1

Growth Mindset and Grit Literature review

Introduction

What causes some students to overcome significant adversity, while others quit when met

with the slightest challenge? What enables a student to fail an exam, learn from the experience,

adjust her study strategies, and earn the top grade on the next exam? Do different students’

brains tend to respond to challenges in different ways? Research reveals that there is much more

to academic success than intellectual talent – there are certain dispositions that can propel

students to success. What are these “secret ingredients” to success? Exciting new research has

pinpointed two dispositions that powerfully impact achievement in school and beyond: growth

mindset and grit (Dweck, 2006; Duckworth et al., 2007).

While extensive research indicates that these dispositions foster learning and

achievement, more research is needed on how educators can support the development of these

dispositions. What pedagogical approaches effectively cultivate these dispositions? Which

component skills underpin these dispositions? How can those component skills be taught?

Harvard Graduate School of Education researchers are partnering with teachers and

administrators at Wellington College, Bulmershe, Waingels, and St. Crispins to explore these

questions. This literature review synthesizes existing research on growth mindset and grit, and

explores a constellation of interrelated skills that may partly underpin these dispositions,

including mastery goals, metacognition, and self-compassion.

 2

GROWTH MINDSET

What are mindsets?

Three decades ago, educational psychology professor Carol Dweck and her colleagues

began investigating why certain students viewed challenges positively and were able to “bounce

back” from failures, while others were less resilient in the face of challenge and adversity. Out of

years of research came her groundbreaking finding: the type of mindset individuals adopt can

have profound implications for how they conceive their learning and personal characteristics

(Dweck, 2006; Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Molden & Dweck, 2006).

Individuals with a fixed mindset believe that their qualities are “set in stone” and remain

fundamentally unchanging throughout the lifespan. Conversely, individuals with a growth

mindset believe that their basic qualities are malleable and can be cultivated through effort and

learning. While both beliefs are still commonly held among students, recent neuroscience

research shows that the brain’s architecture continually adapts as we learn (OECD, 2007),

indicating that belief in a growth mindset is scientifically accurate, whereas belief in a fixed

mindset is a misconception.

One’s mindset is closely linked to the implicit theories one has about intelligence.

Students with fixed mindsets (“entity theorists”) tend to believe that intelligence is dependent on

innate ability rather than effort. Fixed mindset individuals tend to view failure as evidence of

their own immutable lack of ability and consequently disengage from tasks when they err or

struggle (Dweck, 2006; Robin & Pals, 2002). On the other hand, students with a growth mindset
 3

(“incremental theorists”) tend to understand that intelligence and academic skills are changeable

and that success relies mostly on the amount of effort one puts in, not just original talent.

Growth-minded students view failures as potential chances for instructive feedback and thus are

more likely to learn from their mistakes (Dweck, 2006). How students perceive intelligence can

significantly impact the way they approach schoolwork, particularly when it comes to coping

with adversity. This is of critical importance because, as any good teacher knows, the greatest

opportunities for learning and growth tend to involve some degree of challenge and failure along

the way (Kaufman, 2013).

Mindsets and academic achievement goals

Research suggests that students’ mindsets may be partially due to their academic

achievement goals. Researchers have identified two different categories of achievement goals:

mastery and performance. With mastery goals, the key concern is long-term skill development;

the learning process itself is appreciated and it is understood that mastery is dependent on effort

(Ames & Archer, 1988). Conversely, performance goals are tied to external outcomes (e.g.

grades, teacher praise) and the primary concern is demonstrating ability, usually by

outperforming others or by achieving success with little effort (Ames & Archer, 1988). Students

with performance orientations fall into two subsets: performance-approach goals and

performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). With

performance-approach goals, students try to show competence by doing better than others. With

performance-avoidance goals, students try to show competence – or more accurately, a lack of

incompetence – by avoiding situations in which failure may occur.

As might be expected, research indicates that fixed mindsets are correlated with

performance goals, while growth mindsets are correlated with mastery goals (Ames & Archer,
 4

1988; Dweck, 1986). Students with mastery goals are more likely to be intrinsically motivated,

ask for help with schoolwork when needed, and view mistakes and setbacks as part of the natural

learning process (Elliot & Church, 1997; Neff, 2004). Performance-avoidance goals are

associated with low levels of intrinsic motivation, high anxiety, low feelings of self-efficacy, and

learned helplessness (Elliot & Church, 1997). Research on performance-approach goals suggests

that they can have different effects depending on the emotional impact of a learning experience.

When learning is accompanied by positive emotions, performance-approach goals are correlated

with motivation and greater persistence (Smiley & Dweck, 1994). However, in negative affect

situations, students with performance-approach goals are more likely to show higher levels of

anxiety, an unwillingness to seek help, and disruptive classroom behavior (Smiley & Dweck,

1994). Students with a more performance-oriented approach to learning may have outward

academic success in situations that they do not find particularly difficult or upsetting, which can

mask their underlying dispositions (Dweck, 2008). However, when these students inevitably face

challenges or setbacks, their reaction is often disengagement and avoidance, which prevents

them from engaging in learning opportunities that develop their abilities, and can therefore cause

them to fall further and further behind as time passes.

Neuroscientific basis for mindsets

Recent neuroscience research has explored the neural underpinnings of fixed and growth

mindsets. It is important to keep in mind that the neural correlates of these mindsets that

researchers have identified represent a snapshot of an individual’s current state of mind. The

brain continually adapts based on experience throughout life (OECD, 2007) so a student with a

fixed-mindset at one point in time can develop a growth-mindset, and the associated neural

correlates, in the future.

 5

Mangels et al. (2006) used event-related potentials (ERPs) to study how individuals’

mindsets affect their information processing skills during a challenging knowledge test. They

found that, compared with fixed mindset individuals, those with a growth mindset paid greater

attention when given negative feedback about their mistakes, were more likely to correct those

mistakes on a surprise retest, and demonstrated greater overall gains in knowledge. Interestingly,

when the fixed mindset individuals were alerted to their mistakes, they showed associated

responses in frontal brain regions associated with increased attention, but relatively reduced

responses in areas associated with information processing and memory storage. This result

suggests that students with a fixed mindset direct their attention to feedback about what they did

wrong, at least to an extent, but their brains appear to be relatively less engaged in processing

this feedback to learn from it. These group differences may help explain why growth mindset

individuals bounce back from academic failure more effectively than their fixed mindset peers.

While the study by Mangels et al. (2006) investigated the relationship between mindsets

and external corrective information (i.e. the participants were aware of their mistakes only when

signaled by external feedback), another related study assessed the effect of mindset on

individual’s own self-monitoring of their mistakes. Consistent with prior research findings,

Moser et al. (2011) found that, compared to a fixed mindset, a growth mindset was associated

with greater “online awareness” of errors. In other words, the growth-minded individuals were

better at “catching” their own mistakes, and this greater attention made them more likely to fix

their errors (“post-error accuracy”) so they could learn from them. Fixed-minded individuals also

noticed their mistakes, although to a lesser degree, but showed noticeably reduced “post-error

accuracy.” Findings from this study suggest that increased awareness of and attention to errors is

linked to growth minded individuals’ greater abilities to learn from mistakes.

 6

If a key part of a growth mindset’s adaptive power is greater “online” error awareness,

then what provokes fixed-minded individuals to go “offline” when they make mistakes or

receive corrective feedback? A compelling argument from the latest neurocognitive research is

that the self-defeating nature of a fixed mindset may be linked to emotional dysregulation.

Research has shown that there are mindset-related differences in areas of the brain (i.e. the

anterior cingulate cortex) known to play a role in emotion regulation, social and emotional

processing, and decision-making. Fixed-minded individuals tend to show greater activation in

these brain regions, which may suggest that they find negative feedback more personally salient

and distressing than growth-minded individuals (Mangels et al., 2006). While growth-mindset

students typically view feedback as a tool to improve their abilities, fix-minded students tend to

feel threatened by negative feedback because, for them, it feels like shining a spotlight on their

fixed low abilities. Moreover, emotion regulation difficulties can lead to chronic feelings of

anxiety and poor emotional coping strategies, making it less likely that fixed-minded individuals

will be in an optimal state to learn (Molden & Dweck, 2006). In this way, negative emotion plays

a key role in fueling what one might think of as a fixed mindset’s downward spiral of learned

helplessness.

Mindset interventions: Reducing risk, promoting resilience

Encouraging research suggests that students with a fixed-mindset can learn to develop a

growth mindset, which can make their learning experiences much more positive and successful

(Dweck, 2006; Poile, Hinton, Glennon, & Townley, in press). Many compelling examples of

how mindsets and implicit theories of intelligence can impact students’ academic success come

from studies on stereotype threat in classroom contexts. Stereotype threat is defined “as being at

risk of confirming, as a self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group” (Steele &
 7

Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threat is of particular relevance to mindset theory because negative

stereotypes are essentially “fixed mindset labels” (Dweck, 2008; 2006). They imply that certain

traits or abilities are innate; some groups have them while others do not. Over the years,

numerous studies indicate that stereotype threat harms the academic performance of various

groups, including students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Croizet & Claire, 1998);

females in math and science (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2007; Good, Aronson, & Harder, 2008;

Good, Rattan, & Dweck, 2007; Inzlicht & Ben-See, 2000); Black and Hispanic students on

standardized tests (Steele & Aronson, 1995); and even white males when primed with

information about Asian superiority in math (Aronson et al., 1999). A number of these studies

have pointed out that the long-term negative effects of stereotype threat may contribute to

educational and social inequality, as a consequence of groups being systemically disempowered

to pursue certain areas of study (Good et al., 2008a).

Exciting new research suggests that instilling a growth mindset in groups vulnerable to

stereotype threat can serve as an inoculation that protects them from negative messages about

their abilities (Dweck, 2008). For example, in one study, African-American college students at

risk for stereotype threat received lessons about growth mindset, multiple intelligence training, or

no treatment, and results revealed that the group of students who learned about growth mindset

earned higher grades than the control groups who received either multiple intelligences training

or no treatment (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002). In another study of female and minority 7th

graders at risk for stereotype threat, students who received a growth mindset workshop received

significantly higher standardized test scores than those who did not (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht,

2003). In yet another study, which took place in a real school setting, 7th graders were taught

either about mindsets or study skills. The students were tracked over two years, and results
 8

showed that students who were taught about mindsets had greater motivation in school and

earned higher grades than the control group who were taught study skills (Blackwell,

Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). Together, this research suggests that encouraging a growth

mindset not only insulates students from negative learning experiences like believing negative

stereotypes about certain groups, but also has direct positive impacts on academic achievement.

How can educators support a growth mindset?

Researchers are beginning to understand how educators can encourage a growth mindset,

but more research is needed in this area. Research suggests that teaching students about brain

plasticity, or the brain’s ability to adapt based on experience, is an effective way to cultivate a

growth mindset (Dweck, 2006; Poile, Hinton, Glennon & Townley, in press). Teachers can also

influence their students’ mindsets through feedback and praise. Many studies indicate that,

contrary to popular belief, ability-centered or intelligence-centered praise can have a number of

detrimental effects when children believe the praise to be insincere (Meyer, 1992), or when it

makes them feel pressured to replicate or exceed their performance in the future (Baumeister,

Hutton, & Cairns, 1990). In one influential study, fifth-grade students praised for their

intelligence subsequently cared more about performance goals than mastery goals, while students

praised for effort focused more on mastery goals than performance goals (Mueller & Dweck,

1998). Moreover, after failure, the intelligence-praise group displayed less task persistence, less

enjoyment, and even showed worse performance on subsequent re-tests. However, those praised

for their effort maintained their levels of motivation and performance, even when faced with

challenge. Perhaps the most notable finding was that after the intervention students praised for

their intelligence were more likely to describe it as a “fixed” trait than those who were praised
 9

for hard work, who tended to rate intelligence as being “subject to improvement” (Mueller &

Dweck, 1998).

Since students’ mindsets are likely influenced by their academic achievement goals,

learning environments that cultivate a mastery goal orientation are likely to encourage a growth

mindset as well. An evaluative study on achievement goals suggests that educators can foster a

mastery goal orientation by creating a learning environment that emphasizes the following: (1)

social activities to build peer relationships; (2) customized instructional design to offer

appropriate levels of challenge; (3) adequate time for confusion and self-reflection; (4)

intellectual risk-taking and self-directed learning; and (5) reduced opportunities for social

comparison (Ames et al., 1992; Kaufman, 2013). After interventions targeting these elements,

students show an increase in mastery goal orientations and a decrease in both types of

performance goal orientations. In addition, there is a significant decrease in the tendency for

students’ self-worth to be contingent on outperforming others (Ames et al., 1992). More research

is needed to explore the potential to promote growth mindset by creating learning environments

that are conducive to a mastery goal orientation.

GRIT

What is grit?

Angela Duckworth, who is widely regarded as the pioneer of grit research, defines grit as

“passion and perseverance for goals over the very long-term” (Duckworth, 2011; Duckworth et

al., 2007). Duckworth’s (2007) definition implies grit is a two-pronged construct, consisting of

individual effort and interest. Grit and growth mindset are interdependent and mutually

reinforcing. In fact, a meta-review by the U.S. Department of Education defines grit as

“perseverance to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals in the face of challenges and

 10

setbacks” by engaging the student’s psychological resources, “such as their academic mindsets”

(OET, 2013). Students who have a growth mindset are more likely to preserve toward long-term

goals, even in the face of challenges, because they believe they can make progress through hard

work. At the same time, students who are gritty tend to stick with challenging learning processes

long enough that they have an opportunity to see their skills develop over time, which reinforces

a growth mindset. More research is needed to understand the dynamic, interdependent

relationship between growth mindset and grit.

Grit may be particularly important for secondary school students since research suggests

that pursuing long-term goals, especially those related to academic work, can be particularly

challenging for many adolescents (Romer, Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park, 2010). Striving to

attain most schoolwork-related goals requires sustained concentration and self-regulation in the

face of boredom and setbacks. Even adolescents who are considered traditionally “good

students” sometimes lack intrinsic motivation when it comes to most schoolwork, and instead

rely on extrinsic rewards like good grades or teacher praise (Duckworth et al., 2011). Of course,

this is not always the case, and research shows that nurturing supportive relationships, providing

students with autonomy, and offering learning activities at an optimal level of challenge, all

positively impact students’ intrinsic motivation and academic achievement (Glennon, Hinton,

Callahan, & Fisher, 2013; Hinton, Osgood-Campbell, & UK, in press; OET, 2013; Ryan & Deci,

2000). Yet even when students are generally intrinsically motivated, there will always be certain

tasks along the way that require taking a long-term perspective and mustering up the will to get

the job done. Grit can help students approach learning processes with big picture thinking that

emphasizes mastery and process and views setbacks as “bumps in the road” (Dweck, 2006).
 11

Compelling research indicates that grit is associated with positive academic outcomes.

Studies have shown that grit is a significant predictor of academic success when measured by

final grades, standardized tests, formative assessments, academic competitions, attendance, and

enrollment into selective secondary schools (Duckworth, 2005, 2010, 2011). Moreover, research

has found grit to be a better predictor of success than IQ in both school and the workplace

(Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). While research has thoroughly demonstrated the benefits of

being a gritty student, more research is needed on what educators can do to nurture grit in

students who lack this disposition. Toward this end, researchers can explore skills that may

underpin grit, and how educators can help students develop these skills. We hypothesize that grit

involves a cluster of interrelated skills, including metacognition and self-compassion, among

others.

Metacognition and grit

Persevering through setbacks to accomplish long-term goals – being gritty – requires

students to have effective learning strategies. Researchers refer to this construct as

metacognition. Flavell (1979), the researcher responsible for coining the term metacognition,

discusses two components of this ability: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive

experiences. Metacognitive knowledge refers to understanding your cognitive process in context,

while metacognitive experiences refers to applying strategies derived from this understanding.

These two elements are inextricably linked and work together. Metacognitive skills include

setting learning goals, developing a plan to work toward those goals, strategically implementing

that plan, adapting strategies as necessary when faced with challenges, and finally reflecting on

the learning experience (Costa, 2001).

 12

Teaching metacognition empowers students to take charge of their own learning.

Metacognitive skills give students the tools they need plan and monitor their learning processes

and work through obstacles along the way, which enables them to be gritty as they work toward

long-term goals. Metacognitive skills foster academic achievement, including a range of high-

level learning outcomes that are typically difficult to achieve. Metacognitive skills are associated

with the ability to critically evaluate information, deeply understand academic content, transfer

knowledge, and creatively synthesize and apply knowledge (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000;

Fadel, 2011). Moreover, research suggests that students with strong metacognitive skills are

more likely to grow into lifelong learners (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Fadel, 2011).

Many researchers have explored how educators can cultivate metacognition. Research

suggests that pedagogy that is student-centered and encourages reflection supports metacognition

(Tanner, 2012). Researchers have identified specific pedagogical tools that scaffold students’

metacognitive skills as well. Reflection journals, reciprocal teaching, explicit discussions about

the process of learning, and using prompt questions during learning activities have all been

shown to build metacognitive skills (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Joseph, 2010; Swartz

& Parks, 1994). Making use of self-assessments and formative assessments throughout the

learning process can also help students’ develop metacognitive skills (Bransford, Brown, &

Cocking, 2000; Joseph, 2010; Swartz & Parks, 1994). More research is needed to explore the

relationship between metacognition and grit, as well as how educators can support grit by

teaching metacognitive skills.

Grit with self-compassion

Does being gritty require pursuing long-term goals at all costs, swallowing negative

emotions and sacrificing wellbeing along the way? While more research is needed on the
 13

emotional processes underlying grit, we hypothesize that being gritty may actually depend on the

opposite – processing emotions in psychologically healthy ways that support wellbeing.

Research indicates that grit is negatively correlated with neuroticism, anxiety, depression, and

ruminative thoughts, suggesting that individuals with higher levels of grit may be less susceptible

to negative emotions (Kirby, Morrow, & Yih, 2014). If students are processing emotions in

destructive ways, they will be more likely to break down or burn out in pursuit of very long-term

goals. By contrast, if students have adaptive emotional regulation skills, they will be more

resilient when the “going gets tough” as they work toward long-term goals. We therefore posit

that effective emotional regulation strategies may partly underpin grit.

Specifically, we hypothesize that self-compassion may be an underlying skill that

contributes to grit (Poile, Hinton, Glennon & Townley, in press). Self-compassion is a construct

derived from Buddhist psychology that is an effective emotional regulation strategy. Self-

compassion involves being open to one’s painful experiences, offering kindness to oneself rather

than harsh criticism, taking a mindful, non-judgmental stance towards one’s inadequacies, and

recognizing that failure is part of the broader human experience (Neff, 2005). While self-

compassion is correlated with self-esteem, it is distinct in that it is not contingent on social

comparison, performance outcomes, or other external influences (Neff 2003; Neff et al., 2005).

Therefore, self-compassion enables a student to experience positive feelings about himself

without needing to protect or inflate his self-concept.

Practicing self-compassion can serve as an effective emotional regulation tool that

supports learning. It is positively associated with emotional intelligence, self-determination, and

subjective psychological wellbeing, and negatively associated with self-criticism, depression,

anxiety, rumination, and thought suppression (Neff, 2003). Indeed, a small but promising body
 14

of research evidence supports self-compassion’s positive effect on emotion regulation and failure

coping strategies. Two studies by Neff et al. (2005) investigated the relationship between self-

compassion, academic achievement goals, and coping with perceived academic failure. The first

study found that self-compassion was positively associated with mastery goals and negatively

with performance goals, a relationship that was mediated by self-compassionate individuals’

lesser fears of failure and greater perceived competence. The second study involved a sample of

students who perceived a recent test grade as a failure, and its results showed that self-

compassion was positively correlated with healthy emotional coping strategies and negatively

correlated with avoidance-oriented strategies. More research is needed to explore how self-

compassion might contribute to grit, and to develop effective strategies for nurturing self-

compassion as a component of grit.

Conclusion

Neuroscience research shows that brain’s abilities continually develop in response to

learning experiences (OECD, 2007). Engaging in learning experiences is therefore necessary for

improving one’s abilities. Students with a growth mindset and grit readily engross themselves in

learning experiences, which gradually develop their abilities. This leads to an upward spiral of

engagement, learning, and academic success. By contrast, students who have a fixed mindset and

are not gritty may avoid or quickly disengage from learning experiences, which will deprive

them of opportunities to develop their abilities. As a result, their abilities will not improve, which

will cause them to further disengage, resulting in a downward spiral in which they fall further

and further behind. This cocktail of disengagement and avoidance amounts to academic suicide.

It is therefore critical for educators to understand how to support growth mindset and grit

to ensure that all students have the opportunity to reach their full potential. More research is
 15

needed to understand the dynamic, interdependent relationship between growth mindset and grit.

In addition, more research is needed to identify the constellation of interrelated skills that

contribute to these dispositions, such as mastery achievement goals, metacognition, and self-

compassion, among others. Finally, further research is needed on what pedagogical approaches

effectively foster growth mindset and grit, as well as the skills that underpin them. In this study,

Harvard Graduate School of Education researchers are partnering with Wellington College and

three affiliated state schools to explore these areas of research. We will explore relationships

among various key constructs. Following this, we will develop interventions that target growth

mindset and grit, as well as skills that underpin them, and assess their impact on a diverse

population of secondary school students. This research will contribute to an emerging knowledge

base on how educators can cultivate growth mindset and grit. If we can effectively teach these

powerful dispositions in school, we will poise our students to lead successful, resilient, and

fulfilling lives.
 16

References

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125.

Aronson, J., Lustina, M.J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C.M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white
men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29-46.

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.

Bransford, J. D., Brown A. L., & Cocking R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Croizet, J.C. & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: the
intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588-594.

Duckworth, A.L., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic
performance in adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939-944.

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

Duckworth, A., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale
(Grit-S). Journal Of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. (2010). Deliberate
practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee.
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174–181.
 17

Duckworth, A. L. (2011). Self-Regulation Strategies Improve Self-Discipline in

Adolescents: Benefits of Mental Contrasting and Implementation Intentions. Educational
Psychology, 1, 17-26.

Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. How We Can Learn to Fulfill
Our Potential. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Test Your Mindset. Retrieved from: http://www.mindsetonline.com/

testyourmindset

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments
and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.

Elliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

Elliot, A.J., & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-222.

Erdley, C. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1993). Children's implicit personality theories as predictors of
their social judgments. Child development, 64(3), 863-878.

Fadel, C. (2011) Redesigning the curriculum. Center for Curriculum Redesign. Retrieved from
http://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/CCR-Foundational-Whitepaper-
Charles-Fadel2.pdf

Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Alcaide, R., Extremera, N., & Pizarro, D. (2006). The Role of Emotional
Intelligence in Anxiety and Depression Among Adolescents. Individual Differences
Research.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Glennon, C., Hinton, C., Callahan, T., and Fischer, K. W. (2013). School-based research. Mind,
Brain, and Education, 7 (1), 30-34.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test
performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662.

Hinton, C., Osgood-Campbell, E., UK, I. (in press). Motivation and Love of Learning among
Adolescents at Bedales School.
 18

Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories,
attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 77(3), 588.

Ivcevic, Z. (2014). Predicting school success: Comparing Conscientiousness, Grit, and Emotion
Regulation Ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 29-36.

Joseph, N. (2010) Metacognition Needed: Teaching Middle and High School Students to
Develop Strategic Learning Skills. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for
Children and Youth, 54(2), 99-103.

Kaufman, S.B. (2013). Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Kirby, L.D., Morrow, J., and Yih, J. (2014). The Challenge of Challenge: Pursuing
Determination as an Emotion. In Tugade, M., Shiota, M., & Kirby, L. (Eds). Handbook of
Positive Emotions. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: an overview. Retrieved from

http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm

Mangels, J. A., Butterfield, B., Lamb, J., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Why do beliefs about
intelligence influence learning success? A social cognitive neuroscience model. Social
cognitive and affective neuroscience, 1(2), 75-86.

Meyer, W.U. (1992). Paradoxical effects of praise and criticism on perceived ability. In W.
Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.) European review of social psychology, 3, 259-283.
Chichester, England: Wiley.

Michl, P., Meindl, T., Meister, F., et al. (2012). Neurobiological underpinnings of shame and
guilt: a pilot fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(5), 1-8.

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding" meaning" in psychology: a lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
Psychologist, 61(3), 192.

Moser, J.S., Schroder, H.S., Heeter, C. et al. (2011). Mind your errors: Evidence for a neural
mechanism linking growth mindset to adaptive posterior adjustments. Psychological
Science 22(12), 1484-1489.

Mueller, C.M. & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Intelligence praise can undermine motivation and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
 19

OECD (2007). Understanding the Brian: The Birth of a Learning Science. Paris: OECD.

Pintrich, P. (2002) The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into Practice, 41. 219-226. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477406.

Poile, A. Hinton, C. Glennon, C. and Townley, S. (in press). Mindsets at St. George’s School.

Richart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009) Uncovering student’s thinking about thinking. Project
Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications
for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4),
313-336.

Romer, D., Duckworth, A.L., Sznitman, S., & Park, S. (2010). Can adolescents learn self
control? Delay of gratification in the development of control over risk taking. Prevention.

Ryan, R. and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Schectman, N., DeBarger, A.H., Dornsife, C., Rosier, S., Yarnall, L. (February 2013). Promoting
Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century. US
Department of Education Institute of Technology Report.

Smiley, P. and Dweck, C. (1994). Individual Differences in Achievement Goals among Young
Children. Child Development, 65(6), pp.1723-1743.

Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence and school
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 397.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Inside intelligence. American Scientist, 74, 137-143.

Swartz, R. J., & Parks, S. (1994) Infusing critical and creative thinking into content instruction.
USA: Critical Thinking Press and Software. 519-529

Tanner, K. D. (2012) Promoting student metacognition. CBE Life Sciences Education. 11, 113–
120. Retrieved from:
http://www.lifescied.org/content/11/2/113.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr#ref-23

Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1992) Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission
to enculturation. Retrieved from:
http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/article2.html
 20

Visible Thinking in Action (n.d.) Retrieved from: Visible Thinking

http://www.visiblethinkingpz.org/VisibleThinking_html_files/01_VisibleThinkingInActi
on/01a_VTInAction.html

Von Culin, K. (2014). Unpacking grit: Motivational correlates of perseverance and passion for
long-term goals. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1-7.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe
that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.

Yeager, D. S., Miu, A. S., Powers, J., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). Implicit Theories of Personality
and Attributions of Hostile Intent: A Meta‐Analysis, an Experiment, and a Longitudinal
Intervention. Child development, 84(5), 1651-1667.

Yeager, D. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2013). An implicit theories of personality
intervention reduces adolescent aggression in response to victimization and exclusion.
Child development, 84(3), 970-988.