Few ideas in education have seen a greater pendulum swing than Dr. Carol Dweck’s concept of Mindset. When she published her book in 2006, it became the must-read text that launched a thousand posters. Even ten years later, practically every school I visited had a wall of growth mindset catch phrases, and a block-capitals sign that read “…YET!”
In 2018, the backlash officially began. A pair of meta-analysis — authored by a team of respected scholars — could be summarized with the word “meh.” The findings could fairly be summarized as: “the effects are much smaller and less reliable than many advocates claimed.” In brief, according to this meta-analysis, the whole Mindset movement was a bust.
This anti-mindset perspective often takes on a harsh tone. I have colleagues who use the phrase “still believes in growth mindset” to mean “still thinks the earth is flat.” Some public critics claim that “mindset interventions work only when Dweck tries them.” This claim — which implies that Dr. Dweck puts her thumb on the research scales — is flatly untrue. (You might disagree with her conclusions, but if you’ve read any of her work you know how meticulous she is.)
A recent study adds to our understanding, and might at last help steady this pendulum.
PISA 2022
Every few years, fifteen-year olds from across the globe take the Programme for International Student Assessment — typically shortened to PISA. Because of its global reach, the number of students who take the test, and the demographic and educational information that it gathers, the PISA regularly offers a rich data-bank for analysis. One group of scholars looked at the most recent PISA to ask
- Is growth midset a thing? More specifically, is a growth mindset associated with higher scores of mathematical ability?
- Does it vary by country? If so, how?
- Does socio-economic status matter? If so, how?
Because more than 500,000 students took the PISA that year, this research team has an ENORMOUS amount of data and can look for hard-to-detect effects. Before we get carried away by the reach of this data set, we should note a few limitations:
- These data can find correlation, but not causation. That is: scholars can determine if students who have more of a growth mindset score higher on the math section, but they can’t determine if the mindset caused the higher score. (After all: greater ability in math could create a growth mindset.)
- Scholars learn about the students’ mindset from exactly one question. Students rated their agreement with this statement: “Your intelligence is something about you that you cannot change very much.” The more that students agreed with that statement, the lower their growth mindset score.
These limitations noted, we can still recognize the potential strengths of this study. If a growth mindset correlates with mathematical ability, then this research should be able to detect even modest associations. If socio-economic status has an influence on that correlation, again, this study should recognize that connection.
74 Envelopes, Please
In one sentence, this study concludes: “The answer to those questions depends substantially on the country where the students took the test.” The relationship between growth mindset and mathematical ability varies meaningfully among the 74 participating countries.
In many Anglophone countries — Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, the US — a higher GM correlated with higher math scores. In other countries — Poland, Greece, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, the Philipines — the relationship between the two was statistically indistinguishable from zero.
The relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and GM also varied from country to country. In Latin America and Southeast Asia, for instance, high SES students with a GM saw greater math benefits than their low SES peers. A small group of countries — Singapore, Austria — saw the opposite pattern: low SES students benefitted more from a GM than their high SES counterparts. In the US (and other countries), socio-economic status didn’t particularly influence the relationship between GM and math achievement.
Local News
This global perspective helps us think more wisely about GM questions, but it also distracts us from the question that US-based teachers would like answered: where should the pendulum be? Here in the US, should we be on the “mindset is a scam!” end of the continuum, or closer to the “mindset posters for everyone!” end?
This study offers a very stats-y answer: “mindset correlates with math scores, but not lots-n-lots.” If you speak stats, you’ll be glad to know that r = 0.28. If you don’t speak stats, that means “growth mindset is one factor among many.” An r of 0.30 is regularly described as “a clear but modest tendency”; of course, 0.28 is just shy of 0.30.
To say all that in everyday words:
- In the US at least, growth mindset isn’t nothing. It correlates — at least modestly — with math performance.
Based on that finding, I’ve got three suggestions:
First: we don’t know that GM training helps; this study doesn’t consider that question. But we do know that a GM and stronger math scores correlate with each other. For that reason, we should stop belittling mindset researchers.
Second: more specifically, Dan Willingham made this wise point: “we know that a GM seems to help in some circumstances, but not in many circumstances. We should try to understand which circumstances go in which categories.” (To be clear, those are my words, not his.)
Third: as I’ve written before, I think it’s unlikely that telling studetns about mindsets will have much of an effect. Instead, we need to change our school’s policies and procedures to align with growth-mindset thinking.
In sum: teaching is splendid but difficult work. We need all the tools we can get. If mindset can help — and, in the US, it seems to help a bit — then we should be open to and curious about that news. Over time, an incremental benefit can yield important results.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house.
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological science, 29(4), 549-571.
Charoensilp, P., Kim, H., & Sriutaisuk, S. (2025). Relationships between growth mindsets and math achievement across socioeconomic status in 74 countries: Evidence from PISA 2022. PloS one, 20(11), e0337039.
