Review finds standalone growth-mindset training produces little or no academic gain
Monday Papers · Friday, 11 September 2026
Why it matters
For teachers and school leaders, the evidence argues against treating a brief growth-mindset lesson as an achievement intervention on its own. If students are to try something differently, retrieval activities—self-testing, free recall, and spaced practice—have the stronger evidence base, while any added value from mindset training remains a hypothesis rather than an established combination effect.
What happened
A systematic review and meta-analysis found a mean academic-achievement effect of only d = 0.05 for growth-mindset interventions; after accounting for publication bias, the estimate fell to 0.01–0.03, and the effect disappeared in higher-quality analyses. A randomized trial involving more than 100 English schools and over 5,000 students likewise found no academic advantage from the training. The review contrasts this weak evidence with retrieval practice: a meta-analysis of 159 studies found substantially better retention than restudying, although competing growth-mindset analyses report somewhat larger effects, including an average of 0.09; the authors propose testing whether mindset training might help students persist with retrieval practice rather than raise achievement directly.
Previously
2015 — The Institute of Education Sciences awarded Mindset Works a $3.5 million grant to study its Brainology growth-mindset product.(Institute of Education Sciences via Scienmag)
Players & places
- United Kingdom
- Colorado State University
- University of Texas at Arlington
- Mindset Works
- Institute of Education Sciences