skip to main content
10.1145/1384271.1384344acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education

Published:30 June 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Psychology studies have shown that students' beliefs about their own intelligence--whether they view intelligence as fixed or malleable-have an important influence on student development and achievement. Yet the impact of these theories on success in Computer Science (CS) has not been directly investigated. Self-theories research has shown that students with a fixed mindset are more likely to exhibit a helpless response to substantial challenges and to experience decreases in self-esteem during college. Those with a growth mindset welcome challenges, displaying a mastery-oriented response, and maintaining self-esteem, primarily because they attribute failure to a lack of effort rather than a lack of intellectual ability. This paper introduces self-theories research, and relates this research to several issues in CS Education. We then make suggestions for how CS educators can consider self-theories in their teaching and research.

References

  1. Computing Curricula 2001. J. of Educational Resources in Computing, 1(3es):1, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. E. Alpay and J. Ireson. Self-theories of intelligence of engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2):169--180, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. J. Aronson, C. Fried, and C. Good. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. J. of Experimental Social Psyc., 38(2):113--125, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. Bergin and R. Reilly. The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In PPIG?05: Proc. of the 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pages 293--304, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1):246--263, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. C. Dweck. Is Math a Gift? beliefs that put females at risk. In S. Ceci and W. Williams, editors, Why aren't more women in science?: top researchers debate the evidence. American Psychological Association, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. C. S. Dweck. Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Taylor & Francis, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2):256--273, April 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. E. S. Elliott and C. S. Dweck. Goals: An Approach to Motivation and Achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1):5--12, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. K. Garvin-Doxas and L. J. Barker. Communication in computer science classrooms: understanding defensive climates as a means of creating supportive behaviors. J. of Educ. Resources in Computing, 4(1):2, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. H. Grant and C. S. Dweck. Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3):541--553, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. P. A. Heslin, D. Vandewalle, and G. P. Latham. Keen to help? managers? implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4):871--902, Winter 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. L. E. Hitchner, J. Gersting, P. B. Henderson, P. Machanick, and Y. N. Patt. Programming early considered harmful. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 402--403, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Y. Hong, C. Chiu, C. S. Dweck, D. M.-S. Lin, and W. Wan. Implicit Theories, Attributions, and Coping: A Meaning System Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3):588--599, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. P. Kinnunen, R. McCartney, L. Murphy, and L. Thomas. Through the eyes of instructors: a phenomenographic investigation of student success. In ICER ?07: Proceedings of the 2007 international workshop on Computing education research, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8):90--95, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. M. Mueller and C. S. Dweck. Praise for intelligence can undermine children?s motivation and performance. J. of Personality and Social Psyc., 75(1):33--52, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. D. N. Perkins, C. Hancock, R. Hobbs, F. Martin, and R. Simmons. Conditions of Learning in Novice Programmers. In E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer, editors, Studying the Novice Programmer, pages 261--279. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. W. Robins and J. L. Pals. Implicit Self-Theories in the Academic Domain: Implications for Goal Orientation, Attributions, Affect, and Self-Esteem Change. Self & Identity, 1(4):313--336, Oct 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. L. Vygotsky. Mind in Society: development of higher psychological processes. Harvard Univ. Press, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. Wiedenbeck. Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program. In ICER ?05: Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Computing education research, pages 13--24, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Yorke and P. Knight. Self-theories: some implications for teaching and learning in higher education. Studies on Higher Ed., 29(1):25--37, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ITiCSE '08: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education
      June 2008
      394 pages
      ISBN:9781605580784
      DOI:10.1145/1384271

      Copyright © 2008 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 June 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ITiCSE '08 Paper Acceptance Rate60of150submissions,40%Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

      Upcoming Conference

      ITiCSE 2024

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader