Perceptions of STEM Professor Mind-Sets Predict Student Motivation via Psychological Threat

• In Event: Family, Friends, and Faculty: How Actual and Perceived Beliefs of Others Shape Students’ STEM Motivation

Abstract

Objectives
The present study aimed to explore psychological threat as a mechanism by which students’ perceptions of their STEM professor’s mindset—that is, students’ perceptions about whether their professor believes that intelligence is fixed or malleable (e.g., Dweck, 1999)—influences students’ motivation in that professor’s STEM class.

Theoretical framework
In classroom contexts, students are sensitive to cues in the environment that signal whether they belong and are valued in that setting (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007; Murphy & Taylor, 2012). One cue that might be particularly salient in STEM classrooms is the extent to which the professor communicates that intelligence is fixed and innate, or malleable and changeable with effort (Rattan, Good, & Dweck, 2012). If professors endorse a fixed mindset—communicating that they believe some students “have it” and others do not (and there is nothing students can do about it)—students may experience interpersonal (i.e., worry about asking a stupid question) and belonging (i.e., feeling like an outsider) concerns—in other words, they may experience more psychological threat. Feelings of threat, in turn, can undermine motivation (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002), including students’ self-efficacy and interest in STEM, and reduce their confidence that they can handle stress in that professor’s STEM class.

Methods
606 undergraduate students at a large, Midwestern university (Mage = 18.5 years; 69.1% female; 69.7% White, 13.7% Biracial/Multiracial, 8.1% Asian, 4.1% Hispanic, 3.9% Black, 0.5% Other) completed surveys at the beginning of the semester on their perceptions of their professor’s mindset in a specific STEM class (6 items; = .87) and their feelings of threat in that STEM class (operationalized as worry about saying/doing the wrong thing and belonging uncertainty; 12 items; = .88). At the beginning and end of the semester, they also reported on their self-efficacy (2 items; = .95), interest (2 items; = .96), and perceived ability to cope with stress (1 item) in that professor’s class.

Results
Using the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2012) with 5000 bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals, we found significant indirect effects of students’ perceptions of their professor’s mindset on end-of-semester self-efficacy, interest, and ability to cope with stress in that professor’s class via students’ feelings of threat, controlling for beginning-of-semester levels of these variables (see Table 1). Students who perceived that their STEM professor endorsed a fixed mindset reported more feelings of psychological threat in that professor’s class, which in turn predicted lower student self-efficacy, interest, and perceived ability to cope with stress in that professor’s class at the end of the semester.

Significance
This study identifies faculty mindset as a cue in the classroom environment that signals either psychological threat or safety to students. Moreover, this study demonstrates a pathway by which perceived faculty mindset influences student motivation and perceived coping ability. Future research should continue to explore the verbal and nonverbal ways in which faculty communicate mindset messages to students and how students perceive and are influenced by these messages.

Authors

• Katherine Marie Muenks, Indiana University - Bloomington

• Elizabeth Ann Canning, Indiana University - Bloomington

• Dorainne Green, Indiana University

• Mary C. Murphy, Indiana University