Which Peers’ Mindsets Matter in the Undergraduate STEM Classroom?

• In Event: From Classmates to Friends: Understanding Peers’ Role in Student Motivation

Abstract

Objectives and Framework
While students’ fixed mindset –the belief that intelligence is not malleable– can have negative impacts, recent research has examined students’ perceptions of instructors’ and peers’ mindsets in the classroom, or the mindset context (Murphy et al., 2021). Even when compared to instructors, peer mindsets are uniquely important to student motivation (Muenks et al., 2021; Scheffler & Cheung, 2020). Further, perceptions of peer mindsets are arguably more complex as the peer context can be made up of hundreds of individuals in STEM lectures. However, research has not established which peers are uniquely important in making up the peer mindset context and which peers’ beliefs are influential to students’ motivation. Important groups should include those perceived as intelligent and those that put in high effort because promoting effort may counter fixed mindsets (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Students’ closest peers are also highly influential in the classroom (Molloy et al., 2011; Nelson & DeBacker, 2010). The current study explores: RQ1) which peers (closest, smartest, hardest-working) are associated with overall perceptions of peer mindsets?; and RQ2) which perceived peer mindsets (closest, smartest, hardest-working) are uniquely associated with students’ motivation?
Methods
Undergraduates (N=520; 72% women; 39% URM) in the southwestern United States in two biochemistry sections completed a survey where they listed their 3 smartest peers, 3 hardest-working peers, and 3 socially closest peers. Students completed measures of perceived fixed mindset for each peer group, their own fixed mindsets, overall perceived peer fixed mindsets, and course motivation (expectancy of success, value, emotional cost, belonging, and evaluative concern; descriptives in Table 1). We coded when students listed the same name across two categories to control for potential repetition. We examined correlations between smartest, hardest-working, closest peer mindsets, and overall peer mindsets (RQ1). We conducted multiple linear regressions for each outcome (expectancy, value, emotional cost, belonging, and evaluative concern) using each peer mindset variable as predictors with students’ mindset, course section, and our repeated name variable as covariates (RQ2).
Results
For RQ1, smartest (r = .66), hardest-working (r = .67), and closest (r = .69) peer mindsets were strongly associated with overall peer mindset to a similar degree. This held when restricting the sample to only those with no peer crossover between categories (Δr < .07), except hardest-working peer mindset (r = .80) suggesting they may be a uniquely representative group in the mindset context. For RQ2, hardest-working peer fixed mindset was negatively associated with expectancy, value, and belonging, and positively associated with emotional cost and evaluative concern. Unexpectedly, closest peer fixed mindset was positively associated with expectancy and negatively associated with evaluative concern. Similarly, smartest peer fixed mindset was negatively associated with emotional cost. Results are listed in Table 2.
Significance
Our study is the first to explore which peers may be particularly influential in the peer mindset context for STEM undergraduate students: Hardest-working peers’ perceived mindsets are substantially influential. Peer mindset context is complex and multidimensional, necessitating further work examining why different peers may be associated with motivation in conflicting directions.

Authors

• Nathaniel Woznicki, New York University

• Lois Drage, Cardiff University

• Katherine M. Muenks, University of Texas at Austin