mindsets and brainology: self-theories of intelligence and an intervention

Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 1

Mindsets and Brainology®:

Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention

Kathryn W. Boehm

EG536V: Action Research

Lipscomb University

July 25, 2012

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY® 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the software program Brainology® (n.d.)

on student mindsets and math achievement scores. Students with a fixed mindset held that

intelligence could never be changed; whereas, students with a growth mindset believed that

intelligence could grow with effort. The study used a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods

approach, wherein 62 seventh graders were provided the opportunity to experience the online

software program Brainology® (n.d.). The participants were enrolled in a low socio-economic

status middle school. Students who completed all four levels of the program formed the

experimental group, and the remainder comprised the control. The students in the experimental

group demonstrated a greater tendency toward a growth mindset, and most students with an

initial fixed mindset developed a growth mindset by the end of the study. The results of the

achievement portion of the study were mixed. Fewer than half of the students who completed

Brainology® (n.d.) with a growth mindset showed increased achievement scores. On the other

hand, the great majority of students who had a growth mindset and additional math instruction

improved their scores. The study concluded that the combination of challenging instruction and a

growth mindset led to improved scores. The recommendation was that teachers educate

themselves about mindsets and foster growth mindsets in challenging classrooms. Further

research would include following these students for a longer time or comparing their

achievement scores to those from another similar school.


Chapter 1

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Vanderbilt University Professor Dr. Tamra Stambaugh’s primary research field has been

gifted education and the effect of accelerated curriculum, with a focus on low-income students

(Vanderbilt University, n.d.). Dr. Stambaugh held that a fixed mindset could be just as

detrimental to the gifted child as it would be to the low-performing student, because students

with fixed mindsets have demonstrated a tendency to give up when faced with challenging

problems. These students believed that they simply weren’t intelligent enough to succeed

(personal communication, June 13, 2010). The problem with possessing a fixed mindset was that

it led to defeatism in the classroom and lower student achievement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was two-fold. The first purpose of the study was to measure the

participating students’ mindsets both before and after the intervention in order to determine the

effect of the Brainology® (n.d.) software on mindset. Secondly, the study compared the students’

predicted levels of achievement on TCAP, as determined by Discovery Education Assessments

(DEA), with the actual level of achievement on TCAP, in order to examine whether or not

students with a newly developed growth mindset achieved at a higher than predicted level on the

TCAP.

Significance of the Study

Educators in urban schools have faced a persistent achievement gap between white

students and students of color (USDOE, 2009). Obtaining a quality education has traditionally

been the most direct road out of poverty, yet many low socio-economic status (low-SES)


students failed to complete their education. If simply possessing a growth mindset leads to higher

academic achievement and if changing the mindsets of students into growth mindsets can be

accomplished by utilizing Brainology® (n.d.), which can feasibly be implemented in any school,

then educators would possess a powerful approach to narrowing the achievement gap.

Theoretical Framework

Dr. Carol Dweck, a Stanford University professor of psychology, has studied self-

theories of learning since the early 1980s. Dweck’s more recent work supported a statistically

significant connection between the student’s self-theory of intelligence, or mindset, and

academic achievement. In “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an

Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention,” Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and

Dweck, (2007) demonstrated that an incremental theory, or growth mindset, in seventh grade

students predicted an upward trend in academic achievement over the course of seventh and

eighth grade. This result was compelling, but it begged the question: Could mindset be changed

to create conditions which were conducive to success?

These same researchers also focused on two groups of low-achieving seventh graders in

New York City. A time-consuming, eight-week intervention was undertaken with these students.

The experimental group showed marked improvement in mathematics achievement and learned

that their brains can get stronger, like a muscle.

Research Questions

Using the software rendered the intervention engaging and enjoyable for the students, and

it made the research process manageable; in fact, the school computer teacher managed the entire

intervention on behalf of this researcher. This study addressed the following two questions:


1) Did the seventh graders who completed the study have a growth mindset afterward, or did

they view intelligence as immutable and innate?

2) Did completing the software program, Brainology® (n.d.), result in statistically significant

gains in seventh grade math scores on the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program

(TCAP), as compared with students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.)?

Hypotheses

Completing the Brainology® (n.d.) software program will lead to a statistically

significant increase in the number of students who possess a growth mindset. Student entries in

the software journal will reveal changes in mindset and evidence that students had learned

specific study skills. Students will report fewer challenges to learning upon completion of

Brainology® (n.d.).

Students took three Discovery Education Assessments throughout the school year, and

these assessments predict achievement levels on TCAP. Students who complete Brainology®

(n.d.) and develop a growth mindset will exceed expected levels of achievement on the TCAP

Math test.

Delimitation

Prior to data collection, the school administration decided to group students according to

demonstrated performance on DEA assessments. Higher-achieving students were given two

additional math classes per week. This practice was called “double-dosing,” and the student

grouping was considered in the data analysis for this study.

Literature Search procedures

The focal point of the search was Black, Trzesniewski, and Dweck’s 2007 study;

therefore, the search involved an ERIC keyword search, looking for articles on middle school


students, mathematics achievement, low-income students, self-theories of intelligence,

attribution theory, and achievement gap. Searching on any one of the above keywords yielded so

many articles that the logical “AND” connector was utilized to combine search terms in various

ways and narrow the results. The articles were written between the mid-1970s and the present.

The search results led to an understanding of attribution theory of intelligence’s development as

a research topic.

C. S. Dweck’s name came up frequently, both in the ERIC search and in the reference

sections of articles. An ERIC search for the author name Dweck revealed 35 articles either

authored or co-authored by C. S. Dweck between 1975 and the present. The abstracts for those

articles traced Dweck’s progression as a researcher from 1975 to the present. Dweck was clearly

a well-known, frequently cited expert in her field. This phase of the research placed the questions

of this study in the educational research tradition and clarified Dweck’s place in that tradition.

Dweck’s publication, Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and

Development (2000) turned up in the search. The chapter entitled “Is Intelligence Fixed or

Changeable? Students’ Theories about Their Intelligence Foster Their Achievement Goals” was

particularly useful in understanding the development of Dweck’s ideas. Black, Trzesniewski,

and Dweck’s 2007 study flowed naturally out of the research cited in this particular essay. The

reference section of the 2007 study included sources ranging in date from 1961 to 2006. J.

Aronson was clearly a key researcher, and he contributed to a study on racial stereo-typing

(Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). The greatest struggle was

finding full-text publications of Dweck’s work; however, Dweck’s Stanford University webpage

listed numerous articles with full-text links and complete publication information. Dweck’s web

site was a valuable resource.


The professional publications, Educational Leadership (ASCD) and Mathematics

Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM), were available online and were an additional resource

for useful articles. The Jensen book, Teaching with Poverty in Mind (2009), included a wealth of

useful information related to working with low-SES students. The U. S. Department of

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (2010) contained all of the data necessary to

define and examine the Achievement Gap. Finally, this author had a Brainology® subscription

and was able to experience the software and access the entire website.

Self-Theories of Intelligence, or Mindsets

Throughout the abstracts of numerous research pieces which preceded the 2007 study,

there were multiple references to the terms “learned helplessness vs. mastery,” “learning goals

vs. mastery goals,” and “entity theorist vs. incremental theorist.” There has been an evolution of

terminology in the research over the years. According to Dweck, each student has an implicit

theory, or self-theory, of intelligence. That is, we each have an underlying notion of the nature of

our own intelligence. This notion is the self-theory of intelligence. There are two essential types

of self-theory of intelligence. A student who holds an entity theory of intelligence believes that

intelligence is a fixed quantity and that each person possesses a given amount of intelligence. An

incremental theory of intelligence reflects the belief that intelligence is changeable and that a

person can become more intelligent through effort, concentration, experience and other factors

(Dweck, 2000). Dweck now refers to an entity theory of intelligence as a fixed mindset and an

incremental theory as a growth mindset (2009). In this paper, entity theory and fixed mindset

were used interchangeably, as were incremental theory and growth mindset.


Chapter 2

Review of Literature

The Middle School Student

Prior to 1963, junior high school was exactly like high school, except with younger

students. There was no concept that the young adolescent’s developmental and academic needs

might differ in quality from those of the high school student. The middle school movement in the

U.S. began in 1963 with a landmark address by William Alexander of George Peabody College,

and the number of middle schools in the U.S. has exploded since that time. In 1970, there were

2,080 middle schools; there were 10,944 in 1998 and nearly 12,000 by 2002 (Armstrong, 2006).

Alexander recognized the need for middle schools which would address the developmental needs

of the young adolescent. According to Armstrong:

Educators need to understand the developmental needs of young adolescents, and in

particular their neurological, social, emotional, and metacognitive growth. Some of these

developmental needs are ignored or subverted by inappropriate educational practices such

as fragmented curricula, large impersonal schools, and lesson plans that lack vitality.

Practices at the best schools honor the developmental uniqueness of young adolescents,

including the provision of a safe school environment, student-initiated learning, student

roles in decision making, and strong adult role models. (Armstrong, 2006, p. 113)

In our current educational environment, with the strong emphasis on standards and test scores,

we have run the risk of removing student-initiative from the learning process. Middle school

students who have had little input into the learning process and who were viewed as mere

receivers of knowledge have disengaged from their own learning, disowned the process, and

sought stimulation outside of the school walls.


All young adolescents experienced the awkwardness of impending puberty, exploding

cognitive development, increasing self-consciousness and emotional unevenness, yet minority

students carried the additional burden of negative racial stereotypes (Aronson, Cohen,

McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). These students may have attributed their

natural academic struggles to these stereotypes. These researchers had concrete

recommendations for mitigating the negative effects of stereotypes. First, teach and emphasize

that intelligence grows stronger like a muscle. Greater effort would result in greater intellectual

growth. Also, explain to children that their difficulties are the result of a normal learning curve,

not attributable to the student or the student’s racial group. Finally, assist students in identifying

values outside of school which contribute positively to the individual’s self-esteem (Aronson, et

al., 2009). The study of racial stereotyping supported Dweck’s call for developing a growth

mindset. Such a mindset not only improved academic achievement, but it was also an antidote

for racial or gender stereotyping (Dweck, 2006).

There were informal ways to encourage a growth mindset and tap into students’

individual strengths. One useful technique was to draw a parallel between school work and

students’ extracurricular activities. Students frequently believed that practice and effort would

lead to improvement in sports, music, or art but not in academics. Pointing out this dichotomy to

students and referring to homework as “practice” and the teacher as “academic coach” might

have encouraged a growth mindset (Atwood, 2010).

Middle school children have striven for competence in all areas of their lives, and,

although their growth was naturally uneven, they wanted to be trusted and given responsibilities

whenever appropriate. They also needed support and a sense of safety in case they failed to meet

expectations. The developmental changes which occurred during middle school could enhance


the learning process when educators possessed a deep understanding of the middle school child.

The difficulties inherent in middle school education became opportunities for growth.

The Achievement Gap in Mathematics

There has been a well-documented and persistent achievement gap in standardized test

scores, not only between white students and students of color, but also between students in low-

poverty schools vs. students in high-poverty schools. According to The Condition of Education:

2000-2010 (U. S. Department of Education, 2010), an internet publication of the United States

Department of Education (USDOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 2009

white eighth-graders scored an average of 32 points higher than their black counterparts on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), despite the fact that both groups showed

improvement over the previous year. This achievement gap has existed at least since 1992

(USDOE, 2009). NCES reported that in 2005 the average fourth-grade score on the mathematics

NAEP assessment was 221 for students in schools with greater than 75% free or reduced lunch

and 255 for schools in which the free or reduced lunch rate was less than 10% (USDOE, 2009).

Not only was there an achievement gap in mathematics scores on the NAEP, but the U.S.

also lagged behind other developing nations on the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study,

particularly in the area of measurement. Middle school students have not been exposed to

enough hands-on measurement activities and classroom experiences which required higher-order

thinking skills or which integrated measurement in math and science (Thompson & Preston,

2004).

Eric Jensen delineated the effects of poverty on brain development in both the emotional

and intellectual realms. He described the practical difficulties that low-SES parents have. For

example, they may have had to work multiple jobs or long hours, and so they didn’t have


adequate time to spend with their children. The parents were often stressed or even depressed,

and, thus, not emotionally available to their children. It was common for parents to work nights,

for example, and for children in fifth grade or younger to get up on their own, dress for school,

lock the house, and walk to the bus stop or to school. The children themselves didn’t develop a

full range of emotions, and the children may have lived in dangerous neighborhoods or difficult

home situations which overdeveloped the amygdala and made the children overly emotional.

Meanwhile, the other areas of the brain, such as the visual cortex, temporal lobe, parietal

lobe, and occipital lobe, didn’t develop as many neurological connections as the brains of higher-

SES children. Thus, lower-SES children experienced diminished cognitive capacity. In response

to this bleak outlook for student outcomes, however, Jensen proposed that schools foster an

“enrichment mind-set”:

Your school will get results only when you and your staff shift your collective mind-set

from “those poor kids” to “our gifted kids.” Stop thinking remediation and start thinking

enrichment. The enrichment mind-set means fostering intellectual curiosity, emotional

engagement, and social bonding . . . . Essentially, the enrichment mind-set means

maximizing students’ and staff members’ potential, whatever it takes. Whether or not

students choose to go to college, enrichment programs prepare them to succeed in life.

(Jensen, 2009, p. 94)

This enrichment mind-set was a classroom and school-wide approach designed to create a

learning environment which would mitigate the effects of poverty and accelerate student

learning. Considering that Jensen did not cite Dweck, he defined “mind-set” differently than she;

rather, he was concerned with students’ attitudes, academic capacities, and thought-processes

about school.


How Does Mindset Affect Learning and Achievement?

In 1981, Dweck, Bandura and Leggett embarked on a series of studies regarding self-

theories of intelligence. The framing question was: Why do students become so focused on

grades? Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as “Your intelligence is

something about you that you can’t change very much”; “you can learn new things but you can’t

really change your basic intelligence”; and “you have a certain amount of intelligence and you

can’t really do much to change it” (Dweck, 2000, p. 21). Students were classified as either entity

theorists or incremental theorists based on their responses.

Later, students were given three choices: one activity which was described as so simple

that students probably wouldn’t make mistakes, the second was described as a bit harder but a

chance to demonstrate intelligence, and the third was described as “hard, new, and different—

you might get confused and make mistakes, but you might learn something new and useful”

(Dweck, 2000, p. 21).

In the study with eighth graders, over 80% of the entity theorists chose one of the first

two tasks, and 50% chose the easier task. That is, only 20% of the entity theorists chose the

learning-oriented, more challenging task. On the other hand, 60% of the incremental theorists

chose the more difficult, learning-goal task. This type of result was consistent over multiple

studies, ranging from fifth and sixth graders to college students to English-language learners in

Hong Kong (Dweck, 2000). Dweck has performed or reviewed multiple studies which indicate

that a student’s self-theory of intelligence is deeply and integrally related to the student’s

learning goals, motivation and willingness to take on academic challenges.

Having determined that there is a relationship between mindset and learning goals,

Dweck moved on to exploring the connection between mindset and achievement. In 2007,


Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck undertook a research project involving two studies. In the

first study (Study 1), the sample was 373 seventh grade students, in four cohort waves, who were

all enrolled in public schools in the New York City area. The sample was diverse racially and

economically, and it was gender-balanced. These students standardized test scores were

moderately high, at about the 75th percentile on average, and 53% of the students were eligible

for free or reduced lunch (FRL).

At the beginning of seventh grade, each student was given a questionnaire in order to

determine the individual’s mindset, as well as other information about student motivation and

effort. Self-theory of intelligence was measured using a six-point scale with a score of 1

representing a pure entity theorist and 6 indicating a pure incremental theorist. The mean score

was 4.45, and the standard deviation was 0.97.

The students’ sixth grade math achievement scores were available to the researchers as a

baseline measure. The measure of mathematics achievement was student grades at the end of the

fall and the spring semesters during seventh and eighth grade. Thus, Dweck and her colleagues

obtained data for four waves, or cohorts, of seventh graders over the course of two years each. A

statistical analysis was undertaken in order to determine the academic growth trajectories of the

incremental theorists and the entity theorists. The results are best represented in graphical form,

as seen in Figure 1.

Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 251


Intervention and Results

The second phase of the 2007 study (Study 2) addressed the following hypothesis:

If the different theories of intelligence are indeed associated with contrasting

motivational patterns, then teaching students to think of their intelligence as malleable

should cause them to display more positive motivation in the classroom, and in turn to

achieve more highly. (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 253)

The sample in Study 2 was markedly different from the sample in Study 1. There were 91

seventh grade students who completed the study, all enrolled in a public school in New York

City, which was a different school than the school in Study 1. The sample was gender-balanced

and racially diverse; however, this group was low-achieving, with sixth-grade math achievement

scores at the 35th national percentile. The school’s FRL percentage was 79%, as compared to

53% for the school in Study 1. As in Study 1, students were given a six-point questionnaire to

determine self-theory of intelligence with, again, a score of 1 indicating a perfect entity theorist

and 6 a perfect incremental theorist.

After the initial assessment, the students were divided into experimental (N = 48) and

control groups (N = 43). Sixteen research assistants were assigned to perform an eight-week

intervention, holding workshops during a time normally reserved for students to receive extra

help. The experimental group and control group both received four sessions on brain structure,

study skills, and the negative results of stereotyping. The experimental group also had four

sessions entitled “You Can Grow Your Intelligence,” “Neural Network Maze,” “Learning Makes

You Smarter,” and “labels should be avoided;” whereas, the control group had lessons on

mnemonic devices, “academic difficulties and successes,” and “memory and the brain”

(Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 255).


Post-intervention analysis was in-depth and statistically thorough. Students were re-

assessed three weeks later to measure self-theory of intelligence. They were also given an

assessment over the content of the intervention lessons. Although students’ scores over the

general workshop content didn’t vary significantly—73.0% for the experimental group and

70.5% for the control group, students in the experimental group, as expected, scored significantly

higher—83.5% vs. 53.9%—on items which covered the “incremental theory intervention

content” (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 256). The researchers also measured the

effect of the intervention on students’ self-theories of intelligence. For the experimental group,

there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score for self-theory—4.36 to 4.95;

whereas, the control group’s scores were 4.62 pre-intervention and 4.68 post-intervention, not a

statistically significant change (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007).

The most startling result is readily seen in the following graph (Figure 3) of mathematics

achievement. The intervention occurred between the second and third points on the graph, and

the measure was students’ mathematics grades.

Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 257.


The abrupt upward trajectory in student math achievement after the intervention was

clearly delineated (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007). Study 2, however, did not have

the longitudinal aspect of Study 1, and it would have been instructive to follow these students for

a longer time. On the other hand, given the results of Study 1, it was reasonable to hypothesize

that students in Study 2 who were incremental theorists post-intervention would continue to

follow a positive achievement trajectory.

The results of this study were encouraging and impressive; however, there were

drawbacks inherent in this type of intervention—time and resources. Sixteen research assistants

were trained to implement the intervention workshops. Granted, the intervention appeared to

have been successful, but what school or school system would have resources to implement such

a program? It is possible that finances, time issues and lack of teacher buy-in would stop the

program before it could begin.

Brainology®: Both a measure and an intervention

Dweck and her associates have developed a web-based software program called

Brainology® (n.d.), which not only measures the student’s mindset, but it also provides the

incremental theory intervention in an engaging, colorful, quest-oriented series of four computer

sessions. The teacher has the ability to track each student’s progress throughout the program;

thus, a researcher could use this as a tool to determine mindset and perform an incremental

theory intervention; then, he or she could track student test data in order to measure the effect of

the intervention.

Discussion

The review of literature supports the notion that a student’s mindset impacts academic

achievement. The major researcher in this field, Carol S. Dweck, has carried out numerous


studies on the effects of mindset on achievement. She has developed methods of measuring and

changing mindsets. In order to place her work in context, the literature review includes studies

on middle school students, the achievement gap, and the effects of poverty on learning. The

literature demonstrates that poverty negatively impacts student performance and changes the

brains of young students. The research also explored the negative effects of racial stereotyping

on student mindsets. Dweck’s research indicated that changing the student’s mind set

significantly improves academic performance, despite the student’s SES or previous

achievement.


Chapter 3

Methods

Research Design

This study employed an approach that was primarily quantitative, yet the study could be

classified as mixed-methods. The Brainology® (n.d.) software administered a pre- and post-

survey in order to determine each student’s mindset. The data collected from these surveys were

utilized to demonstrate potential changes in mindset and information learned as a result of

completing Brainology® (n.d.). The software, however, also afforded students the opportunity to

keep a personal journal throughout the process, and student comments provided qualitative data

to analyze further the impact of the Brainology® (n.d.) intervention.

The second phase of the study was completely quantitative, as it consisted entirely of

comparing Discovery Education Assessment (DEA) predicted levels of achievement with actual

achievement on TCAP Math testing. In order to make this comparison, it was necessary to

convert DEA raw scores into a percentage score similar to the TCAP quick scores.

The proposed study followed a quasi-experimental design. All seventh grade students at a

public charter school in Nashville, Tennessee were given access to Brainology® (n.d.) and the

opportunity to complete the program. All students who took the DEA tests and the TCAP were

included in the analysis. All seventh graders did not complete Brainology® (n.d.), and the results

of students who completed the program were compared with those who did not complete the

program. Only students who completed the entire software program were included in the change

of mindset analysis. All seventh grade students at the school were included in the portion of the

study that compared DEA predicted performance with TCAP actual achievement.


Before the study began, the school administration decided to group all students into

higher-achieving and lower-achieving groups. The high-achievers were given a second math

class two days a week, in order to prepare them for the TCAP test. This practice was called

“double-dosing,” and the idea behind this division was that students who were performing on a

level of proficiency or near-proficiency would be given additional assistance to boost their

performance. Students who were performing at a lower level were placed in a group with

students of similar ability, thus assuring that their particular academic needs were met.

Although this arrangement was out of this researcher’s control, the facts were considered

in the data analysis. Students who completed the Brainology® (n.d.) program and were in the

double-dose math group were examined separately from the students who completed the

program and were not in the double-dose math group.

Sampling and Participants

All seventh graders from the same Nashville charter school were invited to participate.

The group initially consisted of 63 students, but one student withdrew from the school prior to

the end of the study. Of the 62 remaining students, 61 participated in the Free and Reduced Meal

program. Twenty-five of the students were male, and thirty-seven were female. There were two

Hispanic students, and the balance of the student sample (39) was comprised of African-

American students. Six students received services for Exceptional Education and, therefore, took

the Tennessee Modified Alternative Assessment Standards (TCAP MAAS) test.

Variables

The pre- and post-assessments in Brainology® (n.d.) consist of statements such as, “I

work hard in school,” and “I believe that the harder I study in school, the more successful I will

be in school,” that were to be rated on a six-point Likert scale. These statements were the


independent variables and the student ratings were the dependent variables. In addition, students

were asked to list challenges to their own success in school. The student challenges are

qualitative in nature, yet the software grouped them into constructs and created a frequency chart

of student challenges. The entire Brainology® (n.d.) intervention represents the independent

variable.

The change in performance from DEA test C to the TCAP test was the dependent

variable. In this portion of the study, students were analyzed in four groups: students who

showed an initial fixed mindset and did not receive math double-dosing, students who completed

Brainology® (n.d.) with a growth mindset and did not receive math double-dosing, students who

demonstrated a fixed mindset and received math double-dosing, and students who demonstrated

a growth mindset and received math double-dosing.

Measures

Students in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) took three district-funded,

standardized TCAP-predictor tests called Discovery Education Assessments (DEA). The

baseline measure of achievement was DEA C, which was given in February, to determine the

effects of this researcher’s intervention. The DEA Math section has a median reliability of 0.82

with a median sample size of 30,390, the test is criterion referenced, and it has content validity.

In addition, the test utilizes a vertical scale which incorporates a proprietary growth formula, so

that the assessments get harder as the year goes on (DEA, 2010). This eliminates the need to

control for maturation and student learning.

The TCAP, given in late April, was also a criterion-referenced test, rather than a norm-

referenced test, which means that students taking TCAP were tested on their performance on a


given set of state curriculum standards. Students taking the TCAP were not compared to their

peers but are only scored on their individual performance (TNDOE, n.d.).

Data Collection

The Brainology® (n.d) intervention took place between Discovery Assessment C and

TCAP testing, during regularly scheduled computer lab time. The school’s computer lab teacher

managed the students’ participation in Brainology® (n.d.). The software covered a variety of

topics, including the structure of the brain, the process of learning and remembering, breathing

techniques to relieve test anxiety, and applying this knowledge to improve study skills. In

addition, the students had the opportunity to reflect on what they learned by utilizing an online

journal (Brainology®, n.d.). The Brainology® (n.d.) questionnaire was also given after the

students completed the intervention. The software had an export feature, so that this researcher

could examine individual and group responses and results in the form of various spreadsheets

and graphs, including Likert scale responses and journal entries.

Data Analysis

The Brainology® (n.d.) questionnaire results were analyzed first in order to determine

both the initial student mindsets and whether the intervention affected student mindsets to a

statistically significant degree. DEA scores were converted from raw scores to percentages and

compared to TCAP percentage scores. Two-variable descriptive statistics were utilized to

determine the impact of Brainology® (n.d.) on TCAP scores. Student journal responses and

challenges to learning were examined pre- and post-intervention in order to determine the effect

of Brainology on student self-perceptions.

Ethical Behavior

All seventh grade students were given an informed consent form to take home, and the


study was approved by the expedited Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board. The

anonymity of students was protected at all times. The Brainology® (n.d.) software was

purchased from the website www.brainology.us, and the website management staff assisted this

researcher by inputting user names and giving each student a password; however, the website

staff was given only first names and last initials, in order to protect anonymity.

Ethical Considerations

Equity in education is the civil rights issue of our generation. Regardless of strides which

have been made in many areas of our society, many children, “the least of these,” suffer the

burden of poverty and fail to connect with our education system. Both the black-white and high-

poverty-low poverty achievement gaps are evident in elementary school and middle school

(USDOE, 2010). For the approximately 27.4% of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools’

students who fail to complete high school (MNPS, 2010), the gap grows into a chasm. When

students fail in school, they risk failing in life. Dweck’s work is the first research this author has

read which addresses the self-theories of intelligence and offers a promising, direct

interventional strategy for low SES students, an underserved group of young people who deserve

the same chance as every other group of American children.

http://www.brainology.us/


Chapter 4

Results

A Shift in Mindset

The Brainology® (n.d.) software provides the teacher or researcher with raw data, student

journal entries and summary tables. Out of an initial sample of 63 seventh graders, one student

left the school in the middle of the study. Thirty-nine students completed all four levels of

Brainology® (n.d.), and 33 of those students completed both the pre- and post-questionnaires,

which consisted of six statements to be rated on a 6-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree,”

or 1, to “strongly agree,” or 6. The statements, abbreviated in the charts below, were as follows:

“I work hard to learn new things”; “I know study techniques that help me learn effectively when

I study”; “If an assignment is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot doing it”; “I have trouble

paying attention in class”; “I believe that the harder I study in school, the more successful I will

be in school”; and “I believe that I can succeed in school (Brainology® (n.d.)).”

Pre/Post Survey for All Students

4.0

3.5 3.4

2.9

4.54.8

4.5 4.44.2

2.8

4.64.8

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

I work hard I knowstudy

techniques

Hard meansI'l l learn

Troublepaying

attention

The harder Istudy, the

moresuccessful

I cansucceed in

school

Pre-Program

Post-Program

In the chart above, a higher score indicates more of a growth mindset, with the exception

of “Trouble paying attention,” which was reverse-coded. The mean mindset score pre-program


was 3.8, and the median was 3.9. The mean and median post-intervention were 4.2 and 4.3,

respectively. Most notably, the greatest increase was in the student response to “If an assignment

is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot doing it.” The score for this statement increased from 3.4

to 4.2, indicating that the average student trended toward a growth mindset post-intervention. In

addition, the response to “I know study techniques” increased from 3.5 to 4.4, indicating that

students expressed greater knowledge of how to study.

For students who expressed an initial fixed mindset, the results of the pre- and post-

program responses were even more dramatic than the responses for the entire group.

Pre/Post Survey for Students with Initial Fixed Mindset

2.3 2.32.0

1.5

2.42.0

4.3 4.13.8

2.3

4.7

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

I work hard I knowstudy

techniques

Hard meansI'l l learn

Troublepaying

attention

The harder Istudy, the

moresuccessful

I cansucceed in

school

Pre-Program

Post-Program

The mean mindset for this group on the pre-program questionnaire was 2.1, and the

median was 3; whereas, post-program, the mean and median were 3.8 and 4, respectively.

Students demonstrated the greatest gains in their responses to “I work hard to learn new things;”

“I know study techniques;” and “If an assignment is hard it means I’ll probably learn a lot.” The

information in this chart supports the notion that students with a fixed mindset moved

significantly toward a growth mindset through their experience with Brainology® (n.d.).


Student Challenges to Learning

During the introduction to the Brainology® (n.d.) program, students were asked to select

from a list of challenges to success in school; for example, “I have trouble concentrating on

school work.”

# of students indicating each challenge

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

I hav

e trouble

concen

trating o

n sch

ool work

I get r

eally

nervous w

hen I t

ake a

test

I forge

t thing

s that

I read

or hea

r in cla

ss

Some su

bjects

are v

ery ha

rd for m

e to le

arn

I’m to

o far b

ehind in

my c

lass

I’m ju

st not a

good st

udent

I don’t k

now how to ta

ke notes in

class

I don't h

ave e

nough

time to d

o everyt

hing

I lose

pape

rs, no

tes or a

ssign

ments

I don’t l

ike sc

hool

There’s n

obody t

o help m

e

I don’t k

now how to st

udy fo

r a te

st

I don’t h

ave a

good p

lace t

o study o

r do h

omework

Persona

l pro

blems g

et in th

e way

Thirty-eight students indicated that “Some subjects are very hard for me to learn,” yet only two

stated that they just weren’t good students. At the outset of Brainology® (n.d.), 14 students listed

challenges in three or more areas, but after completing the program, only 3 students listed more

than three challenges. Brainology® (n.d.) affected the students’ perceptions of school and their

ability to be successful in school.

Student Journal Responses

During the introduction to Brainology® (n.d.) and each of the four levels of the program,


students had access to a journal. Students were encouraged to write down what they learned,

whether or not it was helpful, and why it was helpful. All 62 participants made at least one

journal entry. Twenty-six of these students commented that the brain can grow or that a person

can get smarter. After completing Unit 3, one student said, “I learned that the brain grows every

time you gain knowledge.” Examples of similar journal entries are: “When you learn your brain

gets stronger;” “How you can make your brain a lot smarter;” “How you get smarter when your

brain get (sic) exercise like learning;” and “I learned that my brain gets bigger and smarter as I

learn more in school.” The prevalence of these statements indicated that many students grasped

the core of the growth mindset.

Another trend in the student journal entries was study techniques and managing test-

anxiety. For example, one student wrote, “When you are going to take a test you need to count to

10 and say something positive not negative.” Another commented, “Instead of having so much

anxiety you can think positive about the things you need to do. Even if you’re nervous you can

still think about the good things or what you know about the subject.” Yet another student wrote,

“When you’re having a test don’t get scared because it will send a message to the brain thinking

something is wrong.” According to this student, the information helped her because, “When I

take my TCAP I will say I can pass this . . . and when you take a test do the ones you know first

then go back to the ones you don’t so you won’t run out of time.” Most of the journal entries

concerning test-taking focused on positive thinking and eliminating negative thoughts so that the

brain could function at its best. Many students demonstrated that they had learned specific test-

taking and anxiety-reducing techniques.

The Effect on Student Achievement

The effect on student achievement was mixed and was complicated by the school’s


decision to introduce the double-dose math class intervention. As stated above, higher-achieving

students were grouped together and given two additional math classes per week, a practice called

double-dosing. These classes were geared specifically toward TCAP review and preparation. The

chart below summarizes achievement data for all students in the seventh grade.

Student Increase/Decrease from DEA C to TCAP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Overa

ll

Incr

ease

Decre

ase

Comple

ted

Braino

logy

Incr

ease

Decre

ase

Growth

Mind

set

Incr

ease

Decre

ase

The two columns on the left represent all students. Overall, 32 students demonstrated an increase

over predicted scores and 30 decreased. Of the students who completed Brainology® (n.d.), 21

increased and 18 decreased, and the students who ended the program with a growth mindset

actually did worse than the group as a whole: Eleven increased and fourteen decreased. The

results indicated that Brainology® (n.d.) is no “magic bullet,” and, although the program

changed students’ self-theories of intelligence and affected their journal entries, the impact on

achievement was the reverse of what this researcher hypothesized.


Digging Deeper

In order to understand more fully the impact of the Brainology® (n.d.) intervention, it is

necessary to consider different student groupings.

TCAP Double Dose vs. Non-double Dose

0

5

10

15

20

25

TCAP dd Increase Decrease TCAP ndd Increase Decrease

The school provided one group of students with two extra math classes per week, so-called

double-dosing, and this intervention must be considered. The double-dose group included 22

students, or 59%, who increased their scores and 15 students, or 40%, who decreased their

scores. The non-double-dose group consisted of 10 students who increased their scores and 15

who decreased their scores from DEA C to TCAP, at a rate of 40% and 60%, respectively.

Apparently double-dosing had a significant positive impact on achievement scores, as the

practice was designed to do.


The combination of Brainology® (n.d.) and double-dosing was also examined.

Students Who Completed Brainology

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


Students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and also experienced double-dose math classes

increased their achievement scores at a rate of 18 increases, or 62%, compared to 11 decreases,

or 38%. On the other hand, students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) but did not receive

additional math instruction demonstrated the opposite result, with three students’ increasing and

seven students’ decreasing their scores, at rates of 30% and 70%, respectively. The combination

of the Brainology® (n.d.) program and math double-dosing had the greatest positive impact on

student achievement from DEA C to TCAP.


Achievement results for students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.) are

summarized in the following chart.

Students Who Did Not Complete Brainology

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Of the 23 students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.), seven were in the double-dose

math classes and sixteen were not. Three students in the double-dose classes increased their

score and four decreased; whereas, eight students in the non-double-dose class increased and

eight decreased. Results for this group of students were split almost evenly between those who

increased and those who decreased their scores.


Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

Summary of the Study

Experiencing and completing the Brainology® (n.d.) software program led to a

statistically significant increase in the mean and median mindset measure of the students.

Students who demonstrated an initial fixed mindset with a median score of 3 increased the

median mindset score to 4 by the end of the program. Student journal entries supported this

change in mindset and also demonstrated that students were learning study techniques. The

number of students reporting three or more learning challenges decreased from 14 to 3 upon

completion of Brainology® (n.d.).

In contrast, students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and demonstrated a growth

mindset did not fair as well as the overall group when comparing achievement scores. Only 11

students with a growth mindset increased their scores from DEA C to TCAP; whereas, 14

students’ scores decreased. The greatest growth was demonstrated by the group of students who

received double-dose math instruction and completed the Brainology® (n.d.) program.

Interpretation of Results

The Brainology® (n.d.) program affected the participating students’ self-theories of

intelligence: only eight students retained a fixed mindset at the end of the program. Students

expressed their understanding of the growth mindset in journal entries, and many students also

indicated that they had learned study skills. Although the students’ mindsets, as measured by the

pre- and post-questionnaire, did change significantly, the change in itself did not positively affect

the achievement of a majority of students.


The short-term experience of the Brainology® (n.d.) was not sufficient to promote

significant gains in student achievement; however, students who had the added support of

additional, targeted math instruction demonstrated a much higher percentage of increase in

achievement from DEA C to TCAP. Thus, the combination of instruction and software

intervention was powerful in improving student achievement.

Conclusions

The Brainology® (n.d.) intervention was insufficient to affect achievement scores

significantly; however, the software did give students new understandings about how the brain

works. These new understandings are not harmful and could help students in the affective

domain over the long-term. The changes that were expressed in journals and in survey responses

did not, in and of themselves, affect the achievement of a majority of students.

Students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) and had access to double-dose math

instruction showed significant improvement in achievement from DEA C to TCAP. When all of

the students who completed Brainology® (n.d.) were considered, 54% increased their scores, as

compared to 62% of the students in the double-dose group who also completed Brainology®

(n.d.). Students who did not complete Brainology® (n.d.) showed no significant difference,

whether they were in the double-dose classes or not; therefore, the combination of Brainology®

(n.d.) and the double-dose of math was a powerful intervention.

Brainology® (n.d.) should not be used in isolation; rather, it should be employed in

conjunction with the curriculum so that students have an opportunity to apply their growth

mindsets. Students in the double-dose math classes were told that they were high achievers.

Perhaps this knowledge and the growth mindset worked together to spur these students to

increased scores on high-stakes tests.


Links to Literature Review

In order to mitigate the effects of poverty on students’ brains, Jensen suggests that

schools create an “enrichment mindset” that encourages creativity and strong emotional ties

(Jensen, 2009). Student journal responses to the Brainology® (n.d.) software levels demonstrated

that the students learned new material about how their brains work. The students were

encouraged to talk to someone about what they learned, an act that would foster social bonding.

The software covered material ranging from how the brain physically looks to developing one’s

intelligence to avoiding test-anxiety. Not only would this information foster a growth mindset,

but it would also contribute to the enrichment mindset which Jensen described.

Dweck (2000) found that 60% of incremental theorists would choose a challenging task,

as opposed to 20% of entity theorists. This result was consistent over cultures and multiple

iterations of the study. The seventh graders in this researcher’s study demonstrated a change in

mindset which may result in a greater willingness to accept challenges in the future. The students

who were challenged by taking additional math classes rose to that challenge and demonstrated a

higher percentage of increase in test scores.

Recommendations for Practice

Brainology® (n.d.) taught the participants how the brain works, and the software fostered

a growth mindset. In practice, teachers should educate themselves about types of mindsets and

the impact of a student’s mindset on learning and achievement. The Brainology® (n.d.) website,

www.brainology.us, has a multitude of resources for parents, teachers, and students in order to

foster a school-wide growth mindset. The Mindset Works® Toolkit (n.d.) includes activities for

students and professional development for teachers.

http://www.brainology.us/


The students who benefitted the most from Brainology® (n.d.) had additional instruction,

and those students were told that they were high-achievers. In order to reap the greatest

achievement gains from Brainology® (n.d.), teachers need to tell students that they can achieve

at the highest level, and teachers must believe that. Students must be convinced that their brains

can get stronger with effort, just as athletes get better with practice. Teachers must exhibit high

expectations and offer students challenging activities in order to activate the growth mindset. In

other words, a growth mindset is useless without challenging educational experiences.

Action Plan

This researcher had hoped that a simple software intervention would be adequate to affect

achievement gains, but the data do not support that notion. In order for Brainology® (n.d.) to

have the greatest possible impact, the entire school must adopt a growth mindset and participate

in the Mindset Works® (n.d.) programs. Mindset Works® (n.d.) is a comprehensive program

that involves professional development as well as the Brainology® (n.d.) program. The cost of

the software itself is $20 per student, an amount that would be cost prohibitive for many schools.

If the entire program could not be implemented, then this researcher would recommend

that colleagues read the material available on the website. Whenever possible, teachers could

seek to participate in research opportunities. There are small ways to affect student mindsets like

using growth mindset language in the classroom. This researcher plans to share the results of this

study with colleagues and form a group to study methods of promoting growth mindsets and

integrating the notion of a growth mindset into the existing curriculum.

Implications for Further Research

One approach to further research would be to follow this group of students through the

end of 8th grade. Perhaps the effects of Brainology® (n.d.) would be more readily apparent as


time went on. The achievement scores of this school’s 7th graders could be compared to the

scores of another school’s 7th graders, thus introducing a true control group into the study. This

researcher could also investigate and implement the recommendations of the Mindset Works®

(n.d.) program, as well as foster the integration of the Brainology® (n.d.) curriculum into the

classroom. Given Dweck’s success with her 2007 intervention and the partial success of this

study, further research into the subject would certainly be warranted.


References

Armstrong, T. (2006). Best schools: How human development research should inform

educational practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com/books?

id=bmsbReA56NIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=armstrong+best+schools&source=bl&ots

=KQhOHdEpuW&sig=cMfHjAIN48yBtNitKPyDjc5twUc&hl=en&ei=u2_ATIPNE4Wcl

gff4Y2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=on

epage&q&f=false

Aronson, J., Cohen, G., McColskey, W., Montrosse, B., Lewis, K., & Mooney, K. (2009).

Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: A review of social-psychological intervention

studies on improving the achievement of black students (Issues & Answers Report, REL

2009–No. 076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional

Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Atwood, J. R. (2010, April-May). Mindset, motivation and metaphor in school and sport:

Bifurcated beliefs and behavior in two different achievement domains. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence

predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an

intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.

Brainology® . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainology.us/login/needLogin.aspx

Discovery Education Assessment. (2010). Discovery Education Assessment Research. Retrieved

from static.discoveryeducation.com/de/docs/assessment/14111_Tennessee Research.pdf

http://static.discoveryeducation.com/de/docs/assessment/14111_Tennessee%20Research.pdf

https://www.brainology.us/login/needLogin.aspx

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

http://books.google.com/books?id=bmsbReA56NIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=armstrong+best+schools&source=bl&ots=KQhOHdEpuW&sig=cMfHjAIN48yBtNitKPyDjc5twUc&hl=en&ei=u2_ATIPNE4Wclgff4Y2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg%23v=onepage&q&f=false




Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New

York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W.

(Eds.) Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dweck, C.S. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada, 49(4), 56-57, 59-

61.

Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and

what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2010). Graduation rate: MNPS way ahead of the curve

for graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page58227.aspx

Mindset Works® Toolkit. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.mindsetworks.com/mindset-school/

Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the middle grades: Insights from

NAEP and TIMSS, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(9), 514-519.

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics (2009). Mathematics Achievement Gaps. The condition of education 2000-

2010. (NCES Report No. 2009-081). Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/indicator12.asp

Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.) Frequently asked questions about the achievement

test. What are criterion-referenced tests (CRT)? Retrieved from

http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/ach_faq.shtml

Vanderbilt University. (n.d). Tamra Stambaugh. Retrieved from

http://pty.vanderbilt.edu/about/pty-staff/tamra-stambaugh/

http://pty.vanderbilt.edu/about/pty-staff/tamra-stambaugh/

http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/ach_faq.shtml

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/indicator12.asp

http://www.mindsetworks.com/mindset-school/

http://www.mnps.org/Page58227.aspx

mindsets and brainology: self-theories of intelligence and an intervention

Documents

dose math

point likert

trouble paying

school administration

statistically

additional

entity theorists

sixteen research