When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was non-significant: d ̅ = 0.02, 95% CI =. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students’ mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was non-significant: d ̅ = 0.04, 95% CI =. No theoretically-meaningful moderators were significant.
Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d ̅ = 0.05, 95% CI =, which was non-significant after correcting for potential publication bias. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies’ adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students’ mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement.
Īccording to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change-that is, those who hold a growth mindset-will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. While we remain cautious about inviting self-assured studentfacing effort prematurely and harming students, what if we in Valley had prioritized next grappling with assessing and improving local educational opportunity over a preoccupation with verbalized White agreement or disagreement, and moved forward by inviting all (or even just the willing Blaisdell, 2018b Gorski, 2019) to actively inquire now with colleagues, students, and families into both big ideas and improving key aspects of Valley student experience? Was inaction not more dangerous to Valley students, since Valley teachers were already shaping student lives?. Humbly, this article, based on our own study of PD in action, has reflected on how PD researchers as well as facilitators and administrators can overlook the need for sustained grappling with antiracist ideas and local application efforts, by considering PD a "success" when White teachers agree with selfcritique, verbalize some desired racial consciousness, or state a willingness to learn and act. Thus, we find ourselves wondering whether in a nation battling over whether antiracist PD is "indoctrination," a focus on next grappling with both big ideas and attempted improvements to concrete aspects of student service (as opposed to verbalized agreement) might be better evidence of success. Other researchers of race-focused PD have pointed out that individual "confessions" aligning with specific PD ideas are not necessarily sufficient evidence of growth or understanding (Lensmire et al., 2013) that pacing PD learning based on securing agreement from some White teachers undermines collective efforts to better serve students (Blaisdell, 2018b Gorski, 2019), and that not taking "next steps" in PD may position some White teachers as irreparably flawed, blunting ongoing work (Tatum, 1992). Regarding antiracism, the field already calls for combining ongoing inquiry into deep, often contentious questions of self and society (Matias & Mackey, 2016) with learning from local effort to critically reflect on and improve schooling (Jupp et al., 2019 Picower, 2012).
0 kommentar(er)
