University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience

(USC Thesis Other)

People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

People Can Change When You Want Them To:
Changes in Identity-Based Motivation Affect Student and Teacher Pathways Experience
By
Andrew Dawson

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fullfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Andrew Dawson
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

Pathways to Success intervention ............................................................................................... 3

Methods..................................................................................................................................... 5

Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................ 8

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9

Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 18

Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 22

Future Directions ..................................................................................................................... 22

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 23

References ............................................................................................................................... 24

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 26
Appendix A: Mindset Measure Items ........................................................................... 26
Appendix B: Teacher Confidence Items ....................................................................... 27
Appendix C: Student Fidelity of Receipt Items ............................................................. 28

Supplemental Materials .......................................................................................................... 29
Model Analysis Rationale and Comparison Tables ....................................................... 31

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mindset Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability at Each Time Point 10

Table 2. Mindset Correlations 8 Weeks After Implementation 10

Table 3. Growth Mindset and Difficulty-as-Importance Correlations Across Time 10

Table 4. Confidence Measure Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, 11
and N 8 Weeks after Implementation

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Data Collection Timeline 6

Figure 2. Difficulty-as-Importance, Difficulty-as-Impossibility, 12
and Growth Mindset Over Time

Figure 3. Mindset Sample Means and Marginal Means Across Time 14

Figure 4. Teacher Mindsets Predicting Teacher Confidence 15
They Taught Core Pathways Messages, Teacher Belief Their Students
Learned Core Pathways Messages, and Student Confidence
They Received Core Pathways Messages.

v
Abstract: Failures and difficulty are part of the learning process. Despite the fact that difficulty
is part of learning, teachers and students often associate difficulty as a signal of impossibility,
rather than as a sign that a task is worth pursuing. Interpretations of difficulty have been
demonstrated to have effects on task persistence and engagement, specifically within an
academic setting. Interventions often focus on student level mindsets. We evaluate instead
whether an intervention designed to change difficulty mindsets in students can change teacher
mindsets through training (N=73) and demonstrate that post intervention teacher level mindsets
(N=42) are associated with student level outcomes in receipt of an intervention and its messages
(N=681). We find that the endorsement of a difficulty-as-importance mindset in teachers is
associated with an increase in teacher confidence they taught well, as well as an increase in the
student reported receipt of intervention messages.

1
Introduction
Failures and difficulty are part of the learning process. In classrooms, teachers do not
have to interpret what it means when their students fail or have difficulty with course material,
yet we suspect they often do. They may understand their students’ failures as implying that the
material is too much for their students, or, that it could imply with effort their students can make
progress. They may understand their students’ difficulties as implying that the material is
impossible for students to succeed at or that the material is valuable for their students, not
something they already know, and important for them to master. Identity-based motivation
theory builds on the observation that people do not have to interpret what an experience of
difficulty implies for who they are and might become but they often do.
Failure can imply that the material is new or that the material is above a students’
capacity. Experienced difficulty can imply something about the odds of success of the task at
hand—the odds may be low and indicate that effort would be better spent elsewhere, or the same
difficulty can imply the goal is valuable—one should keep on persevering in pursuit of a goal.
How students interpret their experiences of failure and difficulty matters for their academic
outcomes. Students led to consider that difficulty-means-importance engage more with school
tasks and perform better than students led to consider that difficulty-means-impossibility
(Oyserman, 2007, 2009; Oyserman et al., 2018). How much teachers believe that difficulty-
means-impossibility for their students is associated with misbeliefs about teaching and learning
(Oyserman & Yan, n.d.). Yet, in everyday life people are more likely to associate difficulty with
impossibility than with importance (Yan & Oyserman, under review). This difference is also
observed using implicit measures (Oyserman & O’Donnell, 2020).
2
These interpretations of experienced difficulty are context sensitive. Despite a sample of
college students explicitly disagreeing with a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset, performance in
an academic task was undermined when a difficulty-as-impossibility mindset was made
accessible (Oyserman et al., 2018). Further, when led to believe difficulty means importance and
implied an academic identity, students rated the how much they felt academics were identity
congruent, or that school was a “me” thing to do, spending more time and performing better on a
task of fluid intelligence (Smith & Oyserman, 2015).
While prior research has assessed endorsement of each of these mindsets (growth
mindset, and the IBM mindsets, difficulty-as-importance, difficulty-as-impossibility) or
attempted to trigger a mindset momentarily, in the current paper we take a different approach.
We ask four questions. First, do teachers trained to deliver an identity-based motivation
intervention change their endorsement of the targeted mindsets (difficulty-as-importance,
difficulty-as-impossibility), not the non-targeted one (growth mindset)? Growth mindset is a
construct that has been suggested to relate to teaching but demonstrated to be distinct from
difficulty mindsets (Yan & Oyserman, under review). We included it with the intention of
demonstrating intervention specific effects on our constructs of interest. Our second question is
does mindset change last over time? Third, do these changed teacher mindsets affect teacher
confidence that they delivered and their students learned core intervention messages? Fourth, do
these changed teacher mindsets matter for students, affecting how much of the intended
messages students receive? Before proceeding, we describe the intervention itself, Pathways,
which operationalizes elements of identity-based motivation to achieve behavioral outcomes in
the classroom. In doing so we build on prior research documenting that features of the situation
shape the interpretation of difficulty people use (e.g., Oyserman, Elmore, Novin, Fisher, Smith,
3
2018; Smith & Oyserman, 2015) and research documenting that the difficulty mindset teachers
and students endorse matters (Yan & Oyserman, under review).

Pathways to Success intervention
Pathways to Success (Pathways) is a brief educational intervention that operationalizes
identity-based motivation theory as a series of classroom-based activities. It is designed to help
students experience their future as near, important, and attainable by engaging with school. If
the future is near it requires immediate action. If it is important to me then difficulties along the
way are normal and require coming up with ways to get around setbacks. If school is the path to
a future self for all students, then schoolwork is for everyone, “for me” or “for us” and difficulty
on school-related tasks signals importance. Pathways is delivered twice weekly in 12 single
class periods during the first weeks of the school year.
Until now, research has documented that students randomly assigned to receive Pathways
rather than school as usual attain better grades (Oyserman et al., 2006). Moreover, teachers can
be trained to deliver Pathways as intended (Horowitz et al., 2018). Students who receive higher
quality versions of Pathways, that is, are in classrooms in which teachers deliver with higher
fidelity, are more likely to interpret difficulty as importance and less likely to interpret difficulty
as impossibility (Oyserman et al., 2020). Meaning, students who received the intervention as
intended and internalized the core messages were more likely to interpret difficulty-as-
importance and reject difficulty-as-impossibility (Oyserman et al., under review). It is not yet
known whether training teachers to deliver Pathways affects their difficulty mindsets and
whether teachers’ endorsement of difficulty mindsets matters--affecting teachers’ confidence of
4
how well they delivered of Pathways, how confident teachers were that students learned the core
messages, or how students themselves felt they could use the Pathways core messages.
Pathways evaluates and focuses on, among other things, changing interpretations of
experienced difficulty in the classroom. Pathways focuses on students and should change
difficulty mindsets in a specific manner, as it focuses on addressing specific interpretations of
difficulty. Pathways should not change constructs unrelated to the contents of the intervention.
Though teachers are trained in and deliver Pathways, they are never instructed to change their
own difficulty mindsets. Rather they reflect on their students’ and their experiences of difficulty
in the classroom. Teachers’ are taught how to implement pathways and how to communicate the
core concepts of Pathways through intervention activities. In order to evaluate the psychological
specificity of Pathways, we measured a construct that is not explicitly targeted by the
intervention, but relevant to teachers’ beliefs about whether their students’ abilities can change --
growth mindset (Dweck, 2008). Though Pathways is targeted toward students, teachers
participate in Pathways as part of their training in addition to practicing delivery of the
intervention. We anticipate that training in Pathways would have a similar effect on teachers as
students. We assessed growth mindset as a sanity check, a way of ascertaining that effects were
due to changes in the targeted constructs rather than, or in addition to, changes in teachers’ belief
in teaching itself, that with effort, students can (or cannot) change. (Oyserman & Yan, Under
review). Pathways specificity should change difficulty mindset endorsement, but not growth
mindset endorsement. Since our teachers are training and implementing Pathways, we expect
that teacher difficulty mindsets should change. In this case, teacher difficulty mindsets are an
indicator of how well they understood the Pathways messages. Therefore, difficulty mindset
5
endorsement should relate to both teacher confidence in their delivery of Pathways and their
students’ receipt of the intervention.
CURRENT STUDY
To evaluate our first hypothesis, that training changes teacher difficulty mindset
endorsement but not growth mindset, we assess teachers’ difficulty mindsets before and
immediately after training and again three months after that. This allows us to test the immediate
effect of training and the long-term effect on mindsets after teachers have delivered Pathways.
To evaluate our second and third hypotheses, that difficulty mindset endorsement matters for
teacher confidence in teaching the core Pathways messages, belief that their students received the
core Pathways, and students’ confidence that they received the core Pathways messages, we
obtained teacher and student feedback. To evaluate our fourth hypothesis, that students’
experience in Pathways is affected by their teacher’s beliefs about difficulty mindsets (not
growth mindsets), we ask if effects of teacher beliefs about difficulty mindsets are significantly
more likely to effect student experiences than teacher beliefs about growth mindsets.
Methods
Sample
Training participants (N= 73) were from 20 Chicago Public Schools (Chicago, N=54) and
3 Indiana Public Schools (Indiana, N=19), 45 (33 teachers, 11 counselors, 1 aide) of whom
implemented in their schools in Chicago and 4 (4 teachers) of whom implemented in their
schools in Indiana. Chicago implementors served 1060 students (parental written consent was
obtained from 78.7%, n=681 students.
Procedure
6
Training. We required participation in a 3-day training prior to implementing Pathways.
Training consisted of participating in Pathways as a participant (all Day 1, first half of Day 2),
learning about the underlying theory (second half of Day 2), and practicing delivery with
feedback (all of Day 3). We divided trainees into three sequential training groups. We capped the
number of participants in each group at likely classroom size to model the experience teachers
would have (M=26, SD=3). Groups ran Monday through Wednesday starting late July and
running until mid-August immediately preceding classroom implementation of Pathways. The
Indiana school year started in August so we enrolled Indiana participants in Group 1, along with
two Chicago participants. All participants in Groups 2 and 3 were from Chicago. Participants
were the 8
th
-grade teachers and counselors who intended to implement Pathways in their school
(Group 1 N=21; Group 2 N=25; Group 3 N=27) and administrators and counselors who wanted
to be familiarized with the program at their school (Group 1 N=8; Group 2 N=2; Group 3 N=1).
Attendance was generally high. In Group 1, 4 teachers (19%) missed Day 1, yielding
81% had full participation. In Group 2, participation was 100%. In Group 3, 1 teacher (4%)
missed Day 3, yielding 96% full participation.
Data collection. Figure 1 outlines the timing of each part of our study. Our plan was to
have instructors and students fill out questionnaires at three points. We obtained the three time
points for Chicago teachers (lagged 8 weeks due to a teacher strike). Indiana teachers did not
provide the third time point due to researcher error. Due to COVID-19 induced school closures,
time three data are not available for students, meaning that effects on student mindsets could not
be studied. Given that we had no post-intervention measures on student mindsets, we do not
analyze the pre-intervention student data. We detail the measures used in our analyses next.
Measures
7
The full set of items and response scale for each measure is detailed in the Appendix. We
used raw item scores to calculate Chronbach’s alpha reliability.

Figure 1. Data Collection Timeline
Difficulty-as-importance. We operationalized interpreting difficulty as signaling
importance using a 4-item measure (Yan & Oyserman, 2020, Pre-Training α=0.85, Post-Training
α=0.95, 8 weeks after implementation α=0.92). An example item is: “If my students find
something difficult to learn, it often signals that it is important for them -“No pain, no gain.””
Difficulty-as-impossibility. We operationalized interpreting difficulty as signaling
impossibility using a 4-item measure (Yan & Oyserman, 2020, Pre-Training α=0.73, Post-
Training α=0.82, 8 weeks after implementation α=0.81). An example item is: “"Cut your losses."
If something feels very difficult to teach, it may be better to focus on something else.”
Growth mindset. We operationalized the extent to which teachers believed their students
could change with effort using a 4-item growth mindset measure (Yan & Oyserman, 2020, Pre-
Training α=0.95, Post-Training α=0.97, 8 Weeks after Implementation α=0.98). An example
item is: “No matter how much academic ability a student has, they can always change it quite a
bit.”
8
Teachers’ confidence in delivering Pathways. Eight weeks after they implemented
Pathways, teachers reported their confidence that they delivered the core messages of Pathways
(11-items measure, α =0.89, example item: “I taught my students how to take action now to work
toward their adult images.”).
Teachers’ belief that their students learned the core messages of Pathways. Eight
weeks after they implemented Pathways, teachers reported their belief that their students learned
the core messages of Pathways with (3-items measure, α =0.78, example item: “My students
know that they will experience difficulties and setbacks in their efforts to do well in school.”).
Student-reported fidelity of receipt of Pathways. The week after Pathways was
completed, students reported their confidence they received the core Pathways messages (10-
items, α =0.90. Example item: “I can introduce myself in ways that emphasize my skills.”).

Analysis Plan
We predict that training effects teachers’ difficulty mindset beliefs more than their
growth mindset beliefs and that teachers’ difficulty mindset beliefs matter (affecting their
confidence they delivered and their beliefs their students received core Pathways messages, and
student perception of receiving core Pathways messages). Our measures are continuous,
warranting use of linear regression. For each prediction, we used the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC) (the proportion of variance attributable to the nesting compared to the total
estimated variance) and design effect (a measure of clustering) to determine if a multilevel model
(MLM, Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) approach was warranted. Specifically, if the design effect
was above 1.1, we used MLM to account for the nesting as this provides a more accurate
estimation of the standard error (Lai & Kwok, 2015) and if it was below 1, we used standard
9
regression (Musca et al., 2011). Supplemental Materials details our model comparison analysis is
included, including all model comparison tables and rationale. Regarding Prediction 1, we
modelled instructors within training groups and over time. Regarding Predictions 2 and 3, we
modelled instructors within training groups and students within classrooms.

Results
Descriptive Analyses
Independent measures. Table 1 summarizes means and standard deviations. Table 2
summarizes the mindset correlations eight weeks after implementation. Eight weeks after
implementation we find that teacher’s belief in difficulty-as-impossibility and difficulty-as-
importance were correlated at r(40)=-.38, p<.05, their belief in difficulty-as-impossibility and
growth mindset were correlated at r(40)=-.18, p=.261, and their belief in difficulty-as-
importance and growth mindset, were corelated at r(40)=0.54, p<.01. Using Kline’s rule of
thumb for discriminant validity we consider r<0.85 as independent constructs. Our findings that
each construct is independent, though related, consistent with past literature (Fisher &
Oyserman, 2017). Growth mindset and difficulty-as-importance were not significantly correlated
before training, r(53)=0.26, p=0.053, however, after training, the mindsets were significantly
correlated, r(55)=0.53, p<0.01. This correlation persisted at 8 weeks after implementation,
r(40)=0.54, p<0.01; table 3 summarizes these correlations. Growth mindset before training
significantly predicted final difficulty-as-impossibility endorsement, 8 weeks after
implementation r(39)=0.39, p<0.05. Table 4 summarizes the means and standard deviations of
the dependent variables captured eight weeks after implementation (teacher-level variables) and
10
immediately after implementation (student-level variable). All mindset correlations across time
are available in supplemental materials.

Table 1.
Mindset Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability at Each Time Point
Mindset Pre-Training Post-Training Post-
Implementation
M SD 𝑎 M SD 𝛼 M SD 𝛼
Difficulty-as-Importance 3.69 1.14 .85 5.15 1.27 .95 5.05 1.11 0.92
Difficulty-as-Impossibility 1.86 0.82 .73 1.34 0.67 .82 1.49 0.66 0.81
Growth 5.28 1.00 .95 5.38 1.04 .97 5.21 1.27 0.98
N 66 68 42
Note: 1=Strongly Disagree, 6=Strongly Agree

Table 2.
Mindset Correlations 8 Weeks After Implementation
Mindsets 8 Weeks After
Implementation
Difficulty-as-
Impossibility
Difficulty-as-
Importance
Growth
Difficulty-as-Impossibility 1 -.38* -0.18
Difficulty-as-Importance - 1 0.54**
Growth - - 1
**p<0.01, *p<0.05

Table 3.
Growth Mindset and Difficulty-as-Importance Correlations Across Time
Correlations of Growth Mindset
and Difficulty-as-Importance
Pre-Training Post-Training
Post-
Implementation
Bivariate Correlation (r) 0.26 0.53** 0.54**
**p<0.01, *p<0.05

11
Table 4.
Confidence Measure Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, and N 8 Weeks after
Implementation
Measure Mean SD Alpha N
Teacher Confidence in Teaching Pathways. 3.36 0.44 0.89 42
Teacher Confidence Students Learned Pathways 3.73 0.45 0.78 42
Student-Reported Fidelity of Receipt. 3.93 0.71 0.90 648
Note: For Teacher Measures; On a scale of 1=Not At All Confident to 4=Very
Confident and 1=Strongly Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree regarding delivery
confidence. For the Student measure, on a scale of 1=Not At All Confident to 5=Very
Confident and 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree.

Dependent measures. On average, teacher confidence in teaching Pathways (n=42,
M=3.36, SD=0.442) and teacher confidence students learned Pathways (n=42 M=3.73,
SD=0.449) were above the midpoint on a 4-point scale, between 3, mostly confident and 4, very
confident. Student-reported confidence (n=648) in receiving Pathways was above the midpoint
on a 5-point scale (M=3.93, SD=0.708), where 3 is somewhat confident and 4, confident.

12
Figure 2. Difficulty-as-Importance, Difficulty-as-Impossibility, and Growth Mindset Over Time
Note: Brackets denote 95% CI.
Effect of Training on Teacher Mindsets
Difficulty-as-Importance. Figure 2 (blue line) graphically depicts teachers’ belief that
difficulty means importance at each time point. As can be seen in the top panel of Figure 3 on
average, training changed teachers’ belief that difficulty means importance. After training, they
endorsed this idea more and they still believed that difficulty means importance 8 weeks after
implementing Pathways. Their average change was substantial, increasing by 1.49 on a 6-point
scale immediately after training (b= 1.49 p<0.0001). Their change was stable from post-training
to 8 weeks after implementation of Pathways (b=-0.14, p=0.467). The size of this time effect
(pre-training to post-training, post-training to 8 weeks after implementing Pathways) was
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Pre-Training Post Training 8 Weeks After Implementation
Mindset Sample Means Across Time
Difficulty-as-Importance Difficulty-as-Impossibility Growth Mindset
13
medium-to-large, with an R
2
of 24.21%. The ICC of level 2 was also substantial at 27%,
reflecting the fact that teachers themselves differed in their baseline and this had consequences
across time. This finding means that training affected teachers and that their baseline mattered
for where they ended up. Including the pre-training mindset in the model produced a χ²=38.034,
p<0.0001, suggesting that time also mattered for how much teachers believed that difficulty
implies importance.
Difficulty-as-Impossibility. Figure 2 (orange line) graphically depicts teachers’ belief that
difficulty means impossibility at each time point. As can be seen in the middle panel of Figure 3,
on average, training changed teachers’ belief that difficulty means impossibility. After training,
they endorsed this idea less and they still believed difficulty did not mean impossibility 8 weeks
after implementing Pathways. Their average change was substantial, decreasing 0.54 points on a
6-point scale immediately after training (b=-0.54 p<0.0001). Their change was stable from post-
training to 8 weeks after implementation of Pathways (b=0.14, p=0.133). The effect size of this
time effect (pre-training to post-training, post-training to 8 weeks after implementing Pathways)
was between small and medium, with an R
2
of 9.16%. The ICC was very large at 59.21%,
reflecting the fact that teachers themselves differed in their baseline and this had consequences
across time. The belief regarding difficulty-as-impossibility teachers brought into Pathways
mattered, as well as the passage of time.

Including the pre-training mindset in the model
produced a χ²=57.452, p<0.0001, suggesting that time also mattered for how much teachers
believed that difficulty means impossibility.
Growth Mindset. Figure 2 (grey line) graphically depicts teachers’ belief that with effort
their students’ ability can change at each time point. As can be seen in the bottom panel of
Figure 3, on average, training did not change teachers’ belief that with effort students can
14
change. From pre-to-post training we found no significant difference in teacher average
endorsement of growth mindset (b=0.11, p=0.489). This lack of change was robust at our third
time point (b=0.20, p=0.296). Adding pre-training mindset to the model produced a
nonsignificant effect (χ²=0.49, p=0.4844) and the confidence intervals for belief in growth
mindset (Pre-Training 95%CI [4.97, 5.60], Post-Training [5.14, 5.65], Post-Implementation
[4.83, 5.60]) overlapped across time. We infer that growth mindset was not affected by training
or the passage of time.

Figure 3. Mindset Sample Means and Marginal Means Across Time. See Supplemental
Materials for HLM tables and ANOVA results.
15
Effect of Teacher Mindset on Teacher Confidence They Taught and Their Students’
Learned the Core Pathways Messages
We used MLM to test the relationship between teachers’ mindset beliefs and their
confidence they taught and their students’ learned the core Pathways messages. As depicted
graphically in Figure 4. Teachers’ confidence they taught the core Pathways messages was
significantly predicted by their belief in difficulty-as-importance (b=4.84, p<0.05) and growth
(b=5.29, p<0.01) mindsets. The effect of their belief in difficulty-as-impossibility was in the
predicted direction but did not attain significance (b=-5.761, p=0.09).

Figure 4. Teacher Mindsets Predicting Teacher Confidence They Taught Core Pathways
Messages, Teacher Belief Their Students Learned Core Pathways Messages, and Student
Confidence They Received Core Pathways Messages.
16

Teachers’ belief that difficulty meant importance and that their students could change
with effort both predicted whether they believed they taught the core messages of Pathways. A 1
point increase in their belief that difficulty means importance was associated with a 4.840
percent increase in their confidence they taught the core Pathways messages, (t(41)=2.464,
p<0.05). A 1 point increase in growth mindset endorsement was associated with a 5.219 percent
increase in teacher confidence they teach the core Pathways messages, (t41)= 3.239, p<0.01).
The size of the difficulty-as-importance effect on teacher confidence was medium to large, with
an R
2
15.21%, so was the size of the growth mindset effect (R
2
22.83%.). The ICC of level 2 was
low at 0% for difficulty-as-importance and at 0.5% for growth mindset. Given our decision rule,
we then ran simple regression analyiss,

which yielded an F value of 4.03, p=0.05 for difficulty-
as-importance and of F=

9.36, p<0.001 for growth mindset, suggesting each belief contributed
meaningfully explaining teacher confidence.
Teacher Confidence Students Learned Pathways. Teachers’ confidence their students learned
Pathways was regressed on each mindset using HLM, with Teachers nested within Pathways
Training Group. The ICC of level 2 was 0% when nested in Training Group. Therefore, we used
simple regression of teachers’ confidence students learned onto the separate three mindset IVS.
How confidently teachers felt that students learned Pathways was significantly predicted 8 weeks
after implementation by difficulty-as-importance (b=6.781, p<0.001) and growth mindset (b=
4.974, p<0.01), but not by difficulty-as-impossibility (b=-5.329, p=0.131).
Difficulty-as-Importance. 8 weeks after implementation, the extent to which teachers
believed difficulty meant importance predicted teachers’ confidence students received the
Pathways core points. A 1 point increase in difficulty-as-importance endorsement on a 6-point
17
scale was associated with a 6.78 percent increase in teacher confidence that students learned
Pathways, (t(41)=3.696, p<0.001). The size of this difficulty-as-importance effect on teacher
confidence students learned Pathways was between medium and large, with an R
2
of 25.92%.
Growth Mindset. Teachers’ belief their students could change with effort predicted how
well they felt students received Pathways core points. 8 weeks after implementation, a 1 point
increase in growth mindset endorsement was associated with a 4.97 percent increase in Teacher
confidence that students learned Pathways, (t41)= 2.951, p<0.01). The size of this growth
mindset effect on teacher confidence students learned Pathways was between medium and large,
with an R
2
18.23%.
Effect of Teacher Mindset on Student Reported Confidence of Pathways Core Points
Next, we tested the relationship between teacher difficulty mindsets and how students
reported they received the Pathways core points. Results are represented graphically in Figure 4.

Student-Reported Fidelity of Receipt. Student-reported fidelity of receipt (students’ confidence
that they received Pathways core take-home points) was regressed on teachers’ mindset using
HLM, with student observations nested within classrooms. Teacher difficulty-as-importance
significantly predicted student fidelity of receipt (b=3.21, p<0.05). The effect of teacher belief
that difficulty meant impossibility did not attain significance (b=-3.148,p=0.067), neither their
belief in growth mindset (b=1.66, p=0.18)
Difficulty-as-importance. Teachers’ belief that difficulty meant importance predicted
the extent to which their students felt they received the Pathways core points. 8 weeks after
implementation, a 1 point increase in difficulty-as-importance endorsement two months after
implementation was associated with a 3.21 percent increase in students’ confidence in receipt of
18
Pathways immediately after intervention, (t(647)=2.570, p<0.05). The size of this importance
effect on student reported confidence was small, with an R
2
2.62%. The ICC for level 2 was
substantial at 9.5% suggesting that classrooms varied in their baseline student reported fidelity of
receipt and that teacher endorsement of importance also mattered for fidelity of receipt. The

F
test yielded F=6.347, p<0.05, suggesting that knowing about teacher importance endorsement
meaningfully adds to predictions beyond just knowing what classroom a student was in. Figure 4
provides a visual summary of the results for all confidence measure analyses.
Discussion
We set out to determine if we could change teacher mindsets, specifically the sense
instructors make of experiences of difficulty, asking if these changes had meaningful impacts for
both teachers and students. Past research has shown that the fidelity with which Pathways is
delivered matters for student academic outcomes (Oyserman, O’Donnell, Sorensen, & Wingert,
under review). Therefore, if we can determine teacher mindsets are related to fidelity, it provides
a path to improve teacher fidelity of delivery and in turn academic outcomes. Though we could
not obtain more direct measures of student mindsets or fidelity of delivery for this study, we did
obtain student reported fidelity of receipt, the student-reported confidence they received the
Pathways core messages.
Our findings suggest that not only were we able to change teacher mindsets through a
three-day training, but that these changes persisted months after Pathways delivery. An
interesting aspect of this change in mindsets is the nature of Pathways training itself. Teachers
were never explicitly instructed to change their own mindsets, and training was not designed to
persuade teachers to adopt the prescribed mindset. Nonetheless, teachers changed. It appears that
Pathways has a comparable effect on both teacher and student mindsets, though our absence of
19
student mindset data does not allow us to definitely draw this conclusion using this sample at this
time. Past research has demonstrated student difficulty mindsets change after receipt of
Pathways (Oyserman et al., Under Review). Through participating in Pathways during training
teacher mindsets changed. After delivering Pathways to their classroom, teacher mindsets did not
change from the measurement made immediately after training. The extent to which teachers
ultimately endorsed a difficulty-as-importance mindset predicted how well their students felt
they received the message of the intervention. This finding suggests that the extent that teachers
themselves endorsed a difficulty-as-importance mindset was able to predict how well students
felt Pathways was delivered.
We measured growth mindset as a related but independent construct and saw that it did
not change as a result of Pathways training or implementation and that it did not predict student
reported fidelity of receipt of Pathways specific core points. Interestingly, we found that teachers
did not associate difficulty-as-importance and growth mindset before training. After training,
there was a medium correlation what was significant, this correlation persisted after intervention.
It would appear that the training may have inadvertently taught teachers to associate growth and
difficulty-as-importance. Eight weeks after implementation, teacher’s belief that students could
change with effort predicted the extent to which teachers were confident they delivered
Pathways and that their students received Pathways effectively. This is not surpising, finding the
large and signficant correlation between difficulty-as-importance and growth mindset. Growth
mindset is the idea that with effort one can change. Our growth mindset measures explicitly
evaluated the extent to which teachers felt their students could change with effort. It is logical
that the confidence with which teachers felt they taught Pathways, and the extent their students
learned, would be predicted by the extent to which they believed their students could change
20
with effort. Teaching entails believing one’s students can change, otherwise teaching is a futile
act. Growth mindset did not predict how well students said they received Pathways, suggesting
that growth mindset is not directly related to the intervention content, consistent with our
hypotheses. Though Growth mindset did not predict Pathways specific outcomes, the extent to
which teachers’ believed that their students could change with effort before training, predicted
how much they ultimately felt difficulty meant importance for themselves and their students.
This finding suggests that the belief teachers originally brought with them regarding whether or
not their students could change with effort was associated with how the felt about difficulty
meaning importance for themselves and their students after the intervention. This finding
suggests that baseline growth mindset may matter for where one ends up in endorsing difficulty-
as-importance. Also noteworthy is the association between growth mindset and difficulty-as-
importance at each timepoint. Past work suggests that difficulty-as-importance and growth
mindset are not significantly associated. We found this relationship before training, teachers did
not appear to associate difficulty-as-importance with growth mindset. However, at the end of
training, these two were significantly correlated and this correlation persisted at 8 weeks after
implementation. From this finding we infer that during the course of the training, teachers were
taught to associate growth mindset and difficulty-as-importance, even though the training intends
to communicate these constructs are distinct.
The correlation between difficulty as impossibility and difficulty-as-importance, -0.380
two months after implementation was higher than previously seen in a mini meta-analysis of
difficulty mindsets, -0.12, 95CI [-0.18,-0.06], (Fisher & Oyserman, 2017). This finding suggests
that in a teaching context, these mindsets may be seen as more like opposite sides of a coin, with
one mindset seen as the “right” mindset and the other seen as the “wrong” mindset. Though past
21
literature suggests these difficulty mindsets are orthogonal, in the context of our training, and
implementation of Pathways, teachers focus attention on how difficulty can be interpreted as
importance rather than impossibility, with an implicit goal of reframing difficulty as importance,
not impossibility. By doing so difficulty implies a task is “for me” or “for us.”
Though we changed difficulty-mindsets through training, we did not change growth
mindset. This finding suggests that Pathways is specific, changing the mindsets targeted as
Pathways active ingredients. Taken together, these findings reinforce recent findings by
Oyserman and Yan, suggesting that growth mindset may be related to difficulty as importance,
but is an independent construct (Oyserman & Yan, 2020). In order for one to persist in the face
of difficulty in pursuit of a goal, one must be malleable and able to improve, or why try?
The implications of these findings are twofold. First, training is effective at changing
mindsets and the current process of training and delivering Pathways is effective at creating
acute and persistent changes in difficulty mindsets. Two, the extent to which the intervention is
able to achieve the desired outcome, message uptake by recipient students, may depend on the
extent to which the message deliverer endorses and believes the message they are attempting to
communicate. These findings are not only applicable to educational science, but also relevant to
the field of communications. This works suggests that the effectiveness of communication,
specifically when targeting psychological constructs, may depend on the extent to which the
mediating communicator themselves endorses or understands the underlying psychological
construct communicated. Based on these findings, interventions or teacher preparation programs
may benefit by considering teacher mindsets, rather than simply targeting student mindsets.

22
Limitations
Though this is a large sample and scale for study on educational intervention with
instructors, this study was underpowered with only 42 implementing teachers. We therefore ran
our mindset models one at a time, which does not allow us to include all mindsets in one model.
We had hoped to also test effects on student difficulty mindsets and grades as well as teacher
fidelity of delivery coded by independent coders. The fidelity of delivery data is currently being
coded and will be available by early 2021. COVID-19 school closures meant delays in data
collection and that we could not obtain end-of-year student mindset data. Grades will be
provided in the fall of 2020, so are not part of the current analyses. We did not have the most
direct measures of students’ mindsets or teacher fidelity of delivery, which would have provided
a more accurate measurement of the outcomes of interest.
Finally, the structure of this study did not lend itself to a control group. Teachers were
assessed for mindsets and the subsequent confidence variables as part of their participation in the
Pathways Intervention. There was no control group to rule out a history or testing effect and
mindsets were not able to be measured for a control group of teachers.
Future Directions
To more clearly determine the student level outcomes, we will evaluate grade data and
teacher fidelity of delivery, as rated by independent coders of video recordings when the data is
available. In subsequent years, we expect to measure students’ mindset data directly, as initially
planned. We can then assess the effect of teachers’ mindsets on students’ mindsets. We also have
a small quantity of student mindset data from our schools in Indiana, who were not part of
Chicago Public Schools and were able to capture student mindset data. Using this Indiana data,
we will be able to examine if teacher difficulty mindset endorsement predicts student mindset
23
endorsement. Though this additional Indiana sample is underpowered, it can give us a first look
at the relationship between teachers’ mindset endorsement and students’ mindset endorsement.
Additionally, with this study data, we may evaluate another question, whether teachers’
perception of how they delivered the intervention was an accurate representation of their ground
truth performance, as rated by independent coders.
Conclusion
We set out to determine if we could change teacher mindsets using a three-day intervention
training program, if the training program and intervention was targeted in its application, and if
the beliefs of teachers are ultimately meaningful for student experience of an intervention. We
were able to demonstrate that training changes teacher mindsets, that training is specific to the
core mindsets targeted by the Pathways intervention, and that these mindsets appear to matter for
student experience of Pathways. Future work will target more direct measures of student
outcomes. This work is a first exploration into evaluating how mindsets matter in the
dissemination of messages, specifically in an educational intervention setting, and sets the stage
for future work evaluating real world academic outcomes as a function of instructor training and
mindsets.
24
References
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital Inc.
Fisher, O., & Oyserman, D. (2017). Assessing interpretations of experienced ease and difficulty
as motivational constructs. Motivation Science, 17, 1–31.
Horowitz, E., Sorensen, N., Yoder, N., & Oyserman, D. (2018). Teachers can do it: Scalable
identity-based motivation intervention in the classroom. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 54, 12–28.
Kline, R. B. (2011).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Lai, M., & Kwok, O.-M. (2014). Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel modeling:
The “design effect smaller than two” rule. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 1–
17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.907229

Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and
TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 1–11.
Musca, S. C., Kamiejski, R., Nugier, A., Méot, A., Er-Rafiy, A., & Brauer, M. (2011). Data with
hierarchical structure: Impact of intraclass correlation and sample size on type-I error.
Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 74–74. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00074
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins,
Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 432–453). Guiliford Press.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-
readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 250–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.008
25
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and
when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
188–204.
Oyserman, D., Elmore, K., Novin, S., & Fisher, O. (2018). Guiding people to interpret their
experienced difficulty as importance highlights their academic possibilities and improves
their academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(Article 781).
Oyserman, D., & O’Donnell, S. C. (2020). Do social networks reflect shared interpretations of
difficulty? Unpublished Manuscript. University of Southern California.
Oyserman, D., O’Donnell, S. C., Sorensen, N., & Wingert, K. (2020). Identity-based motivation:
A field test using variations in intervention fidelity. [Manuscript Submitted for
Publication]. Department of Psychology, University of Southern California.
Oyserman, D., & Yan, V. (n.d.). Linking mindsets to toolsets: Difficulty mindsets matter for
knowing how to learn. [Manuscript Submitted for Publication]. Department of
Psychology, University of Southern California.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (Vol. 1). Sage Publications, Inc.
Smith, G. C., & Oyserman, D. (2015). Just not worth my time: Experienced difficulty and time
investment. Social Cognition, 33, 86–103.

26
Appendix

A. Mindset Measure Items
Difficulty-as-Impossibility
"Cut your losses." If something feels very difficult to teach, it may be better to focus on something
else. (imposs1)
When teaching a class feels difficult, that material may be impossible for students to understand.
(imposs2)
Your gut tells you that if material feels difficult for your students, it is probably impossible for them to
ever really understand. (imposs3)
When a concept is difficult for my students to grasp, the material may not be for them. (impos4)
Difficulty-as-Importance
If my students find something difficult to learn, it often signals that it is important for them -“No pain,
no gain.” (import1)
When a concept is difficult for my students to grasp, it likely means that it is important for them to
learn. (import2)
When teaching a class feels difficult, that class may be important for students to understand. (import3)
When teaching a concept feels difficult, that concept is often worth your attention. (import4)
Growth
No matter who your students are, they can significantly change their level of academic ability.
(growth1)
Your students can change even their basic level of academic ability considerably. (growth2)
No matter how much academic ability a student has, they can always change it quite a bit. (growth3)
Your students can always substantially change how much academic ability they have. (growth4)

27
B. Teacher Confidence Items
Teacher Confidence in Teaching Pathways Core Points (11-Items)
I taught my students to introduce themselves in ways that emphasize their skills. (1)
I taught my students to imagine themselves as an adult (working, having family and friendships, having
a nice lifestyle, and participating in their community). (2)
I taught my students to describe positive and negative forces in their lives and how to use these forces
to help them work on their possible selves. (3)
I taught my students to draw a timeline to get to their adult images, including obstacles and forks in the
road. (4)
I taught my students how to take action now to work toward their adult images. (5)
I taught my students how to break down everyday situations into problems to be solved. (6)
I taught my students to use their Pathways skills to work on everyday problems. (7)
I taught my students to get help setting a schedule of high school classes to support their future goals.
(8)

Note: On a scale of 1=Not At All Confident to 4=Very Confident

Teacher Confidence Students Learned Pathways
Core Points (3-Item Subscale)
My students know that they will experience difficulties and setbacks in their efforts to do well in
school. (1)
My students have strategies to handle these setbacks so they know what to do next. (2)
My students can come up with alternatives when a setback happens. (3)

Note: On a scale of 1=Strongly Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree

28

C. Student Fidelity of Receipt Items
Student Confidence in Learning Pathways Core Points (10-Items)
I can introduce myself in ways that emphasize my skills. (1)
I can imagine myself as an adult (working, having family and friendships, having a nice lifestyle, and
participating in my community). (2)
I can draw a timeline to get to my adult images, including obstacles and forks in the road. (4)
I can take action now to work toward my adult images. (5)
I can break down everyday situations into problems to be solved. (6)
I can ask for help making plans. (7)
I can plan my class schedule to meet my future goals. (8)

Note: On a scale of 1=Not At All Confident to 5=Very Confident

I will experience difficulties and setbacks in my efforts to do well in school. (1)
I have strategies to handle these setbacks so I know what to do next. (2)
I can come up with alternatives when a setback happens. (3)

Note: On a scale of 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree

29
30

Table S2.
Mindset Correlations Prior to Pathways Training
Mindset Correlations Prior to
Training
Difficulty-as-
Impossibility
Difficulty-as-
Importance
Growth
Mindset
Difficulty-as-Impossibility 1 -.048 -0.218
Difficulty-as-Importance - 1 0.262
Growth Mindset - - 1

Table S3.
Difficulty-as-Impossibility Correlations Over Time
Difficulty-as-Impossibility
Pre-
Training
Post-
Training
8 Weeks After
Implementation
Pre-Training 1 .573** .743**
Post-Training .573** 1 .797**
8 Weeks After
Implementation .743** .797** 1
**p<0.01

Table S4.
Difficulty-as-Importance Correlations Over Time
Difficulty-as-Importance
Pre-
Training
Post-
Training
8 Weeks After
Implementation
Pre-Training 1 .267* .357*
Post-Training .267* 1 .375*
8 Weeks After
Implementation .357* .375* 1
*p<0.05

Table S5.
Growth Mindset Correlations Over Time
Growth Mindset
Pre-
Training
Post-
Training
8 Weeks After
Implementation
Pre-Training 1 0.208 .317*
Post-Training 0.208 1 .326*
8 Weeks After
Implementation .317* .326* 1
*p<0.05

31
Model Analysis Rationale and Comparison Tables
To avoid Type 1 errors, each set of analyses was evaluated for nesting by assessing the
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and design effect. ICC is the effect size of random effects,
which shows how much classroom nesting matters for students, training session for teachers, or
how much variance is conserved within subjects in the case of repeated measures. In our case,
the ICC measures the proportion of total variance that is attributable to our level two nesting
(classroom, training session, or within subject). ICC was calculated by dividing the between
subject variance attributable to level two (nesting) by the total variance. ICC was used to
calculate the design effect, which is a measure of clustering. Design effect was calculated by
adding 1 to the average cluster size minus 1 multiplied by the ICC. Past literature has shown that
a design effect of greater than 1.1 suggests MLM should be used instead of standard OLS
regression (Lai and Kwok, 2015). For each HLM model, we report the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC), R
2
, and Incremental Chi-square where a likelihood ratio test was performed
for the inclusion of each parameter in each model. The F value presented uses an F-test with
Kenward-Roger degree of freedom approximation, which is appropriate for small sample sizes.
R
2
is the proportion of variance explained by our final model. In this case, R
2
represents moving
from the unconditional means model, a model without and parameters, to our step one model,
including our fixed effect parameter(s). R
2
serves to describe the effect size of the independent
variable(s) in question, as we are comparing the unconditional means model to our Step 1 model:
R
2
equals f
2
(Lorah, 2018). R
2
was calculated using the MuMIn package in R. We use Cohen’s
(1992) f
2
guidelines in interpreting our R
2
values, .02 is a small effect, .15 medium, and .35 a
large effect size. Finally, we report the F-value for each model comparison: our confidence
measures regressed on teacher-level mindsets, which calculates the probability of finding our
32
result, assuming that the fixed effect was 0. As these models all handled clusters of less than 50,
we used Kenward Roger approximation for the degrees of freedom in order to handle potential
divergence between the Chi -square and F distributions. A significant F value suggests our fixed
effect is likely not due to chance, assuming a gamma of 0, suggesting evidence for a non-zero
value for gamma. For the within-subjects mindset observations for teachers over time, a
likelihood ratio test was performed using the lme4 package with the drop1() function, reporting a
Chi-square statistic and p value for each parameter.
Due to the small sample size, REML was used to better approximate standard error for all
models. Random intercept models were used rather than random effects as we have no
theoretical basis to expect that the effects vary across classroom, across training session, or
within teacher. However, it is reasonable to assume that the baseline values for the dependent
variables in question do vary, specifically in instances where the design effect is greater than 1.1.

MLM Equations. The equations for the student confidence models are included below, with the
fixed effect of teacher level mindset predicted the student-level report of receiving Pathways
messages.

Student Confidence Predicted from Teachers’ Mindsets:
(i) StudentConfidenceij=γ00+γ01Importancej+u0j+eij
(ii) StudentConfidenceij=γ00+γ01Impossibilityj+u0j+eij
(iii) StudentConfidenceij=γ00+γ01Growthj+u0j+eij

Teachers’ confidence in teaching Pathways:
(i) TeacherConfidence=γ00+γ01TrainingSession + γ10Importanceij++u0j+eij
(ii) TeacherConfidence=γ00+γ01TrainingSession + γ10Impossibilityij++u0j+eij
(iii) TeacherConfidence=γ00+γ01TrainingSession + γ10Growthij++u0j+eij
33

Robustness Check
ANOVA Analyses. We tested the effect of training on teachers’ mindsets using standard
ANOVA in addition to dummy coding and MLM. Again, training mattered. Training had a
significant impact on teachers’ difficulty-as-impossibility (F(2,76)=30.629, p<.0001) and
difficulty-as-importance (F(2,76)=24.992, p<.0001) mindsets. Training was specific and did not
affect teachers’ growth mindsets (F(2,76)=0.461, p<.633).
We tested whether change was significant from pre-to-post training but then stable after
that using post-hoc t- tests. Training stuck. Difficulty-as-impossibility changed after training and
then was stable as revealed by a significant difference between Pre-Training and Post- Training
(t(61)=6.397, p<.0001), and between Pre-Training and Post-Implementation (t(39)=4.344,
p<.0001 and no difference between post-training and post implementation (t(40)=-1.609,
p=0.115).
Similarly, difficulty-as-importance changed after training and then was stable as revealed
by a significant difference between Pre-Training and Post- Training (t(61)=-8.720, p<.0001), and
Pre-Training and Post-Implementation (t(39)=-6.427, p<.0001), but no difference was found
between post-training and post implementation (t(40)=0.645, p=0.523). Growth mindset did not
appear to change over time and therefore no post-hoc t-tests were performed.

Model Comparison Tables
The tables below demonstrate each model comparing the Step 0 (unconditional means model)
and the Step 1 (model with parameters) comparisons for all models examined above.
34

Table S6. Effect of Difficulty-as-Impossibility Endorsement on Teacher Reported Confidence in Teaching
Pathways Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Final Difficulty-as-Impossibility -5.761, 0.0904)

Total Variance Explained 7.97%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 2.58%
Design Effect 1.3354

F-Value (p) 2.8006, (0.1021)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=42 observations in 3 Training Sessions.

Table S7. Effect of Difficulty-as-Importance Endorsement on Teacher Reported Confidence
in Teaching Pathways Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Final Difficulty-as-Importance 4.840, 0.0197)

Total Variance Explained 15.21%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0%
Design Effect 1
F-Value 4.029, (0.05429)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=42 observations in 3 Training Sessions.

Table S8. Effect of Growth Mindset Endorsement on Teacher Reported Confidence in
Teaching Pathways Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
35
b (p)

Final Growth Mindset 5.219, (0.00242)

Total Variance Explained 22.83%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0.50%
Design Effect 1.065

F-Value (p) 9.3595, (0.003948)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=42 observations in 3 Training Sessions.

Table S9. Effect of Difficulty-as-Impossibility Endorsement on Teacher Confidence Students
Learned Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Final Difficulty-as-Impossibility -5.329, (0.0131)

Total Variance Explained 5.73%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0
Design Effect 0

F-Value (p) 1.962, (0.1692)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=42 observations in 3 Training Sessions.

Table S10. Effect of Difficulty-as-Importance Endorsement on Teacher Confidence
Students Learned Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

36
Final Difficulty-as-Importance 6.781, (0.000655)

Total Variance Explained 25.92%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0
Design Effect 0

F-Value (p) 7.9262, (0.01054)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=42 observations in 3 Training Sessions.

Table S11. Effect of Growth Mindset Endorsement on Teacher Confidence Students
Learned Core Points
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Final Growth Mindset 4.974, (0.00528)

Total Variance Explained 18.23%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 0
Design Effect 0

F-Value (p) 6.9992, (0.01177)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=648 observations in 35 Classrooms.

37
Table S12. Effect of Difficulty-as-Impossibility Endorsement on Student Reported Confidence
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Final Difficulty-as-Impossibility -3.148, (0.0668)

Total Variance Explained/f² 1.68%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 10.56%
Design Effect 2.849056

F-Value (p) 3.5895, (0.06677)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=631 observations in 35 Classrooms.

Table S13. Effect of Difficulty-as-Importance Endorsement on Student Reported
Confidence
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)
Final Difficulty-as-Importance 3.210, (0.0143)

Total Variance Explained/f² 2.62%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 9.50%
Design Effect 2.66345

F-Value (p) 6.347, (0.01665)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=631 observations in 35 Classrooms.

38

Table S14. Effect of Growth Mindset Endorsement on Student
Reported Confidence

(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)
Final Growth Mindset 1.662, (0.175)

Total Variance Explained/f² 0.89%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 11.44%
Design Effect 3.003144

F-Value (p) 18754, (0.18)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=631 observations in 35 Classrooms.

Table S15. Effect of Time on Within-Teacher Difficulty-as-Impossibility Endorsement
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Pre-Training Mindset 0.54279, (<0.0001)
Final Mindset 0.14275, (0.133)
Total Variance Explained (R²) 10.33%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 59.21%
Design Effect 1.852624
χ² Pre-Training Mindset(p) 38.034, (<0.0001)
χ² 8 Weeks After Training Mindset(p) 2.310, (0.1286)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=176 observations in 72 Teachers.

39

Table S16. Effect of Time on Within-Teacher Difficulty-as-Importance Endorsement
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)

Pre-Training Mindset -1.4859, (<0.0001)
Final Mindset -0.1438, (0.467)
Total Variance Explained (R²) 25.56%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 27.00%
Design Effect 1.3888
χ² Pre-Training Mindset(p) 57.452, (<0.0001)
χ² 8 Weeks After Training Mindset(p) 0.538, (0.4632)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=176 observations in 72 Teachers.

Table S17. Effect of Time on Within-Teacher Growth Mindset Endorsement
(Unstandardized Coefficients)

Predictor Step 1
b (p)
Pre-Training Mindset -0.1119, (0.489)
Final Mindset -0.1956, (0.296)
Total Variance Explained (R²) 16.52%
Intraclass Correlation Coefficient 18.00%
Design Effect 1.2592
χ² Pre-Training Mindset(p) 0.48902, (0.4844)
χ² 8 Weeks After Training Mindset(p) 1.11273, (0.2915)
Degrees of Freedom 1
Note: N=176 observations in 72 Teachers.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Failures and difficulty are part of the learning process. Despite the fact that difficulty is part of learning, teachers and students often associate difficulty as a signal of impossibility, rather than as a sign that a task is worth pursuing. Interpretations of difficulty have been demonstrated to have effects on task persistence and engagement, specifically within an academic setting. Yet, interventions often focus on student level mindsets and overlook instructor endorsement. We evaluate instead whether an intervention designed to change difficulty mindsets in students can change teacher mindsets through training (N=73), showing that training does change mindset endorsement acutely and after intervention. The study then evaluates whether post-intervention teacher mindsets (N=42) are meaningful

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating a pathway to success: teachers can change their students’ identity-based motivation

PDF

Classrooms are game settings: learning through and with play

PDF

A roadmap for changing student roadmaps: designing interventions that use future “me” to change academic outcomes

PDF

Difficulty-as-sanctifying: when difficulties build character, purify the self, and elevate the soul

PDF

Can I make the time or is time running out? That depends in part on how I think about difficulty

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of believing that difficulties are character-building

PDF

Difficulty-as-importance and difficulty-as-impossibility: unpacking the context-sensitivity and consequences of identity-based inferences from difficulty

PDF

Bridging possible identities and intervention journeys: two process-oriented accounts that advance theory and application of psychological science

PDF

Metacognitive experiences in judgments of truth and risk

PDF

Only half of what I’ll tell you is true: how experimental procedures lead to an underestimation of the truth effect

PDF

Performance and attention novelty slows hedonic adaptation during habit formation

PDF

Peer Coach Training for disruptive youth

PDF

#BLM or #ALM: accessible perspective shapes downstream judgment even among people high in social dominance

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

A neuropsychological exploration of low-SES adolescents’ life goals and their motives

PDF

The effect of present moment awareness and value intervention of ACT on impulsive decision-making and impulsive disinhibition

PDF

Evaluating social-cognitive measures of motivation in a longitudinal study of people completing New Year's resolutions to exercise

PDF

The effects of bilingual acceptance and commitment training (ACT) on exercise in bilingual international university students

PDF

Measuring truth detection ability in social media following extreme events

PDF

Depression and anxiety symptom outcomes in adolescent users of smoked, vaporized, edible and blunt cannabis

Asset Metadata

Creator Dawson, Andrew (author)

Core Title People can change when you want them to: changes in identity-based motivation affect student and teacher Pathways experience

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 12/01/2020

Defense Date 12/01/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education,identity-based motivation,intervention science,metacognition,OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology,social identity,Training

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Oyserman, Daphna (committee chair), John, Richard (committee member), Monterosso, John (committee member), Schwarz, Norbert (committee member)

Creator Email dawsona@protonmail.com,dawsona@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-400133

Unique identifier UC11666575

Identifier etd-DawsonAndr-9174.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-400133 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DawsonAndr-9174.pdf

Dmrecord 400133

Document Type Thesis

Rights Dawson, Andrew

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA