Mindsets and Stereotypes of Intelligence: Teacher Behaviors That Motivate Students to Achieve

Background and Purpose: A wealth of quantitative evidence suggests that when children are explicitly taught that intelligence is malleable (increasing growth mindset) and can be developed irrespective of identity (reducing stereotype threat), they become more motivated and engaged in the classroom. Several longitudinal, randomized controlled trials of growth mindset and stereotype threat interventions have been linked to significant improvements in middle school students’ course grades and GPAs, up to three years post intervention. These results are amplified for racial/ethnic minority students. Despite the promise of growth mindset and stereotype threat interventions, few have used teachers as intervention agents, and little is known about how students perceive intelligence cues from teacher behaviors in the naturalistic school setting. This study aimed to supplement the intervention literature with qualitative data on adolescents’ perceptions and experiences with teacher behaviors that convey intelligence and stereotype beliefs.

Methods: This study was conducted using an interpretive, phenomenological approach. The sample included 44 sixth, seventh and eighth grade students from three middle schools in a rural, low-income county in the Southeast United States. Data were collected through nine focus group interviews. Focus groups contained between 4-5 students and lasted 25 minutes. Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using both inductive and deductive approaches. An initial round of open coding was conducted to develop emerging themes, and a subsequent round of coding was conducted using a priori codes established from the growth mindset and stereotype threat literatures.

Results: Students’ latent intelligence beliefs include: no one is born smart and intelligence develops over time. However, participants identified (1) helping, (2) encouraging and (3) caring as teacher behaviors that convey to students whether teachers believe they are smart. Students perceive these behaviors as indicators that a teacher believes they can improve, which promotes motivated behavior and feelings of competence. Participants were aware of common intelligence-based stereotypes (e.g. race and gender), but did not feel that their teachers used these characteristics to predetermine students’ intelligence. Rather, they felt teachers were likely to stereotype students based on economic circumstances or “where you’re from”. Students also perceived that they faced a seemingly inescapable individual stereotype or “personal reputation” that was transferred from teacher to teacher. Finally, participants felt that teachers reveal their stereotypes about “the smart kids” by disproportionately calling on and helping them in class.

Conclusions and Implications: This study suggests that middle school students’ beliefs about intelligence and stereotypes (1) have strong implications for their motivation and engagement and (2) are influenced by teacher behaviors. Teachers’ help, encouragement and care impart a message about whether students are smart and whether some are smarter than others, which may have important implications for their academic achievement. Middle school students may be too young to develop nuanced interpretations of teacher intentions and may instead rely on concrete, observable behaviors to make attributions. Study results can inform both ongoing academic intervention work and best teaching practices to foster positive youth development – particularly for low income and minority children.