• Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or My Tools.

A more recent version of this article was published on [06-03-2015]

Mind-Set Interventions Are a Scalable Treatment for Academic Underachievement

  1. David Paunesku1
  2. Gregory M. Walton1
  3. Carissa Romero1
  4. Eric N. Smith1
  5. David S. Yeager2
  6. Carol S. Dweck1
  1. 1Stanford University
  2. 2University of Texas, Austin
  1. David Paunesku, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Jordan Hall, Bldg. 420, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 Email: paunesku{at}stanford.edu
  2. Gregory M. Walton, Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Jordan Hall, Bldg. 420, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: gwalton{at}stanford.edu

  1. Author Contributions D. Paunesku and G. M. Walton developed the study concept. D. Paunesku, G. M. Walton, C. Romero, D. S. Yeager, and C. S. Dweck contributed to the study design. Data collection was performed by D. Paunesku and C. Romero. D. Paunesku and E. N. Smith performed the data analysis. D. Paunesku and G. M. Walton drafted the manuscript. All authors provided critical revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Abstract

The efficacy of academic-mind-set interventions has been demonstrated by small-scale, proof-of-concept interventions, generally delivered in person in one school at a time. Whether this approach could be a practical way to raise school achievement on a large scale remains unknown. We therefore delivered brief growth-mind-set and sense-of-purpose interventions through online modules to 1,594 students in 13 geographically diverse high schools. Both interventions were intended to help students persist when they experienced academic difficulty; thus, both were predicted to be most beneficial for poorly performing students. This was the case. Among students at risk of dropping out of high school (one third of the sample), each intervention raised students’ semester grade point averages in core academic courses and increased the rate at which students performed satisfactorily in core courses by 6.4 percentage points. We discuss implications for the pipeline from theory to practice and for education reform.

Article Notes

  • Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

  • Funding The research reported in this article was supported by William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Grants 2011-6513 and 2013-8860, by Raikes Foundation Grants 13027 and 227, and by National Science Foundation Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) Program Grant DRL-1247283. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors only and do not reflect the opinions of the funders.

  • Supplemental Material Additional supporting information can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplemental-data

  • Received June 25, 2014.
  • Accepted January 12, 2015.

This Article

  1. Published online before print April 10, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0956797615571017 Psychological Science 0956797615571017
  1. » AbstractFree
  2. Full Text
  3. Full Text (PDF)
  4. Supplemental Material
    5. All Versions of this Article:
    1. Version of Record - Jun 3, 2015
    2. current version image indicatorOnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 10, 2015
    What's this?

Share

expand collapse buttonOther journals by APS

Most