Elementary Teachers' Mind-Sets and Their Differential Treatment of Low- and High-Ability Students

• In Event: Beyond Student Mind-Sets: How Exposure to Growth Mind-Set Teachers and Classrooms Impacts Students

Abstract

Objective
Recent research suggests that teachers’ growth mindsets might influence achievement gaps that exist between groups of students (Canning et al., 2019). We explore one potential mechanism for this: mindsets may influence which instructional practices teachers employ with students they perceive as low versus high in ability.


Theoretical Framework
Supportive practices (which promote autonomy/mastery) can increase student motivation/performance (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009), while restrictive practices (which make students feel controlled/competitive) can undermine these outcomes (Boggiano et al., 1993). Teachers who believe that ability is fixed (weaker growth mindsets) versus malleable (stronger growth mindsets) are more likely to use restrictive practices and less likely to use supportive practices (Stipek et al., 2001). We propose that these associations might be moderated by student ability level: teachers with weaker growth mindsets may be particularly likely to use restrictive practices with students perceived as low (versus high) in ability, which may exacerbate initial achievement gaps.


Data/Methods
Extending our previously reported study of elementary school teachers (N=245; Miele et al., 2017), we conducted a study of education school undergraduates (Study 1; N=174) and a district-wide elementary school study (Study 2) with data from 50 teachers and >500 students.

In Study 1, participants responded to scenarios in which a high- or low-ability fourth-grade student struggled with a challenging math or language arts task (similar to the scenarios in the Miele et al. study). For each scenario, they imagined themselves as teachers and rated how likely they would be to use various supportive and restrictive strategies (e.g., “Explaining how the assignment is useful in the real world” versus “Telling the student that others found the assignment easy”).

In Study 2 (Session 1), teachers were asked about the effectiveness of various math teaching strategies for students with low math ability and students with high ability. They rated four supportive strategies (e.g., “Asking students to explain the thinking behind their answers”) and one restrictive strategy (“Limiting instruction to the development of basic math skills”). In both studies, teachers’ mindsets were also measured (e.g., “You can always change how intelligent you are”; Dweck, 1999).

To examine long-term effects of differential practice use, we collected teachers’ ratings of each of their students’ math ability during Sessions 2-3 (fall and spring) of Study 2. Students reported their expectancies and value during both sessions, and we are collecting year-end GPAs.


Results
In both studies, we found teacher mindsets x ability level x practice type interactions, ps=.052 and .048. Teachers with weaker growth mindsets endorsed restrictive practices more for low ability students than for the high ability students, and they differentiated like this to a greater extent than did teachers with stronger growth mindsets (ps=.094 and .027; Figures 5a-b). This is consistent with our previously-reported study (Figure 5c). Analyses of long-term outcomes for Study 2 are ongoing (data collection only ended in June 2019).


Significance
We provide convergent evidence of an association between teacher mindsets and differential treatment of high versus low ability students. Ongoing analyses will determine whether differential treatment exacerbates achievement gaps.

Authors

• Alexander S. Browman, Boston College

• David B. Miele, Boston College

• Sidney Cecilia May, Boston College

• Shenira A. Perez, Boston College