Mindset Profiles of Secondary School Students: Associations With Academic Achievement, Motivation, and Well-Being

• In Event: Broadening the Assessment of Intelligence Mindsets to Align With the Promises of Mindset Theory

Abstract

Theoretical Framework and Objectives

Implicit theories, or mindsets, create a meaning system that guide the interpretation of effort and the selection of goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Research from this perspective identifies two distinct meaning systems, showing that growth mindset students have mastery goals and positive effort beliefs and that fixed mindset students have performance goals and negative effort beliefs (Blackwell et al., 2007). However, unexpected combinations of mindset and achievement goals have been found in recent studies (Yu & McLellan, 2020). Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) identify adolescents’ mindset profiles based on mindset, effort beliefs, and achievement goals, and (2) examine the associations of these profiles with students’ academic achievement, motivation, and well-being.

Method

Data were collected from 724 first-year secondary school students in the Netherlands (46.7% girls; Mage = 12.8). Students completed measures of intelligence mindset (ɑ = .80), effort beliefs (ɑ = .67), achievement goals (MAp: ɑ = .68; MAv: ɑ = .52; PAp: ɑ = .78; PAv: ɑ = .89), intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (ɑs = .75 and .58), as well as school burnout (ɑ = .82). Students’ math grades and GPA were also collected from schools.

Data analyses were performed in Mplus and proceeded in three steps. First, factor structure of the variables was verified using confirmatory factor analyses. Second, latent profile analyses were conducted, testing the optimal number of profiles based on mindset, effort beliefs, and achievement goals. Third, profile differences in outcome variables—academic achievement, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and school burnout—were analyzed using the automatic BCH command.

Results

The four-profile solution was chosen based on the statistical indicators, meaningfulness, and theoretical interpretability (see Figure 2). The four profiles were labeled as (1) Fixed mindset (n = 62), (2) Growth mindset – Low performance goals (n = 194), (3) Growth mindset – Moderate performance goals (n = 300), and (4) Growth mindset – High performance goals (n = 168).

Profile differences in outcome variables are graphically presented in Figure 3. The Fixed mindset profile displayed the lowest GPA, math grades, and intrinsic motivation, but highest levels of school burnout. More importantly, the three growth mindset profiles were differentially linked to students’ outcomes. Compared to the two growth mindset profiles with low or moderate performance goals, the Growth mindset – High performance goals profile had lower math grades, higher school burnout, and similar levels of external regulation as the Fixed mindset profile.

Significance

We found three growth mindset profiles, in which the performance goals were either low, moderate, or high. The combination of a growth mindset with varying degrees of performance goals might account for the weak relations between mindset and achievement goals (Burnette et al., 2013). Furthermore, growth mindset students with low or moderate levels of performance goals had more advantageous outcomes compared to growth mindset students with high levels of performance goals. These results suggest that every component of the mindset meaning systems matter and that multiple pathways from mindset to academic achievement, motivation, and well-being are possible.

Authors

• Sibel Altikulac
  Presenting Author

• Tieme Janssen, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  Non-Presenting Author

• Smiddy Nieuwenhuis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  Non-Presenting Author

• Junlin Yu, University of Helsinki
  Non-Presenting Author

• Nienke van Atteveldt, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  Non-Presenting Author