RESUMEN

Parents can be instrumental in promoting young children's early mathematics and literacy skills. However, differences in parents' beliefs can influence their behavior during parent-child interactions. We examined how parental beliefs about the fixedness of children's math and reading abilities shape their interactions with their 4- and 5-year-old children during an educational activity. Parental beliefs about children's abilities were manipulated using "articles" indicating that academic ability is fixed in one domain (e.g., math) but malleable in another (e.g., reading). We then investigated differences in parental unconstructive (performance-oriented and controlling) and constructive (mastery-oriented and autonomy-supportive) involvement across conditions. We also examined whether parent behavior differed depending on the type of educational material parents were told the activity tapped into. The results showed that parents who were induced to have a fixed mindset about reading took full control of the reading activity more often than those who were induced to have a growth mindset about reading, but not math. Parents did not differ in constructive involvement between mindset induction conditions in either domain. We also found that parent autonomy behavior in math differed depending on parents' general theory of intelligence beliefs. Overall, we found some evidence that parents' beliefs about the malleability of their children's ability in a specific domain affected their behaviors in that domain.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play a significant role in higher education and in the education of undergraduate students. Previous research suggests that undergraduate students perceive GTAs differently than faculty instructors, but little has been done to explore the nature of those perceptions. This exploratory study uses self-determination theory to investigate how university students describe the effective teaching practices of GTAs and how those descriptions vary depending on GTA gender, GTA international status, and course domain. Findings suggest that the majority of undergraduates described GTAs' competence-supporting practices and that descriptions varied based on GTAs' international status and on course domain. Implications for GTA training are discussed.

RESUMEN

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in American Psychologist on Sep 19 2024 (see record 2025-24490-001). The name of the author, Amy N. Arndt was incorrectly omitted from the author list in the original article. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Recent studies have found a citation gap in psychology favoring men. This citation gap is subsequently reflected in differences in h-index scores, a crude measure but important one for impact on career advancement. We examine a potential reason for the gap: that male researchers are more likely to come to mind than female researchers (i.e., a difference in memory accessibility). In a survey, faculty from psychology departments in R1 institutions in the United States listed up to five names they considered experts in their field and up to five names they considered rising stars (defined as pretenure) in their field. Results revealed that the proportion of female experts recalled by women generally matched the percentage of more senior female faculty at R1 institutions, whereas the proportion recalled by men was much lower as compared to this baseline. With rising stars, we observed both underrepresentation of women from male participants and, unexpectedly, overrepresentation of women from female participants, as compared to the percentage of more junior female faculty at R1 institutions. For both experts and rising stars, male names were also more likely to be generated earlier in lists by male respondents, but women did not vary in the order in which they listed women versus men. Despite the differences in recall observed in our data, there was no such gap in name recognition, suggesting that the gap is one of accessibility-who comes to mind. Implications and recommendations for psychology researchers are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

RESUMEN

Cognitive psychology research has emphasized that the strategies that are effective and efficient for fostering long-term retention (e.g., interleaved study, retrieval practice) are often not recognized as effective by students and are infrequently used. In the present studies, we use a mixed-methods approach and challenge the rhetoric that students are entirely unaware of effective learning strategies. We show that whether being asked to describe strategies used by poor-, average-, and high-performing students (Study 1) or being asked to judge vignettes of students using different strategies (Study 2), participants are generally readily able to identify effective strategies: they were able to recognize the efficacy of explanation, pretesting, interpolated retrieval practice, and even some interleaving. Despite their knowledge of these effective strategies, they were still unlikely to report using these strategies themselves. In Studies 2 and 3, we also explore the reasons why students might not use the strategies that they know are effective. Our findings suggest that interventions to improve learners' strategy use might focus less on teaching them about what is effective and more on increasing self-efficacy, reducing the perceived costs, and establishing better habits.

RESUMEN

Two experiments and 2 field studies examine how college students' perceptions of their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professors' mindset beliefs about the fixedness or malleability of intelligence predict students' anticipated and actual psychological experiences and performance in their STEM classes, as well as their engagement and interest in STEM more broadly. In Studies 1 (N = 252) and 2 (N = 224), faculty mindset beliefs were experimentally manipulated and students were exposed to STEM professors who endorsed either fixed or growth mindset beliefs. In Studies 3 (N = 291) and 4 (N = 902), we examined students' perceptions of their actual STEM professors' mindset beliefs and used experience sampling methodology (ESM) to capture their in-the-moment psychological experiences in those professors' classes. Across all studies, we find that students who perceive that their professor endorses more fixed mindset beliefs anticipate (Studies 1 and 2) and actually experience (Studies 3 and 4) more psychological vulnerability in those professors' classes-specifically, they report less belonging in class, greater evaluative concerns, greater imposter feelings, and greater negative affect. We also find that in-the-moment experiences of psychological vulnerability have downstream consequences. Students who perceive that their STEM professors endorse more fixed mindset beliefs experience greater psychological vulnerability in those professors' classes, which in turn predict greater dropout intentions, lower class attendance, less class engagement, less end-of-semester interest in STEM, and lower grades. These findings contribute to our understanding of how students' perceptions of professors' mindsets can serve as a situational cue that affects students' motivation, engagement, and performance in STEM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

An important goal of the scientific community is broadening the achievement and participation of racial minorities in STEM fields. Yet, professors' beliefs about the fixedness of ability may be an unwitting and overlooked barrier for stigmatized students. Results from a longitudinal university-wide sample (150 STEM professors and more than 15,000 students) revealed that the racial achievement gaps in courses taught by more fixed mindset faculty were twice as large as the achievement gaps in courses taught by more growth mindset faculty. Course evaluations revealed that students were demotivated and had more negative experiences in classes taught by fixed (versus growth) mindset faculty. Faculty mindset beliefs predicted student achievement and motivation above and beyond any other faculty characteristic, including their gender, race/ethnicity, age, teaching experience, or tenure status. These findings suggest that faculty mindset beliefs have important implications for the classroom experiences and achievement of underrepresented minority students in STEM.