skip to main content
10.1145/3428029.3428042acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mindset and Study Performance: New Scales and Research Directions

Published: 22 November 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Mindset, which refers to beliefs that people associate to themselves, is a fundamental source of bias in human thinking. There is strong evidence about the impact of mindset to personal development and academic achievement. Mindsets are typically measured in the intellectual domain, while mindset on, e.g., soft skills is researched significantly less. We investigated relationships between mindset and study performance, and changes in mindset during first year computer science studies in University of Turku, Finland. We used scales on intellectual domain, and new scales on social skills and creativity. Our results show that mindset in intelligence and mathematics got more fixed during first year studies, while mindset on computing remained growth oriented. Mindset on creativity was the most fixed of all scales. Fixed mindsets on social ability, creativity, and computing were moderately associated with study performance. We propose future directions on mindset as part of future assessment of learning.

References

[1]
Anindito Aditomo. 2015. Students’ Response to Academic Setback: ”Growth Mindset” as a Buffer against Demotivation. International Journal of Educational Psychology 4, 2 (2015), 198–222.
[2]
Mikko Apiola and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2019. The Impact of Self-Theories to Academic Achievement and Soft Skills in Undergraduate CS Studies: First Findings. In Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ’19). ACM, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 16–22.
[3]
Mikko Apiola and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2019. The Role of Implicit Theories in Computer Science and Engineering Studies: First Findings and Review. In Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education 2019. IEEE.
[4]
Mikko Apiola, Erno Lokkila, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2019. Digital Learning Approaches in an Intermediate-level Computer Science Course. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 36, 5(2019), 467–484.
[5]
Mikko Apiola and Erkki Sutinen. 2020. Design Science Research for Learning Software Engineering and Computational Thinking: Four Cases. Computer Applications in Engineering Education (2020), 1–19.
[6]
Mikko Apiola and Matti Tedre. 2013. Deepening Learning through Learning-by-Inventing. Journal of Information Technology Education 12 (2013), 185–202.
[7]
Joshua Aronson, Carrie B. Fried, and Catherine Good. 2002. Reducing the Effects of Stereotype Threat on African American College Students by Shaping Theories of Intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, 2 (2002), 113–125.
[8]
Michael Broda, John Yun, Barbara Schneider, David S. Yeager, Gregory M. Walton, and Matthew Diemer. 2018. Reducing Inequality in Academic Success for Incoming College Students: A Randomized Trial of Growth Mindset and Belonging Interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 11, 3(2018), 317–338.
[9]
Jeni L. Burnette, Ernest H O’Boyle, Eric M. VanEpps, Jerrfey M. Pollack, and Eli J. Finkel. 2013. Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin 139, 3 (2013), 655–701.
[10]
Priyanka B Carr, Carol S Dweck, and Kristin Pauker. 2012. ”Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology 103, 3 (09 2012), 452–471.
[11]
Susana Claro, David Paunesku, and Carol S. Dweck. 2016. Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 31, 8664–8668.
[12]
Ana Costa and Luísa Faria. 2018. Implicit Theories of Intelligence and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review. Frontiers in Psychology 9 (2018), 829.
[13]
Quintin Cutts, Emily Cutts, Stephen Draper, Patrick O’Donnell, and Peter Saffrey. 2010. Manipulating Mindset to Positively Influence Introductory Programming Performance. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 431–435.
[14]
Quintin Cutts and Peter Donaldson. 2018. Investigating Attitudes Towards Learning Computer Science. In Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School, Sue Sentance, Erik Barendsen, and Carsten Schulte (Eds.). Bloomsbury, 39–55.
[15]
Carol S. Dweck. 1999. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis).
[16]
Carol S. Dweck. 2008. Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement. In Carnegie Corporation of New York-Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education.
[17]
Carol S. Dweck and David S. Yeager. 2019. Mindsets: A View From Two Eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science(2019), 1–16.
[18]
Stephen Edwards and Zhiyi Li. 2016. Towards Progress Indicators for Measuring Student Programming Effort During Solution Development. In 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research(Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31–40.
[19]
Abraham E. Flanigan, Markeya S. Peteranetz, Duane F. Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2015. Exploring Changes in Computer Science Students’ Implicit Theories of Intelligence Across the Semester. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161–168.
[20]
Helen Grant and Carol S. Dweck. 2003. Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 3(2003), 541–553.
[21]
Andrew J Howell. 2016. Implicit theories of personal and social attributes: Fundamental mindsets for a science of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing 6, 3 (2016), 113–130.
[22]
Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Penguin Books.
[23]
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 2013. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Chapter 6, 99–127.
[24]
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho and Ville Tirronen. 2018. Fixed Versus Growth Mindset Does Not Seem to Matter Much: A Prospective Observational Study in Two Late Bachelor Level Computer Science Courses. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11–20.
[25]
Sheri R. Levy, Steven J. Stroessner, and Carol S. Dweck. 1998. Stereotype Formation and Endorsement: The Role of Implicit Theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 6(1998), 1421–1436.
[26]
Clayton Lewis. 2007. Attitudes and Beliefs About Computer Science Among Students and Faculty. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (June 2007), 37–41.
[27]
Michael Lodi. 2018. Can Creative Computing foster Growth Mindset?In Joint Proceedings of the 1st Co-Creation in the Design, Development and Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Learning workshop (CC-TEL 2018) and Systems of Assessments for Computational Thinking Learning workshop (TACKLE 2018) co-located with 13th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL 2018)(CEUR Workshop Proceedings), Vol. 2190. Leeds, United Kingdom.
[28]
Michael Lodi. 2019. Does Studying CS Automatically Foster a Growth Mindset? In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education(ITiCSE ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 147–153.
[29]
Dastyni Loksa, Andrew J. Ko, Will Jernigan, Alannah Oleson, Christopher J. Mendez, and Margaret M. Burnett. 2016. Programming, Problem Solving, and Self-Awareness: Effects of Explicit Guidance. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1449–1461.
[30]
Laurie Murphy and Lynda Thomas. 2008. Dangers of a Fixed Mindset: Implications of Self-theories Research for Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education(ITiCSE ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 271–275.
[31]
Mary C. Murphy and Carol S. Dweck. 2016. Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 26, 1 (2016), 127 – 136.
[32]
Steven Pinker. 2018. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Penguin Books.
[33]
Jakeline G. Celis Rangel, Melissa King, and Kasia Muldner. 2020. An Incremental Mindset Intervention Increases Effort During Programming Activities but Not Performance. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 20, 2Article 10 (Feb. 2020).
[34]
Aneeta Rattan and Oriane A.M. Georgeac. 2017. Understanding intergroup relations through the lens of implicit theories (mindsets) of malleability. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 11, 4 (2017).
[35]
Jérémie Blanchette Sarrasin, Lucian Nenciovici, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Geneviève Allaire-Duquette, Martin Riopel, and Steve Masson. 2018. Effects of teaching the concept of neuroplasticity to induce a growth mindset on motivation, achievement, and brain activity: A meta-analysis. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 12 (2018), 22–31.
[36]
Hans S. Schroder, Sindes Dawood, Matthew M. Yalch, M. Brent Donnellan, and Jason S. Moser. 2015. The Role of Implicit Theories in Mental Health Symptoms, Emotion Regulation, and Hypothetical Treatment Choices in College Students. Cognitive Therapy and Research 39, 2 (01 Apr 2015), 120–139.
[37]
M. J. Scott and G. Ghinea. 2014. On the Domain-Specificity of Mindsets: The Relationship Between Aptitude Beliefs and Programming Practice. IEEE Transactions on Education 57, 3 (Aug 2014), 169–174.
[38]
Duane F. Shell, Leen-Kiat Soh, Abraham E. Flanigan, and Markeya S. Peteranetz. 2016. Students’ Initial Course Motivation and Their Achievement and Retention in College CS1 Courses. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education(SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 639–644.
[39]
Chen Shen, David B. Miele, and Marina Vasilyeva. 2016. The relation between college students’ academic mindsets and their persistence during math problem solving.Psychology in Russia. State of the Art 9, 3 (2016), 38 – 56.
[40]
Rebecca L. Shively and Carey S. Ryan. 2013. Longitudinal changes in college math students’ implicit theories of intelligence. Social Psychology of Education 16, 2 (01 Jun 2013), 241–256.
[41]
Beth Simon, Brian Hanks, Laurie Murphy, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Lynda Thomas, and Carol Zander. 2008. Saying Isn’T Necessarily Believing: Influencing Self-theories in Computing. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research(ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–184.
[42]
Victoria F. Sisk, Alexander P. Burgoyne, Jingze Sun, Jennifer L. Butler, and Brooke N. Macnamara. 2018. To What Extent and Under Which Circumstances Are Growth Mind-Sets Important to Academic Achievement? Two Meta-Analyses. Psychological Science 29, 4 (2018), 549–571.
[43]
Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach. 2017. The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. Penguin Books.
[44]
F. B. Tek, K. S. Benli, and E. Deveci. 2018. Implicit Theories and Self-Efficacy in an Introductory Programming Course. IEEE Transactions on Education 61, 3 (Aug 2018), 218–225.
[45]
Ashok Kumar Veerasamy, Daryl D’Souza, Rolf Lindén, and Mikko-Jussi Laakso. 2018. The Impact of Prior Programming Knowledge on Lecture Attendance and Final Exam. Journal of Educational Computing Research 56, 2 (2018), 226–253.
[46]
Gregory M. Walton. 2014. The New Science of Wise Psychological Interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23, 1 (2014), 73–82.
[47]
Martin R. West, Katie Buckley, Sara Bartolino Krachman, and Noah Bookman. 2018. Development and implementation of student social-emotional surveys in the CORE Districts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 55 (2018), 119 – 129.
[48]
David Scott Yeager and Carol S. Dweck. 2012. Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educational Psychologist 47, 4 (2012), 302–314.
[49]
David Scott Yeager, Rebecca Johnson, Brian James Spitzer, Kali H. Trzesniewski, Joseph Powers, and Carol S. Dweck. 2014. The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106, 6(2014), 867–884.
[50]
David S. Yeager, Adriana S. Miu, Joseph Powers, and Carol S. Dweck. 2013. Implicit Theories of Personality and Attributions of Hostile Intent: A Meta-Analysis, an Experiment, and a Longitudinal Intervention. Child Development 84, 5 (2013), 1651–1667.
[51]
David S. Yeager and Gregory M. Walton. 2011. Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic. Review of Educational Research 81, 2 (2011), 267–301.
[52]
David S. Yeager, Gregory M. Walton, Shannon T. Brady, Ezgi N. Akcinar, David Paunesku, Laura Keane, Donald Kamentz, Gretchen Ritter, Angela Lee Duckworth, Robert Urstein, Eric M. Gomez, Hazel Rose Markus, Geoffrey L. Cohen, and Carol S. Dweck. 2016. Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 24(2016).

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Connecting beliefs, mindsets, anxiety and self-efficacy in computer science learning: an instrument for capturing secondary school students’ self-beliefsComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2023.220154834:3(387-413)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Intelligence can grow in all dimensions: findings from an experiment in Latin AmericaEuropean Journal of Psychology of Education10.1007/s10212-023-00713-539:2(861-883)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Computing Education Research in SchoolsPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_20(481-520)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
November 2020
295 pages
ISBN:9781450389211
DOI:10.1145/3428029
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: 22 November 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computing education
  2. creativity
  3. mindset

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

Koli Calling '20

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)62
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 20 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Connecting beliefs, mindsets, anxiety and self-efficacy in computer science learning: an instrument for capturing secondary school students’ self-beliefsComputer Science Education10.1080/08993408.2023.220154834:3(387-413)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Intelligence can grow in all dimensions: findings from an experiment in Latin AmericaEuropean Journal of Psychology of Education10.1007/s10212-023-00713-539:2(861-883)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2023
  • (2023)Computing Education Research in SchoolsPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_20(481-520)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
  • (2022)Learning Analytics for Knowledge Creation and Inventing in K-12: A Systematic ReviewIntelligent Computing10.1007/978-3-031-10467-1_15(238-257)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media