Learning theory and the Personal Growth Mindset Frame-

work in Higher Education: the power of yet and dreaming big

Dr. Katharina Rietig

Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in International Politics
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Katharine.rietig@ncl.ac.uk

August 2021

Abstract

What do learning theories tell us how humans learn? How can university teachers
help students to develop the kind of personal growth mindset that helps them to suc-
ceed? The central argument is that student’s mindsets play a crucial role at determin-
ing how they develop the key attributes of successful graduates that have the neces-
sary skills to succeed in their later careers and achieve their professional goals. This
paper introduces key concepts how we humans learn. The overview of central learn-
ing theories draws from the fields of education, psychology, public policy and man-
agement studies and reflects on their applicability in higher education settings. It
makes a novel contribution by presenting the ‘Personal Growth Mindset Framework’
that allows to constructively align career-relevant skill development with teaching and
learning activities.

Key words: learning theory, personal growth, mindset, higher education

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Introduction

The world of work is changing, and with it the professional development needs of
students (Williams, Berdahl and Vandello, 2016). This means that degree program-
mes need to carefully re-evaluate how they support students in gaining the knowledge
and building the skills that they will need to succeed in an ever changing and increas-
ingly globally competitive work environment (Wood, 2009). Students from socio-
economically disadvantaged backgrounds impacted by inequalities, minority groups
and first-generation university attendees (Huston and Bentley, 2010) are particularly
affected by the changing world of work as they have fewer means outside the univer-
sity context to prepare themselves and level up to their more privileged peers. This
also influences motivation at work, which is affected by traits, values, cognition and
needs (Latham and Pinder, 2005).

The central research question is: What do learning theories tell us how humans
learn? How can we help our students to develop the kind of personal growth mindset
that helps them to succeed?

Drawing on research in social and cognitive psychology, my central argument

is that student’s mindsets play a crucial role at determining how they develop the key
attributes of successful graduates that have the necessary skills to succeed in their
later careers and achieve their professional goals.

This paper introduces key concepts how we humans learn. In this overview of
central learning theories, I draw from the fields of education, psychology, public pol-
icy and management studies and reflect on their applicability in higher education set-
tings. For example, I draw on ‘classic’ approaches such as Bloom’s Taxonomy of
lower and higher level cognition, single- and double-loop learning based on Argyris
and Schoen, as well as the further development into Kolb’s Learning Cycle. Follow-
ing the insight into these ‘classics’ from the 1970s and 1980s that are still the corner-
stone and in many cases the ‘gold standard’ of teaching practice in higher education, I
discuss recent advancements from the field of psychology for social sciences teaching
in higher education. Two approaches stand out in particular, but due to their novelty
have not yet entered the mainstream of teacher education: moving from fixed mind-
sets to growth mindsets and ‘the power of yet’, developed by Professor Carol Dweck
(Dweck, 2017), and the related concept of ‘grit’ with a focus on perseverance and pol-
icy entrepreneurial drive put forward by Professor Andrea Duckworth (Duckworth et
al., 2007). Drawing on my own research on learning theories, in particular the ‘Learn-
ing in Governance Framework’ (Rietig, 2021) that includes the importance of policy
entrepreneurs ‘teaching’ others to affect change, this chapter makes a novel contribu-
tion by presenting the novel ‘Personal Growth Framework’ that allows to construc-
tively align career-relevant skill development with teaching and learning activities.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

What is learning?

The term “learning” carries different meanings and connotations. My interdisciplinary

approach combines educational, social/cognitive psychology, management and politi-
cal science perspectives. We can differentiate between learning among individual stu-
dents, individual academics and academics within the organisational setting of an
higher education institution, which governs decisions on learning outcomes, course
design and degree programme design.

Learning is frequently defined as the acquisition of skills and knowledge (or ac-
tion and thought); it thereby carries the components of skill as “know-how” or the
physical ability to act, and of knowledge as “know-why” or the ability to communi-
cate an understanding of an experience (Kim, 1993: 38). Learning can further be seen
as acting upon experiences and correcting errors (Metcalfe, 2017). Argyris brought
forward a widely accepted definition explaining learning

as the detection and correction of errors, and error as any feature of knowledge
or of knowing that makes action ineffective. Error is a mismatch: a condition of
learning, and matching a second condition of learning. The detection and cor-
rection of error produces learning and the lack of either or both inhibits learn-
ing. (Argyris, 1976: 365)

The first definition provided by Kim (1993) provides conceptual traces towards
action and understanding and the second definition by Argyris (1976) emphasises ex-
perience and correction of errors. As there are many different kinds of learning in the
distinctive disciplines and sub-areas, each discipline provides a more or less slightly
different definition and understanding of what learning is, depending on the context of
analysis.

A review of these different definitions of learning (i.e. see definitions provided

by Argyris and Schön, 1978; Kim, 1993; May, 1992; Zito and Schout, 2009) identi-
fied elements common to most learning conceptualisations. The following definition
consolidates the nuanced understandings of the learning literature and to provide an
overall conceptual basis to the analysis. I define learning as a

reflection and judgment based on an input, experience or detection of error, which

leads the individual to select a different view on (1) how things happen, i.e. the
acquisition of knowledge or learning facts and (2) what course of action to take,
i.e. the reflection on individual or collective experience or advise from others on
such previous experiences. The judgement leads to change within the individual
(i.e. it selected a different view and acts upon it differently than before) and/or
within the organisation (Rietig 2021).

Learning does not only refer to the student as an active participant in the learn-
ing process – it also refers to the teacher, i.e. the academic teaching a course and thus
delivering the lecture, running the seminar, marking the assessment and influencing
student’s learning through other activities. This requires reflection on the part of the
teacher if the learning activities devised are fit for purpose, i.e., to meet the learning
objectives.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

 As years go by, it is also important to re-evaluate if learning objectives within
courses and subsequently their content and learning activities are still reflecting the
scientific field’s state of the art in terms of knowledge, methodological approaches
and professional practices. This means that academics in charge of courses (i.e., the
module leaders or course managers, depending on the terminology used), do not only
need to update their reading lists, they also need to reflect on what changes to the
learning activities could be beneficial (Wood, 2009). Subsequently, to remain effec-
tive teachers (Jackson, Rockoff and Staiger, 2014), the teachers also need to continu-
ously reflect on the course and engage in learning how they can further improve it in
the light of advances within the scientific field, teaching pedagogy and wider societal
shifts.

The third key actor is the academic who convenes the degree programme as
well as the academics on the board of studies (usually all members of the department)
who oversee the strategic development of the degree programme with its different
course offerings. This is also the level where changes to degree programmes and indi-
vidual courses, as well as new courses, need to be justified and approved.

Overall, we can differentiate between the level of the individual learner, the stu-
dent, and the organisational level where a group of academics makes decisions rang-
ing from the strategic direction of a degree programme to the detailed learning and as-
sessment activities within individual courses.

How do we learn? Insights from social psychology and organisational

studies

The objective in this chapter is to move beyond individual learning theories towards a
consolidated model that draws on the strengths of different learning theories and ap-
proaches, but that overall sits within the Humanist model of self-actualisation where
individuals can become the best version of themselves through an enabling envi-
ronment and continuous personal development. The aim is to draw on the underpin-
ning elements of relevant 20th century learning theories to arrive at a consolidated
model that is fit for the learning and teaching environment of the 21st century, includ-
ing the rapid changes to framework conditions through technological and social ad-
vances. We can differentiate between cognitive approaches, experiential learning and
learning that occurs on the organisational level when degree programmes and individ-
ual courses are designed, carried out and evaluated.

The Linear Cognitive Learning Process

The psychological-philosophical perspective based on Karl Popper’s theory of learn-

ing (Popper, 1979; cited after Swann, 1999; Figure 1) understands learning as an indi-
vidual process of devising a solution to a problem:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Figure 1. Cognitive Learning Process. Source: Adapted by author from Swann,
1999: 266.

Attempts are undertaken to solve the initial problem, what leads to a new set
of problems or an outcome. The learning individual develops a trial solution to solve
the initial problem that initiates the learning process. Any trial solution can be either
successful to solve the problem or pose further challenges, leading to a process of er-
ror elimination that finally presents a new problem or outcome. The main elements of
what happens when learning occurs are change in the learner, activity, creativity, trial
and error and attempts to solve a problem (Metcalfe, 2017; Swann, 1999). The learn-
ing literature in education is especially concerned with how students learn and how
they use, store and retrieve knowledge either through memorising in the form of de-
clarative learning (Stark et al., 1998) or procedural learning (Shin, 2008) as forms of
surface learning, or if they use deeper-level knowledge (Hay, 2007) and incorporate
reflections on learning in learning cycles (Kolb and Fry, 1975; Kolb and Kolb, 2005;
Kolb, 1984).

Experiential Learning

One central concern of the learning literature is to determine how humans learn. As
outlined in the definition of learning above, learning can be understood as a process of
drawing conclusions from experiences such as errors made in the past, reflection and
adoption of a different course of action (Argyris, 1976), thereby generating know-
ledge or skills. Argyris describes this model of learning from experience as “discov-
ery-invention-production-generalization” (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 140) process. It
has been taken up and modified several times by subsequent authors to match their re-
spective analytical focus of the learning environment. At the core of these individual
experiential learning cycles is the observation that an individual lives through an ex-
perience, observes the consequences (which might be the detection of an error), as-
sesses the situation by reflecting on the observations made during the experience,
thereby cognitively designs abstract concepts or theoretical explanations and imple-
ments them via testing (see Kim, 1993: 39). Kolb referred to it as “observations and
reflections [leading to the] formation of abstract concepts and generalizations [leading
to] testing implications of concepts in new situations [leading to] concrete experi-
ence” (1984: 21, cited after Kim, 1993: 38). Figure 2 visualises his simple model of
individual learning, which is based on Argyris (1978) experiential learning cycle and
to date one of the central models of conceptualising learning in higher education.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

 Figure 2. Simple model of individual learning/the
learning cycle. Source: Kim, 1993: 40 based on
Argyris, 1978.

The education literature emphasises from a constructivist point of view the

importance of experiential learning and how this can be integrated into the classroom
experience (Kember and Gow, 1994; Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005). The con-
structivist, student-centred teaching approach that emphasises experiential learning
stands in contrast to the traditional teacher-centred transmission model of linear in-
formation transfer. It understands learning as a process and as a relearning of facts
and skills, which is best facilitated when the student’s beliefs and underlying assump-
tions about a topic are made explicit during the discussion and topic-based debate in
the classroom. Thus, learning occurs when new concepts are being integrated with
previous knowledge (Kolb and Kolb, 2005), what puts a strong emphasis on previous
knowledge and expertise. Experiential learning does not limit the learning experience
to a cognitive process, but understands learning as a process that involves “the inte-
grated functioning of the total person – thinking, feeling, perceiving, and behaving”
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005: 194). David Kolb has made a considerable impact on the dis-
cipline of Education with his Kolb Learning Cycle that describes the process of ex-
periential learning, which is very similar to Argyris’ learning cycle in Organisational
Learning and the associated single- and double-loop learning variations (Argyris,
1974). Following a specific experience, the individual makes reflective observations
and forms an abstract conceptualisation, which is tested via active experimentation as
described in Figure 3 (Kolb, 1984; Kolb and Kolb, 2005).

Figure 3. Kolb’ Experiental Learning Cycle.

Kolb and Kolb, 2005.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Single-, Double Loop and Deutero Learning

Much of the contemporary educational literature used in higher education teacher

training and professional development programmes refers to single- and double loop
learning and a learning experience that is based on Kolb’s educational learning cycle
(Kolb and Kolb, 2005). We can differentiate between the psychology of ‘the way
things are’ based on traditional teaching approaches and a more experiential learning
focused approach that grants a higher degree of agency to the learner and allows for
self-regulated learning (Winne and Nesbit, 2010). This can be traced back to the
seminal work by Argyris and Schön (1978), who developed these theories in the con-
text of learning that happens within organisations. The method of learning is through
the actions and experiences of the individuals within the organisation (Argyris and
Schön, 1978: 9). This is relevant as departments and universities are also organisa-
tions that guide individual student’s learning by devising the relevant degree pro-
grammes that include individual courses with specific learning objectives, which in
turn are approved through boards of studies or similar committees that comprise the
academics involved in delivering the degree programme.

Argyris and Schön developed their “Theory of Action” (Argyris and Schön,
1974) to understand how individuals may learn to improve their effectiveness and
competence by both taking action and learning from the experience through reflec-
tion. This deliberate action has a cognitive basis reflecting strategies, norms and as-
sumptions of the individual’s world and constitutes a theory-in-use, the way an indi-
vidual actually acts in a given situation. This is not necessarily the same as the
‘theory-in-action’, which refers to a behaviour the individual communicates as princi-
pled course of action (Argyris and Schön, 1974: 6f.; 1978: 10f.). Within an organisa-
tion, individuals construct their own but incomplete image of the overall ‘theory-in-
use’, which is constantly being modified and makes learning “an active process of or-
ganizing which is, at root, a cognitive enterprise” (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 16) lead-
ing to what Argyris and Schön call Single-Loop-Learning:

Members of the organization respond to changes in the internal and external envi-
ronments of the organization by detecting errors which they then correct so as to
maintain the central features of organizational theory-in-use. These are learning
episodes which function to preserve a certain kind of constancy. (…) There is a
single feed-back loop which connects detected outcomes of action to organiza-
tional strategies and assumptions which are modified so as to keep organizational
performance within the range set by organizational norms. The norms themselves
(…) remain unchanged. (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 18f.)

Central elements of single-loop learning are unchanged norms and the ob-
jective of error elimination by developing new strategies to solve the problem;
however for individual learning (e.g. among academics) to become organisa-
tional learning (e.g, within the department or group of academics involved in de-
livering the degree programme), the evaluations need to be transferred to organi-
sational memory (Argyris and Schön, 1978):

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

 Organizational learning occurs when individuals, acting from their images and
maps, detect a match or mismatch of outcome to expectation which confirms or
disconfirms organizational theory-in-use. In the case of disconfirmation, indi-
viduals move from error detection to error correction. (…) From this it follows
(…) that individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organiza-
tional learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 19f.).

While the single-loop learning process or error detection and correction rather
depicts individual or - in the case of organisational learning – a non-individual/social
perspective of cognitive learning, Argyris and Schön introduce “double-loop learn-
ing” as constructivist element. This becomes especially relevant when the correction
of errors cannot be achieved through simply raising the effectiveness as achieved by
single-loop learning, but when the norms defining effective performance need to be
reconsidered and altered (Argyris and Schön, 21f.). In sum, double-loop learning re-
fers

To those sorts of organizational inquiry which resolve incompatible organi-

zational norms by setting new priorities and weighting of norms, or by re-
structuring the norms themselves together with associated strategies and as-
sumptions (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 24).

A third level of learning is “deutero-learning” (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 26).

This occurs when individuals reflect on the experienced contexts for learning or fail-
ure to learn, thereby evaluating current strategies and coming up with new strategies
for learning (Winne and Nesbit, 2010). As this learning process is being encoded in
previously introduced individual images, it can also be reflected in the learning prac-
tise of an organisation. This concept of deutero-learning is particularly relevant for
learning among academics in higher education settings who reflect on how they can
revise their courses and degree programmes to offer their students the best possible
learning experience.

The Complete Cycle of Choice

March and Olsen improved the understanding of how individual and organisational
learning work together in their “complete cycle of choice” (March and Olsen, 1975:
149), which describes a circular and reinforcing relationship between the individual,
its organisation, the environment and how individuals perceive the world. Their learn-
ing theory is situated within the realm of experiential learning, i.e. learning from ex-
perience (Herriott et al., 1985).

Individuals act or participate in a situation that requires a choice. Their behav-

iour in these decision-making situations is being influenced by their cognitions and
preferences (element 1, March and Olsen, 1975: 149). How this and other individuals
behave and participate influences the choices of the organisation they are affiliated
with, thereby leading to a set of organisational outcomes or policies (2). In a third
step, these organisational choices stimulate responses or actions from the environment
the organisation is situated in or related to, which can be of spatial, political or soci-
etal character (3). These reactions of the environment affect individuals, which may

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

have a relation to individuals within the organisation. Their individual cognitions and
preferences, the way in which they understand the world they are living in, can be al-
tered as a consequence (4). The learning cycle closes when these preferences of indi-
viduals change how they act or make decisions (See figure 4, March and Olsen, 1975:
150).

Figure 4. Complete cycle of

choice. Source: March and Ol-
sen, 1975: 150.

Non-learning: defensive avoidance, unlearning and muddling through

Before learning in the process of solving a problem can occur as outlined by Swann
(1999), the individual (i.e., the student, the academic involved in delivering the degree
programme) needs to actively decide to address the problem and develop a trial solu-
tion. Therefore, this section examines non-learning as the opposite case of learning. A
small body of literature based mainly in psychology and education (Hedberg, 1981;
Hughes and Tight, 1995; Huber, 1991; Janis, 1972; Janis and Mann, 1977; Klein,
1989; Lindblom, 1959; 1979; Nystrom and Starbuck, 1984) is concerned with the
concept of non-learning among decision makers, which is also sometimes referred to
as unlearning (Hedberg, 1981; Huber, 1991), incremental changes (Janis and Mann,
1977), reactive governing or simply ‘muddling through’ (Lindblom, 1959; 1979), yet
it appears to have a relatively small uptake among more widely accepted theories of
decision-making and learning.

Unlearning was introduced by Hedberg (1981) and picked up by Nystrom and

Starbuck (1984). It is defined as “a process through which learners discard know-
ledge” (Hedberg, 1981: 18; cited after Huber, 1991: 104) that is considered to be ob-
solete and may thereby be not only unconscious, but also intentional (Huber, 1991:
104). Yet the term unlearning suggests that the individual has previously acquired the
necessary knowledge but chooses to ignore it or has lost the capability to make use of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

it, i.e. because the expert in the field left the organisation or because the individual
forgot that s/he dealt with a similar issue in another context, although s/he could
easily transfer the knowledge to the new situation.
There is the possibility that individuals may consciously or unconsciously
avoid addressing the problem by defensive avoidance (Janis and Mann, 1977; Rietig
and Perkins, 2018). This form of psychological defence interferes with information
processing and is frequently connected to unconscious sources of unresolved conflict
regarding a decision (Janis and Mann, 1977: 98). Individuals, when confronted with a
problem that requires a resolution, are usually faced with two options: either they ad-
dress the problem by designing a trial solution and thereby enter a learning cycle as
discussed above, or they enter a state of defensive avoidance. This state can have per-
sonal consequences of a positive or negative nature. Options of defensive action are
procrastination, buck passing and bolstering (Janis and Mann, 1977: 107). Individuals
can engage in buck passing, i.e. delegating the decision to somebody else or a com-
mittee of other academics to avoid liabilities for a wrong or unpopular but adequate
decision or to procrastinate over the decision and hope that temporal circumstances or
further developments take the decision off their shoulders (Janis and Mann, 1977). An
alternative option of unclear decision-making is bolstering. In this case, individuals
reach an ill-considered decision that is based on shared rationalisations as well as a
collective sense of being protected against threats of failure, also referred to as
“groupthink” (Janis, 1972).

The Learning in Governance Framework

My research on learning in decision-making processes developed a novel theoretical

framework, the Learning in Governance Framework, which breaks down learning into
the fundamental underpinning elements and has an equally high relevance for learning
in educational settings as in government organisations. The central assumption is that
learning cannot occur if the individual has not consciously take note of new informa-
tion or a new experience and subsequently actively reflected on how this new infor-
mation/experience relates to previously existing knowledge and/or experiences (Ri-
etig 2021). Such reflection is the pre-requisite for any individual to enter a learning
process. If the reflection has not occurred, the individual did not engage in learning
but instead in some form of non-learning which can include muddling through, fol-
lowing orders or buck passing (Rietig 2021; Rietig and Perkins 2018).
We can differentiate between three basic archetypes of learning that consoli-
date the various overlapping classifications of learning that emerged from learning lit-
erature: following a reflection on knowledge, factual learning occurs, if an individual
reflects on previous experience, experiential learning occurs, and if the individual
subsequently also changed underlying beliefs, they engaged in constructivist learning.
Individuals frequently engage in factual learning when they receive new in-
formation or when they rearrange previous knowledge once they find themselves in a
different context. They reflect on the input while they are cognitively processing the
new information and increase their existing knowledge (Argyris and Schön, 1978). In

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

an educational context, individuals for example learn about key theories, methodolo-
gies, facts and technical details of the subject (Mayer, 2003). The information sources
for factual learning are usually scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals
or books. Factual learning can also result from verbal or written accounts of other in-
dividual’s experiences (Rietig 2019). Factual learning is the most frequent and domi-
nant aspect of learning in higher education settings, and subsequently highlighted by
learning theories in education such as Bloom’s taxonomy that focuses on different
ways of engaging with facts such as remembering, understanding, analysing and ev-
aluating.
Experiential learning is an equally important aspect for learning in higher edu-
cational settings not only in professional training programmes (e.g., medi-
cine/dentistry, nursing, accounting, law), but also in the humanities and social sci-
ences. It occurs once individuals reflect on their previous experience in similar situa-
tions, draw conclusions on their or other’s behaviour and transfer this experience to
the current situation to devise a strategy of how to negotiate, present information or
form coalitions (Rietig 2019). It refers to ‘how’ actors behave based on their previous
experience and reflection on which tactics and strategies worked in similar past situa-
tions and which strategies resulted in unsuccessful or unsatisfactory outcomes. Ex-
periential learning is the most frequent form of learning observed in the literature re-
lated to learning in government and other organisations and has been awarded differ-
ent labels including political learning (May, 1992), policy-oriented learning (Sabatier,
1987), learning-by-doing and single-/double loop learning that detects and corrects
behavioral errors (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Dunlop, 2009; Dunlop and Radaelli,
2016; Gerlak and Heikkila, 2011; Haas and Haas, 1995; Hall, 1993) as well as learn-
ing how to better engage in lip-service to manipulate negotiation partners (Koch and
Lindenthal, 2011).
As a consequence of factual or experiential learning, actors can change their
underlying beliefs about how they see an issue, for example on nuclear weapons or
environmental protection (Haas and Haas, 1995), which means that they engage in
constructivist learning. Beliefs refer to how a person views the world. They include a
normative understanding of how the world ‘ought’ to be. The following table 1 sum-
marises the Learning in Governance Framework (Rietig, 2019; 2021; Rietig and Per-
kins, 2018).

Factual learning Experiential learning Constructivist

learning

Indi- Individual actors have Active engagement with Changed personal

vidual acquired (e.g. from stud- particular issue through di- norms, values or policy
level ies) and reflected on new rect experience and re- beliefs; underpins new
information; increased flecting on successes and and/or reinforced per-
knowledge and expertise failures to enhance actors’ sonal commitments and
deployed by actors in existing political or bu- actions.
their task environment. reaucratic practices and
competencies.

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Organi- New knowledge is ac- Critical reflection on exist- Change in organisa-
satio-nal quired by and transmitted ing practices and perform- tional beliefs and values
level through an organisation; ances within context of ex- over time; institutionali-
reflection, incorporation isting organisational goals; zation of normative be-
and use of knowledge in the accompanying devel- liefs, the reframing of
organisational activities opment and/or refinement organisational goals and
and/or to inform organi- of new organisational pro- discontinuous organisa-
sational position. cesses, strategies and be- tional action.
haviors.

Table 1. Criteria for identifying learning in the policy process. Source: Rietig and Perkins,
2018; Rietig, 2019; 2021; Rietig and Perkins, 2018.

Three sub-types of beliefs (Sabatier, 1987; 1988; 2007) can be differentiated,

based on how stable these beliefs are. Deep beliefs refer to fundamental world-views
that guide an actors’ normative understanding and can be regarded as a ‘moral com-
pass’. These include beliefs associated with the political ‘right’ and ‘left’ spectrum,
beliefs about the fundamental value of the environment, and the importance of eco-
nomic development. The second sub-type of beliefs refers to the desired degree pro-
gramme or course structure that the individual deems compatible with the underlying
deep beliefs. Secondary beliefs refer to the individual’s normative view of how ex-
actly the course should look like in terms of learning/teaching activities and learning
objectives/outcomes. Secondary beliefs need to be aligned with policy beliefs, and
policy beliefs need to be compatible with deep-core beliefs. Three types of construc-
tivist learning can be subsequently differentiated, depending on which beliefs are
formed or changed.

The growth mindset, grit, perseverance and try: attributes of policy entrepre-
neurs as agents of change

The education and especially social psychology literature identified a number of per-
sonal attributes that allow individuals to persevere in the face of educational, profes-
sional and other life challenges, which in turn impact on motivation and ‘drive’ (Cov-
ington, 2000), as well as ultimately on goals (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Individuals
who possess such perseverance (Duckworth et al., 2007) and entrepreneurial drive can
also choose to act as agents of change by taking on policy entrepreneurial roles in
their line of work. Individuals possess a number of attributes that determine their
ability to translate learning, which happened as a cognitive process internally, into ac-
tion. This action can, in the short term, include individual’s performance in any as-
sessment related to higher education, as well as long-term action with regards to the
ability to influence decision-making processes as a result of learning that occurred at
any earlier point in time.

One such attribute is a growth mindset, which can be developed by individuals

and facilitated with the support of educators. Individuals, e.g., students with a fixed
mindset believe that skills are born, they are either smart or they are not (Dweck,
2017). They are often considered as ‘gifted students’, which means that there is a high

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

risk of failure and loss of face if their performance does not match the expectation of
being perfect and impressing others by being smart (Worrell et al., 2019). They focus
on current performance and not ‘looking bad’, resulting in behaviour that discounts
effort and avoids challenges, getting discouraged by mistakes and defensive when re-
ceiving feedback. This is frequently reinforced by teachers when they praise students
for being smart, and not for their efforts (Rattan, Good and Dweck, 2012). In short,
students shy away from opportunities to grow personally and professionally. How-
ever, university teachers can change student’s mindsets with our teaching and module
design by constructively aligning the course content with opportunities to develop a
‘growth mindset’. Students with a growth mindset believe that skills are built, allow-
ing them to learn, dream big and achieve their goals (Yaeger and Dweck, 2012). Such
students look at effort as a useful part of the learning process, embrace challenges and
frame them as an opportunity to become better at writing essays, critical analysis,
using theories and researching concepts. They see mistakes as learning opportunities
and appreciate feedback to improve further (Dweck, 2017).

This means praising students for the process they engage in and allow them to
make errors so that a learning experience can emerge from error correction (Metcalfe,
2017). This follows the same logic as Argyris’ error correction (1976). Instead of re-
warding right answers, a growth-mindset focused course rewards the learning process.
Focussing feedback on ‘not yet’ creates greater confidence and persistence as well as
encourages students to improve. Pushing students out of their comfort zone to work
hard helps to increase academic performance and enables students to grow with the
challenges they will encounter in their later career (Yaeger and Dweck, 2012).

Another central attribute, which is related to the growth mindset (Dweck,

2017; Yaeger and Dweck, 2012), is ‘grit’ or perseverance (Duckworth and Gross,
2014). It is an individual’s determination to engage in experiential learning through
trying a challenging activity, and subsequently reflecting on the more or less success-
ful outcome to improve one’s performance at the next opportunity. It requires will-
power of the individual learner (Miller et al., 2012). Grit and perseverance (Duck-
worth, 2016) or ‘The Try’ (Owen, 2013) refers to the determination to continue trying
to improve through experiential learning followed by reflection and a new experien-
tial learning cycle (see the fundamentals developed by Argyris/Schoen and Kolb dis-
cussed above).

While grit/perseverance (Duckworth 2016; Duckworth and Gross, 2014;

Duckworth et al., 2007), try (Owens 2013) and the growth mindset (Dweck, 2017;
Miller et al., 2012) refer to individual determination to continue improving perform-
ance in the face of adversity and challenge, policy entrepreneurial behaviour
(Mintrom, 2013; Theys and Rietig, 2020) refers to individual’s actions in society as a
result of developing personal attributes based on such a growth mindset and determi-
nation to continue to improve. After they engaged in experiential learning and subse-
quently constructivist learning in the form of changing beliefs, individuals can choose
to apply their learning and act as policy entrepreneurs to affect external change and
potentially teach others about their previous lesson drawing (Rose, 1991; 1993; 2005).

Policy entrepreneurs are crucial agents that can facilitate or hinder learning.
They are very dedicated individuals in central decision-making positions, frequently
in central leadership roles (Braun, 2009; Mintrom, 2013; Mintrom and Norman,

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

2009). Frequently they have learned from their own or other’s failures by reflecting
on the errors and devising strategies how they can take better control of the decision-
making process via various policy entrepreneurial strategies (Rietig, 2019).

They can achieve effective policy change by aligning a policy idea with the
political preferences and demands of the target population and thus increase the at-
tractiveness of policy change (Kingdon, 1995). Individuals can become policy entre-
preneurs by developing new ideas and presenting proposals in their professional set-
ting that seek to integrate such new ideas into practises on behalf of their team or or-
ganisation. Going beyond their job description, policy entrepreneurs actively promote
their proposals and convince other actors of its importance by repeating arguments,
emphasising facts and positive outcomes of impact assessments or scientific studies
and using their personal leadership abilities such as charisma, persuasiveness and ex-
pertise (Braun 2009; Kingdon 1995; Mintrom 2013; Roberts and King 1991). Policy
entrepreneurs are “advocates who are willing to invest their resources – time, reputa-
tion, money – to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of
material, purposive, or solidary benefits” (Kingdon, 1995: 179). They engage in a
number of activities crucial for arriving at a decision or outcome, both at the agenda
setting stage and in the decision-making process. This includes advocating new ideas
and mobilising public opinion, defining and reframing problems, developing propo-
sals and specifying policy alternatives and particularly brokering these ideas among
the different actors (Roberts and King, 1991). Who becomes a policy entrepreneur
depends more on individual dedication (i.e., a growth mindset, grit and perseverance
or try) and capabilities (i.e., expertise, skills) than on formal status or roles in deci-
sion-making (Rietig, 2014).

There are two ways how learning can be transferred into a decision-making
process/outcome such as the design of a degree programme – either policy entrepre-
neurs, who have learned in the past, use conventional bargaining strategies and nego-
tiation tactics to push their proposal trough the decision-making process (i.e. power
asymmetries), or they act as teachers (Bomberg, 2007) by choosing to engage with
other actors, explaining why and convincing them that their proposal is in the com-
mon interest.

The advantage of the ‘teaching’ approach is that it may result in self-

reinforcing dynamics when the negotiation partners reflect on the input by the policy
entrepreneurial teachers and subsequently change their beliefs. This may enable the
learners to become teachers and thus agents of change in subsequent decision-making
processes. Policy entrepreneurs are the central linkage between learning of individuals
and adoption of a common position within an organisation or government. Individual
policy entrepreneurs can persuade and convince other actors inside and outside their
organisations of the importance to support their proposal by raising awareness of the
underlying problems and educating about the causes, benefits and challenges of the
issue based on available scientific knowledge and experience (Rietig and Perkins,
2018). Policy entrepreneurs are frequently individuals in central decision-making po-
sitions with the ability to influence change anywhere within and organisation and be-
yond, e.g., in policymaking or wider society. They can use their personal acumen to
steer organisational decision-making (Mintrom and Norman, 2009) and thus arrive at

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

a decision underpinning the organisation’s position that is aligned with their under-
lying beliefs and world views. Thus, policy entrepreneurs are crucial to transfer learn-
ing processes into organisational and wider societal decision-making processes and
outcomes. By presenting their proposals and highlighting the benefits as well as criti-
cally evaluating the challenges, policy entrepreneurs can act as teachers and facilitate
policy transfer and policy diffusion across organisations and beyond. They can go a
step further and set up or join existing partnerships that facilitate learning from other
areas, jurisdictions or subjects to avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’, instead avoiding the
‘beginner-mistakes’ and implementing revised action plans that are adapted to the
local framework conditions.

The Personal Growth Mindset

The social psychology, education, organisational studies and public policy literatures
identified the central factors that determine how individuals learn, the importance of
reflection on input, and the conducive attitudes for learning to not only benefit the
learner, but to allow the learner to have a positive impact on their environment, in-
cluding the organisational level, which can in turn impact upon the learning envi-
ronment. It can also influence motivation at work with regards to underpinning
values, cognition, traits and needs (Latham and Pinder, 2005). This leads to the Per-
sonal Growth Framework (figure 5):

Figure 5. Personal Growth Mindset Framework. Compiled by author.

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

The individual engages in multiple learning cycles of factual learning and experiential
learning (Rietig 2021) through reflecting on input in terms of new knowledge/facts or
experiences derived from learning activities. Factual learning occurs when engaging
in ‘traditional’ educational activities such as reading textbooks and peer-reviewed
journal articles as well as attending lectures. Experiential learning based learning ac-
tivities can include subject-specific training in the form of quantitative data analysis,
simulations/role play exercises of political decision-making or trials in a court of law,
or presentations based on individual/group research assignments and subsequently
leading a class discussion. If individuals reflect in an additional learning cycle on
their factual and/or experiential learning and compare the new information to their
previously existing deep beliefs, deeper beliefs, policy beliefs and secondary beliefs
(Rietig, 2021) and subsequently form new beliefs or change/adapt existing beliefs,
they engage in constructivist learning. This constructivist learning can result in nor-
mative views on societal, economic, technological and political developments and
compel the individual to become an active agent of change by acting as a policy en-
trepreneur (Rietig, 2021).

Such reflections on new information require a certain level of effort, they do

not happen automatically. The motivation to engage in reflection is intrinsic to the in-
dividual but is nurtured by the learning environment, which needs to provide time and
space to reflect on new inputs as well as to engage in learning activities. One central
element of this is an atmosphere of encouragement and learning from initial successes
and failures through supportive feedback, thus allowing for individuals to move from
pre-existing fixed mindsets to growth mindsets that are focused on trying again for
continual improvement (Dweck, 2017; Owen, 2013). This requires a high level of
perseverance and emotional resilience to overcome challenges instead of giving up on
them (Duckworth, 2016; Duckworth and Gross, 2014).

Following the development of this personal growth mindset, individuals can

become policy entrepreneurs with the skills and attributes to affect change within
their working environment and thus potentially on the organisational level if they are
successful in shaping their organisation’s position on a certain issue or internal poli-
cies. For such learning on the organisational level to occur, colleagues within the or-
ganisation need to reflect on the policy entrepreneur’s input in the form of providing
new information (factual learning) or involving them in new experiences (experiential
learning), and potentially change their underlying beliefs. Learning on the organisa-
tional level occurs once the organisation has changed its position on an issue or policy
based on the input (Rietig, 2021).

This organisational level can either be the individual’s place of work after em-
barking on a career, but it also refers to the higher education institution within which
the academics teaching on a course/degree programme work. These reflect on the co-
herence of their teaching with regards to fostering an environment that allows indi-
viduals to develop a personal growth mindset and subsequently adapt the learning en-
vironment and framework conditions offered through the learning objectives within
courses and overall degree programmes as well as the related learning/teaching activi-
ties.

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Conclusion

The challenges of the 21st century (Dauvergne, 2020) will impact on the work envi-
ronment of graduates and require qualities that especially the social sciences and hu-
manities are ideally equipped to nurture through courses and degree programmes that
are aligned to encourage students to develop a personal growth mindset. Based on a
review of the academic literature across social psychology, education, organisational
studies, public policy I presented the framework for personal growth, which links the
individual’s learning based on facts and experience to their ability to develop into pol-
icy entrepreneurs, who are in a position to affect change in organisations, both within
the higher education sector and beyond in civil society, government and the private
sector.

References

Argyris. C. (1976). Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision

Making. Administrative Science Quarterly 21(3): 363–375.

Argyris. C. and Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. A Theory of Action Per-

spective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Bomberg, E. (2007). Policy Learning in an Enlarged European Union: Environmental

NGOs and New Policy Instruments. Journal of European Public Policy 14(2): 248–
268.

Braun, M. (2009). The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union – the
role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organiza-
tions and Society 34(3–4): 469–87.

Bessen, J., (2015). Learning by Doing: The Real Connection between Innovation,
Wages, and Wealth. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bomberg, E. (2007). Policy Learning in an Enlarged European Union: Environmental

NGOs and New Policy Instruments. Journal of European Public Policy 14(2): 248–
268.

Covington, M. (2000). Goal Theory, Motivation, and School Achievement: An Inte-

grative Review. Annual Review of Psychology 51: 171-200.

Dauvergne, P. (2020). AI in the Wild. Sustainability in the Age of Artificial Intelli-

gence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit. The Power of Passion and Perseverance. Scribner, New
York.

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Duckworth, A., and Gross, J. (2014). Self-control and grit: Related but separable de-
terminants of success. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(5): 319-325.

Duckworth, A., Peterson, C., Matthews, M., and Kelly, D. (2007). Grit: Perseverance
and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(6):
1087-1101.

Dunlop, C. (2009). Policy transfer as learning: capturing variation in what decision-

makers learn from epistemic communities. Policy Studies 30(3): 289-311.

Dunlop, C.A, and Radaelli, C.M. (2016). Policy learning in the Eurozone crisis:
modes, power and functionality. Policy Sciences 49(2): 107–124.

Dweck, C. (2017). Mindset. Changing the way you think to fulfill your potential.
Random House, New York.

Eccles, J., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational Beliefs, Values, and Goals. Annual
Review of Psychology 53: 109-132.

Gerlak, AK. and Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a Theory of Learning in Collabora-

tives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Admini-
stration Re-search and Theory 21(4): 619–644.

Haas, P, and E. Haas (1995). Learning to Learn: Improving International Governance.

Global Governance 1: 255–285.

Hall, P. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Eco-
nomic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.

Janis, IL. and Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making. A Psychological Analysis of Con-
flict, Choice, and Commitment. London, Macmillan Publishers. London: Macmillan
Publishers.

Hay, D. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning out-
comes. Studies in Higher Education 32:(1): 39-57.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. Handbook of Organiza-

tional Design. Nystrom, P. and W. Starbuck. Volume 1. New York, Oxford Univer-
sity Press.

Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., and Schulz, R. (2019). Agency and Motivation in Adult-
hood and Old Age. Annual Review of Psychology 70: 191-217.

Herriott, S., Levinthal, D. and J. March (1985). Learning from Experience in Organi-
zations. American Economic Review 75: 298-303.

Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the litera-
tures. Organization Science 2: 88-115.

Hughes, C. and M. Tight (1995). The Myth of the Learning Society. British Journal of
Educational Studies 43(3): 290-304.

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Huston, A., and Bentley, A. (2010). Human Development in Societal Context. Annual
Review of Psychology 61: 411-437.

Jackson, C., Jockoff, J., and Staiger, D. (2014). Teacher Effects and Teacher-Related
Policies. Annual Review of Economics 6: 801-825.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.

Janis, I. and L. Mann (1977). Decision Making. A Psychological Analysis of Conflict,

Choice, and Commitment. London, Macmillan Publishers.

Kember, D. and L. Gow (1994). Orientations to Teaching and Their Effect on the
Quality of Student Learning. Higher Education 65(1): 58-74.

Kim, D. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Man-
agement Review 35(1): 37-50.

Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, Little, Brown.

Klein, J. (1989). Parenthetic Learning in Organizations: Toward the Unlearning of the

Unlearning Model. Journal of Management Studies 26: 291-308.

Koch, M., Lindenthal, A. (2011). Learning within the European Commission: the case
of environmental integration. Journal of European Public Policy 18(7): 980-998.

Kolb, D. and R. Fry (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C.

Cooper (Eds). Theories of group processes. New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and de-
velopment. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Kolb, A., and D. Kolb (2005). Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing Ex-
periential Learning in Higher Education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education 4(2): 193-212.

Latham, G., and Pinder, C. (2005). Work Motivation Theory and Research at the
Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 485-516.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Re-

view 19: 79-99.

Lindblom, C. (1979). Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. Public Administration Re-
view 39(6): 517-526.

March, JG., and Olsen, JP. (1975). The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learn-
ing under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3: 147–171.

May, P. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy 12(4): 331-354.

Mayer, R. (2003). Teaching of Subject Matter. Annual Review of Psychology 55:

715-744.

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from Errors. Annual Review of Psychology 68: 465-
489.

Miller, E., Walton, G., Dweck, C., Job, V., Trzesniewski, K., and McClure, S. (2012).
Theories of willpower affect sustained learning. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38680.

Mintrom, M. (2013). Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: governing hu-

man embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European Public Policy 20(3): 442–457.

Mintrom, M. and Norman, P. (2009). Policy Entrepreneurship and Policy Change.

Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 649–667.

Mintrom, M. (2013). Policy Entrepreneurs and Controversial Science: Governing

Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Journal of European Public Policy 20(3):
442–457.

Nystrom, P. and W. Starbuck (1984). To Avoid Organizational Crises, Unlearn. Or-

ganizational Dynamics 13: 53-65.

Owen, J. (2013). The Try: The secret to success in life and career. Skyhorse, Austin.

Rattan, A., Good, C., and Dweck, C. (2012). "It's ok - not everyone can be good at
math": Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 48: 731–737.

Rietig, K. (2014). ‘Neutral’ Experts? How Input of Scientific Expertise Matters in In-
ternational Environmental Negotiations. Policy Sciences 47(2): 141-160

Rietig, K. (2019). Leveraging the Power of Learning for Effective Climate Govern-
ance. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 21(3): 228-241

Rietig, K. (2021). Learning in Governance: Climate Policy Integration in the Euro-

pean Union. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Rietig, K., and Perkins R. (2018). Does Learning Matter for Policy Outcomes? The
Case of Integrating Climate Finance into the EU Budget. Journal of European Public
Policy 25(4): 487-505.

Roberts, N. and P. King (1991). Policy Entrepreneurs: Their Activity Structure and
Function in the Policy Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
1(2): 147-175.

Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy 11(1): 3-30.

Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in Public Policy. Chatham, NJ, Chatham House.

Rose, R. (2005). Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. Ab-
ingdon, Routledge.

Sabatier, P. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning and policy change. Knowl-

edge 8: 649-692.

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173

Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role
of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21: 129-168.

Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Colorado, Westview Press.

Shin, J. (2008). The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal

learning. Psychological Research 72: 376-386.

Stark, R., Renkl, A., Gruber, H. and H. Mandl (1998). Indeed, sometimes knowledge
does not help: A replication study. Instructional Science 26: 391-407.

Swann, J. (1999). What happens when learning takes place? Interchange 30(3): 257-
282.

Theys, S. and Rietig, K. (2020). Pathways of Influence for Small States: Why Bhutan
succeeds in influencing global sustainability governance. International Affairs 96(6):
1603-1622.

Williams, J., Berdahl, J., and Vandello, J. (2016). Beyond Work-Life “Integration”.
Annual Review of Psychology 67:515-539.

Winne, P., and Nesbit, J. (2010). The Psychology of Academic Achievement. Annual
Review of Psychology 61: 653-678.

Wood, W. (2009). Innovations in Teaching Undergraduate Biology and Why We

Need Them. Annual Review of Cell and Development Biology 25: 93-112.

Worrell, F., Subotnik, R., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., and Dixson, D. (2019). Gifted Stu-
dents. Annual Review of Psychology 70: 551-576.

Yeager, D., and Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students
believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist 47:
302-314.

Zito, A., and Schout, A. (2009). Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theo-
ries and learning. Journal of European Public Policy 16(8): 1103-1123.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912173