Associations (or Not) Among Teachers' Growth Mind-Set, Subject Matter Knowledge, and Their Students' Learning in Mathematics

• In Event: Can Teacher Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Explain Changes in Student Mathematics Learning and Engagement?

Abstract

Teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT) and growth mindset (GM) with respect to students are widely believed by educational practitioners, researchers, and policy makers to have a positive impact on student learning (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Dweck, 2006; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008; Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Hochanadel & Finamore, 2015; Rattan, Savani, Chugh, & Dweck, 2015). MKT is a subject-specific interpretation and elaboration of Shulman’s (1986) constructs of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Scholars confidently argue that teachers should adopt and foster their students’ and their own GM in order to increase student learning and human capabilities in general. Despite the widespread proliferation of these ideas, large-scale studies have produced limited empirical evidence of their effect on student learning (Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, & Macnamara, 2015).

Purpose Statement
The purpose of the present study is to perform an empirical test of the hypothesized relations among teacher MKT and GM and their students’ learning in mathematics.

Research Question
To what extent do intermediate-grades teachers’ MKT and GM about their students’ mathematical abilities predict their students’ learning gains in mathematics?

Research Design
We administered a Web-based questionnaire to 70 third- or fourth-grade teachers at the beginning of the school year to gather information about their: years of experience; areas of certification; GM, self-efficacy, and other beliefs; and MKT with a focus on early fractions concepts (Authors, 2018; Authors, 2018). Those teachers’ students (n = 1275) completed a mathematics assessment before their unit on fractions and again at the end of the school year (Authors, 2017; Authors, 2017). To answer the research question, we fit multilevel models to the data with student posttest score as the outcome variable, student pretest score as a level-1 predictor, and class mean pretest scores and teacher attributes as level-2 predictors.

Results
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show the results of the models. We found teacher MKT in fractions to be a statistically significant predictor of student learning in fractions. We did not find a teachers’ GM about student abilities to be a significant predictor of their students’ learning in fractions.

Significance
This study provides empirical evidence in support of the hypothesized relation between teacher MKT and student learning. Similar to other empirical findings, MKT predicts student learning, but the coefficient is small, suggesting that other factors may have a larger influence on student learning.

GM is exceedingly popular and widely promoted at present. Many educators have come to believe that a broad-brush increase in GM in schools will result in an increase in student learning and achievement. Our results suggest that this association may not be as strong (or as straightforward) as schools may believe. Further clarification of the construct of GM and more empirical tests of its hypothesized effects on learning and achievement are needed. Until then, we urge caution in making claims about the effects of GM on student achievement.

Authors

• Robert Schoen, Florida State University

• lanrong li, Amplify Education, Inc.

• Ahmet Guven, Florida State University

• Xiaotong Yang, Florida State University

• Insu Paek, Florida State University