop new skills over time with small, attainable goals. "Small wins, repeated over time, can lead to a growth mindset," said James Clear, behavior science professional.

The Apps

Daily Goals: This app is perfect for setting and tracking student goals. Though it wasn't created for use in the school setting, it has all the features of a motivating student goal tracker. Once signed up, students simply create their goal(s)-read something new every day, write one blog post a week-and then keep track of it with the app. With built-in analytics, students are able to determine what might be holding them back, assessing the process rather than just the outcome.

Instructables: Don't restrict students to setting traditional goals. With Instructables-a website that provides tutorials for creating everything from a meal to a robot-the goal is the project. The power of growth mindset is most obvious when students complete the project, especially if it was challenging- Wow, I never thought I could build a robot! The same result can come from allowing students to deign their own video games or websites with tools like Scratch, Hopscotch and Tinkercad.

Be The Change: This app provides students with a small challenge every day, each one focused on being the change we wish to see in the world. With this app, students are given small goals that are not only attainable, but make them think about kindness. You can tackle one goal a week as a class and then use the reflection tools above to discuss and analyze how everyone reached the goal individually.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Apps to Promote Growth Mindset in Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Jessica Sanders Growth mindset is a phrase that's tossed around regularly in the education space-along with terms like blended learning and gamification. However, not many people understand what it is or how to promote it in the classroom. So what is Growth is growth mindset?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Neuroscience of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation

# data[].attributes.subject
The Neuroscience of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation

# data[].attributes.body
Brain Sciences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Singapore

1. Introduction

With an emphasis on inquiry and scientific skills, students are encouraged to discover, produce and evaluate knowledge, using inquiry and scientific skills [ 1]. Such inquiry learning should be structured in a way that student learning is facilitated, while encouraging students to plan and conduct their own investigation. An autonomy-supportive environment facilitates autonomous learning, and fosters self-determined motivation in students [ 2]. Students learn to synthesize contradictory perspectives and rise to intellectual meta-levels of thinking, which is a crucial trait for the 21st-century operating environment [ 3]. As such, it is fundamental to nurture the young generation in becoming adaptive, self-regulated and self-determined.

In the 21st century, there has been a strong proliferation of research on growth mindset and intrinsic motivation in learning. The constructs of mindset and motivation have been important foci among educators seeking to positively impact student learning and outcomes. The underlying mechanism for students to have their own agency in finding out new knowledge is intrinsic motivation. However, much of this research has relied on quantitative approaches for assessing students' self-reports on motivational regulations and learning outcomes [ 4, 5]. Some of these quantitative findings are used to generalize across school settings. Although the multiple facets of student motivation and learning have been identified in quantitative analyses, they have not provided a detailed understanding of students' motivational processes. Neuroscience methods may offer new insights regarding students' motivation and learning processes.

Most neuroscience studies have focused on research related to cognitive functions, such as attention, memory and decision-making. In addition to these cognitive studies, there is also the implicit nature of mindsets that lead to the malleability of self-attributes (e.g., intelligence) [ 6]. Subtle feedback and messages related to growth mindset can have noticeable effects on students' attitudes and motivation that may transfer to long-term outcomes. Likewise, human motivation is important, as it is one's intrinsic desire to learn and obtain information. Growth mindset is the belief that intelligence can be nurtured through learning and effort, while intrinsic motivation is the volition to engage in a task for inherent satisfaction. Individuals with growth mindset believe that motivation can be nurtured, and that extrinsic motivation can be internalized (i.e., from extrinsic regulation to integrated regulation that is similar to intrinsically motivated behavior). In an integrative view, growth mindset and intrinsic motivation are important and interrelated, thus raising fundamental questions about the neural mechanisms of mindset-motivation interaction. The links among growth mindset, brain and motivation are important to academic performance. Therefore, it is important to draw on neuroscientific findings to show the way the brain is motivated, and how it learns by changing mindset (i.e., from a fixed to a growth mindset). Such intervention studies are still not common, and there is potential in these research areas.

This paper reviews the theoretical frameworks of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation, and how they are linked to neuroscientific evidence. It also reviews a number of recent neuroscience studies related to growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. It is important to survey the progress of neuroscience research on growth mindset and intrinsic motivation, as understanding the neural substrates will provide insights into human motivation and drive. Neuroscience research has the potential to support and refine models of motivation and cognitive skill. It may play a pivotal role in developing classroom interventions and understanding non-cognitive skills (e.g., mindset). Knowing the key brain regions that are associated with growth mindset and intrinsic motivation, researchers and practitioners could work together to investigate the granular processes of motivation in relation to growth mindset.

Most empirical research on growth mindset and intrinsic motivation has focused on behavioral methods and self-reports of experiences. There is little information about the internal processes of motivation at a higher level of resolution. It is, therefore, relevant and timely to examine the existing literature and empirical research that is associated with intrinsic motivation. Neuroscientific evidence has the potential to uncover new insights and refine the conceptual ideas of intrinsic motivation by articulating the granular processes of motivation that behavioral methods alone cannot afford. This paper offers recommendations for potential neuroscience research in studying growth mindset and intrinsic motivation.

2. Growth Mindset

Growth mindset is defined as a belief that construes intelligence as malleable and improvable [ 6]. Students with growth mindset are likely to learn by a mastery approach, embrace challenges and put in effort to learn. For instance, growth-minded individuals perceive task setbacks as a necessary part of the learning process and they "bounce back" by increasing their motivational effort [ 7, 8]. One recent study on elementary students showed that leveraging an online educational game (the BrainPOP website) with in-game rewards can promote a growth mindset by directly incentivizing effort and encouraging persistence in low performing students [ 7]. Learners with growth mindset tend to embrace lifelong learning and the joy of incremental personal growth. In addition, they do not see their intelligence or personality as fixed traits. They will mobilize their learning resources without being defeated by the threat of failure. This paper aims to provide some insights into the cultivation of resilience and mastery in university students, preparing them to overcome challenges in the real working world.

Empirical studies have revealed that growth mindset has positive effects on student motivation and academic performance [ 9, 10]. Recent research has also shown that mindset is related to student outcomes and behaviors including academic achievement, engagement, and willingness to attempt new challenges [ 11, 12]. Numerous studies have shown the effects of growth mindset interventions on students' achievement at all ages. According to Dweck [ 9], teaching growth mindset to junior high school students resulted in increased motivation and better academic achievement. Her findings revealed that students in the growth mindset intervention group outperformed those in the control group (who received excellent training in study skills), indicating improved learning and desire to work hard. The growth mindset intervention teaches students that intelligence is not a fixed quality [ 13]. Intelligence can be nurtured through challenging tasks, as intelligence grows with hard work on challenging problems. A growth mindset intervention was especially impactful with student outcomes in particular subjects such as science and mathematics [ 14].

An individual with a growth mindset works hard and improves without an incentive reward in mind as the outcome. The conceptualization of growth mindset is similar to that of intrinsic motivation. A learner with a growth mindset tends to self-regulate their own learning and has the propensity to cope with academic tasks. Hence, encouraging a growth mindset can improve the academic performance of college students [ 14, 15] and middle school math students [ 9].

Most of the abovementioned empirical studies reported the utility of questionnaires or self-report measures. There is still limited neuroscientific research on the neural mechanism of growth mindset. It is, therefore, important to examine data from other means such as neuroscientific information about how the brain changes with experience of learning and how it is associated to growth mindset. The subsequent sections will discuss the neuroscientific evidence of growth mindset.

3. Intrinsic Motivation

Numerous studies have examined the effects of intrinsic motivation, including the adaptive consequences for individuals such as exposing them to novel situations and developing their diverse competencies to cope with unforeseen circumstances [ 21]. In addition, intrinsic motivation is the propensity for individuals to learn about new subjects and to differentiate their interests, thereby fostering a sense of purpose and meaning [ 22]. Recent empirical findings have shown that intrinsic motivation is a key factor in academic achievement [ 23] and pursuit of interest [ 24], thus fostering learning and growth.

Over the past few decades, behavioral evidence has established the importance of intrinsic motivation and how it impacts one's learning. However, our understanding of the underlying mechanism of intrinsic motivation is still in its infancy, and it is unclear how one's intrinsic motivation progresses or changes over time. More evidence is needed to establish the mechanism of intrinsic motivation at a granular level. The recommendation is to include neuroscientific evidence to track and understand which aspects of one's learning progress determine intrinsic motivation, complementing the existing behavioral evidence. An approach of the neuroscience method is to foster intrinsically motivated behaviors based on task complexity in various contexts, thereby addressing intrinsic motivation through different forms of exploration. The following sections will discuss in detail the neuroscience methods and neuroscientific evidence of intrinsic motivation.

4. Neuroscience Methods

The main neuroscience methods that have been applied in motivation studies are electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Such neuroscientific research is still considered novel, as most motivational studies have focused on behavioral methods. Both neuroscientific techniques are non-invasive procedures for measuring brain activity. The key difference is fMRI has a higher spatial resolution than EEG, whereas EEG has a better temporal resolution than fMRI.

Neuroscience methods (e.g., fMRI) could provide insights into neural substrates of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. We could measure the learner's brain activity and neural responses to a specific task in relation to internal processes of motivation. For instance, intrinsic motivation could be assessed by an experimental task or free-choice behavior measures.

The use of neuroscientific techniques enables us to focus on the learning process rather than the learning outcomes [ 29]. The neuroimaging findings offer an understanding of the brain, indicating the specific areas of brain activation which could in turn correlate with the behavioral results. As such, neuroimaging findings might support the self-reported data and explore brain regions with neural activation in relation to changes in performance during an online activity.

5. Neural Correlates of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation

There is a small body of existing growth mindset studies using neuroscience methods. The study by Moser et al. [ 30] suggested that individuals with a growth mindset are receptive to corrective feedback, exhibiting a higher Pe (error positivity) waveform response, which is correlated with a heightened awareness of and attention to mistakes. Enhanced Pe amplitude was associated with enhanced attention to corrective feedback following errors and subsequent error correction. Individuals with growth mindset are likely to have heightened awareness of and attention to errors. In addition, growth-minded individuals may neutralize the affective response to negative feedback, which could be indicated by neural activation. Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is the region of frontal midline cortex that is related to learning and control [ 31]. A recent study [ 32] found that growth mindset was related to both ventral and dorsal striatal connectivity with dorsal ACC. Dorsal ACC and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) are critical to error-monitoring and behavioral adaptation. Growth mindset was strongly associated with dorsal and ventral striatal connectivity, as well as DLPFC. Learners with growth mindset are efficient in error-monitoring and receptive to corrective feedback. Hence, growth mindset has the potential to encourage intrinsically motivated behaviors in schools and promote lifelong learning.

Neuroscientific evidence has shown that ACC is associated to cognitive control and motivation [ 31]. Neural correlates revealed that dopamine is critical for motivation and cognitive control, with motivation-cognition interactions between midbrain regions and lateral frontal cortex [ 33]. Cognitive control is influenced by reward motivation. Participants were assigned to three levels of cognitive controls (low, mid and high). Different beneficial effects of reward (high versus low) were exhibited. Participants with high versus low reward anticipation showed increased activity in the medial and lateral frontal cortex. Brain activity was also stronger at the low level of cognitive control than mid and high levels. These findings demonstrated that motivation plays an important role in the cognitive control. In addition, high-level control tasks may demand an enhancing effect of motivation.

A recent EEG study [ 34] showed that school children with growth mindset endorsement performed with higher accuracy after mistakes (i.e., post-error accuracy). The event-related potential (ERP), which is a measure of brain response due to the result of error and correct trials, revealed that Pe amplitude difference was largest at site Pz (i.e., midline parietal). Together with the behavioral data, correlational analyses showed that having a higher growth mindset was associated with a larger Pe difference. Students with attentional resources are able to remember their mistakes and able to make sense of their mistakes, thus correcting themselves during the learning process. Students do not like to take risks that show their weaknesses, such as making mistakes [ 35]. However, with growth mindset endorsement, students are not afraid to make mistakes, as they have the ability to learn with post-error accuracy. Hence, growth-minded students will be resilient and self-regulated when faced with obstacles or challenges during their learning process.

Little is known about the interplay between neural responses and intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated action can be characterized by an individual's engagement in behavior for one's own sake, with free-choice time on a task [ 36]. An empirical study measured intrinsic motivation by examining a network of brain regions as the participants spent free-choice time on a word problem task [ 37]. Using fMRI, a network of brain regions revealed diminished task-related activity, predicting subsequent increased intrinsic motivation. The neuroimaging data suggest that decreased activation of neural cognitive control is associated with increased intrinsic motivation, thus extending one's task engagement. Another recent study by Lee and Reeve [ 38] examined the neural substrates of intrinsic motivation during task performance. Their findings showed activated anterior insular cortex (AIC; a limbic-related cortex region) when students performed intrinsically motivated tasks. These neural findings are consistent with the concept of intrinsic motivation in terms of pursuit and interest satisfaction as intrinsic rewards. Based on these findings, it was concluded that AIC activity and its functional interactions are linked to an intrinsic-motivation neural system [ 38].

Intrinsic motivation is associated with sensitivity of feedback processing in the striatum [ 41]. The striatum plays a key role in reinforcing learning as it receives input from midbrain dopamine neurons and produces adaptive behaviors. Striatum activity is associated with reward processing, indicating that an intrinsically motivated task could foster the individual's intrinsic motivation. For instance, feedback-related responses in the striatum can potentially promote or undermine intrinsic motivation of a desired behavior. Positive feedback was viewed as a rewarding outcome, and highly motivated subjects could attune to the feedback despite of fatigue through the study [ 41]. Performance-feedback may have affective salient response to striatum and produce a motivated behavior. A study by Lee [ 42] showed that intrinsic motivation was related to the AIC that is known to be associated with the sense of agency, while extrinsic motivation was associated with posterior parietal regions (e.g., posterior cingulate cortex, angular gyrus). The type of task also plays a very important role in activating the AIC. Lee [ 42] also found that interesting tasks activated the AIC and ventral striatum (i.e., brain region for reward processing), but not uninteresting tasks. AIC relates to the satisfaction of intrinsic need, whereas ventral striatum relates to the feeling of reward. His findings suggest that AIC and ventral striatum activations are associated with intrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation is difficult to measure in an objective manner. In order to track one's intrinsic motivation, it requires one to perform an experimental task over time. For instance, one's brain activity can be tracked during the process of performing an intrinsically motivated or optimally challenged task. Together with behavioral measures, contemporary methods such as fMRI can be used to track the changes in intrinsic motivation during a free-choice activity.

6. The Neuroscientific Interplay between Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation

Based on the abovementioned empirical findings, there is a distinctive neuroscientific interplay between growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. EEG findings could not directly show the brain regions that are related to mindset and motivation. Compared to the EEG, which is based on brain waveforms, fMRI is a better method for showing insights into the brain regions that are associated with growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. It is interesting to note that growth mindset is mainly associated with the dorsal regions of the brain, whereas intrinsic motivation is associated with the mid-brain regions. The common brain areas that are related to both growth mindset and intrinsic motivation are ACC and ventral striatum. Knowing the behavioral correlates for these two brain regions, potential research could investigate the neural correlates of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. This brings us a step closer to understand the neural mechanism between growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Below is a table that highlights the neuroscientific evidence of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation in relation to cognition. The behavioral correlate for the brain region is included in parentheses (see Table 1).

As our brain is plastic, it is able to undergo reorganization and development. Brain plasticity or neuroplasticity refers to the ability of our brain to change throughout our life. It is thereby important to understand how our brain changes if we undergo growth mindset intervention and whether there are changes in our intrinsic motivation as well. This phenomenon is yet to be explored in educational research. It is thus an avenue worth pursuing for educators who hope to make the best of their students with regard to learning and personal growth. Such educational neuroscience research may impact teaching and learning, thus providing a better understanding of the neuroscientific interplay between growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Future educational neuroscience research may include classroom interventions such as a growth mindset induction and how it affects the neuroscience of intrinsic motivation.

7. Future Directions

The principal intent of this paper is to highlight a potential educational neuroscience research in areas of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Although there are some empirical studies on mindset and motivation, the neuroscience of intrinsic motivation is still unclear and at its infancy. There are also limited neuroscientific studies on students' motivation and learning. As educational neuroscience research looks promising in the near future, we should be aware of the potential integration between neuroscience methods and behavioral measures. For successful intervention studies, there are some considerations that need to be warranted.

First, educators should design a task that has intrinsic value for students to be engaged in doing. For instance, an interesting task will instill curiosity into students, when compared to an uninteresting one. Inculcating the value of doing the task or task value will definitely stimulate the students' interest. Second, teachers should provide the autonomy or choice for students. Autonomy or the agency of learning is the key substrate to intrinsic motivation [ 17]. Research has shown that autonomy is the strongest predictor of intrinsic motivation [ 47]. Autonomy is considered the self-endorsement of actions, whereby individuals feel less coerced and they generate autonomous behavior at work or school. In the same vein, choice is the opportunity for individuals to decide and exert control over the situation. A recent study found that the provision of choice, however trivial or inconsequential, might also increase an individual's intrinsic motivation [ 48]. The researchers used behavioral and electrophysiological (i.e., electroencephalogram) evidence to explain the importance of need satisfaction for autonomy to enhance one's intrinsic motivation toward the task.

Third and finally, performance-related feedback could influence intrinsic motivation [ 41]. Participants are likely to perceive their performance on the task differently based on the type of performance-related feedback. For instance, positive feedback may enhance one's intrinsic motivation, while negative feedback may undermine one's motivation. In addition, the frequency of performance-related feedback may affect one's neural processing (i.e., posterior cingulate cortex) in supporting task performance. There were enhanced activity of posterior cingulate cortex and performance gains after the performance-feedback manipulation. This shows that posterior cingulate cortex might facilitate the learning of a task [ 41]. The current level of a learner's intrinsic motivation may also influence the way he or she processes the performance-related feedback. It is still not fully clear how the nature of performance-feedback could affect an individual's feedback processing. Perhaps neuroscience methods could provide some insights into this area of research.

Based on the neuroscientific evidence, there is an undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation; that is, one's intrinsic motivation is undermined when extrinsic reward is no longer promised [ 26]. Neuroscience findings suggest that there are connections between the striatum and the prefrontal cortex in determining the outcome; decreased activation of the striatum and midbrain when the subjects do not get the task value, as well as decreased activation of the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) when they are not motivated to show cognitive engagement with the task. Since growth mindset is a belief system that favors hard work and performance monitoring [ 32], a learner's subjective belief in determining the outcome may modulate activity of the striatum, in response to cognitive feedback that nurtures growth mindset. Hence, neuroscientific evidence may provide insights into the learning and motivational processes that could be helpful for teachers and practitioners in improving their learning and teaching practices, thus supporting student learning and motivation.

8. Concluding Remarks

This paper reviewed the recent empirical neuroscientific studies on growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Research in these areas is still in its infancy. This paper attempted to provide an overview of the underlying mechanism between growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Educating students about growth mindset and how they can improve their learning experience is a step toward increased intrinsic motivation in our society. From a personal perspective, intrinsic motivation is the key substrate to learning and development. The promotion of a growth mindset can nurture individuals to learn as they understand that intelligence is malleable. It is important that, as teachers, we show our students the value and importance of learning at schools. With a growth mindset, students will learn with a positive attitude, and they will identify the importance of the contents. Teachers should also embrace a growth mindset such that they will understand the importance of providing autonomy over student learning to enhance self-regulation. As such, students will be more motivated to learn subjects at school, rather than relying on the presumption that students will be interested in learning. This preliminary review paper offers a useful road map for identifying the areas that need to be addressed in neuroscientific research related to growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. However, this paper did not discuss the potential roles of socio-demographic variables and personality traits on growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Future research will benefit from the continued development of neuroscientific evidence to connect the substantial behavioral evidence of these variables and traits associated with growth mindset and intrinsic motivation.

Ng B. The Neuroscience of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation. Brain Sciences. 2018; 8(2):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ng, Betsy. 2018. "The Neuroscience of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation" Brain Sciences 8, no. 2: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci8020020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Neuroscience of Growth Mindset and Intrinsic Motivation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our actions can be triggered by intentions, incentives or intrinsic values. Recent neuroscientific research has yielded some results about the growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. With the advances in neuroscience and motivational studies, there is a global need to utilize this information to inform educational practice and research.

# data[].attributes.body
The Atlantic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Helping children confront challenges requires a more nuanced understanding of the "growth mindset."

As a young researcher, Carol Dweck was fascinated by how some children faced challenges and failures with aplomb while others shrunk back. Dweck, now a psychologist at Stanford University, eventually identified two core mindsets, or beliefs, about one's own traits that shape how people approach challenges: "fixed mindset," the belief that one's abilities were carved in stone and predetermined at birth, and "growth mindset," the belief that one's skills and qualities could be cultivated through effort and perseverance. Her findings brought the concepts of fixed and growth mindsets to the fore for educators and parents, inspiring the implementation of her ideas among teachers-and even companies -across the country.

But Dweck recently noticed a trend: a widespread embrace of what she refers to as "false growth mindset"-a misunderstanding of the idea's core message. Growth mindset's popularity was leading some educators to believe that it was simpler than it was, that it was only about putting forth effort or that a teacher could foster growth mindset merely by telling kids to try hard. A teacher might applaud a child for making an effort on a science test even if he'd failed it, for instance, believing that doing so would promote growth mindset in that student regardless of the outcome. But such empty praise can exacerbate some of the very problems that growth mindset is intended to counter. A new edition of Dweck's book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, updated to address false growth mindset, comes out at the end of this month. I recently spoke with Dweck about how she wants her ideas to be applied. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Christine Gross-Loh: Could you tell me about the development of the idea of growth mindset? What was it intended to correct? What were you seeing that you felt growth mindset would help improve?

Carol Dweck: I've always been interested, since graduate school, in why some children wilt and shrink back from challenges and give up in the face of obstacles, while others avidly seek challenges and become even more invested in the face of obstacles. So this has been my primary question for over 40 years. At some point, my graduate students and I realized that a student's mindset was at the foundation of whether [he or she] loved challenges and persisted in the face of failure.

When students had more of a fixed mindset-the idea that abilities are carved in stone, that you have a certain amount and that's that-they saw challenges as risky. They could fail, and their basic abilities would be called into question. When they hit obstacles, setbacks, or criticism, this was just more proof that they didn't have the abilities that they cherished.

In contrast, when students had more of a growth mindset, they held the view that talents and abilities could be developed and that challenges were the way to do it. Learning something new, something hard, sticking to things-that's how you get smarter. Setbacks and feedback weren't about your abilities, they were information you could use to help yourself learn. With a growth mindset, kids don't necessarily think that there's no such thing as talent or that everyone is the same, but they believe everyone can develop their abilities through hard work, strategies, and lots of help and mentoring from others.

Gross-Loh: When I first interviewed you about growth mindset a few years ago, I remember that it was a relatively unknown idea. But growth mindset is now so popular that I'll hear people who aren't steeped in educational theory say, "Praise the effort, not the child (or the outcome)." Why do you think this idea struck such a chord, and how did you find out there were people misunderstanding it?
"Nobody has a growth mindset in everything all the time."
Dweck: Many educators were dissatisfied with drilling for high-stakes tests. They understood that student motivation had been a neglected area, especially of late. So many educators, as well as many parents, were excited to implement something that might reenergize kids to focus on learning again, not just memorization and test taking, but on deeper, more joyful learning.

But a colleague of mine, Susan Mackie, was doing workshops with educators in Australia and observed that many of them were saying they got growth mindset and were running with it, but did not understand it deeply. She told me, "I'm seeing a lot of false growth mindset." I just did not get it initially-growth mindset is a very straightforward concept, and besides, why would people settle for a false growth mindset if they could have a real one? But I started keeping a list of all the ways people were misunderstanding growth mindset. When the list got long enough, I started speaking and writing about it.

Gross-Loh: Could you elaborate on false growth mindset?

Dweck: False growth mindset is saying you have growth mindset when you don't really have it or you don't really understand [what it is]. It's also false in the sense that nobody has a growth mindset in everything all the time. Everyone is a mixture of fixed and growth mindsets. You could have a predominant growth mindset in an area but there can still be things that trigger you into a fixed mindset trait. Something really challenging and outside your comfort zone can trigger it, or, if you encounter someone who is much better than you at something you pride yourself on, you can think "Oh, that person has ability, not me." So I think we all, students and adults, have to look for our fixed-mindset triggers and understand when we are falling into that mindset.

I think a lot of what happened [with false growth mindset among educators] is that instead of taking this long and difficult journey, where you work on understanding your triggers, working with them, and over time being able to stay in a growth mindset more and more, many educators just said, "Oh yeah, I have a growth mindset" because either they know it's the right mindset to have or they understood it in a way that made it seem easy.

Gross-Loh: Why do you think these misunderstandings occurred?

Dweck: Many people understood growth mindset deeply and implemented it in a very sophisticated and effective way. However, there were many others who understood it in a way that wasn't quite accurate, or distilled it down to something that wasn't quite effective, or assimilated it into something they already knew.

Often when we see kids who aren't learning well, we might feel frustrated or defensive, thinking it reflects on us as educators. It's often tempting to not feel it is our fault. So we might say the child has a fixed mindset, without understanding instead that, as educators, it is our responsibility to create a context in which a growth mindset can flourish.

Gross-Loh: So it seems that the danger is that some teachers think they have growth mindset and believe it will transfer to their students, even though they themselves don't really understand it. How about this: Are there educators who do understand the idea that abilities can be developed but don't understand how to pass it on to students? Are there certain children who are more vulnerable to this sort of misunderstanding of growth mindset?

Dweck: Yes, another misunderstanding [of growth mindset] that might apply to lower-achieving children is the oversimplification of growth mindset into just [being about] effort. Teachers were just praising effort that was not effective, saying "Wow, you tried really hard!" But students know that if they didn't make progress and you're praising them, it's a consolation prize. They also know you think they can't do any better. So this kind of growth-mindset idea was misappropriated to try to make kids feel good when they were not achieving.

The mindset ideas were developed as a counter to the self-esteem movement of blanketing everyone with praise, whether deserved or not. To find out that teachers were using it in the same way was of great concern to me. The whole idea of growth-mindset praise is to focus on the learning process. When you focus on effort, [you have to] show how effort created learning progress or success.

Gross-Loh: What should people do to avoid falling into this trap?

Dweck: A lot of parents or teachers say praise the effort, not the outcome. I say [that's] wrong: Praise the effort that led to the outcome or learning progress; tie the praise to it. It's not just effort, but strategy ... so support the student in finding another strategy. Effective teachers who actually have classrooms full of children with a growth mindset are always supporting children's learning strategies and showing how strategies created that success.

Students need to know that if they're stuck, they don't need just effort. You don't want them redoubling their efforts with the same ineffective strategies. You want them to know when to ask for help and when to use resources that are available.

All of this is part of the process that needs to be taught and tied to learning.
"Focus on the learning process and show how hard work, good strategies, and good use of resources lead to better learning."
Gross-Loh: Is there a right way to praise kids and encourage them to do well?

Dweck: Many parents and teachers who themselves have growth mindset aren't passing it on because they are trying to protect the child's confidence, focus on the child's ability, and kind of boost the child's view or protect the child from a failure. They're conveying anxiety about ability.

But we have a new line of research (with my former graduate student, Kyla Haimovitz) showing that the way a parent reacts to a child's failure conveys a mindset to a child regardless of the parent's mindset. If parents react to their child's failures as though there is something negative, if they rush in, are anxious, reassure the child, "Oh not everyone can be good at math, don't worry, you're good at other things," the child gets it that no, this is important, and it's fixed. That child is developing a fixed mindset, even if the parent has a growth mindset.

But if the parent reacts to a child's failure as though it's something that enhances learning, asking, "Okay, what is this teaching us? Where should we go next? Should we talk to the teacher about how we can learn this better?" that child comes to understand that abilities can be developed.

So, with praise, focus on "process praise"-focus on the learning process and show how hard work, good strategies, and good use of resources lead to better learning. Be matter-of-fact, with not too strong or too passive a reaction.

You can see evidence of fixed mindset as young as 3.5 or 4 years old; that's when mindsets can start becoming evident, where some kids are very upset when they make a mistake or get criticized and fall into a helpless place. That's when children become able to evaluate themselves. We collaborated ... with researchers from the University of Chicago who had a longitudinal project with videotape of mother-child interactions. What we found was the more praise was process-oriented-not a ton, just where the greater proportion of the praise was process praise [versus outcome praise]-the more those children had a growth mindset and a high desire for challenge five years later, when they were in second grade.

Gross-Loh: That's very helpful to know for parents of young children. But what about older kids who might feel discouraged and worn-down after years of feeling that they weren't smart enough or a fear that they would never be able to be successful? Is it ever too late to foster a growth mindset in students?

Dweck: No-we've developed a number of online workshops addressed at adolescents and shown that when we teach [those] students a growth mindset, many of them regain their motivation to learn and achieve higher grades, especially students who have been struggling or students who have been laboring under a negative stereotype about [their own] abilities.

Research conducted last year by my former graduate student, David Yeager [now a professor at the University of Texas], on 18,000 students entering ninth grade, shows us that students who took growth-mindset workshops are seeking more challenges.

You can't tell adolescents, "We're adults, we have the answer, and we're going to tell you what it is." So we said, "We're scientists from Stanford University and the University of Texas, and we need your help. We're experts on the brain and how students learn, but you're the experts on being a freshman in high school and we'd like your input for a program we're developing for future freshmen."

We then taught them about how the teenage brain is especially open to learning. We talked about how it's a time of great plasticity, a time they need to take advantage of, and that they can grow their brains through taking on hard tasks in school and sticking to them. We had the students write a letter to a struggling freshman, counseling that person in terms of the growth-mindset principle, which is often very persuasive. We had testimonials from some public figures, talking about how a growth mindset got them to where they were.

Finally we talked about why someone would want a growth mindset. We realized that some kids would be overjoyed to hear you can develop your intellectual abilities, but others might not think it was the most exciting thing. So we then had a whole section on why you might want to develop your mind. Teenagers are really excited about the idea that they can do something to make the world a better place. So we asked them what they want to make their contribution to in the future-family, community, or societal problems-and then talked about how having a strong mind could help them make their future contribution.

We're excited about this because we know the world of the future is going to be about taking on ill-defined, hard jobs that keep changing. It's going to favor people who relish those challenges and know how to fix them. We are committed to creating a nation of learners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
development of the idea of growth mindset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't Let Praise Become a Consolation Prize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Helping children confront challenges requires a more nuanced understanding of the "growth mindset," says the psychologist Carol Dweck.

# data[].attributes.body
Education Week

# data[].attributes.body
Carol Dweck

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing a Growth Mindset with Carol Dweck

# data[].attributes.headline
Growth Mindset Tempers the Affects of Poverty on Academic Achievement.

# data[].attributes.subject
Growth Mindset Tempers the Affects of Poverty on Academic Achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
Article from the National Academy of Sciences

# data[].attributes.body
TedEd

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 tips to boost your confidence - TED-Ed

# data[].attributes.body
mindsetkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn what a growth mindset is and why it’s important.

# data[].attributes.body
Ted-Ed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Two Decisions Led Me to Olympic Glory - Steve Mesler

# data[].attributes.body
Positivepsychology.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've probably heard of this movement before-it's swept the nation and the world into a newfound appreciation for the potential to be found in hard work.

Of course, working hard has always been valued. We know that working hard (and working smart) is a good way to achieve our goals.

The question is not so much one of how much we appreciate the value of work, but whether we have overemphasized the importance of natural ability. It's easy to look at the achievements of exceptional people and think that their success comes from their innate gifts. After all, Einstein couldn't have revolutionized a field with a below-average intelligence, right? Would Michael Jordan have been able to become the phenomenal player that he is without inherent talent for basketball?

The answer to both questions is, of course, almost certainly "No." The most exceptional people in any area would likely not be at the top without some innate abilities. However, there is an important piece that many people don't see-you don't become the greatest by riding on your innate talent alone.

Einstein didn't simply spend a few afternoons writing a book then kick back and relax. Michael Jordan didn't skip practices and lounge around in his free time.

It takes an incredible amount of talent AND hard work to become the greatest at anything.

Although the vast majority of us won't become the greatest at our craft, this simple truth has some important applications for us as well, namely: we get where we are through a combination of innate ability and effort. Except in extremely rare cases of strong genetics, our genes don't define anything about us. We have incredible influence over our skills and abilities-likely far more influence than we think.

There's a name for believing in our ability to grow and change what some assume to be fixed or immutable characteristics: having a growth mindset. If you're interested in finding out what a growth mindset is and how it can be developed, you've come to the right place! Read on to learn more about growth mindset vs. fixed.

Before we get much further, let's take a moment to define some important terms that we'll be using frequently throughout this piece.

What is the Definition of a Growth Mindset?

A growth mindset is "the understanding that abilities and understanding can be developed" (Mindset Works, n.d.). Those with a growth mindset believe that they can get smarter, more intelligent, and more talented through putting in time and effort.

What is a Fixed Mindset?

On the flipside, a fixed mindset is one that assumes abilities and understanding are relatively fixed. Those with a fixed mindset may not believe that intelligence can be enhanced, or that you either "have it or you don't" when it comes to abilities and talents.

What is the Main Difference (Growth Mindset vs. Fixed)?

The main difference between the two mindsets is the belief in the permanence of intelligence and ability; one views it as very permanent, with little to no room for change in either direction, while the other views it as more changeable, with opportunities for improvement (or, for that matter, regression).

This difference in mindset may lead to marked differences in behavior as well. If someone believes intelligence and abilities are immutable traits, they are not likely to put in much effort to change their inherent intelligence and abilities. On the other hand, those who believe they can change these traits may be much more willing to put in extra time and effort to achieve more ambitious goals. With a growth mindset, individuals may achieve more than others because they are worrying less about seeming smart or talented and putting more of their energy into learning (Dweck, 2016).

While the benefits of cultivating a growth mindset are clearly desirable, the founder of the growth mindset theory is quick to point out that it's not just about telling yourself (or others) that you can improve; Carol Dweck points out three common misconceptions she has encountered:

1. "I already have it, and I always have." Dweck warns that a growth mindset is not simply being open-minded or optimistic or practicing flexible thinking; it's more specific than that.

2. "A growth mindset is just about praising and rewarding effort." Although praising and rewarding effort is generally a good idea, it must be undertaken with an eye on outcomes as well. Effort that is unproductive is not to be rewarded, and learning and progress should also be met with praise.

3. "Just espouse a growth mindset, and good things will happen." Espousing a growth mindset is a positive step that can lead to positive outcomes, but it's not a guarantee; the mindset needs to be backed up with effort applied to worthwhile activities, and even then success is not inevitable (Dweck, 2016).

Examples of a Growth Mindset

It's easy to see examples of a growth mindset in students. Those with a growth mindset are apt to see challenges as a natural part of the learning process. They work harder and smarter, helping them to learn and achieve more than students with a fixed mindset.

Students with a growth mindset may display behaviors like:

Asking the teacher to demonstrate a new way to do a math problem

Volunteering answers in class even when unsure

Asking a question even if it might seem basic or "stupid"

Seeking out problems that will push them instead of problems that keep them safely within their comfort zone (Character Lab, n.d.)

It may seem like a growth mindset is hard to see in adults, since they're not in a constant learning environment-or are they? That perspective on the environment is a clear-cut example of a growth mindset vs. fixed. Those with a growth mindset are more likely to see every environment as a learning environment and scan for opportunities to improve their skills and enhance their knowledge.

For specific examples, John Rhodes (2015) shares a few scenarios that typify a growth mindset in adults:

Example 1: Running late and missing the bus or carpool

You've certainly been here before: your alarm doesn't go off (or maybe you hit snooze a few too many times) and you oversleep. You jump out of bed and race into your clothes, skipping any part of your morning ritual that isn't completely necessary before racing outside to catch the bus. As you run to the street, you see the bus pulling away and you know you're going to be late.

For someone with a fixed mindset, this scenario might just ruin their whole day. They may feel angry with themselves or look for someone or something else to blame.

On the other hand, someone with a growth mindset is more likely to think about the root cause of the mess they're in and consider how to avoid it next time. They may conclude that they need to go to bed earlier tonight, or set their alarm a little bit louder. The point is, the person with a growth mindset will think about ways to fix the problem because they believe it is fixable.

Example 2: Poor feedback from the boss

Another scenario showcasing a growth mindset: you go in for an evaluation with your boss and you receive negative feedback. Your boss thinks you aren't putting in enough effort, or you're making too many mistakes, or that you're simply not competent enough to handle your current project.

Someone with a fixed mindset may decide that their boss has no idea what she's talking about and completely ignore the feedback. Alternatively, they might agree with their boss and think "I just can't do anything right. I don't have what it takes to be successful."

A growth mindset response would be to seriously consider this feedback, evaluate it as objectively as possible, and seek out more information and/or another opinion to compare. If your boss has a point, you would come up with possible solutions to improve your performance and do your best to implement them.

Example 3: Praising your child

We'll get to more examples later, but Rhodes offers a good example of a growth mindset in a parent:

"Kids love praise and parents love giving it. So, when you're child comes to you with an A on his math paper, you can either go the fixed mindset route and say, 'You're so smart' or you can go the growth mindset way and acknowledge the effort he or she put in, saying, 'Wow, you really worked hard on that paper!'" (Rhodes, 2015)

Example 4: Handling a new project or task

When you are assigned a daunting new task at work or when you take on a challenging project at home, it can be tempting to think "I'm not good at this kind of stuff. It's just not my strong suit!"

You might be right that it's not one of your strengths, but that doesn't mean you can't learn it. A fixed mindset will take this self-defeating thought and run with it, concluding that there's no point in putting all that much effort into something that just isn't your cup of tea.

On the other hand, a growth mindset will see this new challenge as an opportunity to grow. Someone with this mindset might think, "I can figure this out. What do I need to do to get my skills at the right level? Are there classes I can take? People I can ask for help? Any other resources that might help?"

The growth mindset will lead you to new skills, new knowledge, and new areas of expertise, while the fixed mindset will leave you about where you started-with little skill in the task at hand and little confidence in your abilities.

How to Change Your Mindset

After reading these examples, you're probably thinking, "Okay, I'm sold on a growth mindset! But how do I change my mindset?"

If so, you're right on track! This section is all about what you can to do change your mindset. It may not be easy, but you will likely find that all the effort was worth the advantages of a growth mindset.

There are eight general approaches for developing the foundation for such a mindset:

1. Create a new compelling belief: a belief in yourself, in your own skills and abilities, and in your capacity for positive change.

2. View failure in a different light: see failure as an opportunity to learn from your experiences and apply what you have learned next time around.

3. Cultivate your self-awareness: work on becoming more aware of your talents, strengths, and weaknesses; gather feedback from those who know you best and put it together for a comprehensive view of yourself.

4. Be curious and commit to lifelong learning: try to adopt the attitude of a child, looking at the world around you with awe and wonderment; ask questions and truly listen to the answers.

5. Get friendly with challenges: know that if you mean to accomplish anything worthwhile, you will face many challenges on your journey; prepare yourself for facing these challenges, and for failing sometimes.

6. Do what you love and love what you do: it's much easier to succeed when you are passionate about what you're doing; whether you cultivate love for what you already do or focus on doing what you already love, developing passion is important.

7. Be tenacious: it takes a lot of hard work to succeed, but it takes even more than working hard-you must be tenacious, weathering obstacles and getting back up after each time you fall.

8. Inspire and be inspired by others: it can be tempting to envy others when they succeed, especially if they go farther than you, but it will not help you to succeed; commit to being an inspiration to others and use the success of others to get inspiration as well (Zimmerman, 2016).

Follow these 8 principles and you will find it hard to have anything but a growth mindset!

For more specific techniques you can use to start building a growth mindset now, try these 25 suggestions from Saga Briggs (2015):

Acknowledge and embrace your imperfections; don't hide from your weaknesses.

View challenges as opportunities for self-improvement.

Try different learning tactics and strategies; don't consider any strategies one-size-fits-all.

Keep up on the research on brain plasticity to continually encourage the growth mindset.

Replace the word "failing" with the word "learning" in your vocabulary.

Stop seeking approval for others, and prioritize learning over approval.

Value the learning process over the end result.

Cultivate a sense of purpose, and keep things in perspective.

Celebrate your growth with others, and celebrate their growth as well.

Emphasize learning well over learning quickly.

Reward actions instead of traits.

Redefine "genius" as hard work plus talent, rather than talent alone.

Give constructive criticism, and accept criticism of your own work as constructive.

Disassociate improvement from failure; "room for improvement" does not mean "failure."

Reflect on your learning regularly.

Reward hard work before talent or inherent ability.

Emphasize the relationship between learning and "brain training;" like any other muscle, the brain can be trained.

Cultivate your grit (determination and perseverance).

Abandon the idea of succeeding on talent alone; recognize that it will always take some work as well.

Use the phrase "not yet" more often, as in, "I haven't mastered it yet."

Learn from the mistakes that others make.

Make a new goal for every goal you accomplish; never stop striving towards your goals.

Take risks and be vulnerable with others.

Think realistically about how much time and effort your goal will take.

Take ownership of your own attitude, and take pride in your developing growth mindset.

If you're still hungry for more tips on building a growth mindset, see the exercises and activities detailed later in this piece.

How to Develop a Growth Mindset for Kids

This mindset theory is especially applicable for students. There are obvious advantages to cultivating a growth mindset in children of any age, and it's never too early to start!

Teachers have a unique opportunity to influence the mindset of the children they interact with on a daily basis, and there are some simple things they can do to encourage a growth mindset over a fixed one. For example, teachers can:

1. Set and publicly share teaching goals (e.g., "I am working on giving feedback to every student every period")

2. Reframe deficits as opportunities for growth

3. Ask others for better strategies

4. Seek mentorship

5. Avoid language that implies a fixed mindset about their own abilities (e.g., "I've never been great at math")

6. Share their own mistakes with students and vocally embrace each mistake as a chance to get better (Character Lab, n.d.)

Making a verbal commitment to building a growth mindset and offering effort-based praise is a great strategy for helping children to develop a growth mindset, but it's about more than words. Teachers and parents who want to guide their children toward this mindset should also focus on:

1. Improving themselves first; it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to build a growth mindset in others if it's not a mindset you are also embracing for yourself.

2. Go beyond the "mindset jargon" and inspirational quotes to truly focus on encouraging growth over achievement, and frame failure as opportunities to learn.

3. Praise properly, focusing on their efforts rather than any inherent abilities.

4. Embrace the word "yet;" as noted earlier in the section on building your own growth mindset, use the word "yet" with children to give them a sense that failure is not inevitable and that their current level of knowledge or skill is not immutable.

5. Take advantage of mistakes children make; be ready to praise them for their efforts but also point out any issues in their approach and brainstorm better ways to handle the situation with them.

6. Let kids fail; another vital part of building a growth mindset in children is to let them fail instead of showing them how to do everything. Trial and error is an important learning process, and children should be free to use it (Gerstein, n.d.).

If you think you've got a good handle on the general principles, but are looking for more specific and hands-on techniques for cultivating a growth mindset in your children or students, read on!

Mindset Activities for Students and Adults

There are many activities and exercises you can try to get yourself or your children or students into more of a growth mindset. Try one of the four activities listed below and see if any of them work for your child, your class, or even yourself!

Crumpled Reminder Activity

This activity from the Project for Education Research that Scales' (PERTS) official Mindset Kit will guide children through a lesson on the importance of failing and how we can use failure as an opportunity. It should only take about 15 to 20 minutes.

If you'd like to give this activity a try, follow these steps:

1. Ask students to write about a mistake they made this week and how it made them feel.

2. Give each student a fresh piece of paper, ask them to crumple it up and throw it at the board with the feelings they have when they make a mistake.

3. Ask them to retrieve the paper, un-crumple it, and color each line with different colors.

4. Ask students what they think those lines represent. Explain that the lines represent all the synaptic activity (or brain activity, for younger children) that happens when a mistake is made.

5. Ask students to keep the paper and stick it into a notebook or folder to look at when they make a mistake. This physical reminder prompts students to use mistakes to strengthen their brain every time they open their notebook.

6. OPTIONAL - Lead a discussion on mistakes using questions from the Classroom Discussion activity (below) to further students' understanding about the value of mistakes.

Click here to learn more about this activity.

Classroom Discussion Activity

You can use this to complement the first activity or on its own-either way, it will teach kids a valuable lesson about failure.

Introduce the activity by saying you are going to talk about why mistakes are good, and how you can learn from them. Lead a discussion on mistakes, starting with the following questions:

1. How do you feel when you make a mistake? Why?

2. How do you think other people see you when you make a mistake?

3. Have you ever discovered something new from making a mistake?

4. Have you ever felt proud of making a mistake?

5. Has a mistake ever made you think more deeply about a problem? (With this question, you can start off with a non-academic situation, then apply the lesson to school.)

If you'd like to learn more about this activity, visit PERTS' website here.

Mistake Game

This exercise from Barbara on the Mindset Kit website is a perfect way for students to get comfortable learning about, making, and keeping an eye out for mistakes.

Begin by assigning students a set of math problems. Each student must complete them individually.

Once each student has finished their set, put the students into small groups (four or five students per group) and assign each group one of the problems to present to the class. The group members should share their individual solutions with the group, then collectively they can choose a solution to share with the class on the whiteboard.

However, there's a catch-they must make at least one intentional mistake in their solution! The group can choose a mistake made by one of their own members or come up with a new mistake, but there must be at least one mistake present.

When each group has settled on a solution with at least one mistake, the groups will present their solution to the class one at a time. While they present, the class must listen to their process and keep their eyes peeled for the mistake(s). When they believe they've found a mistake, they have to phrase it in the form of a question (e.g., "Why did you do it that way?" or "Can you explain how you did that part?").

This process of sharing and openly discussing mistakes can help diminish the stigma on making errors. It also encourages students to ask thoughtful questions and to be comfortable talking about their own mistakes.

Click here to read about this activity from the source.

Reflection on Mistakes

This is a great activity to use with an individual student or child who has just made a mistake that he or she feels particularly bad about. Remind the child that mistakes an inevitable part of life, and that they can be used as an opportunity to grow and improve.

Encourage them to answer these questions in their journal, diary, or on a sheet of paper:

1. What happened when you made the mistake?

2. How did you realize you had the wrong answer?

3. Describe how you started thinking about the problem.

4. How did it feel when you realized you made a mistake?

5. What did you learn from making this mistake?

Once they have answered these questions, discuss the mistake with them. Praise them for their effort, acknowledge that they have made progress by completing this reflection, and encourage them to try new strategies in the future.

You can click here to learn about the activity this exercise is based on.

Challenge Your Fixed Mindset Voice

This activity involves four steps that are not all that easy, but that can help you to develop the foundation for a lasting growth mindset.
Step 1: Learn to hear your fixed mindset voice.
Pay attention to the voice that pops up when you face a new or particularly daunting challenge. This is the voice of your fixed mindset, and it likely only has negative things to say about you and your abilities. It might say something like "You really think you can do it?" or "This is not one of your strengths, just give up and do something else!"

Once you've identified the voice, move on to the next step.
Step 2: Recognize that you have a choice.
After realizing that you have a fixed mindset voice and that it's not necessarily your authentic voice, you will realize that you have a choice in whether to listen to this voice or not. It is up to you to decide how you want to interpret and respond to challenges, setbacks, criticism, and failure.

Tell yourself that you have a choice, and do your best to believe it!
Step 3: Talk back to it with your growth mindset voice.
When the fixed mindset voice comes nagging at you, start to talk back to it. Question it, throw doubt on its conclusions, and generally counter it wherever you can.

It may say, "Are you sure you can do it? Maybe you don't have what it takes."

You can respond, "I'm not sure I can do it now, but I think I can learn to do it with time and effort."

If it says, "What if you fail-you'll be a failure!", respond with "Most successful people had failures along the way."

When you hit an inevitable setback at some point, it might say, "This would be so much easier if you only had the talent." If it does, respond with "That's wrong. Even those with the greatest inherent talent need to work hard to succeed in their field."

Do whatever you can to challenge that fixed mindset voice and encourage the growth mindset voice.
Step 4: Take the growth mindset action.
Finally, once you have tons of practice challenging the fixed mindset voice with your growth mindset voice, it will become easier to take the growth mindset action.

Taking the growth mindset action means:

1. Taking on the challenge wholeheartedly.

2. Learning from your setbacks and trying again.

3. Hearing the criticism and taking constructive action.

Continue listening to both voices and acting on the growth mindset voice as often as possible, and you will have an excellent foundation for the right mindset.

Carol Dweck's Book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success

Carol Dweck's 2007 book on her growth vs. fixed mindset theory is titled Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. In this book, Dweck describes the importance of having the right mindset to maximize our potential and capitalize on our strengths. This theory explains how the way we think about our intelligence, abilities, and talents can have a huge impact on our success in every area of life.

It focuses on both improving your own mindset and on building the right mindset in children, making it an excellent read for parents, teachers, coaches, and managers.

This newest version of the book offers new insights on cultivating a growth mindset, as well as avoiding the false growth mindset. It also includes Dweck's insights on applying the growth mindset to teams, groups, organizations, and institutions.

The book seems to be beloved by both critics and everyday readers, with an impressive 4.5-star average based on over 2,300 reviews. It is available in paperback, hardcover, and Kindle version. Click here to read more about it or purchase it for yourself.

Book Summary - Mindset: The New Psychology of Success

There's no substitute for reading the book itself (and it's not exactly a monster of a book at 304 pages!), but if you're in a hurry and looking to get the most salient points out of it quickly, there are a few summaries of Mindset that are available for purchase.

Check the following links for succinct summaries of the book:

Growth Mindset Posters, Displays & A Bulletin Board (PDF)

If you're a teacher, tutor, or simply a parent that likes those inspirational or motivational posters, these posters, displays, and bulletin board ideas are perfect for you.

This group of 13 posters, each in 4 different themes, are highly rated by over 2,000 reviewers. At $6.25 for a digital download, these posters are an excellent value!

If you want your child or students to have a more hands-on experience, try these 9 color-in mindset posters. Coloring the posters will encourage children to take an active role in thinking about their mindset. At $4.99 for a digital download, you'll find this a great use of precious resources.

This set is another great value; it includes 22 growth mindset affirmations, in full-color poster, full black and white poster, full-color trading cards, and black and white trading cards format. In addition, there are two printables that offer suggestions on utilizing the affirmations in the classroom and 8 pages of bulletin board letters in case you'd like to create a bulletin board. It's only $6.75 for a digital download, making it an excellent buy.

This example growth mindset bulletin board shows how you can create a helpful and inspiring display that will encourage students to develop a growth mindset. This one is titled "Change Your Words - Change Your Mindset!" and includes 9 fixed mindset thoughts or statements and a corresponding growth mindset thought. Keeping this board in a highly-trafficked area will ensure that kids see these statements and are constantly reminded that they can choose to change their perspective on their problems.

Dweck's TED Talk (Video)

If you're interested in hearing more about this theory, check out Carol Dweck's TED Talk on it below. She describes what prompted her to think about mindset, what the research on this subject has found, and the power of "yet."

A Take Home Message

If you leave this piece with only one takeaway, I hope that it is a belief in yourself and your abilities to grow, to develop, and to thrive beyond what you currently perceive as your limits. Having a growth mindset isn't an "easy button" solution to any problem, and it will not automatically cause good things to happen to you; however, it will likely make it easier and more enjoyable to work hard toward your goals, and give you the confidence you need to set ever more ambitious goals.

I hope this piece has satisfied some of your curiosity about the growth mindset theory, but if you're still curious, know that this is merely scratching the surface-there are tons of studies, articles, and books out there about the importance of cultivating a growth mindset and tips and tricks on how to do it.

What are your thoughts on this theory? Do you find it plausible, or do you think inherent abilities are more important than this theory assumes? Have you tried any growth mindset activities? Let us know in the comments!

Thanks for reading, and good luck with building a growth mindset!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth Mindset vs. Fixed + Key Takeaways From Dweck's Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've probably heard of this movement before-it's swept the nation and the world into a newfound appreciation for the potential to be found in hard work. Of course, working hard has always been valued. We know that working hard (and working smart) is a good way to achieve our goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
3 reasons you arenʻt doing what you say youʻll do

# data[].attributes.subject
3 reasons you arenʻt doing what you say youʻll do

# data[].attributes.body
TedxTalk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 reasons you aren’t doing what you say you will do | Amanda Crowell | TEDxHarrisburg

# data[].attributes.body
Look through activities to develop growth mindset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
High school activities | Growth mindset | Partner content | Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Khan Academy

# data[].attributes.headline
Khan Academy Founder with Carol Dweck speaking on Growth Mindset

# data[].attributes.subject
Khan Academy Founder with Carol Dweck speaking on Growth Mindset

# data[].attributes.body
Youtube video

# data[].attributes.body
Tedx maui

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TEDxMaui - Paula Fuga - Believe in Yourself

# data[].attributes.body
youtube video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Denzel Washington's Life Advice Will Leave You SPEECHLESS |LISTEN THIS EVERYDAY AND CHANGE YOUR LIFE

# data[].attributes.body
Khan academy video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.

# data[].attributes.body
Podcast on Growth Mindset

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Podcast #147: Growth Mindset with Carol Dweck | The Art of Manliness