I think I can, I think I can’t: Design principles for fostering a growth mindset in the early years

ABSTRACT

“I think I can, I think I can’ puffed “The Little Engine That Could.” The American folktale taught the value of optimism and hard work reflecting a growth mindset belief about abilities. A growth mindset positively impacts academic achievement, motivation, and children’s agency for learning. Few studies have explored how early childhood teachers can develop children’s growth mindsets. We report on a study that developed design principles to assist early childhood teachers to foster a growth mindset in children in early childhood classrooms at one school in Western Australia using design-based research. Two iterations of the principles were designed and examined with teachers of children aged 3.5 years to 6.5 years of age. During three focus groups conducted at the beginning, middle and end of two iterations, the researcher and teachers collaboratively developed, reflected, and refined the principles. Weekly video diaries recorded the participant’s reflections on the principles. The nine principles were found to improve early childhood teacher knowledge and practice to foster a growth mindset in children. The results from this study contribute theoretical and practical knowledge to support the inclusion of mindset theory in early childhood contexts to foster children’s growth mindset for positive learning outcomes.

Introduction

Student beliefs about their abilities strongly influence motivation, achievement and learning (Dweck, 2016). The student who thinks “I can” holds a growth mindset and is more likely to achieve at a higher level. While the student who thinks “I can’t” is more likely to give up and reach their achievement plateau. There is increasing evidence that students’ recognition of their capacity to learn using a growth mindset assists them to achieve greater success in learning and experience positive wellbeing (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Developing students’ growth mindsets in the early years builds a strong foundation for future schooling. While much research has been conducted to support primary and high school teachers to develop a growth mindset in older students and adolescents, very little empirical research has investigated how to support early childhood teachers to foster a growth mindset in students. Boylan, Barblett, and Knaus (2018) found early childhood teachers acknowledge the need for students to develop a growth mindset for successful learning, and believe it is their role to do so but do not believe they have the confidence or knowledge to incorporate the teaching of mindset theory. This study developed nine design principles to assist early childhood teachers to foster students’ growth mindset.

Mindset theory

Mindset theory has the potential to transform the way educators think about learning and teaching. Dweck (2017) theorized mindsets are your beliefs about basic qualities such as your intelligence, talents, and personality. Many studies have shown that mindsets play a significant role in motivation, self-regulation, achievement, and interpersonal processes (Dweck, 2017; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Two types of mindsets were identified, fixed (I think I can’t) and growth (I think I can) situated at either end of a continuum. Those with a fixed mindset view their abilities as static, exert less effort to succeed and reject challenging learning opportunities for fear of failure. Those with a growth mindset believe their intelligence is malleable, understand mistakes are part of the learning process and persevere when faced with challenges or setbacks (Dweck, 1999, 2007). Dweck (2016) describes a person as not having one mindset or the other all the time but a mixture of both dependent on the task. A learner can be placed along the mindset continuum for different tasks or abilities at different times of their life. Significantly Dweck and colleagues (Dweck, 2007; Dweck et al., 1995) have shown mindsets are influenced by the messages we receive around us and can be changed. Recognizing that one has different mindsets for learning, maximizes opportunities for students to take charge and develop agency over their learning. Establishing high quality learning environments during the early years to nurture a growth mindset assists students to exercise autonomy and ownership of learning.

The established literature on mindset theory describes the findings of studies researching the impact of mindset interventions with primary and adolescent students (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2019) with very few studies researching the development of student’s growth mindset in the early years. Claro, Paunesku, and Dweck (2016) found 10^th grade students in Chile with a growth mindset exhibited a positive relationship with achievement, and for those students from lower income families, a growth mindset provided a buffer against the effects of poverty on achievement. In another study, brief mindset modules delivered to 1,594 students in diverse high schools in the United States were beneficial for poor performing students and raised grades for students at risk of dropping out (Paunesku et al., 2015). A scalable intervention trialed by Yeager et al. (2019) in secondary education in the United States, reported improved grades among lower-achieving students and increased overall enrollment in advanced mathematics courses. All three studies report positive impacts on learning and achievement for students who hold a growth mindset.

Critique of Dweck’s Theory

The detractors of Dweck’s implicit theory of intelligence argue the model is seemingly one-dimensional and dualistic (Graham, 1995; Harackiewicz & Elliott, 1995), has not considered other factors such as stability of intelligence over time, hereditary and environmental factors (Gelman, Heyman, & Legare, 2007; Gottfried, Gelman, & Schultz, 1999; Graham, 1995; Haslam, Bastian, & Bissett, 2004; Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006) and contend that a growth mindset is not enough, claiming a third mindset of deliberate practice is needed (Ericson & Pool, 2016). Critics claim that the proponents of growth mindset research have overstated findings in papers, books and the popular press, talking of the mindset revolution (Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, & Macnamara, 2018). Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, and Macnamara (2018) undertook two meta-analyzes of the literature reviewing 273 and 43 studies respectively to examine the effectiveness of mindset interventions on academic achievement and potential moderating factors. The findings indicated a weak correlation (0.19) between a growth mindset and academic achievement with the average effect size for educational interventions was 0.57. In response to this finding, Dweck (2018) argued that an effect size of 0.20 is a large effect in a real-world setting. Additionally, costs associated with these mindset interventions are low per student, they are practical to implement and provide a reasonable effect on a cost basis. Dweck and colleagues recently undertook a nationwide study of mindset interventions to examine which work best and how they can be improved. Dweck and Yeager (2019) confirmed that mindset interventions can work at scale, especially for low-achieving students, but that context is critical.

Educational policy

Educational policy focuses on sustaining systematic improvement with an increasing expectation for students to become independent lifelong learners (OECD, 2019). A review of educational policy documents internationally (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Ministry of Education, New Zealand, 2017; OECD, 2019; Pascal, Bertram, & Rouse, 2017; Payler et al., 2017) and nationally (Australian) (DEEWR, 2018; DET, 2018; Education Council, 2019) highlight an increasing focus on developing growth mindsets to improve learning outcomes and wellbeing. A PISA report found that “a growth mindset was positively associated with students’ motivation to master tasks, general self-efficacy, learning goals and perceiving the value of schooling; it was negatively associated with their fear of failure” (OECD, 2019, p. 200). Additionally in Australia, revised early childhood policy and curriculum documents suggest teachers include a focus on developing student’s metacognitive skills such as a growth mindset to enhance learning (Barblett et al., 2021). Fostering a growth mindset in the early years is important to assist students to build positive dispositions toward learning and assists teachers in meeting the directive of policy documents.

Developing a growth mindset in the early years

The foundations of students’ learning and development are laid in the early years as they begin to form beliefs of themselves as learners and become aware of the messages they receive from others. Research findings provide strong evidence that young students are affected by failure, criticism, and praise (Cain & Dweck, 1995; Smiley & Dweck, 1994). Dweck surmised that “young children have an early form of the whole [mindset] model” and may not be as concerned about abilities as with issues of goodness and badness (Dweck, 2017, p. 141). Other studies investigated the effects of praise and criticism on students’ mindsets.

Students’ mindsets are deeply affected by the praise and criticism received from adults. Two studies in a series of experiments with preschool-aged students showed that various kinds of criticism and praise from adults directly influenced mastery-oriented hardiness or helpless vulnerability in students (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). The researchers proposed young students do appear capable of forming views of themselves when faced with a learning challenge. Further research by Haimovitz and Dweck (2017) proposes that parents “failure debilitating mindsets” are visible to children and can influence their mindsets. Research with 160 parents found parental views of children’s failure influence children’s intelligence mindsets; that is that intelligence is fixed or malleable. Parents who see failure as debilitating focus on performance and ability rather than on children’s learning. These studies highlight the impact parents and teachers have in the early years on children’s mindsets. As students pursue their academic studies, achievement is an issue that gains importance over the school years. The development of a growth mindset in the early years may assist students to build effective learning strategies for future academic success.

The remainder of the paper provides an overview of the study including the purpose, research questions and theoretical perspective. Next, the methods are reported followed by the results of the study. Finally, a discussion of the principles and conclusions of the study is presented.

Present study

This paper is part of a larger four Phase PhD study undertaken by the first author and reports on Phase Three and Four which developed a set of design principles for early childhood teachers to foster a growth mindset in Kindergarten, Pre-primary and Year 1 students.

The research questions addressed in this paper are:

1. How do early childhood teachers support the development of a growth mindset in students?

2. How effective are the design principles for guiding practice in the teaching of mindset theory?

The research was conducted with ethical approval granted through Edith Cowan University in alignment with the university’s Code of Ethics for researchers and research studies. Participants informed written consent was obtained, confidentiality was observed, and participants were protected from risk or harm.

Method

Participants

Purposive sampling was used in Phase Three and Four to identify a school with prior knowledge and interest in developing a growth mindset in students in the early years. Four possible schools were identified through the Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia (AISWA). Conversations with the principal to determine suitability for the study led to an invitation to an independent girls’ school located in the metropolitan area of Perth, Western Australia due to their current interest in future-focused learning including incorporating mindset theory and a desire to expand their knowledge, and skills of mindset theory. The Kindergarten, Pre-primary, Year 1 teachers and one early childhood education support teacher participated in Phase Three and Four of the study. Kindergarten is a non-compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for children aged 3.5–4.5 years, Pre-primary is the first formal compulsory year of schooling for children aged 4.5–5.5 years of age and in Year 1 children are 5.5–6.5 years of age. Pseudonyms were assigned as outlined in Table 1 and used in the reporting and discussion of the findings.

Table 1. Overview of participants.

Participant (pseudonym)	Teaching qualifications	Years of teaching experience	Year level teaching	Age of students
Participant 1 (Anne)	Bachelor of Education ECE	0–5 years	Kindergarten	3.5–4.5 years
Participant 2 (Annalyse)	Bachelor of Education ECE	5–10 years	Pre-primary	4.5–5.5 years
Participant 3 (Jenna)	Bachelor of Education ECE	5–10 years	Pre-primary	4.5–5.5 years
Participant 4 (Fay)	Bachelor of Education ECE	10–15 years	Year 1	5.5–6.5 years
Participant 5 (Deidre)	Bachelor of Education ECE	10–15 years	Year 1	5.5–6.5 years
Participant 6 (Dionne)	Bachelor of Education Primary	10–15 years	K, 1 and 2	3.5–6.5 years

Note. Kindergarten is a non-compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for students aged 3.5–4.5 years. Pre-primary is the first formal compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for students aged 4.5–5.5 years of age and Year 1 is a formal year of schooling for students aged 5.5–6.5 years of age.

Procedure

The study used a design-based research (DBR) model comprising four phases (see Figure 1) as developed by Reeves (2006). DBR is an agile methodology based in real world settings to develop practical solutions through shared activity between the participants and researchers. DBR utilizes a systematic analysis of the situation and intelligent action to address a problem and build new knowledge (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver, 2007). In this DBR pragmatic study, “knowledge and action are seen to be intimately connected” (Juuti, Lavonen, & Meisalo, 2016, p. 57). In the present study, DBR followed four phases (Reeves, 2006) as the teachers and researcher developed, trialed and refined effective design principles to help teachers foster a growth mindset in students. Phase One explored the problem and sought theoretical inputs. The term problem “describes the discrepancy between the existing and desired situations” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 93). Phase Two developed a skeleton design solution to the problem drawing on the literature review, conceptual framework and initial fieldwork. Phase Three focused on the design and construction of a solution and consisted of two cycles of five weeks of development, implementation and refinement in one school term. In Phase Four, the researcher developed a deep and comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the design principles for the facilitation of growth mindset in the early years context through reflection.

Figure 1. Design of this DBR study.

DBR is a suitable methodology for early childhood contexts to understand when, why and how educational interventions work in practice (Bradley & Reinking, 2011). A range of quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect data in each phase, as new needs and issues emerged, to maximize the credibility of the research (Wang & Haffanin, 2005). Only Phases Three and Four are reported on in this paper with Phase One reported in a previous publication (Boylan, Barblett, & Knaus, 2018)

During Phase Three, prototypes of design principles to address the research problem of how early childhood teachers can foster a growth mindset in students were developed, trialed, and refined through two five week iterations over one school term of 10 weeks. Prototyping refers to “the draft versions of the constructed solution” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 146). As shown in Figure 2 each iteration began with a 90–120 minute focus group held at the school site to develop and refine the design principles. The teachers trialed the design principles for five weeks, recording a video diary each week to reflect on the implementation of the principles. The researcher analyzed the video data throughout each iteration. The principles were refined at the next focus group meeting held at the end of iteration one with the participants considering the data analysis and reflective activities. The second cycle occurred for another five weeks to further test and refine the principles followed by another focus group. Phase Three culminated in a set of eight design principles developed collaboratively with the participants.

Figure 2. Phase Three data collection methods.

In Phase Four, a structured reflection process using Procee’s (2006) reflection techniques required the researchers “active and thoughtful consideration of what has come together in research and development” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 183). The reflections used Procee’s (2006) Kantian epistemology focusing on two main areas as asserted by Reyman et al. (2006): the design challenge and aspects of the research process. Kant’s (cited in McKenney & Reeves, 2019) “moments in judgment” to shape reflection described as preparation, image forming and conclusion drawing were applied to Procee’s (2006) four different reflective techniques of point (quantity), line (quality), triangle (relation) and circle (modality) reflections. Reyman et al. (2006) assert that preparation and image forming mainly involve looking into the past. Preparation requires the collection of relevant facts or observations to be considered and image forming involves the selection and synthesis of those facts and observations. Conclusion drawing looks ahead and uses the results to inform what happens next. As described in McKenney and Reeves (2019), a point reflection identifies one or more data points from which an unplanned insight may be gained. A line reflection takes an observed instance in time and considers one or more quality norms suspected to hold importance. The triangle reflection involves selecting a finding and considering the perspectives of others relevant to the finding. The circle reflection considers modality and identifies the methods used. Issues, questions or problems are addressed in terms of what worked well and what did not work well. A new theoretical understanding and practical solution to the problem of how early childhood teachers can foster a growth mindset in students in the early years resulted in a set of nine design principles.

Data collection

Data collection methods in Phases Three and Four are represented in Table 2. The use of several data collection methods enabled the triangulation of data to increase the objectivity of the findings.

Table 2. Overview of Sampling, data collection methods and analysis of Phases Three and Four.

	Phase Three	Phase Four
Sample	Purposeful sample: six K–1 early childhood educators from one independent school
Data collection methods	3 x Focus groups (90 mins each) Video reflections (5-10 mins once/week)Jottings Plus, minus, interesting (PMI) (Focus group two) Questionnaire (Focus Group three)	Structured reflection
Analysis	Transcribed video reflections and focus groups Thematic analysis using NVivo (video reflections, jottings, focus groups, PMI)Analysis of questionnaire responses in Excel	Effectiveness and impact of design principles

Phase three data collection

The following data sources form the basis of this paper:

Focus group transcripts

Three focus groups of 90 mins were held in Phase Three with sessions recorded using a Digital Voice Recorder device. Recordings were transcribed, analyzed and discussed with participants at subsequent focus groups.

Video reflections

During Iteration One, 18 video reflections of 180 mins of footage were recorded by the teachers using an iPad. In Iteration Two 14 video reflections with a total of 140 mins of footage on one or more of the principles were collected. Video reflections were uploaded to an ECU Dropbox account and transcribed by the researcher. The participants used a reflective framework (see Appendix A) based on a model developed by Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper (2001) to assist in structuring a focused reflection. The framework is organized into three parts, “What?,” “So what?” and “Now what?.” The prompts in the “What?” section ask the participants to describe what happened (Rolfe, Freshwater, & Jasper, 2001) with questions such as: What happened? What did you learn? What did you do? What did you expect? What was different? What was your reaction? In the “So what?” section the teachers considered questions such as: Why does it matter? What are the consequences and meanings of your experiences? How do your experiences link to your academic, professional and/or personal development? What difference did you make? How do you know? The “Now what?” section considers: What are you going to do as a result of your experiences? What will you do differently? How will you apply what you have learned?

Jottings

The researcher wrote detailed field notes during the focus groups which related to the development of the principles.

Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI) Reflection Tool

In Phase Three the researcher used a PMI reflection tool during the second focus group to gather the participant’s views on the principles. A plus, minus, interesting (PMI) thinking tool developed by Edward De Bono (2006) was used to help the teachers brainstorm ideas, weigh the pros and cons, and reflect on and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the design principles for future improvement (Appendix B). Each participant considered the positives (P) of the design principles (i.e. what the principles had added to their practice and the classroom environment), the minuses (M) or improvements to the design principles (i.e. what did not work so well) and the interesting (I) points of implementing the principles (i.e. what surprised them).

Questionnaire

A questionnaire was completed by the teachers in the final focus group and returned to the researcher to collect data on the effectiveness of the principles.

Structured Reflection in Phase Four

A structured reflection process as suggested by Reyman et al. (2006) used Kant’s (cited in McKenney & Reeves, 2019) “moments in judgment” to shape reflection preparation, image forming and conclusion drawing. These were then applied to Procee’s (2006) four different reflective techniques of point (quantity), line (quality), triangle (relation) and circle (modality) reflections. The researcher considered theoretical inputs, empirical findings, and subjective reactions to produced new theoretical understandings.

Data analysis

Phase three data analysis

Throughout the design and construction phase of DBR (i.e. Phase Three) a process of refinement enabled large, vague ideas to be sculpted into an operationalized solution. The refinement is guided by theory as well as participant expertise (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). In the present study, the participants worked together through two iterations of five weeks with the researcher to develop the prototype solution (i.e. a set of design principles). Strategies such as focus group discussions and video diaries facilitated collaboration, connection and refinement of the design principles. During the two cycles of implementation, empirical testing of the principles identified how to move forward throughout the study.

The research project generated a rich amount of text, video and audio data that was analyzed using thematic content analysis (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018) in NVivo 12. Both deductive and inductive coding were used and assisted the researcher to thematically code data to the design principles and create new codes for findings that were not anticipated. The codes were reviewed after each iteration to eliminate redundancy and overlap. Hierarchy charts were created in NVivo at the end of each five-week cycle of implementation and converted to a graph for ease of interpretation for participants. This data compared the number of codes in each node (i.e., each design principle) to determine the most and least prominent principles being implemented by the teachers. The data analysis was discussed with the participants during each focus group to facilitate the refinement and modification of the design principles (i.e., nodes in NVivo) which were modified accordingly.

Quantitative data collected via a questionnaire completed in the final focus group in Phase Three were analyzed using Microsoft Excel due to the small number of participants (i.e., six). Simple descriptive data analysis to generate summaries about the data were used such as the mode. Two open-ended questions were analyzed using Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) constant comparison analysis. The themes developed were used in Phase Four to inform the refinement of the design principles by the researcher.

Phase four data analysis

Phase Four data analysis did not involve the participants directly as the researcher completed a structured DBR reflection on the effectiveness and impact of the final design principles in relation to the literature and data collected.

During the DBR study, Phase Three and Four involved formative evaluation of the design principles. All data collected from the cycles were respectively analyzed according to their type and were compared and cross-checked for triangulation.

Results

For Phase Three and Four we present the most prominent results as linked to the development and effectiveness of the design principles in alignment with Dweck’s (2016) mindset theory which was the driver of change during this study. When needed, reference is made to the findings related to the data collection method to explain the specific outcome more fully.

Development of the principles

The design principles were collaboratively developed, trialed, and refined with the teachers over two iterations of five weeks in one school term. The frequency with which teachers reflected on the design principles provided important data to measure the teachers’ focus and familiarity with each principle (See Table 3). The analysis was shared with the teachers in each of the focus groups for discussion and assisted in the refinement of the principles.

Table 3. Frequency of coding to the principles in Iteration one and Two.

Frequency of coding to principles in Iteration One and Two
Iteration One	Frequency of Coding
Principle 1: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset	18
Principle 2: Teachers should high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow.	13
Principle 3: Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle through explicit teaching and normalizing mistakes	26
Principle 4: Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising for effort.	20
Principle 5: Teachers assist students to reflect on their learning by settings learning goals.	24
Principle 6: Teachers create a warm, safe and supportive learning environment where persistence, effort and making mistakes are valued.	47
Principle 7: Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn.	2
Misinterpretations of growth mindset	3
Inquiry learning	2
Iteration Two	Frequency of Coding
Principle 1: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset	4
Principle 2: Teachers should high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow.	2
Principle 3: Teachers assist students to reflect on learning by setting goals and providing students with strategies for struggle through explicit teaching.	14
Principle 4: Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising for effort.	9
Principle 5: Teachers encourage persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment.	4
Principle 6: Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn	4

Iteration one

The data presented in Table 3 indicates the deductive analysis of the frequency of coding of video diary reflections to the principles in the two iterations of trialing and refinement. The principles changed throughout the two iterations according to the participants feedback on the implementation of them. The frequency of coding to the principles is also reflected in Table 3 and shows the teachers focus on the principles changes during each iteration.

In Iteration One the teachers focused mostly on creating a warm, safe, and supportive learning environment where persistence, effort and mistakes are embraced (Principle Six) with 47 coding links. Principle Seven (i.e., Teachers teach students how the brain works when you learn) received only two coding references in Iteration One and was not a principle commonly used and reflected on. Two nodes were added, misinterpretations of growth mindset and inquiry learning which did not fit with the principles. Modifications to the principles made in focus group two in collaboration with teachers resulted in seven principles being reduced to six principles. Principles 3, 4 and 5 also changed as shown in Table 3. Closer analysis of the frequency of coding for Iteration Two revealed that the teachers’ focus on the principles shifted in the second five weeks. Principle Three (i.e., Teachers assist students to reflect on their learning by setting learning goals and providing students with strategies for struggle) received the most coding with 14 links. Principle Two (i.e., Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow) received the least coding. Interestingly, Principle Six (i.e., Teachers teach students how the brain works when you learn), which received the least coding in the first iteration, showed an increase in coding in the second iteration. Additional data was collected in the focus groups.

Iteration two

After trialing the principles for five weeks the teachers’ views were collected in the form of a PMI reflective tool (Appendix B) during the second focus group to refine the principles. Results indicated some participants had not considered incorporating teaching students about how the brain works when you learn as a practice for developing a growth mindset (Principles six). This principle had raised teacher awareness to include teaching about the brain as Fay stated, “So I think, from my perspective, I’m developing a greater awareness of the principle which stated about brain function and growth mindsets, and the growing brain.” The participants indicated that they struggled to know how to teach about the brain but were working toward improving this. Other results of the PMI included minuses or challenges to implementing the principles. The teachers mentioned the overlap of some principles, the time to implement the principles and catering for different students’ understanding of mindset. Anne described how “time was a challenge, to fit in the things I wanted to do.” Fay suggested there was some overlap between the principles and some of them needed to be “more specific” or to “simplify” them.” The challenges were discussed in focus group two and contributed to the refinement of the principles for Iteration Two.

The participants also described interesting or surprising findings in the PMI from Iteration One and mentioned improvements to students’ mindfulness practice, students’ sharing knowledge of mindset with parents and being more reflective when learning. Further, students had begun to change the language they used to reflect growth mindset theory. Jenna shared “Mindfulness practice has really improved as we’ve been talking about the brain, and the importance of having rest time for our brain”. During Focus Group Two the teachers debated the overlap of Principles Three and Five and the “wordiness” of Principle Six. These Principles were refined as shown in Table 3 in response to the teacher feedback.

Results from Iteration Two indicated that the teachers felt some principles were complex and needed to be simplified. During focus group three the participants reflected that Principles One, Two, Five and Six were adequate. Principles Three and Four were much discussed as the participants described how each one was complex and multifaceted. As a result, Principle Three and Principle Four were each separated into two principles to ensure the focus was not lost. Significantly the teachers reflected that collaboration with families was also key to developing student’s growth mindsets. A final set of eight design principles was agreed upon.

Upon the completion of a structured reflection in Phase Four, the researcher added a ninth principle to address the reflective point raised by teachers who wanted to share mindset theory and practices in their school community to assist parents and carers to develop a home environment that fosters a growth mindset for learning. Anne mentioned, “it is important to have home and school continuity when teaching students to have a growth mindset so positive mindset messages received at school are not negated by negative or fixed mindset messages received at home.”

Effectiveness of the design principles

Results of the survey data collected in the final focus group to assess the effectiveness of the principles reported all teachers (n = 6) knew more about the teaching of mindset. Fay commented, “[I know more about] specific language use associated with growth mindset and also the relationship between growth mindset and the brain.” Nearly all (n = 5) the teachers also indicated that the principles were highly effective in assisting them to create a classroom environment to foster the development of student’s growth mindset for learning. Anne, however, expressed concern about the influence of the home environment stating, “they have been beneficial to a degree; however, environment, parents and the language they use at home can outweigh this.” Deidre added, “I am now more reflective of my practice, which impacts on the learning opportunities provided” and Fay mentioned, “the principles were well scaffolded to allow for implementation in a manageable way.”

The teachers reported in question three, several unexpected outcomes from implementing the principles including better awareness of the language and feedback that promote a growth mindset. Deidre stated,

I am now more aware of some of the language that I used prior to my involvement in the study, for example, “clever girl” or “that’s great.” The type of feedback I provided wasn’t always geared toward a growth mindset.

Additionally, the teachers observed improved relationships between the students and more interest in learning about their brains. Fay commented there were, “improved relationships between students through the language they adopted when reflecting on their peers’ goals.” Anne agreed, stating, “Students are encouraging each other to be more positive and to tell their brain they can do it.” Fay stated that “The students were more interested in their brains” and Deidre agreed, commenting that “teaching the students about their brains was very effective.”

Question four gathered findings about the practicality of the principles. Practicality refers to the possibility of putting the principles into practice. Findings indicated two thirds (n = 4) of the participants found the principles to be very practical to implement as Fay said, “all the principles had a clear purpose and could be implemented effectively.” Two teachers felt they were somewhat practical suggesting time was a hindering factor. Anne clarified this as she stated that the principles were “easy to implement – the hard part was finding the time to teach about the brain.”

When asked in question five about which principles were particularly effective at promoting a growth mindset in the classroom the teachers indicated that Principles One, Three and Six were the most effective (see Table 4). Interestingly, Principle Six, which required teaching students about the brain, was found to be challenging for the teachers to implement in Iteration One but was utilized more regularly in Iteration Two. Fay found that, “Teaching students about their brain was very eye opening. They were engaged, reflective and genuinely interested. It was also lovely to see the girls took this knowledge home and discussed it with their families.” Fay commented further that “student interest in the brain has been amazing to see. I think they are listening to and are more aware of comments that strengthen and weaken the brain.”

Table 4. Development of the design principles.

Iteration One principles	Changes made	Iteration Two principles	Changes made	Final principles
1. Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset.	None made	1. Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset.	None made	Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset
2. Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow.	None made	2. Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow.	None made	Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow
3. Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle through explicit teaching and normalizing mistakes.	Principles Five and Three were combined and reworded	3. Teachers assist students to reflect on their learning by setting goals and providing students with strategies for struggle through explicit teaching.	Principle Three was split into two separate principles	Teachers assist students to set goals and reflect on their learning.Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle as they work toward achieving a goal
4. Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising effort.	None made	4. Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising effort.	Principle Four was split into two separate principles and reworded to emphasize the use of a common language when teaching mindset.	Teachers use a common language to teach students about fixed and growth mindset.Teachers provide feedback for effort rather than talent or ability.
5. Teachers assist students to reflect on their learning by setting learning goals.	Principle Five combined with Principle Three
6. Teachers create a warm, safe and supportive learning environment where persistence, effort and mistakes are embraced.	Principle Six was reworded to place the emphasis on effort, persistence and normalizing mistakes.	5. Teachers encourage persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment.	Added the word resilience	Teachers encourage resilience, persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment
7. Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn.	None made	6. Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn.	None made	Teachers teach students how the brain works when you learn

Finally, when asked if they would continue to use the principles in the future all six of the teachers indicated they would. This suggests that the teachers found the principles effective at supporting them to foster student’s growth mindsets.

Discussion

The intended outcomes of this DBR research were twofold: to produce both theoretical and practical findings in the form of design principles to assist early childhood teachers to foster growth mindsets in students. These are important findings that whilst providing practical “rules of thumb” for teachers to create a growth mindset environment also add to the paucity of theoretical literature on how this can be done in an early childhood context.

During the study teacher praxis in relation to mindset theory improved with the use of the design principles. Teachers reported greater knowledge of mindset theory and found the principles highly effective in supporting them to foster growth mindsets in students in the early years. Similarly, a study by Seaton (2018) found that teachers who have more knowledge of mindset theory gain confidence to effectively create a growth mindset culture. Further results from Seaton’s (2018) study showed that teacher behaviors regarding mindset are related to their knowledge and beliefs about mindset. During the two iterations the teachers felt the principles assisted them to be more reflective of their responses to student successes and failures to develop a growth mindset. The creation of design principles such as in the present study may provide a sustained, long-term approach for early childhood teachers to foster a growth mindset in children.

Principles to foster a growth mindset in students in the early years

A discussion of the final refined set of design principles is presented to reflect on the validity and inclusion of each principle in relation to mindset literature. In summary, we identified nine principles emerging from our DBR study to assist teachers to foster the development of students’ growth mindset for learning in the early years setting. The principles represent the knowledge gained from the study and a retrospective analysis based on the literature.

Principle One: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using a growth mindset.

Teacher beliefs are likely to influence the practices they use and therefore influence students’ mindset beliefs through the quality of interactions with students (Seaton, 2018). The messages students receive from teachers powerfully affect their mindset, goal orientation and consequently academic achievement (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). It is vital that teachers know their own mindset, as the assumptions they hold about themselves and students are influenced by their mindset.

Principle Two: Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow.

Teachers who hold high expectations and help students see themselves as successful learners assist students to succeed. To hold these high expectations, teachers believe that all students can learn, grow, and improve with effort. The National Study of Learning Mindsets (Yeager et al., 2019) found that teachers use different instructional messages according to the beliefs they hold in each student’s abilities. In an early childhood context where students are forming the foundational views of themselves as learners, Principle Two is important to ensure all students form a positive view of themselves as learners from an early age.

Principle Three: Teachers assist students to set goals and reflect on their learning.

Teachers play a vital role in assisting students to develop metacognitive skills that help them reflect, revise, and retry when learning. Students develop metacognitive skills where they set goals, respond positively to feedback, and manage their progress toward these goals to develop a sense of agency for learning (Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron, & Osher, 2020). Assisting students in early years settings to develop goals, implement strategies and revise them enables reflective practice that draws on a growth mindset to overcome setbacks and challenges in learning.

Principle Four: Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle as they work toward achieving a goal.

Teachers who demonstrate and model strategies for struggle assist students in thinking independently and strategically to overcome learning setbacks. Growing evidence from the neurosciences regarding early brain development and its impact on learning, requires early childhood educators to pay attention, particularly in relation to executive function, self-regulation, and metacognition (Payler et al., 2017). However, in an early childhood context it may be difficult, as students are still developing their social-emotional skills including emotional regulation and metacognition. Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron, and Osher (2020) suggest that at an early childhood level, teachers can allow students time for practice to develop confidence and competence to see improvements in their abilities and develop a growth mindset.

Principle Five: Teachers use a common language to teach students about fixed and growth mindset.

One participant in focus group three mentioned that there was a need for a “common language that goes through [year levels] to teach fixed and growth mindset.” This principle was developed with the particular words “common language” to ensure continuity in a large school environment. Thomas and McDonagh (2013) agree that a “shared language refers to people developing understanding amongst themselves based on language (eg. spoken, text, visuals) to help them communicate more effectively” (p. 46). A standard list of common vocabulary related to mindset with meanings could be created for use in discussions with students, families, and colleagues to support this principle.

Principle Six: Teachers provide feedback for effort rather than talent or ability.

The way teachers interact with students can support or undermine resilience and assist or hinder students to adopt a growth mindset. Research with students from preschool to adolescence has shown those who receive process praise focusing on feedback for effort and strategies used to overcome a learning struggle are more likely to endorse a growth mindset (Brummelman et al., 2014; Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007; Haimovitz & Corpus, 2011; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Process praise assisted students to become learning oriented and develop resilience to learning setbacks.

Principle Seven: Teachers encourage persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment.

Teachers in this study described several ways they encouraged persistence and effort and normalized mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment. For example, developing a good respectful relationship with each student, talking about instances of making mistakes themselves, modeling growth mindset strategies and self-talk, using story texts to draw attention to making mistakes, and using phrases such as “hakuna matata” to normalize mistakes in a novel way. In a safe and supportive learning environment making mistakes is viewed as part of the learning process and positively affects students’ responses to challenges or setbacks in learning. Further neuroscientific research (Diamond, 2013) affirms this and has identified that more learning occurs when students feel safe, secure, and accepted and can take the risk of trying new things without fear of being wrong.

Principle Eight: Teachers teach students how the brain works when you learn.

The teachers reported that students were more growth mindset oriented toward learning after teaching them simple neuroscience about learning. The teachers described when the students were facing a learning challenge they spoke more explicitly about the brain and how it was strengthening. Researchers (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Blackwell et al., 2007; Good et al., 2003) have found that it is possible to promote a growth mindset by teaching students about neuroscientific evidence such as showing the brain is malleable and gets stronger through effort, trying new strategies and seeking help when necessary. Pascal, Bertram, and Rouse (2017) review of the Early Years Foundation Stage recommends that more emphasis is needed on the language of learning as young students are developing their knowledge base, capacity for metacognition and self-regulation.

Principle Nine: Teachers share mindset practices with parents/carers and the community.

A growth mindset is best encouraged with support from family and communities as well as schools and teachers. An African proverb states, “it takes a village to raise a child” (ACECQA, 2018) and reinforces the idea that it takes a community to nurture and educate a child. Interestingly, in the present study the students took growth mindset messages home to share with parents. Haimovitz and Dweck (2017) describe that socialization of students’ mindsets is influenced by both parents and teachers. Studies have shown that adult responses to student’s setbacks and their beliefs about what motivates students are important (Ferrar et al., 2019; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). Many parents may not be aware that their responses to student setbacks in learning shape their mindset and academic abilities. Sharing mindset practices may assist parents to develop an understanding of this.

Conclusion

Unique to this study is the development of a set of principles developed in collaboration with teachers rather than a lesson format where the lessons need to be implemented as designed. The design principles support early childhood teachers’ training and values where sensitivity to children’s development, learning needs, and socio-cultural contexts is an important part of pedagogy and practice. The foundations for excellence in learning are laid early in life. Therefore, the early years are an important time to create positive motivations for learning and to strengthen students’ self-belief in themselves as a learner. The development of a growth mindset for learning “I think I can” rather than a fixed mindset “I think I can’t” assists students to recognize their ability to change and grow through perseverance. The teaching of mindset theory to foster a growth mindset in an early childhood environment encourages students to see the power of effort and resilience for learning.

Limitations and future research

Limitations to this study included the setting and sample size for Phase Two and Three in which only one school and six early childhood educators participated. Additionally, the second iteration video sample was not large due to unexpected matters from the participants such as illness. Implementation of the principles may need ongoing teacher review with the understanding that in early childhood the developmental stage and cultural context of the family and program may impact application and require ongoing adaptation of the mindset principles. Trialing and revision of the principles in a more diverse range of settings in the future would help to mitigate the limitation of only using one school.

Future research to develop practices to support each principle would be beneficial for teachers. Further research could also involve consultation with families to develop resources to assist parents to develop a growth mindset in children in partnership with teachers. The scope of this study did not allow for students’ views on their own mindsets. Further research could focus on several questions including: How do students feel about challenges? Do they feel their mindset affects their learning? Additionally, the paucity of research on the development of mindsets in the early years leads to further questions such as: What are the factors that affect ability beliefs during this developmental phase? Are the conceptions that students have of themselves at this age a predictor for future mindsets? And when do academic mindsets emerge? The investigation of these questions would add further knowledge to assist early childhood teachers to understand the development of mindsets in students in the formative years.

CRediT author statement

Boylan Fiona: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Analysis, Writing – Original draft preparation. Barblett Lennie: Supervision, Writing – reviewing and editing. Knaus Marianne: Supervision, Writing – reviewing and editing.

Acknowledgments

Underlying analysis and reporting can be accessed through Fiona Boylan’s thesis: Mindsets matter: Early childhood teacher perceptions of mindset https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2476/ The authors disclose receipt of the following funding for the research authorship and/or publication of this article: Fiona Boylan acknowledges and expresses her gratitude to both Edith Cowan University and the Australian Government Research Training Program to support the doctoral study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix A:

Phase Three: Reflection Template Used in Video Reflections

Table

Reflection template
Reflection stages	Explanation of each stage	Your reflection
What?	What happened? What did you learn? What did you do? What did you expect? What was different? What was your reaction?
So what?	Why does it matter? What are the consequences and meanings of your experiences? How do your experiences link to your academic, professional and/or personal development? What difference did you make? How do you know?
Now what?	What are you going to do as a result of your experiences? What will you do differently? How will you apply what you have learned?

Adapted from Rolfe, Freshwater and Jasper (2001)

Appendix B:

Phase Three: PMI (Plus, Minus, Interesting) Completed in Focus Group 2