One paragraph assignment 100 words

Write a paragraph to explain to the IRB what the Rissanen et al. study’s analysis plan would have been. Report the type of analysis being done, what will be analyzed (observations, interviews, artifacts, etc.), and the steps of the analysis.

lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

In search of a growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher’s
classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school

Inkeri Rissanen a, *, Elina Kuusisto b, c, d, Moona Tuominen d, Kirsi Tirri d, e

a Faculty of Education, University of Tampere, Åkerlundinkatu 5, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland
b Department of Education, University of Humanistic Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, 3512 HD, Utrecht, the Netherlands
c School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Narva Road 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia
d Department of Education, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 9, 00014, Finland
e Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Fabianinkatu 24 (P.O. Box 4), 00014, University of Helsinki, Finland

h i g h l i g h t s

� Core features of growth mindset pedagogy: process focus, mastery orientation, persistence, individualized student support.
� Growth mindset pedagogy includes the recognition and countering of students’ fixed mindset behaviors.
� Growth mindset pedagogy is hampered by relying on the motivating power of success.
� Trait-focused pedagogy is sometimes implemented only for academically competent students.
� Teachers must develop understanding of academically competent students as fragile students in need of support.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 11 May 2018
Received in revised form
21 August 2018
Accepted 2 October 2018
Available online 17 October 2018

Keywords:
Growth mindset pedagogy
Growth mindset
Fixed mindset
Case study
Stimulated recall interview
Finland

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: inkeri.rissanen@uta.fi (I. R

(E. Kuusisto), moonamituominen@gmail.com (M. Tuo
(K. Tirri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002
0742-051X/© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier

a b s t r a c t

In this article we take up the two-fold task of creating a framework for a growth mindset pedagogy on
the basis of our previous studies and exploring the critical points of this pedagogy in the classroom of a
mixed-mindset teacher. The data include classroom observations and stimulated recall interviews. The
results show how a teacher who is socialized into the Finnish educational system pursues core features of
growth mindset pedagogy, despite not having a dominant growth mindset herself. However, we identify
critical points in her practices, which suggest that teaching the theory of mindset in teacher education is
needed.
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. This is an open access article u

nder the CC BY-NC-ND

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Carol Dweck’s (2000, 2006) theory of mindsets deals with im-
plicit beliefs that individuals hold about basic human qualities.
People with a growth mindset (also called incremental theory)
believe that intelligence, personality, and abilities can be devel-
oped. People with a fixed mindset (also called entity theory) believe
that these basic qualities are static and unalterable. People have

issanen), e.kuusisto@uvh.nl
minen), kirsi.tirri@helsinki.fi

Ltd. This is an open access article u

general tendencies toward one mindset or the other, but it is also
common to have different mindsets in various domains of the self
and others (e.g., intelligence, personality, giftedness) (Kuusisto,
Laine, & Tirri, 2017; Molden & Dweck, 2006). Different mindsets
provide an explanation for why students with equal abilities in the
same situation have different achievement goals and behavioral
patterns and thus exhibit differences in learning processes and
outcomes (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Students with a fixed mindset
emphasize performance goals (“looking smart,” “proving their
abilities”) and tend to avoid challenges, whereas students with a
growth mindset emphasize learning goals (“becoming smart,”
“improving abilities”), appreciation of effort, and understand

ing

failures as learning opportunities (Dweck & Leggett,1988; Mangels,

nder the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

mailto:inkeri.rissanen@uta.fi

mailto:e.kuusisto@uvh.nl

mailto:moonamituominen@gmail.com

mailto:kirsi.tirri@helsinki.fi

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0742051X

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.002

cathy
Highlight

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213 205

Butterfield, Lamb, Good, & Dweck, 2006). Students with a growth
mindset have been found to have higher achievements during
challenging school transitions, and these students’ completion
rates in demanding school courses are greater (Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

Mindsets are relatively stable, but they can also be altered by
educational interventions. Even brief interventions have had long-
lasting effects on students’ motivation and achievement. The main
feature of such interventions has been to teach students about the
neuroplasticity of the brain and its potential to change and reor-
ganize whenever people learn and practice new ways of thinking
(Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2012; Paunesku, 2013; Rattan, Good,
& Dweck, 2012; Yeager & Dweck, 2012; Yeager & Walton, 2011). It
has also been found that teachers play a critically important role in
supporting these classroom interventions (Schmidt, Shumow, &
Kackar-Cam, 2015). Furthermore, teachers’ perceptions of the
causes of students’ behavior and particularly their implicit beliefs
about intelligence powerfully shape their own behaviors and in-
teractions with students (Georgiou, Christou, Stavrinides, &
Panaoura, 2002; Rattan et al., 2012; Rissanen, Kuusisto,
Hanhim€aki, & Tirri, 2018a,b; Ronkainen, Kuusisto, & Tirri, 2018).
With subtle cues delivered through the language they use, teachers
can shape students’ views of their own abilities and influence their
motivation and achievements (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck,
2007; see also; Schmidt et al., 2015). Teachers with an entity theory
more often praise their students’ qualities (Jonsson & Beach, 2012;
Rissanen et al., 2018a) or comfort students for their limited ability
when they are failing (Rattan et al., 2012), which may have negative
effects on student perseverance and motivation (Mueller & Dweck,
1998). Furthermore, teachers’ mindsets about intelligence predict
their views of their own responsibility for student performance:
teachers with fixed views of student ability see themselves as being
less responsible for students’ academic performance (Patterson,
Kravchenko, Chen-Bouk, & Kelley, 2016) and may be less respon-
sive to pedagogical education (Rissanen et al., 2018a).

However, research has mainly focused on interventions, which
are often conducted by researchers, while the actualization of
teachers’ mindsets in the classroom and teachers’ everyday peda-
gogical practices in general, which continuously shape students’
mindsets, remain understudied. In three exploratory case studies
that included classroom observations and stimulated recall in-
terviews with a total of six teachers, we have previously examined
how teachers with a general tendency toward either a fixed or a
growth mindset make sense of their students’ behavior, learning,
and achievements and how this meaning-making influences the
teachers’ understanding of the teaching-studying-learning process
and their classroom practices in general (Rissanen et al., 2018a;
Ronkainen et al., 2018), and specifically with respect to moral ed-
ucation (Rissanen et al., 2018b). These studies give evidence of the
implications of teachers’ mindsets to their pedagogical practices,
and, along with studies that depict teachers’ role in shaping
mindsets (e.g., Jonsson & Beach, 2012; Rattan et al., 2012; Schmidt
et al., 2015), they show the need to strengthen connections be-
tween the research on mindsets and the fields of teaching and
teacher education. There have been no systematic efforts to
delineate the core tenets of what could be called a growth mindset
pedagogy e pedagogy that is likely to cultivate a growth mindset in
students and is associated with the teacher’s own growth mindset.

Thus, in this article we take up a two-fold task. First, on the basis
of our previous studies, we create a framework for a growth
mindset pedagogy in basic education, which gathers together key
features of classroom practices associated with a teacher’s incre-
mental meaning system (a network of beliefs connected to growth
mindset; e.g., Plaks, Levy, & Dweck, 2009). Second, we try to
develop the framework further by finding answers to unresolved

questions through a case study. Even though the results of our
previous case studies indicate a link between teachers’ dominant
growth mindset and certain features in their pedagogical thinking
and practices, these results have also raised questions: to what
extent can a growth mindset pedagogy be regarded as the practice
of a single teacher and dependent on the teacher’s own mindset,
and to what extent does it stem from the larger educational system
that relies on the core features of growth mindset pedagogy?
Furthermore, is socialization into this educational system in teacher
education sufficient for promoting a growth mindset pedagogy, or
are there some critical points that would require teachers to
become familiar with the theory of mindsets and its pedagogical
implications? In order to explore these issues, we present Finland
as a case example of an educational system which leans toward a
growth mindset pedagogy, and we show the results of a case study
of a Finnish teacher who is fully socialized into the Finnish
educational system, but does not herself have a dominant growth
mindset.

2. Growth mindset pedagogy

2.1. Core features of a growth mindset pedagogy based on process-
focused pedagogical thinking

A growth mindset is commonly associated with process focus,
which means that behavior is explained by means of contextual
factors and psychological forces. People with a fixed mindset are
more trait-focused and tend to interpret behavior in terms of per-
sonality tr

aits

and abilities (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Molden,
Plaks, & Dweck, 2006; Plaks et al., 2009). Our previous studies
(Rissanen et al., 2018a,b; Ronkainen et al., 2018) revealed how
teachers with a growth mindset rely strongly on process-focused
pedagogical thinking. This means they regard emotional processes,
learning strategies, and contextual factors as the main indicators of
students’ behavior, learning, and achievements and try to influence
these factors instead of seeking explanations in fixed abilities. The
core features of a growth mindset pedagogy, which we have
identified in natural classroom settings, can be traced to the
process-focused pedagogical thinking of teachers (see Table 1).

Supporting student’s individual processes (see Table 1) is
important for a teacher who does not seek reasons for students’
successes and failures in their fixed qualities, but rather un-
derstands that the individual cocktail of psychological processes,
contextual factors, and learning strategies influences a student’s
learning process and may create barriers to motivation and
learning; identifying these barriers and helping students to over-
come them is a teacher’s job. Teachers with a growth mindset are
less likely to make quick, stereotypical judgments about students’
talents or moral character than teachers with a fixed mindset, and
they spend more time in one-on-one interactions with students in
order to get to know them and give them individualized support.
Furthermore, differentiation becomes the basis of pedagogical
practice in a growth mindset pedagogy.

Process-focused pedagogy implies promoting a mastery orien-
tation in the classroom (see Table 1), where progress and learning
goals are emphasized and performance or achievements are not
deemed as relevant. This means, for instance, that the emphasis is
strongly on formative instead of summative assessment. Students
are not encouraged to compete and compare their achievements
with other students, but rather to analyze their own progress and
learning. We found that teachers with a dominant fixed mindset
tend to start custom-tailoring their goals and teaching content to
the students’ talents; furthermore, such teachers consider their
primary aims as a teacher to be evaluating students’ achievements
fairly. In the domain of moral education, teachers with a fixed

Table 1
Core features of growth mindset pedagogy in basic education (on the basis of Rissanen et al., 2018a,b; Ronkainen et al., 2018).

Growth mindset pedagogy in basic education
is pedagogy that is likely to cultivate a growth mindset in students and is associated with the teacher’s own growth mindset and process-focused pedagogical thinking.
Supporting student’s individual learning processes
� Avoiding quick, stereotypical judgments of students
� Frequent one-on-one interactions with students
� Learning about individual student’s barriers to learning and helping students overcome them
� Differentiation as the basis of pedagogical practice
Promoting mastery orientation
� Fostering learning goals
� Emphasis on formative assessment
� Avoiding comparisons to other students
Persistence
� Not giving up on students and leaving no room for helpless behavior patterns
� Not protecting students from challenges
� Honest critical feedback in the form of “not yet”
Fostering students’ process-focused thinking
� Praising courage, strategies, and effort
� Teaching the positive role of failures, mistakes, and challenges in learning
� Fostering students’ incremental beliefs and situational attributions
� Teaching learning strategies and emphasizing learning-to-learn goals

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213206

mindset were focused on achieving justice through punishments,
while teachers with a growth mindset endeavored to promote
moral growth in a more holistic manner.

Another thing we have found to be common among teachers
with a dominant growth mindset is persistence (see Table 1). This
means that a teacher is rather strict and does not give up on stu-
dents or leave room for helpless behavior patterns, but expects
good behavior and tirelessly demands that students put effort into
studying. Persistent teachers have a firm belief in a teacher’s power
to influence students’ studying-learning processes and in devel-
oping students’ moral character. In our observations, fixed mindset
teachers sometimes seemed to protect students (especially the
ones they regard “weak”) from challenges and all kinds of criticism,
and to use comforting feedback (see also Rattan et al., 2012), but
teachers with a growth mindset more courageously give guidance
through honest critical feedback e for instance, by using the words
“not yet”, which leaves space and gives hope for improvement and
motivation to continue (Ronkainen et al., 2018).

Central to the concept of growth mindset pedagogy is that such
teaching promotes a growth mindset. Students’ growth mindset
and appreciation of persistence and effort correlates with not being
thrown by failure, but rather in seeing failures as opportunities for
learning (Dweck, 2000, 2006, 2010; Blackwell et al., 2007; Molden
& Dweck, 2006). We have found that teachers with a growth
mindset and a tendency to engage in process-focused pedagogical
thinking are also likely to foster students’ process-focused thinking
(see Table 1) associated with a growth mindset. A key factor here is
the kind of student feedback such teachers provide: they tend to
praise courage, strategies, and effort instead of achievements and
personal qualities. By emphasizing learning-to-learn goals and
teaching learning strategies, growth mindset teachers help stu-
dents, both explicitly and implicitly, to find reasons for their diffi-
culties outside their personal qualities and thereby foster
incremental beliefs. They help students cope with mistakes and
teach how failures and challenges play roles as learning opportu-
nities. We did not measure student outcomes, but Schmidt et al.
(2015) have shown how these kinds of “growth mindset mes-
sages” together with a teacher’s process-focused practices support
students’ growth mindset and are linked with students’ better ac-
ademic achievement in the long term.

2.2. Growth mindset pedagogy in the Finnish educational system

There are many features in the Finnish educational system that

can be regarded as important enablers of growth mindset peda-
gogy. In general, the goal of education, as described in the current
National core curriculum for basic education (Finnish National
Agency of Education, 2014), is to educate responsible citizens
who are able to realize their fullest potential; the aims of learning-
to-learn are strongly emphasized. A mastery-oriented atmosphere
and implementation of learning goals instead of achievement goals
are enabled by the minor role given standardized testing and
externally determined learning standards (Finnish National Agency
of Education, 2014). Further, the educational system is based on
trusting the professionality and autonomy of teachers (Tirri, 2014).
Assessment for learning e assessment that guides and promotes
learning e is highlighted in the new national core curriculum: “In
all grades, assessment during the studies mainly consists of guid-
ance of learning through feedback. Its key objective is to guide and
encourage studies, support learning and promote the skills of self-
assessment and peer assessment” (Finnish National Agency of
Education, 2014, p. 86).

Furthermore, since the 1970s, the main principle of Finnish
education has been to maintain equality, which is manifested in the
care given to the weakest students, such as children with learning
difficulties (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013; Uljens & Nyman, 2013). Teachers
are expected to tailor their teaching practices in a way that con-
siders students’ individual characteristics, needs, and interests. The
development of the child as a whole is emphasized, and individu-
ally personalized student support is provided by multi-professional
teams. However, this kind of growth mindset pedagogy has not
been applied to gifted students, for whom opportunities to learn
and develop by doing challenging tasks have been almost sys-
tematically neglected. In Finland, gifted education has depended on
individual teachers, since neither the educational system nor
teacher education programs have addressed the topic (Laine,
Kuusisto, & Tirri, 2016; Laine & Tirri, 2016). Still, it is important to
point out that, for the first time in the history of Finnish curricula,
the curriculum published in 2014 mentions talented students and
acknowledges their learning needs (Finnish National Agency of
Education, 2014). It can be stated that, traditionally, a Finnish
growth mindset pedagogy has been built up especially for sup-
porting the growth and development of students with learning
difficulties, but the current development is gradually broadening
the scope to include gifted and talented learners as well.

The current national core curriculum, in describing the concept
of learning, emphasizes the importance of students’ self-image,
self-efficacy, and self-esteem in learning processes and in

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213 207

motivation. It states that students’ trust in their potential should be
reinforced through positive and realistic feedback (Finnish National
Agency of Education, 2014). A growth mindset pedagogy also rec-
ognizes the importance of students’ ideas about themselves as
learners. However, in contrast to the emphasis in the Finnish cur-
riculum on students’ trust in their own potential, research on
mindsets indicates that students’ incremental beliefs e trust in the
malleability of their qualities e is the basis for motivation that
endures through setbacks and failures (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).

According to quantitative studies, a growth mindset is more
typical of Finnish teachers than is a fixed mindset, as measured by
Dweck’s scale (Laine et al., 2016; Laine & Tirri, 2016), similar to
teachers in the United States (Gutshall, 2013, 2014). However, there
are also reasons to suspect that Dweck’s instrument provides overly
positive results, since incremental views were not evident in
Finnish teachers’ open definitions of giftedness (Laine et al., 2016).
Previously, Finnish teachers have also been found to support “the
theory of natural giftedness,” which holds that intelligence is a
fixed capacity (R€aty & Snellman, 1998). Furthermore, while Finnish
teachers seem to regard the academic competence of poorly
achieving students as malleable, they hold more fixed views of the
competence stability of high achievers (Rissanen et al., 2018a;
K€arkk€ainen & R€aty, 2010). In order to develop agendas for teacher
education programs, more in-depth qualitative studies are needed
to increase understanding of the domains in which teachers typi-
cally hold entity or incremental beliefs and to determine how these
beliefs influence their pedagogical thinking and practices.

3. Data and methods

3.1. Study design

The data collected for this study are part of a larger research
project at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies at the Uni-
versity of Helsinki. The Copernicus Project aims at changing
learning mindsets among students, teachers, and parents, and
project members collect psychological, educational, and neuro-
scientific evidence for these changes. The methods include large
quantitative surveys, interviews, and observations in the classroom
as well as interventions and brain measurements. We also collect
multiple-case studies from teachers at different grade levels to
determine how teachers with different mindsets implement
growth mindset pedagogy in their classroom. The aim is to recog-
nize the current situation, identify the pre-intervention practices of
teachers, and develop growth mindset pedagogy for future in-
terventions in schools and for teacher education programs. Thus far,
the research conducted in the project has shown evidence of the
implications of teachers’ mindsets for their pedagogical practices
(as described above), but it has also led us to hypothesize that some
core features of growth mindset pedagogy could be rooted in the
educational system in a way that teachers without a dominant
growth mindset are likely to pursue. We have observed teachers
with particularly strong dominant fixed or growth mindsets, yet
more data are needed on the actualization of growth mindset
pedagogy in the practices of teachers who do not hold either a
strong growth or fixed mindset. We are interested in determining
the critical points of growth mindset pedagogy that would demand
focused teacher education interventions in an educational system
that generally leans on process-focused pedagogy. The present case
study explored the pedagogical thinking and practices of one
Finnish class teacher, Anne (a pseudonym). By observing Anne, we
were able to examine what might be missing from otherwise good
and effective pedagogy in the absence of the teacher’s growth
mindset and knowledge of the mindset phenomenon; in other
words, what would be the added value of a growth mindset

pedagogy? The research questions for the study are the following:

1. How is a growth mindset pedagogy actualized in Anne’s peda-
gogical thinking and practice?

2. What are the critical points of Anne’s pedagogical thinking and
practice? Where are her entity beliefs communicated to the
students or where does she otherwise fail to promote a growth
mindset in her students?

3.2. Teacher observed in this study

Anne is a class teacher. In Finland, at the level of basic education
(grades 1 to 6), the teaching of all subjects is generally given by a
single class teacher. As will be shown below, Anne is also a teacher
educator herself and supervises practicing student teachers in her
classroom. She can therefore be regarded as a teacher who is ex-
pected to represent the ideals of the Finnish educational system
and Finnish teacher education.

The reason for choosing Anne as the subject of this study was
that she can be regarded as an experienced, skilled, and reflective
teacher, yet one who does not have a particularly strong incre-
mental belief system. Instead, she shows a general tendency toward
what could be called a “mixed mindset” (Laine et al., 2016) and in
some domains would be classified as a fixed mindset. Anne
participated in a survey that measured teachers’ (n ¼ 63) mindsets
in a teacher training school of a Finnish university using Carol
Dweck’s mindset inventory (Dweck, 2000; Kuusisto et al., 2017).
The teachers were asked to evaluate their attitudes to eight state-
ments on a six-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly agree, 6 ¼ strongly
disagree), of which four statements were related to intelligence and
four to giftedness. Mean scores of 1.0e3.0 indicated a fixed mind-
set; 3.1e3.9 showed a mixed mindset; and 4.0e6.0, a growth
mindset. A sample item is: “Your intelligence (giftedness) is
something about you that you cannot change very much.” Anne’s
scores indicated that she had a tendency to a fixed mindset
regarding intelligence (M ¼ 3.0) and a mixed mindset regarding
giftedness (M ¼ 3.75). In open-ended questions, she defined intel-
ligence as an individual’s quality that has a significant impact on
learning and living. She described giftedness as an inherent ability
to master certain areas of life and being more skilled than others in
the same age group, but she also mentioned that, without work and
effort, giftedness will narrow. However, when asked what she
thinks mostly influences student success and failure on tests and
exams, she did not mention students’ inherent qualities, but
instead referred to motivation, teaching, and studying together
with support from home and other contextual factors. Thus, on the
basis of her answers, Anne was identified as a teacher with no
strong tendency to either a fixed or a growth mindset. This
perception was confirmed in the preliminary interview. Her
pedagogical thinking reflected the general tendencies of the
Finnish curriculum, in particular, an orientation toward supporting
the holistic well-being of students and tailoring pedagogical prac-
tices according to students’ individual needs. Anne described her-
self as a strict, but motherly teacher; it was important for her to
create a learning environment where everyone can feel safe.

Anne was a skilled class teacher with specializations in primary
education, mother tongue education, special education, and
biology. She had ten years of teaching experience and was at that
time teaching a first-grade class with 21 students e 11 girls and 10
boys. Three of the students spoke Finnish as a second language.
Often in her classroom, there was also a special-needs assistant,
which made it possible to divide the class into two small groups
taught separately. As part of her job, Anne was also supervising
student teachers in her classroom.

cathy
Highlight

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213208

3.3. Method

The data for this study include a semi-structured preliminary
interview, video-recorded classroom observations during the
course of one week (a total of 19 observed lessons), and three
stimulated recall (STR) interviews (a total of 96 min of recorded
interview material). Before the actual recorded observations, a
researcher responsible for the observations spent three days in the
classroom developing an observation sheet. The observations were
recorded with a GoPro camera, which could be controlled with a
smart phone and enabled the observation of interactions in
different parts of the classroom. During the STR interviews, 34
critical incidents during the lessons, first identified by the
researcher using the videotapes, were watched with Anne. When
interviewees view past actions using video recordings to stimulate
memory, they are able to remember their past thoughts with
greater validity (Tochon, 2009). In the STR interviews, Anne was
asked to reflect freely on the critical incidents and give reasons for
her actions in these situations. In this study, critical incidents were
moments in which the researcher saw the teacher’s implicit in-
cremental or entity beliefs actualizing in the classroom.

The data were analyzed by means of qualitative content analysis
(Elo & Kyng€as, 2008). In the analysis, we first identified deductively
how the features of a process-focused growth mindset pedagogy
(see Table 1) are actualized in Anne’s pedagogical thinking and
practice (research question 1). After that, we searched for critical
points in Anne’s growth mindset pedagogy, namely, instances in
the data where Anne’s entity beliefs were manifested in her
pedagogical thinking and practice or other ways in which Anne
struggled to cultivate the growth mindset of her students (research
question 2). We coded and categorized these (see Table 2). This
phase of analysis was based on our theoretical understanding of the
phenomenon, but the categories were formed inductively.

4. Results

4.1. Actualization of a growth mindset pedagogy in Anne’s
classroom

Anne was rather strongly inclined to process-focused pedagogical
thinking. She even serves as a very good example of how, in order to
implement process-focused growth mindset pedagogy, consider-
able effort is required to get to know the students and support their
individual processes. In the STR interviews, she emphasized that all
her instructional decision-making is based on her understanding of
the students’ individual needs. Anne talked about differentiation as
the basis on which all pedagogy is built:

Well, I have multiple and flexible methods for that. I don’t put
them into ability groups according to their reading skills. Rather

Table 2
Critical points in Anne’s growth mindset pedagogy.

Critical points
– Instances of trait-focused pedagogical thinking. Trait-focused interpretations concern
� students’ personalities
� academically competent students

– Not recognizing and actively countering students’ fixed mindset behaviors
� Misreading students’ fixed mindset behavior as “overconfidence” or personality tr
� Lack of persistence and lack of emotional support

– Relying on the motivating power of success
� Not teaching all students how to cope with failure
� Protecting some students from challenges

– Implementing trait-focused pedagogy for academically competent students
� Trusting the competence stability of academically competent students
� Teaching persistence and learning-to-learn skills mainly to weak students

I organize the small groups in a way that I will be most likely to
have time for teaching each individual student … and then I
differentiate using different tasks and different working
methods, and, of course, whenever possible by using the help of
the special-needs assistant so that we simply do different things
in the classroom. Like, I have students who don’t understand
Finnish, and there is no point in their sitting still listening and
getting frustrated when we are reading stories. (Preliminary
interview)

The individually set process aims were not only related to
learning the contents of teaching, but also to the aims of learning to
work and learning to learn. Anne said, for instance, that it is
important for the students first to learn to work individually, then
in pairs, and eventually in small groups.

In her classroom, in many ways Anne fostered mastery orienta-
tion and learning goals instead of a performance-oriented atmo-
sphere and achievement goals. She said, for instance, that in
teaching first grade, she does not use exams for assessment;
instead, assessment is based on the teacher’s knowledge about
students as individuals and their learning processes, an approach
which is in the spirit of the Finnish national core curriculum
(Finnish National Agency of Education, 2014) and puts emphasis on
formative assessment. Anne regarded this as important because, in
this way, students would learn that their exam results do not define
them or their learning.

There were many features in Anne’s practice that were likely to
foster students’ process-focused thinking. She praised strategies,
progress, and effort and rarely used the kind of personal praise that
teachers with a fixed mindset tend to use (Jonsson & Beach, 2012),
which is likely to demotivate the students when they face chal-
lenges and failure (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). By giving constant
feedback, Anne guided the actions of her students, motivated them
to commit to the work, and developed their self-knowledge about
their progress. In the following example, Anne does not praise the
student’s qualities, but rather the student’s skills, and she continues
by setting the next learning aim. This mode of communicating in-
forms the student that there is no point in doing a task that is too
easy; rather it is important constantly to find challenges that
benefit learning:

Let’s look back a bit, because you were absent when we worked
with these … well, you can start. You already draw such beau-
tiful numbers so there’s no point in practicing them now, but
you can start from here. Tell me, how many balloons are here?
(Observation data, Critical incident 28)

It was also typical of Anne to praise strategies and verbalize
different learning strategies and methods of reasoning. For

ing
aits

cathy
Highlight

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213 209

example, in one of the mathematics lessons, students were doing
calculations using bricks and a place value chart. One of the stu-
dents came up with the right conclusion faster than the others.
Instead of praising his speed, Anne asked the student to explain
what method of reasoning he used, praised that, and then
explained the method to the other students. In general, teaching
learning strategies was of vital importance for Anne. For instance,
in talking about the most important aims in her work, she mostly
mentioned helping her students learn to study and learn to learn:

R: So what kinds of aims have you set for yourself as a teacher?

Anne: I hope my students will learn persistence and will become
hard-working and learn to collaborate. Lots of things are
involved in that; you have to respect others and value yourself
too. I think these are the basics. (Preliminary interview)

In talking about the aims that should be accomplished during
first grade, Anne mentioned the contents of teaching and learning
last:

Anne: Well, working skills, the fact that you are able to work
alone and concentrate … everything begins with concentration
… and you learn how to understand different tasks and do them
and how to pursue goals, and understand why some things are
studied and what’s the idea and reason behind it. And, of course,
collaborating with others and behaving in such a way that you
can work in groups … and then of course the contents that
should be covered during the first grade too. (Preliminary
interview)

Through this way of emphasizing the importance of learning-to-
learn skills, Anne implicitly fostered students’ incremental beliefs
and situational attributions; successes and failures in the classroom
were generally interpreted in terms of strategies and processes
instead of traits. Anne was of the opinion that making students
understand that failures are inevitable is important, which is why
she also regarded as important that students see teachers making
mistakes:

Often I make mistakes by accident, but sometimes I make them
on purpose, so that the children can see their teacher perhaps
does not always know things. (Preliminary interview)

The pedagogical power of failure, according to Anne, relies on
verbalizing and analyzing the thought processes that have led to
the failure. Seeing failure as an inevitable part of the learning
process is a natural part of the mastery-oriented atmosphere of a
growth mindset pedagogy (see, e.g., Chiu et al., 1997). Anne was
observed planning tasks in which students were almost certain to
make mistakes, and she based her teaching on analyzing these
mistakes, for she thought this was a good way of developing stu-
dents’ thinking. She tried to support the development of “grit”
(Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007) in her students by
requiring them to continue after failure:

I try to communicate that mistakes are ok and it’s not very
serious if you make them and somehow through that encourage
them, like, let’s just do this again and let’s give it another try.
(Preliminary interview)

However, more explicit ways of countering students’ entity
beliefs was missing, as will be shown in the section below on
critical points of a growth mindset pedagogy. Furthermore, the
most inconsistent feature of a growth mindset pedagogy in Anne’s

pedagogical practice was persistence. While Anne generally
demanded hard work and good behavior from her students, we
observed critical incidents where she gave up this persistence. We
will now turn to the critical points of Anne’s growth mindset
pedagogy.

4.2. Critical points of growth mindset pedagogy in Anne’s
pedagogical thinking and practice

4.2.1. Trait-focused interpretations of students’ personalities and
academically competent students

Anne’s incremental beliefs and process-focused thinking
seemed to be stronger in the domain of academic learning and
weaker in the domain of personality. She emphasized contextual
factors and the quality of teaching-studying processes whenever
she gave explanations for students’ learning, but she made more
trait-focused interpretations of students’ psychological qualities
and personality traits. For instance, in the preliminary interview,
she referred to students’ qualities as indicators of learning in a trait-
focused manner, but in these instances she did not mention intel-
ligence or giftedness, but rather features of the students’ person-
alities as factors that can make the interventions of educators and
parents less likely to succeed:

R: So what do you think about the possibilities that students can
grow and learn? What influences these possibilities?

Anne: There are so many things … In a way, it is the students’ …
the students themselves, of course, their family background, too
… but generally the students themselves and their qualities,
their ways of working, ways of reacting, these things have a
huge influence on their possibilities for learning and develop-
ment.… If there is a student, for instance, who reacts to every-
thing with indifference, there are students like that, so we
discuss with their parents ways to support these kids in school
and also at home, assuming that they are not depressed or
anything. It is just that there are temperaments like that … I
think we have to respect and appreciate these kids and the fact
that this is part of the way they function, but of course there are
a lot of things we can [do], or at least we can try to have an
influence on. (Preliminary interview)

Furthermore, while Anne’s process-focused interpretations of
students’ learning and achievements showed in the fact that she
never described a student as lacking in ability, she referred to the
students she regarded as gifted in a more trait-focused manner,
describing them as “competent” or “able.” These more fixed in-
terpretations of students’ personalities and academic competence
led to instances of more trait-focused pedagogical thinking and
practices, as will be demonstrated by the critical incidents
described below and in Table 2.

4.2.2. Not recognizing or actively countering students’ fixed mindset
behaviors

Anne did not always actively counter her students’ fixed
mindset behaviors, such as helpless behavior patterns and the
avoidance of challenges (see, e.g., Yeager & Dweck, 2012). In cases
where students expressed helpless behavior patterns and were
giving up, she helped them find new strategies and encouraged
them to continue working, but she did not directly discuss or help
the students handle their emotions in these situations, and was not
very persistent in her demands. Anne’s efforts to identify the bar-
riers to learning among students who did not feel comfortable in a
learning situation were markedly weaker than what we observed
with the teachers who had strong dominant growth mindsets

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213210

(Rissanen et al., 2018a,b; Ronkainen et al., 2018). Apparently, she
interpreted the uneasiness of students to be caused by fixed traits
(such as shyness) and believed there was not much she could do to
help them. In one lesson, a student was lying on his desk. Anne
asked him to sit up properly and modeled a better study posture.
The student obeyed, but soon afterwards sank back into his lying-
down position. Here is how Anne reflected on the situation in the
STR interview:

He is the kind of student who is not very open to receiving any
kind of support or help, and he has a strong conviction that he is
very able and knows everything and, in reality, quite often he
does not. So I have to be very sensitive with him, and, like now,
this posture of his is one indication that he is not very willing to
work … but he did not mind me correcting him. He tried and
later on I noticed again that he tried to take a better posture, so
step by step they will mature. (STR interview, Critical incident 8)

In other interviews, Anne described this student as very chal-
lenging because he is “so certain of himself,” yet he lacks persis-
tence and does not accept help from a teacher when things get
difficult. Instead, he gives up. The kind of overconfidence Anne
describes here is typical of students with a fixed mindset and is
preserved, in part, by doing easy tasks rather than more difficult
ones (Ehrlinger, Mitchum, & Dweck, 2016). Furthermore, fixed
mindset students, who are more concerned with appearing smart
than becoming smart, have a greater tendency to engage in self-
handicapping behavior and avoid putting effort into studying
(Rhodewalt, 1994). The behavior of the student in the quotation
above may also reflect these tendencies. However, Anne was not
able to recognize these dynamics as possible causes of her student’s
behavior and thereby challenge his fixed mindset.

4.2.3. Relying on the motivating power of success
Despite the fact that Anne told us she believes in the pedagog-

ical power of failure, in practice she seemed to rely more on the
motivating power of success rather than helping her students
handle negative emotions by attributing their failures to things
other than their personal qualities:

I feel that first graders have a very natural motivation to learn. I
guess they should have enough experience of success and
experience mastering things so that their self-conceptions as
learners grow, like, I know things and I can do things …. It is not
a thing that would develop or that would be lost suddenly or in a
short time, but like … I think it is a process of growing to become
a school kid and growing to become a student. (Preliminary
interview)

In situations where she thought failures or mistakes would
cause emotional burdens for a student, she endeavored to prevent
the students from making such mistakes. For instance, she tried to
avoid situations where the “overconfident” student described in
section 3.2.1 would have to face his mistakes or failures. Here is one
example of a critical incident with another student during a lesson
in the student’s mother tongue:

Students work in small groups trying to arrange the group
members in alphabetical order on the basis of the first letter of
their surname. When one group finishes the task, Anne comes to
them and asks them to tell her their letters. One of the students
remains silent. Eventually, the other students help her [the
student] find the right answer. Anne gives the group the next
task and moves on to another group. (Critical incident 15)

In the STR interview she reflected on this situation:

It is already January so I would have hoped that she would’ve
said something or even looked at me or anything. … She is such
a lovely girl, but very shy. … Well, she is surely a very able
student, but I usually don’t ask her anything unless I really see
she is willing to answer; somehow, she has to be so very certain
about her answer. (STR interview, Critical incident 15)

This situation apparently continued to bother Anne, and at the
end of the week she raised the subject again in the last interview:

I was thinking, maybe in that situation, I could have been more
helpful. But, you see, it’s not like she would not be able to do it. I
know that she is so capable. The only thing is that she would
need the courage to say the answer out loud … in this group of
four students she could have had the courage …. But on the
other hand, the other students were so lovely in the situation.
(STR interview)

Overall, building students’ academic self-esteem as learners
through successful experiences was a central feature of Anne’s
pedagogical thinking. The Finnish national core curriculum like-
wise emphasizes the importance of this by stating that

experiences of success encourage students to learn more but
also to understand that failures and incorrect answers are part of
the learning process. They are used in the instruction in a
manner that promotes learning and is respectful to the students
(Finnish National Agency of Education, 2014, p. 80).

In accordance with the Finnish curriculum, Anne saw the
pedagogical power of failure in its ability to develop students’
meta-cognition and thinking skills. However, by allowing only
those students who do not mind failure to experience it and make
mistakes, she missed another important aspect of the pedagogical
power of failure, which is to teach the students how to cope with
their fear of failure or the negative emotions caused by making
mistakes. This is something more than is connoted by the curricular
expression of using failure in teaching “in a manner that is
respectful to the students.” By comparison with Anne, our teachers
with a dominant growth mindset more persistently challenged
their students and did not protect them from making mistakes
(Rissanen et al., 2018a,b; Ronkainen et al., 2018).

4.2.4. Implementing trait-focused pedagogy for academically
competent students

In a manner that is typical of Finnish education and Finnish
teachers (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013), taking care of the weakest stu-
dents seemed to be a primary concern, one that shaped Anne’s
pedagogical practice. Anne was less persistent with students she
regarded as academically competent. It is worth noting that the
three students on whom Anne reflected as having different kinds of
emotional and motivational barriers to learning, specifically, lack-
ing courage or persistence, not accepting teacher help, and giving
up easily, were also the ones she described as academically
competent. Here are some examples:

I have this one student, so very competent, she is outstanding in
almost everything, and I don’t actually even know what she
already knows and is able to do, because she is so shy and
guarded and like … encouraging her does not work at all …. I
have been thinking, like, I will let her to muster up her courage,

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213 211

and at some point, for she is so smart, at some point she will
have the willingness to express it too. (Preliminary interview)

Mm, well, he is like, there is no point in pushing him; he has to
be given time. Sometimes the whole lesson goes like … if
something happens already in the morning, an instance where
he seizes up, then the whole day can be ruined for him. … He is
academically very competent, but in these types of situations
and in different social situations there are problems. (STR
interview, Critical incident 23)

It was clear that Anne put considerable trust in the competence
stability of the students of whose abilities she had been convinced,
which is typical of Finnish teachers (K€arkk€ainen & R€aty, 2010). This
is something we observed also among our growth mindset teachers
(Rissanen et al., 2018a). Anne’s strategy for supporting her
competent, but anxious students was not to put too much pressure
on them in order to avoid defensive reactions and to encourage
them to trust their own skills and abilities. She considered it
important to give these students time and trusted that their gradual
maturation process would lead them to overcome the emotional
barriers to learning. Since the students’ academic progress was
sufficient, she did not regard their occasional lack of effort and
persistence as too worrying, and she wanted to be “sensitive”.
However, the Finnish national core curriculum (Finnish National
Agency of Education, 2014) maintains that every student should
be helped to reach their fullest potential, which means that prior-
itizing the needs of those who need extra support for academic
progress should be rethought. Furthermore, since the national
curriculum strongly emphasizes goals of learning-to-learn in the
early grades, academic skills should not be the standard against
which a teacher determines which students are in need of extra
support. In the data for this study, the three students Anne
described as competent appeared to be students who were very
much in need of intensive support to learn persistence and how to
face challenges.

5. Discussion

In this article, we presented a framework for a growth mindset
pedagogy by identifying its core features from our previous case
studies, which have examined the implications of teachers’ mind-
sets for their pedagogical thinking and practice. We also presented
results from a case study conducted in a Finnish context where the
educational system and curriculum are built around principles that
accord with process-focused pedagogical thinking, which is the
essence of a growth mindset pedagogy. By observing and con-
ducting STR interviews with an experienced mixed-mindset
teacher, we were able to investigate whether the teacher’s social-
ization into process-focused pedagogical thinking, as reflected in
the Finnish national curriculum and teacher education, enables the
actualization of the core features of growth mindset pedagogy in
the classroom or whether were critical points at which a teacher’s
entity beliefs seemed to have an influence on pedagogical
decisions.

We found that many core features of growth mindset pedagogy
actualized in our teacher, Anne’s, classroom: she supported stu-
dent’s individual learning processes, promoted mastery orientation,
and fostered process-focused thinking in her students. Furthermore,
many features that have been previously associated with teachers’
strong dominant fixed mindsets, such as comforting students for
their lack of ability (Jonsson & Beach, 2012; Rattan et al., 2012;
Rissanen et al., 2018a) were not observed in her pedagogical in-
teractions with the students. However, the clearest difference be-
tween Anne and the growth mindset teachers we have previously

observed was in Anne’s lack of persistence in teaching some of her
students. We observed critical instances where the influence of
Anne’s fixed beliefs concerning students’ personalities and
academically competent students, as well as her lack of under-
standing of the mindset phenomenon, became apparent and
diminished her persistence. For instance, the first critical point we
identified in Anne’s practices was that she did not recognize or
actively counter students’ fixed mindset behaviors. She was unable to
analyze the reasons behind her students’ over-confidence, lack of
persistence, or self-handicapping behavior e features typically
attached to students’ fixed mindsets and their way of avoiding
failure, while putting effort into appearing smart and talented
(Ehrlinger et al., 2016; Rhodewalt, 1994; Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
When a teacher understands these dynamics and is sensitive to
students’ emotions related to learning and how students them-
selves justify their successes and failures, she can actively engage in
countering their attributions, which can powerfully influence
motivation. This is similar to the aims of growth mindset in-
terventions implemented by researchers (Schmidt et al., 2015).

Furthermore, students’ motivational frameworks based on a
fixed mindset cannot be changed by relying solely on the motiva-
tional power of mastery experiences, as was Anne’s ideal. She relied
on the motivating power of success and protected some of her stu-
dents from challenges instead of teaching them how to cope with
mistakes and failures. Research has shown that mastery experi-
ences are an important source for the development of students’
academic self-efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2008). However, mindset
studies also question the reasonableness of relying solely on the
motivating power of mastery. Experiences of success do not help
students cope with future failures; students also need to be taught
how to interpret failure and cope with it, and how to understand
the importance of effort and not blame their abilities for the diffi-
culties (Dweck, 2000, p. 57).

A third critical point in Anne’s pedagogy was how she imple-
mented trait-focused pedagogy for academically competent students.
This is something we have observed in Finnish teachers who have a
strong dominant growth mindset. A lesser likelihood of imple-
menting a growth mindset pedagogy for academically competent
students, based on the teacher’s conviction of their competence
stability (K€arkk€ainen & R€aty, 2010; Rissanen et al., 2018a), is an
important critical point that is emerging as typical of the Finnish
context. Apparently, the smooth academic progress of some stu-
dents makes teachers regard it as more ethical to prioritize sup-
porting the needs of other, low-achieving students. However, if the
high-achieving students’ growth mindset is not developed during
comprehensive school, where they can still succeed with ease, and
if they are not taught to value effort, hard work, set goals on the
basis of their current level, and face setbacks, they are at great risk
of becoming dropouts from the higher levels of education and
never reaching their full potential (Blackwell et al., 2007). A fixed
mindset may develop at a very young age in children who are
praised for their talents (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). This leads to the
children becoming more focused on performance goals than on
learning goals, putting their efforts into appearing smart, and
avoiding challenges (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Mangels et al., 2006).
Research has shown that high-achievers with fixed mindsets do not
cope well with challenges (Blackwell et al., 2007). Furthermore,
mindset sometimes predicts academic success better than intelli-
gence (Dweck, 2000, pp. 29e38). However, this understanding of
academically competent students as fragile and in need of support
has been lacking in the growth mindset teachers we have observed.

The results of the present study support our view that while
many of the core features of growth mindset pedagogy accord with
state-of-the-art conceptions of “good pedagogy” and are probably
already being implemented in research-based teacher education,

cathy
Highlight

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213212

teachers’ entity beliefs affect their pedagogical thinking, which
makes it important to acknowledge develop the implicit belief
systems of teachers in teacher education. Furthermore, the critical
points we have observed reveal how lack of knowledge about the
mindset phenomenon hinders teachers from understanding the
sometimes counter-intuitive implications of their own practices or
from interpreting student behavior correctly. Thus, space should be
made in teacher education courses for research-based knowledge
on the effects of students’ implicit entity beliefs on their motiva-
tional approaches, behaviors, learning, and achievements discussed
above.

The framework of a growth mindset pedagogy as presented in
this article can be used as a tool to guide observations in future
studies. It can also be used as a pedagogical tool in teacher edu-
cation to steer, for instance, students’ self-reflective practice and
observation tasks connected to guided teaching practice. The core
features of a growth mindset pedagogy we have presented are
based on our observations of the practices of teachers who have a
dominant growth mindset. However, the core feature of many
mindset interventions, which has proven to be successful in
developing students’ growth mindset-oriented motivational
frameworks and helping them cope with failures and challenges,
we have not observed in natural settings. This core feature is
teaching students about the malleability of the brain and the
malleability of qualities, and repeatedly reminding them to think of
their brains as muscles that need practice and effort to develop
(Schmidt et al., 2015). This is something that should be presented as
part of the toolkit of a growth mindset pedagogy in teacher
education.

It is important to continue research into how growth mindset
pedagogy is actualized at different levels of education and in
educational systems, what are its critical points in different con-
texts, and what are the effects on students. Previous studies have
had partly ambiguous results concerning the impact of teachers’
mindsets for pedagogical practices and for the development of
students’ mindsets. In the intervention study by Schmidt et al.
(2015), two teachers were observed who had been identified as
holding a growth mindset on the basis of Dweck’s scale (2000,
2006). Only one of them actualized a growth mindset pedagogy in
practice e and only this teacher’s students had long-lasting benefits
from the mindset intervention in which they had participated. Park,
Tsukyama, Gunderson, Levine, and Beilock (2016) conducted a
study in which they explored first- and second-grade students’
motivational frameworks and mathematics achievements, and
found that these were connected to teacher-reported mastery-
oriented atmospheres in the classroom, but not very much to the
teachers’ mindsets. While the reliability of evaluating individual
teachers’ mindsets on the basis of the mindset scale can be ques-
tioned, the results of these studies point up the continuing need for
finely nuanced qualitative studies that identify the implications of
teachers’ implicit belief systems for their pedagogical practices.

Declaration of interests

Authors have no competing interests to declare.

References

Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of in-
telligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal
study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246e263.

Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of
personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19e30.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues
impact children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314e316.

Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perse-
verance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 92, 1087e1101.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and develop-

ment. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random

House Publishing Group.
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68, 16e22.
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle

East, the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67,
614e622.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 265e273.

Ehrlinger, J., Mitchum, A. L., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Understanding overconfidence:
Theories of intelligence, preferential attention and distorted self-assessment.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 94e100.

Elo, S., & Kyng€as, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 62, 107e115.

Finnish National Agency of Education. (2014). National core curriculum for basic
education. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency of Education.

Georgiou, S. N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attri-
butions of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student.
Psychology in the Schools, 39, 583e595.

Gutshall, C. A. (2013). Teachers’ mindsets for students with and without disabilities.
Psychology In The Schools, 50, 1073e1083.

Gutshall, C. A. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ mindset beliefs about student ability.
Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 12, 785e802.

Jonsson, A.-C., & Beach, D. (2012). Predicting the use of praise among pre-service
teachers: The influence of implicit theories of intelligence, social comparison
and stereotype acceptance. Education Inquiry, 3, 259e281.

K€arkk€ainen, R., & R€aty, H. (2010). Parents’ and teachers’ views of the child’s aca-
demic potential. Educational Studies, 36, 229e232.

Kuusisto, E., Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2017). How do school children and adolescents
perceive the nature of talent development? A case study from Finland. Educa-
tion Research International, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4162957.

Laine, S., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2016). Finnish teachers’ conceptions of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 151e167.

Laine, S., & Tirri, K. (2016). Finnish elementary school teachers meet the needs of
their gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27, 149e164.

Mangels, J., 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, 75e86.

Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay the-
ories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development.
American Psychologist, 61, 192e203.

Molden, D. C., Plaks, J. E., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). “Meaningful” social inferences:
Effects of implicit theories on inferential processes. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42, 738e752.

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine chil-
dren’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 33e52.

Park, D., Tsukayama, E., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016).
Children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to
teacher-reported instructional practices, but not the teacher’s theory of intel-
ligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 300e313.

Patterson, M., Kravchenko, N., Chen-Bouck, L., & Kelley, J. A. (2016). General and
domain specific beliefs about intelligence, ability, and effort among preservice
and practicing teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 180e910.

Paunesku, D. (2013). Scaled-up social psychology: Intervening wisely and broadly in
education (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/
~paunesku/paunesku_2013 .

Plaks, J. E., Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Corner-
stones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personal Psychology Compass, 3,
1069e1081.

Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok e not everyone can be good at
math”: Instructors with entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 731e737.

R€aty, H., & Snellman, L. (1998). Social representations of educability. Social Psy-
chology of Education, 1, 359e373.

Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhim€aki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018a). Teachers’ implicit
meaning systems and their implications for pedagogical thinking and practice:
A case study from Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62,
487e500.

Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhim€aki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018b). The implications of
teachers’ implicit theories for moral education: A case study from Finland.
Journal of Moral Education, 47, 63e77.

Ronkainen, R., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2018). Pedagogical leadership in action: A case
study of a teacher with growth mindset in learning. Manuscript in preparation.

Rhodewalt, F. (1994). Conceptions of ability, achievement goals, and individual
differences in self-handicapping behavior: On the application of implicit the-
ories. Journal of Personality, 62, 67e85.

Schmidt, J. A., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2015). Exploring teacher effects for
mindset intervention outcomes in seventh-grade science classes. Middle Grades
Research Journal, 10, 17e32.

Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 40, 1e10.

Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref9

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref10

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref11

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref12

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref13

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref14

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref15

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref16

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref17

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref18

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref19

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref20

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref21

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref9a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref22

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref23

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref24

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4162957

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref3a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref4a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref25

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref26

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref27

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref28

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref29

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref30

https://web.stanford.edu/%7Epaunesku/paunesku_2013

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref32

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref33

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref34

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref6a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref7a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref8a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref35

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref37

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref1a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref2a

cathy
Highlight

I. Rissanen et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 77 (2019) 204e213 213

for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 84e96.
Tochon, F. V. (2009). From video cases to video pedagogy: A framework for video

feedback and reflection in pedagogical research praxis. In R. Goldman, R. Pea,
B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 53e65).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.

Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2013). Educational leadership in Finland or building a
nation with Bildung. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influence on values and
practices in nordic educational leadership: Is there a nordic model? (pp. 31e48).
Dordrecht: Springer.

Usher, E., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of
the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78,
751e796.

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When stu-
dents believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psy-
chologist, 47, 302e314.

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in educa-
tion: They’re not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267e301.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref2a

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref38

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref39

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref40

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref41

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0742-051X(18)30794-7/sref42

In search of a growth mindset pedagogy: A case study of one teacher’s classroom practices in a Finnish elementary school

1. Introduction
2. Growth mindset pedagogy
2.1. Core features of a growth mindset pedagogy based on process-focused pedagogical thinking
2.2. Growth mindset pedagogy in the Finnish educational system
3. Data and methods
3.1. Study design
3.2. Teacher observed in this study
3.3. Method
4. Results
4.1. Actualization of a growth mindset pedagogy in Anne’s classroom
4.2. Critical points of growth mindset pedagogy in Anne’s pedagogical thinking and practice
4.2.1. Trait-focused interpretations of students’ personalities and academically competent students
4.2.2. Not recognizing or actively countering students’ fixed mindset behaviors
4.2.3. Relying on the motivating power of success
4.2.4. Implementing trait-focused pedagogy for academically competent students

5. Discussion
Declaration of interests
References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ One paragraph assignment 100 words ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order