Dangers of a fixed mindset: implications of self-theories research for computer science education

ABSTRACT

Psychology studies have shown that students' beliefs about their own intelligence--whether they view intelligence as fixed or malleable-have an important influence on student development and achievement. Yet the impact of these theories on success in Computer Science (CS) has not been directly investigated. Self-theories research has shown that students with a fixed mindset are more likely to exhibit a helpless response to substantial challenges and to experience decreases in self-esteem during college. Those with a growth mindset welcome challenges, displaying a mastery-oriented response, and maintaining self-esteem, primarily because they attribute failure to a lack of effort rather than a lack of intellectual ability. This paper introduces self-theories research, and relates this research to several issues in CS Education. We then make suggestions for how CS educators can consider self-theories in their teaching and research.

REFERENCES

• 1: Computing Curricula 2001. J. of Educational Resources in Computing, 1(3es):1, 2001.
• 2: E. Alpay and J. Ireson. Self-theories of intelligence of engineering students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2):169--180, 2006.
• 3: J. Aronson, C. Fried, and C. Good. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. J. of Experimental Social Psyc., 38(2):113--125, 2002.
• 4: S. Bergin and R. Reilly. The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program. In PPIG?05: Proc. of the 17th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pages 293--304, 2005.
• 5: L. S. Blackwell, K. H. Trzesniewski, and C. S. Dweck. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1):246--263, 2007.
• 6: C. Dweck. Is Math a Gift? beliefs that put females at risk. In S. Ceci and W. Williams, editors, Why aren't more women in science?: top researchers debate the evidence. American Psychological Association, 2007.
• 7: C. S. Dweck. Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Taylor & Francis, 1999.
• 8: C. S. Dweck and E. L. Leggett. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2):256--273, April 1988.
• 9: E. S. Elliott and C. S. Dweck. Goals: An Approach to Motivation and Achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1):5--12, 1988.
• 10: Kathy Garvin-Doxas , Lecia J. Barker, Communication in computer science classrooms: understanding defensive climates as a means of creating supportive behaviors, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing (JERIC), v.4 n.1, p.2-es, March 2004 [doi>10.1145/1060071.1060073]
• 11: H. Grant and C. S. Dweck. Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3):541--553, 2003.
• 12: P. A. Heslin, D. Vandewalle, and G. P. Latham. Keen to help? managers? implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4):871--902, Winter 2006.
• 13: Lewis E. Hitchner , Judith Gersting , Peter B. Henderson , Philip Machanick , Yale N. Patt, Programming early considered harmful, Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, p.402-403, February 2001, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
• 14: Y. Hong, C. Chiu, C. S. Dweck, D. M.-S. Lin, and W. Wan. Implicit Theories, Attributions, and Coping: A Meaning System Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3):588--599, 1999.
• 15: Päivi Kinnunen , Robert McCartney , Laurie Murphy , Lynda Thomas, Through the eyes of instructors: a phenomenographic investigation of student success, Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research, September 15-16, 2007, Atlanta, Georgia, USA [doi>10.1145/1288580.1288589]
• 16: J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, 2002.
• 17: Charlie McDowell , Linda Werner , Heather E. Bullock , Julian Fernald, Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality, Communications of the ACM, v.49 n.8, p.90-95, August 2006 [doi>10.1145/1145287.1145293]
• 18: C. M. Mueller and C. S. Dweck. Praise for intelligence can undermine children?s motivation and performance. J. of Personality and Social Psyc., 75(1):33--52, 1998.
• 19: D. N. Perkins, C. Hancock, R. Hobbs, F. Martin, and R. Simmons. Conditions of Learning in Novice Programmers. In E. Soloway and J. C. Spohrer, editors, Studying the Novice Programmer, pages 261--279. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.
• 20: R. W. Robins and J. L. Pals. Implicit Self-Theories in the Academic Domain: Implications for Goal Orientation, Attributions, Affect, and Self-Esteem Change. Self & Identity, 1(4):313--336, Oct 2002.
• 21: L. Vygotsky. Mind in Society: development of higher psychological processes. Harvard Univ. Press, 1978.
• 22: Susan Wiedenbeck, Factors affecting the success of non-majors in learning to program, Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research, p.13-24, October 01-02, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1089786.1089788]
• 23: M. Yorke and P. Knight. Self-theories: some implications for teaching and learning in higher education. Studies on Higher Ed., 29(1):25--37, 2004.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

General Terms:
Human Factors

Keywords:
cs ed research, cs1, self-theories, theories of intelligence