Mind-set interventions show weak overall effects on achievement, with some support that low-SES or academically at-risk students might benefit¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The second meta-analysis (k = 43, N = 57,155) found overall intervention effects on achievement were weak, though results supported possible benefits for low-SES or academically at-risk students. → Victoria F. Sisk 2018

Evidence¶

Victoria F. Sisk 2018¶

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Second meta-analysis of mind-set interventions (k = 43 effect sizes, N = 57,155) estimated standardized mean differences between intervention and control groups on achievement. The abstract reports "Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses" with some support for benefits among low-SES or academically at-risk students.

"Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses. However, some results supported specific tenets of the theory, namely, that students with low socioeconomic status or who are academically at risk might benefit from mind-set interventions."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Academic risk status does not significantly moderate the mind-set–achievement correlation — related
• The meta-analytic correlation between growth mind-set and academic achievement is weak (r = .10) — related
• Growth-mindset interventions have weak average effects on achievement, including a negligible GPA gain (d = 0.11) for lower-achieving US ninth-graders in one preregistered national trial — related
• Socioeconomic status does not significantly moderate the mind-set–achievement correlation — related
• Growth mindset interventions improve math outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged and high-risk students, but effects depend on a supportive teacher-mindset context — related
• Most professional behavior change interventions are effective under some circumstances but none are effective under all circumstances — related
• Risk of bias was high or unclear in all included trials, but no criterion significantly moderated effects — related
• GMT as a standalone intervention shows small average effects that approach zero when publication bias is controlled, per the review's account of Macnamara and Burgoyne's meta-analysis — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Authors with a financial interest in GMT were 2.5 times as likely to report significant effects, per the review's account of Macnamara and Burgoyne — related
• All included studies were rated as having some concerns regarding overall risk of bias, primarily due to absence of preregistered analysis plans — related