Agreeing is Not the Same as Accepting: Exploring Pre-Service Teachers’ Growth Mindsets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popularity of mindset theory has resulted in a surge of mindset interventions in schools. However, with increased popularity, there is the potential for misunderstandings and hesitations about what a growth mindset fully entails. Therefore, we sought to disentangle which components of growth mindset messages pre-service teachers find hard to accept alongside their level of agreement with growth mindset questionnaire items. We used a descriptive design with both quantitative and qualitative data to explore 182 pre-service teachers’ responses to growth mindset messages. The results of this study suggest that pre-service teachers hold a growth mindset. However, despite strong quantitative endorsements, in the qualitative analyses we determined three ways in which participants found a growth mindset hard to accept: (1) the notion of mindset theory itself, (2) the level of growth, (3) and the necessary actions behind having a growth mindset. The findings of this study suggest we need to pay close attention to false growth mindsets in theory and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".