Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
The Impact of a Mathematical Mindset Approach on Learning: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Abigail Zou and Version 1 by Jack Dieckmann.

Since the introduction of Carol Dweck's landmark work in mindset, many scholars have studied the impact of a change in mindset on learning, behavior, and health. National and international large-scale studies have validated the consistent correlation between learners developing a growth mindset (knowing that they can learn and improve) and performance on learning outcomes and longer-term learning behaviors. Whilst mindset interventions can have a positive impact on student learning, recent years have shown the need for more than a change in messaging. For widescale and lasting improvements in mathematics learning, messages need to be specific to mathematics, and delivered through a change in teaching approach, with mindset ideas infused through teaching practices and through assessment. This paper shares the evidence on the need for a “mathematical mindset” approach and the wide scale benefits that the approach promises to bring about.

  • mindset mathematics
  • mindset
  • mathematics
  • math learning
  • math teaching
  • assessment
  • reasoning
  • learning
  • motivation
Mathematics achievement has a powerful influence on lifelong opportunities. The development of quantitative reasoning ability helps young people move out of poverty and move towards greater prosperity and health [1] as well as many other benefits in jobs and in life [2]. But in most countries in the world, mathematics achievement is persistently low, and mathematics anxiety is widespread [3,4][3][4]. Many adults try to avoid mathematics in their lives as much as they can [1]. Research from mathematics education and from the learning sciences has provided valuable insights into why students often dislike mathematics and have outlined approaches to learning that have proved to be impactful [5,6,7,8,9][5][6][7][8][9]. Still, systemic change is slow, particularly as the recommendations that emerge from research are often undermined by the for-profit textbook and testing companies whose materials are used in most US school districts [10,11][10][11]. Procedural teaching, reinforced by frequent testing, remains the norm and continues to generate student disinterest and disaffection [12,13][12][13]. An additional barrier to change is the widespread myths about mathematics potential that prevail—with a persistent idea that some students have a “math brain” and some do not, with stereotypical views about those with mathematics potential [14,15,16][14][15][16]. Until recently, educational reforms have not focused on the need to change ideas about mathematics potential and have overlooked the importance of students’ beliefs and emotions as they learn mathematics [17,18][17][18]. This, and other barriers to change, have meant that gendered, racialized and social class patterns of participation and low overall achievement in mathematics continue [19,20,21,22][19][20][21][22].
This paper presents the idea of a mathematical mindset approach and also reviews the research that underpins the approach. It is proposed that a mathematical mindset approach can turn around the low mathematics achievement that is widespread across the world, as well as the mathematics anxiety and dislike that extends globally. As the term mindset suggests, the approach is concerned with students’ beliefs and ideas about mathematics and about their own potential, but we argue that these cannot change until the teaching and assessing of mathematics changes. This paper reviews key findings that illuminate the complex relationships among mathematical beliefs, mindset, teaching, assessment, and achievement.

References

  1. OECD. Skills Matter: Additional Results from the Survey of Adult Skills; OECD Skills Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019.
  2. Fries, L.; Son, J.Y.; Givvin, K.B.; Stigler, J.W. Practicing Connections: A Framework to Guide Instructional Design for Developing Understanding in Complex Domains. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 33, 739–762.
  3. Hecht, C.A.; Murphy, M.C.; Dweck, C.S.; Bryan, C.J.; Trzesniewski, K.H.; Medrano, F.N.; Giani, M.; Mhatre, P.; Yeager, D.S. Shifting the mindset culture to address global educational disparities. Npj Sci. Learn. 2023, 8, 29.
  4. Suárez-Pellicioni, M.; Núñez-Peña, M.I.; Colomé, À. Math anxiety: A review of its cognitive consequences, psychophysiological correlates, and brain bases. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2016, 16, 3–22.
  5. Driscoll, M. Fostering Algebraic Thinking: A Guide for Teachers, Grades 6–10; Heinemann: Portsmouth, NH, USA, 1999.
  6. Blum, W. Can modelling be taught and learnt? Some answers from empirical research. In Trends in Teaching and Learning of Mathematical Modelling (ICTMA 14); Kaiser, G., Stillman, G.A., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 15–30.
  7. Schoenfeld, A.H.; Sloane, A.H. Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016.
  8. Gutierrez, R. Advancing African-American, urban youth in mathematics: Unpacking the success of one math department. Am. J. Educ. 2000, 109, 63–111.
  9. Boaler, J. Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students’ Potential Through Creative Mathematics, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022.
  10. Chingos, M.; Whitehurst, G. Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  11. Steiner, D. Curriculum Research: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy. 2017. Available online: https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstreams/c40cb1d9-cc79-416c-a842-bd2a83e62758/download (accessed on 13 December 2025).
  12. Lubienski, S.T. Examining Instruction, Achievement, and Equity with NAEP Mathematics Data. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2006, 14, 14.
  13. Boaler, J.; Williams, C.; Confer, A. Fluency without fear: Research evidence on the best ways to learn math facts. Reflections 2015, 40, 7–12.
  14. Steele, C.M. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Am. Psychol. 1997, 52, 613–629.
  15. Spencer, S.J.; Steele, C.M.; Quinn, D.M. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 35, 4–28.
  16. Shah, N. Race, ideology, and academic ability: A relational analysis of racial narratives in mathematics. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2017, 119, 1–42.
  17. Cheng, E. What If Nobody Is Bad at Maths? The Guardian, 29 May 2023. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/29/what-if-nobody-is-bad-at-maths (accessed on 17 November 2025).
  18. Suri, M. The Big Bang of Numbers; W. W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2023.
  19. DiME. Culture, race, power, and mathematics education. In Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 2nd ed.; Lester, F., Ed.; Information Age Publishing: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2007; pp. 405–433.
  20. Joseph, N.M.; Hailu, M.; Boston, D. Black women’s and girls’ persistence in the P–20 mathematics pipeline: Two decades of children, youth, and adult education research. Rev. Res. Educ. 2017, 41, 203–227.
  21. Martin, D.B. Mathematics Success and Failure Among African-American Youth: The Roles of Sociohistorical Context, Community Forces, School Influence, and Individual Agency; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
  22. Joseph, N.M.; Cobb, F. AntiBlackness is in the air: Problematizing Black students’ mathematics education pathways from curriculum to standardized assessments. In Critical Race Theory in Mathematics Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 140–163.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback