Exploring the mindset and resilience of student teachers

ABSTRACT

Previous research has shown that a growth mindset can alter the way we think and learn. With teachers’ retention being a problem in the United Kingdom, this article presents the findings of a study examining student teachers’ mindset and resilience. The participants included student teachers across seven different Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) subjects (n = 118), who completed a mindset and resilient questionnaire during their PGCE year, with follow-up interviews with their PGCE course leaders. The student teachers’ mindset and resilience are explored in relationship to their achievement on the course, their gender and the subject area. There was no difference in mean resilient scores for teaching grades, but student teachers who received a ‘satisfactory’ teaching grade were more likely to have a more fixed mindset than those who received a ‘good’ grade.

KEYWORDS:

• Mindset
• resilience
• reflective practice
• student teachers
• PGCE

Introduction

The extent to which an individual believes ability is malleable (growth) or stable (fixed) is commonly referred to as ‘mindset’ (Gutshall 2014). The subject of mindset is an exciting development especially in the field of educational research and practice (Martin 2015). Individuals who possess a growth mindset believe persistence and the amount of effort applied to a topic/skill will increase intelligence and ability, whereas those who have a fixed mindset tend to avoid mistakes and lack perseverance when failing (Dweck 2006). Mindset can be interpreted as an array of personal beliefs and a way of thinking (Ricci 2013). This ‘way of thinking’ can alter someone’s attitude and the way in which we behave. Many studies focus on positive mindset interventions to engage, motivate (Donohoe, Topping, and Hannah 2012; Boaler and Dweck 2016; Strahan et al. 2017) and increase student achievement (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck 2007; Yeager et al. 2019), with many studies often focusing on subjects such as engineering where problem solving is a requirement (Reid and Ferguson 2014).

Ricci (2013) explores the differences between an educator’s and a pupil’s mindset; the pupil’s mindset directly affecting how they face a challenge and an educator’s mindset directly influencing how children feel about themselves. Praising children and attributing their success to intelligence, as opposed to effort, encourages a fixed mindset (Pomerantz and Kempner 2013). Mueller and Dweck (1998) believe that negative feedback can undermine persistence and enjoyment of an activity. Teachers may encourage a fixed mindset by stating that not everyone is good at the subject, which therefore leads to lower pupil motivation. An illustration of this is the research conducted into mathematics teaching and mindsets by Boaler and Dweck (2016). Evidence from Boaler and Dweck’s (2016) work suggests children believe they are either inherently good or bad at mathematics. The teacher plays an important role in reinforcing a pupil’s mindset by believing whether the pupil can improve or not. It is important for a teacher to focus on effort rather than ability to foster a growth mindset (Rattan, Good, and Dweck 2012).

Much of the research conducted into mindset focuses on pupils with limited research into the teacher’s mindset. The research that does exist generally concentrates on the teacher and their feedback to support the pupils’ mindset, rather than the influence of the teacher’s mindset itself (Brooks and Goldstein 2008; Haimovitz and Dweck 2017). A study by Snyder and Swann (1978) found that teachers who believe pupils have a fixed intelligence gave less support, whereas teachers who believe intelligence is malleable are more likely to give support when engaging in problem-solving activities. Butler (2000, 789) concurred with Snyder and Swann’s findings by concluding ‘beliefs about mindset play a role in the amount of instructional support teachers offer students, which in turn is likely to have implications for student learning’. Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) argued possessing a growth mindset may have important consequences for predicting a student’s performance; however, not all studies have found a clear relationship between mindset and ability.

Aditomo (2015) collated a range of studies involving mindset and achievement and found not all the results produced positive correlations. Studies carried out by Glerum, Loyens, and Rikers (2019), Shively and Ryan (2013), and Dupeyrat and Marine (2005) found that mindset did not predict achievement and attainment; a drawback to the findings is that research participants for the two latter studies were older learners as opposed to children. Furthermore, Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck (2007) studied French adults and found no strong correlation between mindset and attainment but did find a correlation between the use of learning goals and positive strategies. Likewise, Bahnik and Vranka (2017) investigated the mindset of university students and their attainment scores and concluded there was no relationship between these two variables; in fact, they even suggested there might be a negative relationship between the students’ mindset and their test results, which may contradict earlier research by Dweck (2012). Given these findings, it was important to investigate whether any relationships existed between the impact of the teacher’s mindset and their teaching grades.

A teacher’s mindset is not only important for pupils’ learning but also for their own resilience in a challenging career, as research by Pedota (2015) concluded ‘grit’ and ‘resilience’ can improve teacher retention. Student teachers experience different stresses during their training, and resilience and mindset are important traits to consider. Resilience is a measure of coping with stress, and outside influences, when completing a task (Masten 2015). GRIT stands for Growth, Resilience, Integrity and Tenacity and can be defined as the perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Keesey et al. 2018). Resilience is an important component of grit; however, they are not mutually exclusive, Miller (2021) argues there is a difference between grit and resilience in that grit is our effort towards a long-term goal, whereas resilience is our ability to recover from failure, or ‘grit is the engine that moves us toward our goal’. Duckworth (2016) argues resilience is an important component of grit and that developing grit gives an individual a growth mindset and the perseverance to reach goals, even in adversity, therefore illustrating how these two concepts are interrelated. Researchers have not yet reached a conclusion on the relationship between resilience and grit, as shown by Hardeman (2016), who compared grit and resilience and actually found them negatively correlated. Hardeman (2016) suggested more clarity was needed in the measures, compared with Calo et al. (2019), who found grit and resilience positively correlated in their findings.

Grit has been found to be gendered in university students with females showing higher grit than males (Flaming and Granato 2017). Kannangara et al.’s (2018) study confirmed this finding and concluded higher grit was found in females and older students. They also reported that higher resilience, self-control and mental wellbeing were more likely to show a higher growth-orientated mindset. Current research focuses on psychological wellbeing or instilling resilience into pupils rather than focusing on the resilience of the teacher themselves. In the health sector it has been found that both grit and resilience have had a positive impact on students in clinical placements but there has been little work exploring the mindset and resilience of student teachers (Calo et al. 2019).

In one study, Rattan, Good, and Dweck (2012) asked the adult participants to imagine themselves as teachers, finding that those with a fixed mindset (specifically relating to mathematics) were more likely to judge students to have low ability based on one instance of poor performance (as opposed to lack of effort/hard work). Further, they found that those with a fixed mindset were more likely to respond to that one instance with comfort-oriented (but unhelpful) feedback (e.g. ‘Not everyone has math talent – some people are “math people” and some people aren’t’) and teaching strategies (e.g. assigning less homework). However, limited empirical work has been conducted with teachers, and teaching and learning strategies, in compulsory education across different subject areas. The overall aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the student teachers’ mindset, resilience and the quality of their teaching, with the secondary aims therefore to:

• investigate the relationship between the student teachers’ gender, age, subject taught, teaching grade and mindset;

• explore the relationship between the student teachers’ gender, age, subject taught, teaching grade and resilience; and

• determine whether the student teachers’ mindset and resilience were correlated.

The research aims were established in an attempt to fill some of the gaps in knowledge established from the literature review.

Research context

This research was situated at a higher education institution (HEI) in southeast England. The case study participants were part of the overall Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) programme. At the University, the PGCE is a full-time, one-year course that enables a graduate student to become a Newly Qualified Teacher. The PGCE is one of the routes into the teaching profession in England. The student can pass at Level 6 of the Framework for Higher Education award bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and obtain a Professional Certificate in Education, or pass at Level 7 after obtaining a PGCE. Both the postgraduate and professional routes lead to Qualified Teacher Status. Although the University had a very small cohort of school-based PGCE students, they were not included in this research. All the students were full-time University-based PGCE students.

The HEI has a relatively small cohort of PGCE students with around 120 students enrolled every year. Seven different PGCE subjects are taught: English, Modern Foreign Languages (MFL), Mathematics, Science, Business, Geography and Computer Science. All these subjects cover the 12–16 age groups except Business, which is taught to the 14–19 age range. The structure of the PGCE course is the same for all the courses. The student teachers’ time is divided between professional studies, curriculum studies and the school experience. The school placements constitute two-thirds of the students’ training time. The students arrive during the first week in September each year and study ‘professional’ and ‘curriculum’ studies. Professional studies cover areas that are important for all the PGCE students, such as the National Curriculum, government policies, learning theories and behaviour management.

In order to pass the PGCE year, the student teacher is required to produce a portfolio of evidence that satisfies all the teaching standards and pass, at least, six formal lesson observations per phase. The student teacher’s subject mentor conducts the lesson observations, although one observation includes the university tutor. The university tutors train the school mentors and attend joint lesson observations to moderate and jointly reflect with the student teachers.

The student’s lesson is graded using an observation form, ‘Document 9’ (Doc 9). There are three Document 9s: Document 9a for phase 1 (Autumn Term), Document 9b for phase 2 (Spring Term) and Document 9c for phase 3 (Summer Term). The marking criteria for a Document 9 covers competencies ranging from subject knowledge, behaviour management and lesson planning. The level required to satisfy the different competencies increases in difficulty as the year progresses. Since the introduction of the new Ofsted (2015) criteria, the Document 9 grading has become more demanding, reflecting the need to show ‘greater progress’ in lessons.

Methodology

The study investigates whether mindset matters in teacher education by examining the student teachers’ resilience and mindset in relation to gender, age, teaching subject and their teaching grade. The methodology used was a mixed-methods approach consisting of a self-completion survey by the student teachers and semi-structured interviews with the PGCE subject course leaders. Initially all PGCE students were invited to participate in the research by email. Only the students who ‘opted-in’ participated in the study. All the PGCE population were invited to participate in this project; this covered every student on the Secondary PGCEs (Business, English, Biology, Physics, MFL, Chemistry, Computer Science, Geography and Mathematics).

Over a two-year period two cohorts of all full-time PGCE students were surveyed (71 in year 1 and 47 in year 2). In total 118 questionnaires were obtained. The sample consists of 47 males (39.8%) and 68 (57.6%) females, and 3 (2.5%) who did not disclose their gender; ages ranged from 21 to 60 years. There were 63 (54.8%) Language student teachers (English and MFL), 37 (32.2%) from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics represented by student teachers from Maths, Science and Computer Science) subjects and 15 (13.0%) from Social Science-related subjects (Business and Geography).

The survey was designed to establish a number of relationships between the student teacher’s mindset, resilience and teaching grades. At the beginning of the PGCE year, all the students on the PGCE courses were invited to participate. It took the student teachers around 10 minutes to complete the survey. The survey had three sections: section A established characteristics of student teachers such as their gender, teaching grade and subject. Sections B and C were adapted from Henderson and Dweck (1990) to establish the student teachers’ mindset by asking questions regarding their belief as to whether intelligence is fixed or not.

Section B asked four questions regarding participants’ belief as to whether intelligence is fixed or not (e.g. ‘Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much’). Section C was a resilient learner questionnaire with 30 questions, such as ‘I feel really upset or disappointed when I make a mistake.’ Both sections, B and C (Appendix A), used a 6-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each statement. The answers for section B were added up to form a mean mindset score between 1 and 6. A score of 1 equates to a high growth mindset, 3 would be midway and 6 would equate to a high fixed mindset. Similarly, answers to section C were added up in a mean learner resilient score. A low resilient score (1) associates with more resilience and a high resilience score (6) with less resilience.

The student teacher’s end-of-course grade was recorded as either ‘Outstanding’, ‘Good’, ‘Requires Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’. The student teacher’s grading corresponded with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills’ (Ofsted 2015) grading of the trainee teaching standards. Ofsted is an independent body that regulates services that care for children and young people, providing education and skills for learners of all ages. For the analysis 32 cases were excluded owing to missing scores, withdrawn students and any scores of ‘Inadequate’ (n = 2).

Six follow-on semi-structured interviews, to discuss the characteristics of the students with the highest growth and fixed mindset scores, were conducted with the six PGCE subject course leaders. The interviews addressed the core themes of the survey (fixed and growth mindset) and were used to further the understanding of the survey results rather than provide generalisable data (Creswell and Plano Clark 2017). Course leaders were told the students’ names and mindset scores; however, all participants were kept anonymous when presenting the results. According to Mason (2002), interviewing is the most common strategy associated with qualitative research and is one of the best methods to understand an individual’s thoughts and feelings that may otherwise remain undiscovered. The interviews designed for this study were semi-structured with open-ended questions. The questions schedule was designed to allow the course leaders time to expand on their answers. At times there were supplementary questions posed because it felt natural to ask a supplementary question that might give greater insight into the research. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed for each fixed and growth mindset groups (Braun and Clarke 2006).

Ethics

The ethical consequences of the research were deliberated prior to starting the research. The University Research Ethics Committee approved the research proposal, and their guidelines were followed. It was important that the participants had the right to their own destiny and the right of self-determination (Ferreira and Serpa 2018). This was achieved by considering the participants, right of informed consent, beneficence, privacy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and the right to be informed of any benefits. Participants signed a consent form before they completed the survey in class, and teaching grades were added for some students later. Individual mindset scores were discussed with course leaders in the interviews who knew the students already.

Research analysis

The questionnaire data were analysed with SPSS. Mean mindset scores were not normally distributed (p < .05), therefore mean mindset and learner resilience scores were examined with a Spearman rank correlation (Howitt and Cramer 2017). Effects on the dependent variables of median mindset scores for the independent variables teaching grade (outstanding/good/requires improvement) and discipline (Language/STEM/Social Science) used Kruskal–Wallis test comparing three and more groups of independent scores and a Mann–Whitney test for gender (male/female) comparing two groups (Howitt and Cramer 2017). Mean learner resilient scores were normally distributed for all conditions of the independent variables teaching grade, discipline and gender (p > .05) and analysed with a parametric one-way ANOVA for teaching grade and discipline comparing means scores for three and more groups plus an independent t-test for the two genders (Howitt and Cramer 2017). The PGCE course leaders’ interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded for thematic analysis, identifying emergent themes (Braun and Clarke 2006).

Survey results

Mean mindset scores were measured on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 representing a growth mindset and 6 a fixed mindset. The majority of participants showed a fairly positive growth mindset (M = 2.46, SD = .94) with a range from 1 to 6 in the sample. Learner resilience was also measured from 1 to 6, 1 being very resilient and 6 less resilient, with a mean score of M = 3.42, SD = .33. The sample showed average resilience, with mean scores ranging from 2.23 to 4.07. A Spearman rank correlation showed no association between mean learner resilience and mean mindset scores (rs = .08, p = .934).

Gender

There was no gender difference for median mindset scores for male (Median = 2.25) or female (Median = 2.25) student teachers (U (m = 47, f = 68) = 1593.5, z = .026, p = .979). There was also no difference in learner resilience mean scores for females (M = 3.43, SD = .34) or males (M = 3.42, SD = .30; Levene’s p = .929, t(113) = −.139, p = .890).

Teaching grade

A Kruskal–Wallis test found a statistically significant difference between teaching grades of students and mindset median scores (H(2) = 8.079, p = .018). Students with ‘satisfactory’ teaching grades (Median = 3.25) showed a more fixed mindset than students with a ‘good’ grade (Median = 2.0) (statistically significant, Bonferroni adjusted (p < 0.167 to be significant) p = .005). There was no statistically significant difference between ‘outstanding’ students (Median = 2.25) and ‘good’ students (p = .342) and ‘outstanding’ and ‘requires improvement’ students (p = .037).

A higher mean resilient score refers to less resilience, and ‘outstanding’ students (M = 3.5, SD = .38) reported slightly less resilience compared with ‘good’ students (M = 3.40, SD = .28) and ‘satisfactory’ students (M = 3.45, SD = .17). However, there was no statistically significant difference between learners’ mean resilience scores by teaching grade (Levene’s p = .022, F(2,85) = .885, p = .442).

Discipline

There was no statistical significance between the subjects taught and the teachers’ mindset (Table 1). There are some slight differences between the median mindset scores of some subjects, such as Geography and Science student teachers scoring slightly higher (less growth mindset) in the sample, but these results were not statistically significant (H(6) = 4.066, p = .668).

Table 1. Median mindset scores by different subjects

Subject taught	Median mindset score	N
Computer Science	2.13	6
Maths	2.13	12
English	2.38	30
MFL	2.25	33
Business	2.13	6
Geography Sciences	3.00 2.75	9 19

After no statistical significance was found between subjects taught and mindset scores, another statistical test was completed on the discipline of the student teacher, this time combining English and MFL, Maths, Science and Computer Science, and Business and Geography (Social Sciences). A Kruskal–Wallis test found no difference in median mindset scores by discipline of student teachers: Language subjects (Median = 2.25), STEM (Median = 2.25) or Social Science (Median = 2.25); (H(2) = .354, p = .838).

In the sample, student teachers from STEM subjects (M = 3.40, SD = .33) were slightly less learner resilient than student teachers from Language (M = 3.40, SD = .31) or Social Science subjects (M = 3.41, SD = .37). However, this result was not statistically significant (Levene’s p = .518, F(2,112) = .972, p = .382).

Interview results

After fixed and growth mindset student teachers were identified, interviews were then conducted with the course leaders of those PGCE subject areas to investigate further the characteristics of those students who had a high or low growth mean mindset result. Table 2 illustrates some of the course leaders’ responses.

Table 2. Characteristics of those student teachers with a high fixed/growth mindset

Growth	Fixed
Got a job in her first placement	Took feedback to heart
Very reflective	Questioned things
Could see the good in people	Fantastic at writing essays
Instantly likeable	Hard on herself
Better with feedback	A worrier
Optimistic	Cried during feedback
	Everything was black and white – couldn’t see other people’s viewpoints
	Didn’t get on with people
	Only taught the way he wanted

Optimistic and likeable (with growth mindset)

Some characteristics were common amongst the different student teachers. Students with a high growth mean mindset tended to be more likeable; they were reflective and open to ideas with regard to feedback about their lessons. These ‘high growth mindset’ student teachers tended to be more optimistic and were, it was commented, easier to work with. One of the PGCE students that had a mean mindset score of 1.25 (growth mindset) was described by their course leader as ‘a likeable chap. He just got on with it and took every setback as a positive. He was a working-class kid that come good.’ All the teachers at the placement schools liked this particular student teacher and gave him very positive feedback. This student displayed the common characteristics of a growth mindset but was also optimistic about his teaching role and the impact he could make. Ricci (2013) believed growth mindset is a way of thinking and the approach taken when confronted by challenges; this particular growth mindset student displayed both optimism and enthusiasm when confronted with hurdles.

Less resilient (with fixed mindset)

The course leaders commented that the student teachers with a high fixed mean mindset tended to worry about their feedback. These teachers tended to teach the way they believed was right and were not as open to other ideas. One course leader described a ‘highly fixed mindset’ teacher as ‘[not] getting on with people. The student teacher would only teach the way he wanted and was very didactic. He did not understand that he was there to help children and only did things the way he wanted.’ These descriptions not only confirm the high fixed mindset score but may also point to the teacher being more likely to leave the profession when confronted with challenges in the job.

Another fixed mindset student was described as an outstanding teacher but also a worrier. Rattan, Good, and Dweck (2012) argue that a fixed mindset approach focuses on ability rather than effort, a trait displayed by this student teacher. The student teacher tended to cry during the feedback on her observed lessons. She was described, by the PGCE course leader, as a perfectionist and very hard on herself. ‘Academically, the teacher’s essays were fantastic, but she took things to heart. She was very black and white though and couldn’t see other people’s views; so she wasn’t always popular with the other trainees.’ In this case, the teacher was not critically reflective of her lessons. These characteristics also demonstrated the student teacher had not developed resilience strategies for her own learning, and this may lead to less encouragement of pupils in the classroom. If resilience is one of the factors that enables a teacher to stay in the profession for longer, then it may be conjectured that a fixed mindset may lead to lower teacher retention rates (Pedota 2015).

Discussion

The SPSS analysis of the questionnaire did not find a difference in median mindset scores by gender and discipline of student teachers. This conclusion was also drawn in research conducted by Macnamara and Rupani (2017, 52) who concluded that ‘neither gender nor intelligence is consistently associated with mindset’. Therefore, differences in gender ratios for subjects (e.g. more men in science) should not matter, and this was also confirmed as no differences were found by teaching discipline. However, a difference in the student teacher’s mindset and their teaching grade was found, and student teachers who achieved a ‘good’ teaching grade were more likely to have a higher growth mindset score than student teachers graded ‘satisfactory’ for their teaching ability. This corroborates with Butler’s (2000) findings that a growth mindset is associated with goal achievements and student teachers having achieved a lower teaching ability grade being less able to give effective teaching instructions in the classroom. Overcoming errors and learning from mistakes are also traits of a growth mindset (Dweck 2006; Boyd et al. 2005), denoting the ability to adapt learning and teaching strategies to the learners’ needs. This results also suggests that good teachers are more likely to have a growth mindset. Mindset attributes should be valued, as it is important when grading student teachers and therefore probably crucial for teachers staying in their profession.

There was no association between mindset and resilience scores, contrary to Duckworth’s (2016) findings that a growth mindset is needed to develop resilience. Our study did not find any differences in student teachers’ resilience scores for different genders, disciplines or teaching grades. Previous research on students found females to be more resilient than males (Flaming and Granato 2017; Kannangara et al. 2018), but their focus was generally on short-term academic achievements. Our sample reported on average a fairly growth mindset but average overall resilience. Resilience has been measured in the context of teaching but can also be influenced by social and environmental factors, and is therefore changeable and dynamic in practice (Giacometti-Myers 2005; Leroux and Théorêt 2014). Understandably, student teachers are at the beginning of their teaching career and most likely still developing their resilience skills, with teacher training preparing them for the longer-term challenges of the profession ahead.

The interviews investigated the characteristics of those students with very high growth or fixed mindset (outliers) scores, and there were noteworthy differences in characteristics. Those teachers with high growth mindset scores were likeable, approachable, ‘got stuck in’ and were more reflective, whereas teachers that had high fixed mindset scores tended not to be as reflective and were less likely to listen to other teachers’ ideas. The interviews suggest student teachers who possess a high growth mindset are more reflective about themselves and their lessons. Teachers who are able to reflect, and have developed more resilience, are more likely to stay in the role long-term (Pedota 2015). Therefore, it would be useful to see how teachers progress in their profession over time rather than at the start of their career. It would be of benefit to investigate related factors, such as self-efficacy, motivation and satisfaction, in relation to mindset to better understand the factors and contributing effects on remaining in the teaching profession.

According to Yozenawa, Jones, and Singer (2011), a key element of resilience is self-reflection. Here the interviews showed a clear link between the mindset of the student teacher and their reflective practice. A teacher who possessed a high growth mindset was more likely to be reflective about themselves and their practice, whereas the student teacher that possessed a high fixed mindset was less reflective about their practice and themselves. Hussein’s (2018) study into the use of reflective journals with English as a Foreign Language student teachers concluded that the use of reflective journals fostered a growth mindset, but it could actually be those student teachers with a growth mindset that are more likely to be reflective. This also correlates with findings into what makes a successful student teacher. Studies have found that student teachers who can ‘box up’ their emotions and not dwell on the negatives, find it easier to evaluate their own lessons and take critique (Meierdirk 2017), whereas those student teachers who find feedback difficult do not reflect as much. The interviews found a clear relationship here between mindset and reflective practice. Students who can ‘step back’ and reflect on their teaching have a growth mindset, as they can ‘de-emotionalise’ their learning. Teachers who took critique to heart often found it difficult to reflect and ‘move on’. These findings concur with a recent study on healthcare students which concluded that students with low levels of resilience impacted the students’ ability to cope with their practical placements (Calo et al. 2019).

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that student teachers were not directly interviewed to explain their survey answers. Instead course leaders were asked to comment on students’ practices and performances. Individual course leaders’ behaviour and judgement on student teachers could be considered biased or have an impact on students’ performance and motivation, as shown by Urhahne (2015). On the other hand, this should be disregarded, as course leaders are qualified and competent in preparing student teachers for a teaching career. Nonetheless, it would be useful to understand how student teachers reflected on their mindset score, as Larrivee (2000) points out that challenging their beliefs, interpretations and judgements will be critical elements in their journey to become a critical reflective and effective teacher.

This research has highlighted a number of areas that need further investigation; one such area is the relationship between growth mindset and reflective practice. Could it be that teachers are more reflective because they have a growth mindset? It seems there is some interchangeability between the two traits, and both need to be encouraged. If teachers with a growth mindset produce better lessons, and are higher achievers, then both reflective practice and developing a growth mindset is an important matter for both teachers and pupils. Other suggestions for further research may be whether reflective practice impacts resilience and whether the teaching grade determines the length teachers stay in teaching or what other factors, such as mindset, may have to be considered in teacher education to ensure teachers can fulfil teaching aims and commitment long-term.

Conclusion

Teacher retention is at a critical point in England. At present, one in ten teachers leave the profession after one year, and a quarter of the workforce leave after three years of teaching (Department of Education 2017, 1). The ‘make-up’ of the teachers that are leaving is changing; it is no longer teachers approaching retirement but those that are middle aged. From the interviews we have learnt that student teachers with a fixed mindset show less self-reflection and less resilience in learning from feedback, and students with a growth mindset show more optimism and had more likeable qualities to better cope with challenges of the placements.

From the data analysis it was found those who received ‘good’ or above in their teaching practice had a higher growth mindset. A teacher who possesses a growth mindset and the belief that they can make a difference to their pupils’ learning, is more likely to remain in the profession (Pedota 2015). Perhaps it is time to look more into the resilience and mindset of student teachers and develop initial teacher education programmes that encourage both. Teacher training is stressful for the majority of student teachers, and with the current challenges of the pandemic even more so. A screening process at the interview stage to identify those student teachers who would benefit from resilience or mindset training, prior to starting the course, would give the student teacher the best possible tools to be successful in their teaching career and would equally benefit the pupils themselves.

Consent to participate

All participants gave informed consent.

Consent for publication

All participants gave consent for publication and have full anonymity in this paper.

Section B

Please read each statement below and then circle the number that shows how much you agree with it.

Table

Strongly disagree	Disagree	Somewhat disagree	Somewhat agree	Agree	Strongly agree
1	2	3	4	5	6

Table

1. You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it.	1	2	3	4	5	6
2. Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much.	1	2	3	4	5	6
3. To be honest, you can’t really change how intelligent you are.	1	2	3	4	5	6
4. You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence.	1	2	3	4	5	6

Section C - Resilient Learner Questionnaire

Please read each statement below and then circle the number that shows how much you agree with it MOST OF THE TIME.

Table

Strongly disagree	Disagree	Somewhat disagree	Somewhat agree	Agree	Strongly agree
1	2	3	4	5	6

Table

1. I feel really upset or disappointed when I make a mistake.	1	2	3	4	5	6
2. I feel stupid when I don’t understand something in a lecture or seminar.	1	2	3	4	5	6
3. There are somethings I feel I will never be good at.	1	2	3	4	5	6
4. If I have to work really hard, I question how clever I am.	1	2	3	4	5	6
5. I prefer easy tasks to challenging tasks.	1	2	3	4	5	6
6. I avoid challenging work if I can.	1	2	3	4	5	6
7. I do not like people knowing if I have put a lot of effort into my work.	1	2	3	4	5	6
8. I will always put off doing the difficult work.	1	2	3	4	5	6
9. I will try to avoid going into lectures/classes if I know the topic is difficult to understand.	1	2	3	4	5	6
10. I don’t like answering questions in lectures/seminars in case it make me look stupid.	1	2	3	4	5	6
11. I don’t like answering lecturers/tutors questions in case I get them wrong.	1	2	3	4	5	6
12. If I find something difficult I avoid doing it.	1	2	3	4	5	6
13. I don’t like people seeing my mistakes.	1	2	3	4	5	6
14. I dislike challenging work.	1	2	3	4	5	6
15. I avoid revision on topics that I have found difficult to understand.	1	2	3	4	5	6
16. I feel ok about making mistakes because I know I will learn from them.	1	2	3	4	5	6
17. If I get something wrong, I try again.	1	2	3	4	5	6
18. Getting a low mark on an assignment doesn’t make me feel stupid.	1	2	3	4	5	6
19. If someone in my seminar group does better than me on an assignment, it makes me try harder.	1	2	3	4	5	6
20. If I get a higher mark than my fellow students, it is probably because I worked harder.	1	2	3	4	5	6
21. I feel a sense of achievement if I have worked hard.	1	2	3	4	5	6
22. I love a challenge.	1	2	3	4	5	6
23. I do not mind doing difficult assignments as it allows me to improve.	1	2	3	4	5	6
24. I enjoy the challenge of learning new things, even if I find it difficult to understand.	1	2	3	4	5	6
25. I opt for challenging tasks because I know I can learn a lot from them.	1	2	3	4	5	6
26. If I keep practising I will succeed in the end.	1	2	3	4	5	6
27. I don’t mind if people see me make mistakes.	1	2	3	4	5	6
28. I am not afraid to ask questions if I don’t understand something in lectures/seminars.	1	2	3	4	5	6
29. I don’t mind answering questions in lectures/seminars even though I could get them wrong.	1	2	3	4	5	6
30. It’s important to me that people know when I have tried hard.	1	2	3	4	5	6

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Charlotte Meierdirk

Charlotte Meierdirk is a Principal Lecturer in the School of Business and Law at the University of Brighton. She is presently the Postgraduate lead for the Business School, having previously run the MBA programmes. She joined the Business School after being a course leader, at the University of Portsmouth, for the MSc in Educational Leadership and Management and the Business and Economics PGCE course for 10 years.

Stephanie Fleischer

Stephanie Fleischer is a Principal Lecturer in the School of Applied Social Science at the University of Brighton, which she joined in 2005 as a researcher. From the start she was involved in delivering research methods teaching for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Soon she was promoted to a lecturer post with the embedded role of Student Support and Guidance Tutor, helping first-year students in their transition to university. Having moved to a solely teaching position in 2009, she is now the Course Leader for BA (Hons) Social Science. Her research interests are investigating financial circumstances of students at the University of Brighton, student engagement, absenteeism and first-year student experiences with a specific focus on international student retention.

Appendix A

Approaches to Learning and Teaching Questions

Section A

1. Which School Direct/PGCE programme are you completing? (Please circle)

PGCE Secondary School Direct PGCE Secondary PGCE FE PGCE Primary

1234

2. Which subject are you training to teach in (if applicable)?

English 1 MFL 2 Maths 3 Science 4 Business 5 Computer Science 6 Geography 7

3. Which gender best describes you?

Male 1 Female 2

4. What is your age?

21–25 26–30 31–35 36–40 41–45 46–50 51–55 56–60 61–65

123456789

5. Do you have children/dependents?

Yes 1 No 2