Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

Mindsets and Brainology: Self-Theories of Intelligence and an Intervention

Kathryn W. Boehm EG5103: Data-Driven Learning Culture Lipscomb University October 18, 2010

Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY Chapter 1 Introduction

At the outset, I must credit Vanderbilt University Professor Dr. Tamra Stambaugh for introducing me to the work of Dr. Carol S. Dweck. Dr. Stambaughs primary research field is gifted education and the effect of accelerated curriculum, with a focus on low-income students (Vanderbilt University, n.d.). Although I will be studying the effect of mindset on the lowachieving student, T. Stambaugh told me that a fixed mindset can be just as detrimental to the gifted child as it is to the low-performing student (personal communication, June 13, 2010). Dweck is a Stanford University professor of Psychology who has studied self-theories of learning since the early 1980s. Her more recent work supports a statistically significant connection between the students self-theory of intelligence, or mindset, and academic achievement. In Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention, Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) demonstrate that an incremental theory, or growth mindset, in seventh grade students predicts an upward trend in academic achievement over the course of seventh and eighth grade. This result is compelling, but it begs the question: Can mindset be changed to create conditions which are conducive to success? These same researchers also focused on two groups of lowachieving seventh-graders in New York City. A time-consuming, eight-week intervention was undertaken with these students. The experimental group was taught that their brains can get stronger, like a muscle. The experimental group showed marked improvement in mathematics achievement. As the No Child Left Behind Program Specialist in an urban charter school, I find the results of Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dwecks 2007 study intriguing and encouraging. The

Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

purpose of this current study is to replicate the 2007 study, but I will take advantage of Dwecks web-based software program Brainology (n.d.), which provides both a questionnaire to measure each students self-theory of intelligence and an intervention to develop a growth mindset. Using the software will render the intervention engaging and enjoyable for the students, and it will make the research process manageable not only for me, but also for other practitioners who might wish to employ the same intervention. I shall address the following two questions: 1) Do the seventh graders at my school have a growth mindset or do they view intelligence as immutable and innate? 2) Would completing the software program Brainology (n.d.) result in statistically significant gains in seventh grade math scores on Discovery Education Assessments at my school, as compared to seventh-graders at a demographically similar school? My hope is that Brainology (n.d.) may afford teachers in other schools with a predominantly low socio-economic status (SES), low-performing student body an elegant and powerful intervention to encourage a growth mindset and produce more learners who are willing to accept academic challenges and risks in order to learn more. Such students will be more resilient academically and, thus, more successful learners. Obtaining a quality education is the most direct road out of poverty, yet many of our low-SES students fail to complete their educations. If simply possessing a growth mindset leads to higher academic achievement and if changing the mindsets of students into growth mindsets can be accomplished by the proposed intervention of utilizing Brainology (n.d.), then we will possess a powerful approach to narrowing the achievement gap which can feasibly be implemented in any school. Search procedures I had already identified a particular study to replicate, so I used search terms related to

Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

the topics addressed in Black, Trzesniewski, and Dwecks 2007 study, which was my main primary source. I employed an ERIC keyword search first, looking for articles on middle school students, mathematics achievement, low-income students, self-theories of intelligence, attribution theory, and achievement gap. Searching on any one of the above keywords yielded so many articles that I used the logical AND connector to combine search terms in various ways and narrow the results. The articles I found were written between the mid-1970s and the present. The search results helped me to understand the development of attribution theory of intelligence as a research topic. C. S. Dwecks name came up frequently both in my ERIC search and in the reference sections of the articles I found. I utilized ERIC to search for the author name Dweck, and I found 35 articles either authored or co-authored by C. S. Dweck between 1975 and the present. Through reading all of the abstracts for those articles, I was able to trace Dwecks progression as a researcher from 1975 to the present. She is clearly a well-known, frequently cited expert in her field. This phase of my research helped me to place my questions in the educational research tradition and to understand Dwecks place in that tradition. During that search, I found Dwecks publication, Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (2000). This collection of essays is not only readable but also well-researched. The chapter entitled Is Intelligence Fixed or Changeable? Students Theories about Their Intelligence Foster Their Achievement Goals was particularly useful to me in understanding the development of Dwecks ideas. Black, Trzesniewski, and Dwecks 2007 study flows naturally out of the research cited in this particular essay. I searched the reference section of the 2007 study in order to determine which of those references might be useful to me. These sources ranged in date from 1961 to 2006. It was through this process that I identified J. Aronson as a key researcher, and I was able to locate a study on racial stereo-typing to which

Running head: MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

Aronson contributed (Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). My greatest struggle was finding full-text publications of Dwecks work, and I discovered rather late in the process that Dwecks Stanford University webpage lists numerous articles with full-text links and complete publication information. I availed myself of that resource as well. The professional publications Educational Leadership (ASCD) and Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School (NCTM) are available online, and I searched for articles on those websites as well. The Jensen book, Teaching with Poverty in Mind (2009), was recommended by a colleague, and I found a wealth of useful information in that book. I felt it essential to define what achievement gap means, and there is no better source for that than the U. S. Department of Educations National Center for Education Statistics (2010). I have a Brainology subscription, and so I was able to experience the software myself and access the entire website. I used additional internet resources to obtain statistics and facts necessary to back up or explicate my claims.

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY Chapter 2 Review of Literature Self-Theories of Intelligence, or Mindsets As stated above, my proposed research is based on Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and

Dwecks 2007 study; therefore, I reviewed the reference section of that article. I scanned the abstracts of numerous research pieces which preceded the 2007 study. I noted the use of the terms learned helplessness vs. mastery, learning goals vs. mastery goals, and entity theorist vs. incremental theorist. There has been an evolution of terminology, and so I take this opportunity to make a few definitions. According to Dweck, each student has an implicit theory, or self-theory, of intelligence. That is, we each have an underlying notion of the nature of our own intelligence. This notion is the self-theory of intelligence. There are two essential types of self-theory of intelligence. A student who holds an entity theory of intelligence believes that intelligence is a fixed quantity and that each person possesses a given amount of intelligence. An incremental theory of intelligence reflects the belief that intelligence is changeable and that a person can become more intelligent through effort, concentration, experience and other factors (Dweck, 2000). Dweck now refers to an entity theory of intelligence as a fixed mindset and an incremental theory as a growth mindset (2009). In this paper, entity theory and fixed mindset will be used interchangeably, as will incremental theory and growth mindset. The Middle School Student Prior to 1963, junior high school was exactly like high school, except with younger students. There was no concept that the young adolescents developmental and academic needs might differ in quality from those of the high school student. The middle school movement in the U.S. began in 1963 with a landmark address by William Alexander of George Peabody College,

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

and the number of middle schools in the U.S. has exploded since that time. In 1970, there were 2,080 middle schools; there were 10,944 in 1998 and nearly 12,000 by 2002 (Armstrong, 2006). Alexander recognized the need for middle schools which would address the developmental needs of the young adolescent. According to Armstrong: Educators need to understand the developmental needs of young adolescents, and in particular their neurological, social, emotional, and metacognitive growth. Some of these developmental needs are ignored or subverted by inappropriate educational practices such as fragmented curricula, large impersonal schools, and lesson plans that lack vitality. Practices at the best schools honor the developmental uniqueness of young adolescents, including the provision of a safe school environment, student-initiated learning, student roles in decision making, and strong adult role models. (Armstrong, 2006, p. 113) In our current educational environment, with the strong emphasis on standards and test scores, we run the risk of removing student-initiative from the learning process. Middle school students who have little input into the learning process and who are viewed as mere receivers of knowledge disengage from their own learning, disown the process, and seek stimulation outside of the school walls. All young adolescents experience the awkwardness of impending puberty, exploding cognitive development, increasing self-consciousness and emotional unevenness, yet minority students carry the additional burden of negative racial stereotypes (Aronson, Cohen, McColskey, Montrosse, Lewis, & Mooney, 2009). These students may attribute their natural academic struggles to these stereotypes. These researchers have concrete recommendations for mitigating the negative effects of stereotypes. First, teach and emphasize that intelligence grows stronger like a muscle. Greater effort will result in greater intellectual growth. Also, explain to children

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

that their difficulties are the result of a normal learning curve, not attributable to the student or the students racial group. Finally, assist students in identifying values outside of school which contribute positively to the individuals self-esteem (Aronson, et al., 2009). The study of racial stereotyping supports Dwecks call for developing a growth mindset. Such a mindset not only improves academic achievement, but it is also an antidote for racial or gender stereotyping (Dweck, 2006). There are informal ways to encourage a growth mindset and tap into students individual strengths. One useful technique is to draw a parallel between school work and students extracurricular activities. Students frequently believe that practice and effort will lead to improvement in sports, music, or art but not in academics. Pointing out this dichotomy to students and referring to homework as practice and the teacher as academic coach may encourage a growth mindset (Atwood, 2010). Middle school children strive for competence in all areas of their lives, and, although their growth is naturally uneven, they want to be trusted and given responsibilities whenever appropriate. They also need support and a sense of safety in case they fail to meet expectations. The developmental changes which occur during middle school can enhance the learning process when educators possess a deep understanding of the middle school child. The difficulties inherent in middle school education become opportunities for growth. The Achievement Gap in Mathematics Before undertaking this research, we must examine and define the so-called achievement gap. There is a well-documented achievement gap in standardized test scores, not only between white students and students of color, but also between students in low-poverty schools vs. students in high-poverty schools. According to The Condition of Education: 2000-2010 (U. S.

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

Department of Education, 2010), an internet publication of the United States Department of Education (USDOE) National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), in 2009 white eighthgraders scored an average of 32 points higher than their black counterparts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), despite the fact that both groups showed improvement over the previous year. This achievement gap has existed at least since 1992 (USDOE, 2009). NCES reports that in 2005 the average fourth-grade score on the mathematics NAEP assessment was 221 for students in schools with greater than 75% free or reduced lunch and 255 for schools in which the free or reduced lunch rate was less than 10% (USDOE, 2009). Regardless of whether we consider the achievement gap between racial groups or consider the SES of our students, there is clearly a gap in achievement. We must address this problem in the interest of equity, opportunity and social justice. Not only is there an achievement gap in mathematics scores on the NAEP, but the U.S. also lags behind other developing nations on the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study, particularly in the area of measurement. Middle school students are not exposed to enough hands-on measurement activities and classroom experiences which require higher-order thinking skills or which integrate measurement in math and science (Thompson & Preston, 2004). Eric Jensen delineates the effects of poverty on brain development in both the emotional and intellectual realms. He describes the practical difficulties that low-SES parents have. For example, they may have to work multiple jobs or long hours, and so they dont have adequate time to spend with their children. The parents are often stressed or even depressed, and, thus, not emotionally available to their children. It is common for parents to work nights, for example, and for children in fifth grade or younger to get up on their own, dress for school, lock the house, and walk to the bus stop or to school. The children themselves dont develop a full range of

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

10

emotions, and the children may live in dangerous neighborhoods or difficult home situations which overdevelop the amygdala and make the children overly emotional. Meanwhile, the other areas of the brain, such as the visual cortex, temporal lobe, parietal lobe, and occipital lobe, dont develop as many neurological connections as the brains of higher-SES children. Thus, lowerSES children experience diminished cognitive capacity. In response to this bleak outlook for student outcomes, however, Jensen proposes that schools foster an enrichment mind-set: Your school will get results only when you and your staff shift your collective mind-set from those poor kids to our gifted kids. Stop thinking remediation and start thinking enrichment. The enrichment mind-set means fostering intellectual curiosity, emotional engagement, and social bonding.Essentially, the enrichment mind-set means maximizing students and staff members potential, whatever it takes. Whether or not students choose to go to college, enrichment programs prepare them to succeed in life. (Jensen, 2009, p. 94) This enrichment mind-set is a classroom and school-wide approach designed to create a learning environment which will mitigate the effects of poverty and accelerate student learning. Considering that Jensen does not cite Dweck, I conclude that he defines mind-set differently than she; rather, he is concerned with students attitudes, academic capacities, and thoughtprocesses about school. How Does Mindset Affect Learning and Achievement? In 1981, Dweck, Bandura and Leggett embarked on a series of studies regarding selftheories of intelligence. The framing question was: Why do students become so focused on grades? Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements such as Your intelligence is something about you that you cant change very much; you can learn new things but you cant

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

11

really change your basic intelligence; and you have a certain amount of intelligence and you cant really do much to change it (Dweck, 2000, p. 21). Students were classified as either entity theorists or incremental theorists based on their responses. Later, students were given three choices: one activity which was described as so simple that students probably wouldnt make mistakes, the second was described as a bit harder but a chance to demonstrate intelligence, and the third was described as hard, new, and differentyou might get confused and make mistakes, but you might learn something new and useful (Dweck, 2000, p. 21). In the study with eighth graders, over 80% of the entity theorists chose one of the first two tasks, and 50% chose the easier task. That is, only 20% of the entity theorists chose the learning-oriented, more challenging task. On the other hand, 60% of the incremental theorists chose the more difficult, learning-goal task. This type of result was consistent over multiple studies, ranging from fifth and sixth graders to college students to English-language learners in Hong Kong (Dweck, 2000). Dweck has performed or reviewed multiple studies which indicate that a students self-theory of intelligence is deeply and integrally related to the students learning goals, motivation and willingness to take on academic challenges. Having determined that there is a relationship between mindset and learning goals, Dweck moved on to exploring the connection between mindset and achievement. In 2007, Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck undertook a research project involving two studies. In the first study (Study 1), the sample was 373 seventh grade students, in four cohort waves, who were all enrolled in public schools in the New York City area. The sample was diverse racially and economically, and it was gender-balanced. These students standardized test scores were moderately high, at about the 75th percentile on average, and 53% of the students were eligible for free or reduced lunch (FRL). At the beginning of seventh grade, each student was given a

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

12

questionnaire in order to determine the individuals mindset, as well as other information about student motivation and effort. Self-theory of intelligence was measured using a six-point scale with a score of 1 representing a pure entity theorist and 6 indicating a pure incremental theorist. The mean score was 4.45, and the standard deviation was 0.97. The students sixth grade math achievement scores were available to the researchers as a baseline measure. The measure of mathematics achievement was student grades at the end of the fall and the spring semesters during seventh and eighth grade. Thus, Dweck and her colleagues obtained data for four waves, or cohorts, of seventh graders over the course of two years each. A statistical analysis was undertaken in order to determine the academic growth trajectories of the incremental theorists and the entity results are best graphical form, as theorists. The represented in seen in Figure 1.

Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 251 Intervention and Results

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

13

The second phase of the 2007 study (Study 2) addressed the following hypothesis: If the different theories of intelligence are indeed associated with contrasting motivational patterns, then teaching students to think of their intelligence as malleable should cause them to display more positive motivation in the classroom, and in turn to achieve more highly. (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 253) The sample in Study 2 was markedly different from the sample in Study 1. There were 91 seventh grade students who completed the study, all enrolled in a public school in New York City, which was a different school than the school in Study 1. The sample was gender-balanced and racially diverse; however, this group was low-achieving, with sixth-grade math achievement scores at the 35th national percentile. The schools FRL percentage was 79%, as compared to 53% for the school in Study 1. As in Study 2, students were given a six-point questionnaire to determine self-theory of intelligence with, again, a score of 1 indicating a perfect entity theorist and 6 a perfect incremental theorist. After the initial assessment, the students were divided into experimental (N = 48) and control groups (N = 43). Sixteen research assistants were assigned to perform an eight-week intervention, holding workshops during a time normally reserved for students to receive extra help. The experimental group and control group both received four sessions on brain structure, study skills, and the negative results of stereotyping. The experimental group also had four sessions entitled You Can Grow Your Intelligence, Neural Network Maze, Learning Makes You Smarter, and labels should be avoided; whereas, the control group had lessons on mnemonic devices, academic difficulties and successes, and memory and the brain (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 255). Post-intervention analysis was in-depth and statistically thorough. Students were reassessed three weeks later to measure self-theory of intelligence. They were also given an

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

14

assessment over the content of the intervention lessons. Although students scores over the general workshop content didnt vary significantly73.0% for the experimental group and 70.5% for the control group, students in the experimental group, as expected, scored significantly higher83.5% vs. 53.9%on items which covered the incremental theory intervention content (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 256). The researchers also measured the effect of the intervention on students self-theories of intelligence. For the experimental group, there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score for self-theory4.36 to 4.95; whereas, the control groups scores were 4.62 pre-intervention and 4.68 post-intervention, not a statistically significant change (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007). The most startling result is readily seen in the following graph (Figure 3) of mathematics achievement. The intervention occurred between the second and third points on the graph, and the measure was students mathematics grades.

Note: Adapted from Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention, in Child Development, 78(1), Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007, p. 257.

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

15

We clearly see the abrupt upward trajectory in student math achievement after the intervention (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck, 2007). Study 2, however, did not have the longitudinal aspect of Study 1, and it would be instructive to follow these students for a longer time. On the other hand, given the results of Study 1, it is reasonable to hypothesize that students in Study 2 who were incremental theorists post-intervention would continue to follow a positive achievement trajectory. The results of this study are encouraging and impressive; however, there are drawbacks inherent in this type of interventiontime and resources. Sixteen research assistants were trained to implement the intervention workshops. Granted, the intervention appears to have been successful, but what school or school system has resources to implement such a program? Finances, time issues and lack of teacher buy-in would stop the program before it could begin. Brainology: Both a measure and an intervention Dweck and her associates have developed a web-based software program called Brainology (n.d.), which not only measures the students mindset, but it also provides the incremental theory intervention in an engaging, colorful, quest-oriented series of four computer sessions. The teacher has the ability to track each students progress throughout the program; thus, a researcher could use this as a tool to determine mindset and perform an incremental theory intervention; then, he or she could track student test data in order to measure the effect of the intervention.

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY Chapter 3 Methods Design

16

Given that this study involves an intervention which I expect to enhance student achievement, it is unethical for me to offer the intervention to some of my students and not to others; therefore, the proposed study will follow a quasi-experimental design. The experimental group will be all seventh grade students, given that the students have parental consent, at my charter school in Nashville, TN. The control group will be the seventh grade students at another charter school in Nashville. Charter schools legislation varies widely from state to state, and so it is worthwhile to discuss briefly what constitutes a charter school in Tennessee. According to the Tennessee State Board of Education website (n.d.), Tennessee Charter Schools are authorized by the Local Education Authority (LEA), sponsored by a non-profit group or agency, and funded on the same per-pupil basis as all other public schools in Tennessee. In addition, charter schools are granted greater flexibility of curricular, instructional and organizational frameworks than traditional public schools in exchange for great accountability. For example, a traditional public school can fail to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for up to six consecutive years before being in danger of School Restructuring and TNDOE takeover; whereas, a charter school which fails to make AYP for two consecutive years can be lawfully closed. In addition to innovation and greater accountability, charter schools are designed to provide parents with greater school choice and to re-engage parents in their childrens educations (TN State Board of Education, n.d.). There are four eligibility criteria for charter school admission in Tennessee, and these tend to create schools with low-performing, low-SES students, at least at the outset. The charter

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY school applicant must meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) The student has been previously enrolled in a charter school.

17

2) The student is zoned to a school which has failed to meet AYP for more than two consecutive years. (High Priority School) 3) The student has failed to reach the level of proficient or advanced on either the Math or Reading section of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) in the preceding year. 4) The student is eligible for FRL (TN State Board of Education, n.d.). Students who meet the above criteria are, by definition, low-performing or of low-SES. Sample All seventh graders from two Nashville, TN charter schools will be invited to participate. This study includes an intervention, and all seventh grade students from my school will get this intervention, while students from the other school will not. The two schools should have similar demographics, by virtue of the fact that they are both charter schools, and I will obtain information sufficient to disaggregate data by gender, ethnicity, SES, exceptional education, and limited English proficiency wherever disaggregation is useful or informative. I will control for demographics as needed. The other participating school will agree to give me anonymous data by randomly assigned student number. I will have complete access to my students data, but I will maintain anonymity in the final report. Measures Students in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) take three district-funded, standardized TCAP-predictor tests called Discovery Education Assessments (DEA). My baseline measure of achievement will be DEA A, which is given in late August or early September each

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

18

year. I will utilize DEA B and C, given in November and February respectively, to determine the effects of my intervention. The DEA Math section has a median reliability of 0.82 with a median sample size of 30,390, the test is criterion referenced, and it has content validity. In addition, the test utilizes a vertical scale which incorporates a proprietary growth formula, so that the assessments get harder as the year goes on (DEA, 2010). This eliminates the need to control for maturation and student learning. What is Brainology, and How Does It Work? The Brainology intervention will take place between Discovery Assessments A and B, during our afterschool tutoring and test-preparation time. Only students who complete the webbased software program Brainology (n.d.) will be included in the results. When a student begins the program, he or she answers six questions which give the participant a score on a sixpoint Likert scale. This score indicates what sort of mindset the student has at the outset. The student then progresses through a series of four brain challenges, posed by the Brain Orb, with the help of two teenaged cartoon characters, Chris and Dahlia. The software covers a variety of topics, including the structure of the brain, the process of learning and remembering, breathing techniques to relieve test anxiety, and applying this knowledge to improve study skills. In addition, the students have the opportunity to reflect on what theyve learned by utilizing an online journal (Brainology, n.d.). The Brainology (n.d.) questionnaire will also be given after the students complete the intervention. I will analyze the results of the Brainology (n.d.) questionnaire in order to determine whether or not the intervention affects student mindsets to a statistically significant degree. I will utilize two-variable descriptive statistics to determine the impact of Brainology (n.d.) on DEA scores. I will collect TCAP scores and 8th grade DEA scores for all students in the sample, if feasible, in order to determine if the impact of the

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

19

intervention has long-term results. I will interview students and teachers in order to collect their thoughts and anecdotes after the Brainology (n.d.) intervention. Hopes and Dreams Equity in education is the civil rights issue of our generation. Regardless of strides which have been made in many areas of our society, many children, the least of these, suffer the burden of poverty and fail to connect with our education system. Both the black-white and highpoverty-low poverty achievement gaps are evident in elementary school and middle school (USDOE, 2010). For the approximately 27.4% of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools students who fail to complete high school (MNPS, 2010), the gap grows into a chasm. When students fail in school, they risk failing in life. I have been convinced for my entire professional life that everyone can learn if they want to learn. Dwecks work is the first research Ive read which addresses the self-theories of intelligence and offers a promising, direct interventional strategy for my student population, an underserved group of young people who deserve the same chance as every other group of American children.

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY References Armstrong, T. (2006). Best schools: How human development research should inform educational practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?

20

id=bmsbReA56NIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=armstrong+best+schools&source=bl&ots =KQhOHdEpuW&sig=cMfHjAIN48yBtNitKPyDjc5twUc&hl=en&ei=u2_ATIPNE4Wcl gff4Y2QCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=on epage&q&f=false Aronson, J., Cohen, G., McColskey, W., Montrosse, B., Lewis, K., & Mooney, K. (2009). Reducing stereotype threat in classrooms: A review of social-psychological intervention studies on improving the achievement of black students (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2009No. 076). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Atwood, J. R. (2010, April-May). Mindset, motivation and metaphor in school and sport: Bifurcated beliefs and behavior in two different achievement domains. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. Brainology . (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.brainology.us/login/needLogin.aspx Discovery Education Assessment. (2010). Discovery Education Assessment Research. Retrieved from static.discoveryeducation.com/de/docs/assessment/14111_Tennessee Research.pdf

MINDSETS AND BRAINOLOGY

21

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In Ceci, S.J. & Williams, W. (Eds.) Why arent more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Dweck, C.S. (2009). Can we make our students smarter? Education Canada, 49(4), 56-57, 5961. Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids brains and what schools can do about it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2010). Graduation rate: MNPS way ahead of the curve for graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page58227.aspx Thompson, T. D., & Preston, R. V. (2004). Measurement in the middle grades: Insights from NAEP and TIMSS, Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(9), 514-519. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics (2009). Mathematics Achievement Gaps. The condition of education 20002010. (NCES Report No. 2009-081). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section2/indicator12.asp Tennessee State Board of Education. (n.d.) Frequently asked questions. What are public charter schools? Who may attend public charter schools in Tennessee? Retrieved from http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/faq.html#CharterSchools Vanderbilt University. (n.d). Tamra Stambaugh. Retrieved from http://pty.vanderbilt.edu/about/pty-staff/tamra-stambaugh/