The Mismatch Between Student and Faculty Learning Mind-Sets in STEM Courses

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

Abstract

Objectives and Theoretical Framework
Recent research and Papers 1-3 of this symposium demonstrate that faculty’s self-reported growth mindset (Canning et al., 2019) and students’ perceptions of faculty growth mindset (Muenks et al., 2018) can be positively related to student achievement. However, there is little research on how students and faculty perceive one another, and whether alignment differs depending on the type of mindset. This study compared STEM students’ and faculty’s perceptions of their and the other group’s learning mindsets across a variety of motivational categories, including ability mindsets, expectancy, utility value, interest, belonging, belonging uncertainty, and perceived cost.


Data/Methods
Math and science faculty participating in a learning community (N=13) completed a survey during weeks 4-6 of Spring semester, along with students from one of their courses (N=718; 34.7% first-generation, 40.2% underrepresented-minority, 53.6% female, 8.1% adult learners, 56.9% low-income). Faculty completed measures of their perceptions of their students’ mindsets and motivations (e.g. for ability mindset: “My students can learn new things, but they can’t really change my basic intelligence”). Students completed measures of their mindsets and motivations (e.g., “I can learn new things, but I can’t really change my basic intelligence”) and of their perceptions of their instructor’s beliefs about them (e.g., “My instructor thinks I can learn new things, but I can’t really change my basic intelligence”). See Table 1 for sample items for each category assessed. Final course grades were obtained from administrative records.


Results
We found that faculty held more positive beliefs about their students than students perceived faculty to have about them (Cohen’s ds=0.23-1.80; Figure 6). For example, faculty endorsed a stronger growth mindset toward students (M=5.42, SD=0.61) than students perceived faculty to have about them (M=4.70, SD=1.17; d=0.78). These differences were most pronounced for perceived cost (d=1.25) and belonging uncertainty (d=1.25). In addition, students believed that faculty held more positive beliefs about them than they personally endorsed on most constructs (ds=0.33-1.00; Figure 1). For example, students endorsed a lower growth mindset (M = 4.29, SD = 1.30) than they perceived faculty to have for them (M=4.70, SD=1.17; d=0.33).

Finally, controlling for high school GPA, student characteristics (underrepresented-minority, first-generation, gender), and type of course (science/mathematics), results indicated, we found that that students’ personal scores for expectancy (β=.49), cost (β=.34), belonging (β=.23), and belonging uncertainty (β=-.17) predicted final course grade above and beyond their perceptions of faculty’s beliefs (R2adj=.18-.26). However, students’ perceptions of faculty’s belonging beliefs (i.e., “My instructor believes I belong in this class”) predicted final course grade above and beyond their personal scores (β=.21).


Significance
Results highlight important discrepancies between faculty and students’ perceptions of the same learning environment. We will discuss results from a second cohort of students and faculty to replicate findings, explore whether discrepancies between student and faculty beliefs and changes in students’ beliefs over time are uniquely related to course grades, and share implications for practice offered to faculty participating in the faculty learning community.

Authors

• Stephanie V. Wormington, Center for Creative Leadership

• Yoi Tibbetts, University of Virginia

• Erin Vines, University of Virginia

• Garam A. Lee, Michigan State University

• Kenn E. Barron, James Madison University

• Chris S. Hulleman, University of Virginia