Running head: LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS 1

The Effects of Longitudinal 2E Case Study on In-service Teacher Mindsets

Camille Jones
Houston Baptist University

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

Abstract
Various recent studies are focused on 1) teacher affect towards gifted students, 2) identification
of twice exceptional learners (2E) students (students both gifted and learning disabled), and on 3)
the importance of building growth mindset amongst in-service teachers. However, no prior
research was located having investigated how exposure to longitudinal case studies of 2E
students might affect teacher mindsets as to ability (intelligence). The present study tested a
specific hypothesis: In-service teachers whose Mindset survey results evidenced fixed mindsets
could significantly alter some of these aspects after (successive) exposure to longitudinal case
studies of twice-exceptional (2E) learners (as both strategy and treatment intervention). Based
on a small sample (n=11), findings revealed that in-service teacher participants receiving a single
longitudinal case study intervention did not manifest statistically significant change in their
posttest responses to inventory items specifically constructed as growth mindset statements.
And yet, there was statistically significant (p<.05) decrease amongst participants in the intensity
of their pre-test fixed mindset orientations--based on post-treatment responses to those items.
Survey findings suggest that successive and systematic exposure to 2E case study may help to
build growth mindsets that positively affect how teachers see their teaching abilities as well as
those of exceptional students.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

The Effects of Longitudinal 2E Case Study on In-service Teacher Mindsets

The Strategy of Exceptional Teaching as Mindset for All - Literature Review:

Which professional development strategies might most impact K-12 teacher mindsets in
ways that empower them to believe more in the potential for continued cognitive improvement
through effort--both for their students and themselves? How might exposure to longitudinal case
studies involving twice-exceptional students (students diagnosed as gifted with learning
disabilities) impact teacher mindsets about ability and effort for both groups?

Literature Review
Several prior research studies (on mindsets, teaching and gifted students) offer relevant
findings. Studies conducted in both Australia and the United States have found that providing
in-service teachers with topical professional development (PD) related to gifted education can
result in significant improvements in teacher attitudes toward gifted and talented students
(Copenhaver & McIntyre, 1992; Feldhusen, Haeger and Pellegrino, 1989; Gross, 1994, 1997;
Korynta, 1982).
Korynta (1982) compared the attitudes of 61 teachers in-serviced on the gifted with the
attitudes of 140 teachers receiving no in-service training. The study found that participating
teachers held fewer stereotypical ideas about gifted students than non-participant teachers
(Korynta, 1982). Feldhusen (1989) found attitudes towards gifted students of school
administrators--once completed a 50-hour training program in gifted education--were
significantly more positive than the attitudes of a matched control group. Copenhaver and

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

McIntyre (1992) asked 85 teachers enrolled in a graduate course on curriculum for the gifted to
complete an open-ended questionnaire stating the characteristics that came to mind when they
thought of gifted and talented students. Teachers with previous PD listed significantly more
positive characteristics (p <.08) than teachers who had no previous PD in gifted education
(Copenhaver, 1992).
Subsequent studies focused on changing teacher negative affect through exposure to
information about giftedness and underachievement. Gross (1997) found significant positive
attitudinal change in teachers over the course of a 6-hour in-service program that included
information on both incidence and cause of underachievement in gifted students. Geake and
Gross (2008) later conducted a quantitative, evolutionary psychological study of teachers
negative affect towards academically gifted students, using a five-dimensional semantic
differential instrument. Their findings attributed teacher negative affect to a deep concern about
potential antisocial applications of intelligence by gifted students (Geake, 2008). The study
found that teachers unconscious negative attitudes could be reduced through professional
development (PD) helping teachers become more familiar with the characteristics of gifted
students and their learning needs (Geake 2008).
In aggregate, earlier findings seemed to confirm that teacher training in gifted education
can likely expose them to findings on the cognitive and affective characteristics of gifted
students in ways that contradict (or change) their previous suppositions (Gross, 1997).

Willard-Holt (2013) completed a mixed-methods study investigating the perspectives

of 2E students on learning strategies recommended for them--to determine whether 2E students
perceived the strategies to be beneficial (Willard-Holt, 2013). Participants represented a broad

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

range of coexisting exceptionalities and ranged in age from 10 to 23 years. Qualitative in-depth
interviews provided rich, thick descriptions of which learning strategies were facilitators and
barriers (Willard-Holt, 2013). Findings indicated that participants perceived that their overall
school experiences failed to assist them in learning to their potential, although they were able to
use their strengths to circumvent their weaknesses. Implications for teachers included
allowing 2E learners more ownership over their learning and more choice and flexibility in topic,
method of learning, assessment, pace, and implementation of group collaboration (Willard-Holt,
2013).

While varied findings analyzed teacher affect towards gifted students and twice
exceptional learners attitudes toward learning, no prior research was located has investigated
how exposure to longitudinal case studies of twice-exceptional (2E) students (students both
gifted and learning disabled) might affect teacher mindsets as to the malleability of ability and
effort.
The present study therefore tested a specific hypothesis: In-service teachers whose
survey results evidence fixed mindsets as to ability could significantly alter aspects of these fixed
mindsets after being (successively) exposed to longitudinal case studies of twice-exceptional
(2E) learners (as treatment intervention).

Participants and Setting

Participants
Participants in this pre-test, post-test mixed methods study were 11 in-service teachers
collectively enrolled in a graduate Educational Psychology class in fulfillment of various

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

program requirements within the Education Department of private research university (n = 11).
A single intervention-treatment was administered to participants during one seminar period in
November 2014. Appendix I and II set forth relevant participant demographic data. Half of
participants taught in secondary settings while the other half taught in elementary settings
(inclusion and general education). Participant program affiliations spanned from EC-6 Teacher
Certification, to Educational Diagnostician and to Mid-Management.

Procedures
Participants completed in-class a 20-item All Kinds of Minds Inventory (AKMI) during a
seminar interval dedicated for its completion. A written description of the inventory and its aims
was first shared with the whole class. This was followed by a verbal explanation, during which
the voluntary nature of participation was emphasized. AKMI was then distributed and
participants instructed in its manner of completion. Once each teacher initially completed the
20item inventory, each copy was picked up and each teacher was handed a longitudinal case
study of a 2E learner to read and review (Appendix II). Participants were individually
approached once each finished reading the case study. Each participant was then invited to fill
out the same AKMI a second time (post-test). Participants were orally encouraged this time to
complete the AKMI--as if they were teaching the student in the case study they had just read. No
additional instructions were given. Each participant then returned the second version of the
AKMI at the end of the same class period.
Mixed methods were used to complete data analysis. Mixed methods and mixed model
designs include both qualitative and quantitative features in design, data collection and analysis
(Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2002). A mixed method design is one in which both quantitative and

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

qualitative methods are used to answer research questions in a single study (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2002). Moreover, qualitative data analysis has been shown to have special
significance in special education research (Mertens, 1990). For special education and
exceptional students, several conceptual and operational variables are uniquely associated with
an accurate depiction of a proposed treatment (Mertens, 1990). Qualitative analysis can address
these specificities in ways that complement quantitative measures. The present study draws on
both quantitative methods to analyze AKMI inventory questions as well as qualitative analysis
and coding of open-ended responses.

Results. Quantitative Analysis: Mindset Assessment Profile Items

An 8-item Mindset Assessment Profile (MAP) comprised a key part of the All Kinds of
Minds Inventory (AKMI) taken by participants. MAP was customized for use with in-service
teachers and adopted by the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), based on
models from Dwecks (2006) conceptualization of mindset.

AKMI items offered a baseline for gauging initial data on the mindsets of participants in
the present study.

The NYCDOE version used a special grid for ranking Growth Mindset (GM)

and Fixed Mindset (FM) response values. The sums of these values correlated to a scaled
analysis of the extent to which a teacher-educator viewed intelligence as fixed or valued effort as
a means for learning (Appendix 2).
Of the 8 mindset items used in this study, four odd-numbered statements were
constructed to portray a growth mindset and four even-numbered statements (2, 4, 6 & 8) were

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

constructed to portray a fixed mindset (characterized by e.g. resistance or avoidance to change

and the emphasis on ability rather than effort). Subsequent AKMI items (9-13) also reflected
this dichotomy.

Table 1 sets forth raw participant data from the original survey. The item responses of the
11 participants were first aggregated to yield a range of growth mindset profile scores.
Table 1
Growth Mindset Scores Pre-Test and Post-Test (Raw Data before Paired T Tests)
Teacher
Participant
Jane Doe
Wonder
Woman
Amanda
Jacobs
Marie Claire
Adam DLF
Jim
Beyonce
Sasha Fierce
Queen
Elizabeth
Maleficient
Deville
Lilu

Question 1

Question 3

Question 5

Question 7

Pre Post
2
3
4
4

Pre Post
4
4
4
4

Pre Post
4
3
4
4

Pre Post
5
5
4
4

5
4
5
5
5

1
4
3
5
5

4
5
4
3
4

3
5
5
3
4

4
4
3
5
5

4
4
2
3
4

4
5
4
4
3

4
4
5
2
5

Within Subjects
Paired P-Value
(p>.05)

Note: Growth mindset items were calculated in aggregate; no additional coding algorithm of raw
data was used in the original inventory by Mindset Works.

Odd-numbered statements (1, 3, 5 & 7) in the AKMI were written to reflect growth
mindset (characterized by e.g. openness to new ideas and challenges and an emphasis on learning

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

and effort to effect changes). Both types of MAP statements were re-scaled to a five-interval
Likert scale (from the MAP used by the NYCDOE which contained 6 intervals).
Appendix I sets forth the grid illustrating the levels of fixed and growth mindset
associated with the AKIM (Dweck, 2008). Responses to these items ranged from raw scores of
15 to 20.
Paired T- Tests of Growth Mindset Data
A paired ttest compares one set of measurements with a second set from the same
sample or within the same subject (Mertens, 1998). Paired T-tests are used often to compare
before and after scores in experiments to determine whether significant change has occurred
(Mertens, 1998).
Paired T-Test samples of within subjects data were calculated to average pre-test/post-test
scores, standard variation, and p-values (p<.05) particularly to gauge whether the initial
hypothesis for the present study (predicting change to fixed mindset) could be upheld. Excel
and Google Sheet programs were used to confirm results.

Fixed Mindset Items Quantitative Analysis (Even-numbered Items):

For questions 1, 3, 5 and 7 participants wrote the number of their answer in boxes to add.
However, for items 2, 4, 6, and 8, Mindset Works used a Likert like table to fill in the gray boxes
on the Inventory--based on an inverse algorithm (fixed mindset). Participants that agreed a lot
with any given even-numbered statements received 1 Mindset point. Participants that disagreed
a lot with these items received (5 Mindset points on the survey used in the present study. Table 2
sets forth responses.
Table 2

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

10

Fixed Mindset Scores Pre-Test and Post-Test (Raw Data before Paired T Tests)
Teacher
Participant
Jane Doe
Wonder
Woman
Amanda
Jacobs
Marie Claire
Adam DLF
Jim
Beyonce
Sasha Fierce
Queen
Elizabeth
Maleficient
Deville
Lilu

Question 2

Question 4

Question 6

Question 8

Pre Post
2
2
4
4

Pre Post
4
4
5
4

Pre Post
3
2
3
4

Pre Post
1 1
1
2

1
3
4
1
1

4
3
4
1
1

4
3
5
4
4

5
2
4
2
3

5
4
5
2
2

5
2
4
1
5

2
3
2
1
1

1
4
2
1
1

Within Subjects
Paired P-Value
(p<.05)

The Mindset Assessment Profile calculated Fixed Mindset in reverse (Dweck, 2012).
That is the smaller the number, the less fixed the participant is becoming (Dweck, 2012). Figure
6 shows the ladder-like effect of calculating mindset profiles (Dweck, 2012). Sums for most
teacher-participants ranged from 12-17. Seventeen (17) represented a threshold value between
fixed and growth perspectives.
Paired T-Test samples using within-subjects data were calculated to gauge averages, and
standard variation and deviation. P-values (p<.05) were calculated to determine whether the
initial hypothesis for the present study predicting change to fixed mindset could be upheld. Pvalues (Appendices I & II) showed that statistically significant change between pre and post-test
data did occur for even-numbered items.

Quantitative analysis of Items 9-13: Paired Sample T-Tests

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

11

Quantitative analysis of Items 9-13 involved paired sample t-tests, calculating average
change and p-value. As paired T-test samples in Figures 1-4 reveal, a decrease in fixed response
patterns-based on average change occurred with statistical significance.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

12

F-Mindset Profile Number Average

Score [No Label]

Figure 1

17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
13.5
13.0
Series1

Paired T-Test - Average Score Pairs and Trendline

Series1
16.5

Linear (Series1)

15.2

F-MPN Bef T

F-MPN Aft T

16.5

15.2

Figure 1.

Qualitative analysis: Excel and Google Sheets were used to complete qualitative coding
for items 13-20. Qualitative codes involved two to three levels: first dividing responses into
general categories of fixed and growth, next selecting subtopics and then calculating frequency
of references to themes or characteristics for within-subject pairs. Appendix II sets forth detailed
responses. Qualitative coding and the use of mixed methods permitted a richer understanding of
the quantitative changes occurring within post-test responses to even-numbered items (Mertens,
1990).

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

13

Discussion and Implications

A few participants showed statistically significant increase in post-test growth mindset
item responses. Overall, however, paired T-test samples and p-values (Appendix III) found no
statistically significant change between pre and post-test data for odd-numbered items
specifically constructed to reflect growth mindset.
By contrast, paired T-samplescalculated by within-subject paired analysis--revealed
that nearly every teacher participant markedly decreased aspects of fixedness in at least two
domains for Questions 2, 4, 6 and 8.

Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 demarcate this in more depth, as do

post-treatment qualitative responses. While not all of post-test differences for fixed mindset
items were statistically different, on average nearly all were in the expected direction for
purposes of supporting the hypothesis of the present study.

To move towards growth mindset as a teacher-practitioner developing effective strategies,

therefore, involves a brain-based process with meaningful scaffolds. Dweck (2009) found that
two distinct behavioral constructs develop in fixed versus growth mindset classrooms. The
findings of this present study seem to confirm that distinct constructs and levels are involved in
altering mindsets. First changing some aspects of fixed mindsets would seem to be prerequisite
to valuing effective instructional growth.
This study aimed to add to past findings as to the importance of PD to transforming
negative affect amongst some teacher populations concerning gifted learners (e.g.,) (Gross,
1997). The findings also provide further evidence for the ongoing need for examining growth

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

14

versus fixed mindset typology amongst in-service teachers today. Based on these findings,
further exposure to longitudinal case study involving 2E learners might help teachers better draw
upon strengths as they recognize weaknesses and thus focus on instructional strategies that might
more effectively apply for each.

While not all of differences in fixed mindset items were statistically significant, they
were all in the expected direction--for purposes of supporting the hypothesis of the present study.

The present findings also suggest that effective intervention strategies can be developed
to help alter aspects of teachers fixed mindsets over time--based on successive exposure to and
recognition of the integrated relationship between effort and ability presented by longitudinal
study of 2E learners. By building a more positive view of teaching through strengths to channel
student effort, in-service teachers could encourage striving for excellence for more students with
or without IEPs.

Finding more effects from targeting teacher mindset change, whether globally or domainspecifically, by modeling effective teaching strategies through 2E case study, awaits further
investigation. Appendix II references online sites that connect 2Es and the 20 items featured on
AKMI to relevant teaching strategies found to be highly effective in Classroom Instruction that
Works and other volumes (e.g. (Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock, 2001), (Marzano, Pickering
and Marzano, 2003), (Marzano 2006)). Future analysis using 2E longitudinal case studies could
focus on variations in developmental trajectories towards fixed mindset amongst teachers.
Future mindset analysis using 2E longitudinal case studies might include findings related to

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

15

effective teacher response to 2Es that analyze and apply Marzano strategies in detail beyond the
scope of the present mixed-methods study.
Limitations
In addition to its single-treatment focus, this mixed-method study had certain limitations.
One limitation related to the use of a small sample of teacher-participants (n=11)only inservice teachers enrolled in a Fall 2014 graduate level course in Educational Psychology at a
private university. Thus, cross-replication with teachers samples not restricted to college-enrolled
graduate seminar participants could be helpful in establishing generalizability of the present
findings.
Another limitation of the present study lay with the validity and reliability in reliance on
one longitudinal case study to characterize 2E students and on one mindset assessment profile
tool to classify the presence of fixed versus growth mindsets amongst in-service teacher
participants. One also might question the construct validity in using a modified AKIM item
rating scale which altered by 8 points the total numerical range by which mindset assessment
scores originally were measured. Future research including the use of different mindset
assessment tools, varied 2E case study and more anecdotal input from teachers and 2E students
from multiple settings could provide further insight into how fixed versus growth mindsets
correlate to actively using other PD interventions that include effective 2E teaching strategies
applied across multiple grades and/or instructional settings.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

16

References
Cline, S. (1998). Diverse Populations of Gifted Children: Meeting Their Needs in the Regular
Classroom and Beyond. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Merrill.
Cline, S. (1999). Giftedness Has Many Faces: Multiple Talents and Abilities in the Classroom.
New York: Winslow Press.
Dweck, C.S. (2007). The Perils and Promises of Praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34-39.
Dweck, C.S. (2008). Mindsets and Math/Science Achievement. Paper prepared for the CarnegieIAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. Retrieved from
http://opportunityequation.org/teaching-and-leadership/mindsets-math-science-achievement.
Dweck, C.S. (2008). Brainology: Transforming Students Motivation to Learn. National
Association of Independent Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.nais.org/publications/ismagazinearticle.cfm?ItemNumber=150509.
Dweck, C.S. (2010). Even Geniuses Work Hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16-20.
Dweck, C.S. (2010). Mind-Sets and Equitable Education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26-29.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). A model training program in gifted education for school administrators.
Roeper Review, 11, 209-214.
Gross, M. U. M. (1994). Changing teacher attitudes towards gifted students through in-service
training. Gifted and Talented International, 8(2), 15-21.
Gross, M.U.M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
Korynta, C. S. (1982). Teacher attitudes towards the gifted: A survey of Grand Forks
Elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 1113A.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246263.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 3439.
Reis, S., Baum, S. & Burke, E. (2014). "An Operational Definition of Twice-Exceptional
Learners: Implications and Applications." Gifted Child Quarterly 58.3 (2014): 217-30.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

17

Baum, S. Schader, R., Hbert, T. (2014). Through a Different Lens: Reflecting on a StrengthsBased, Talent-Focused Approach for Twice-Exceptional Learners. Gifted Child Quarterly.
October 2014; 58(4): 311-327.
Marzano, R.J. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Willard-Holt, C., Weber, J., Morrison, K., & Horgan, J. (2013). Twice-exceptional learners
perspectives on effective learning strategies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 247-262.
doi:10.1177/0016986213501076
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (1998). Mixed Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity
with quantitative and qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

18

Table 1
Growth Mindset Scores Pre-Test and Post-Test (Raw Data before Paired T Tests)
Teacher
Participant
Jane Doe
Wonder
Woman
Amanda
Jacobs
Marie Claire
Adam DLF
Jim
Beyonce
Sasha Fierce
Queen
Elizabeth
Maleficient
Deville
Lilu

Question 1

Question 3

Question 5

Question 7

Pre Post
2
3
4
4

Pre Post
4
4
4
4

Pre Post
4
3
4
4

Pre Post
5
5
4
4

5
4
5
5
5

1
4
3
5
5

4
5
4
3
4

3
5
5
3
4

4
4
3
5
5

4
4
2
3
4

4
5
4
4
3

4
4
5
2
5

Note: Explanatory text. Growth mindset items were calculated in aggregate.

Within Subjects
Paired P-Value
(p>.05)

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

19

Table 2
Fixed Mindset Scores Pre-Test and Post-Test (Raw Data before Paired T Tests)
Teacher
Participant
Jane Doe
Wonder
Woman
Amanda
Jacobs
Marie Claire
Adam DLF
Jim
Beyonce
Sasha Fierce
Queen
Elizabeth
Maleficient
Deville
Lilu

Question 2

Question 4

Question 6

Question 8

Pre Post
2
2
4
4

Pre Post
4
4
5
4

Pre Post
3
2
3
4

Pre Post
1 1
1
2

1
3
4
1
1

4
3
4
1
1

4
3
5
4
4

5
2
4
2
3

5
4
5
2
2

5
2
4
1
5

2
3
2
1
1

1
4
2
1
1

Within Subjects
Paired P-Value
(p<.05)

Table 2 Note: Explanatory text: The Mindset Assessment Profile calculates Fixed Mindset in
Reverse. That is the smaller the number, the less fixed the participant is becoming. Paired T
samples within subjects reveal that nearly every teacher participant move towards growth
mindsets and away from fixedness in at least two question domains. Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4,
demarcate this in more depth as does the qualitative findings. To move towards growth mindset,
therefore involves a process. Figure 6 shows the ladder like effect of calculating mindset
profiles. Most teacher participants averaged 17 a scaled value at the threshold between fixed
and growth mindset classification.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

20

Table 3
Table 3 Creating Your Mindset Assessment Profile (Mindset Works, 2012)
If your profile Then Your MAP
number falls into (Mindset Assessment
this range:
Profile) is:
37-40
G5
33-36

G4

29-32

G3

25-28

G2

21-24

G1

17-20

F1

13-16
9-12

F2
F3

5-8
1-4

F4
F5

People in this MAP group usually believe the

following things:
You really feel sure that you can
increase your intelligence by learning and
you like a challenge. You believe that the
best way to learn is to work hard, and you
dont mind making mistakes while you do it.
You believe that your intelligence is
something that you can increase. You care
about learning and youre willing to work
hard. You do want to do well, but you think
its more important to learn than to always
perform well.
You are unsure about whether you
can change your intelligence. You care about
performance and you also want to learn, but
you dont really want to have to work too
hard for it.
You lean toward thinking that your
intelligence doesnt change much. You
prefer not to make mistakes if you can help it
and you also dont really like to put in a lot
of work. You may think that learning should
be easy.
You strongly believe that your
intelligence is fixed---it doesnt change
much. If you cant perform perfectly you
would rather not do something. You think
smart people dont have to work hard.

Note. This table is adapted from the Mindset Works EducatorKit Module 1 Toolkit as adopted
by the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE, 2014). For questions 1, 3, 5 and 7
participants wrote the number of their answer in boxes to add. However, for items 2, 4, 6, and 8,
Mindset Works used a Likert like table to fill in the gray boxes on the Inventory--based on an

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

21

inverse algorithm (fixed mindset). Participants that agreed a lot with any given even-numbered
statements received 1 Mindset point. Participants that disagreed a lot with these items received
(5 Mindset points on the survey used in the present study but) six Mindset points used on the
survey version adopted by NYCDOE.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

22

Table 4 Growth Mindset Ranges for Teacher-Participants

Growth Mindset Scores Pre-Test and Post-Test (Raw Data before Paired T Tests)
Teacher
Participant
Jane Doe
Wonder
Woman

Question 1

Question 3

Question 5

Question 7

Pre Post
2
3
4
4

Pre Post
4
4
4
4

Pre Post
4
3
4
4

Pre Post
5
5
4
4

Totals for
Mindset Baseline
Profiles

15-15
16-14
20-19

Amanda
Jacobs
Marie Claire
Adam DLF
Jim
Beyonce
Sasha Fierce
Queen
Elizabeth
Maleficient
Deville
Lilu

5
4
5
5
5

1
4
3
5
5

4
5
4
3
4

3
5
5
3
4

4
4
3
5
5

4
4
2
3
4

4
5
4
4
3

4
4
5
2
5

18-18

17-17

18-17
16-15
17-13
17-18
16-16

Table 4. Note These ranges gain qualitative meeting when consulting the Mindset
Assessment Profile in Table 3.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

23

F-Mindset Profile Number Average

Score [No Label]

Figure 1

17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5
14.0
13.5
13.0
Series1

Paired T-Test - Average Score Pairs and Trendline

Series1
16.5

Linear (Series1)

15.2

F-MPN Bef T

F-MPN Aft T

16.5

15.2

Figure 1. Paired T-Test samples were conducted for all data in both Google Sheets and in Excel.
.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

24

Figure 2
Paired T-Test - FMPN Average Paired & Trendline

F-Mindset Profile Number Average Score (Strengths)

20.0

F-MPN Bef
T

18.0

16.5

16.0

15.2

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Series1

F-MPN Bef T

F-MPN Aft T

16.5

15.2

Fixed Mindset Scores (Pre-Test and Post Test--Qs 2, 4, 6, 8)

Figure 2. . Paired T-Test samples were conducted for all data in both Google Sheets and in
Excel.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

25

Figure 3

F-Mindset Profile Number Average Score [GT=R]

20.0

Paired T-Test - Average Score Pairs & Trendline

18.0
16.5

16.0

15.2

14.0
12.0
10.0

Series
1

8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Series1

F-MPN Bef T

F-MPN Aft T

16.5

15.2

Figure 3. . Paired T-Test samples were conducted for all data in both Google Sheets and in
Excel.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

26

Figure 4

F-Mindset Profile Number Average Score (Assignmt)

20.0

Paired T-Test - Average Score Pairs & Trendline

Series1

18.0
16.5

16.0

15.2

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Series1

F-MPN Bef T

F-MPN Aft T

16.5

15.2

Figure 4. . Paired T-Test samples were conducted for all data in both Google Sheets and in
Excel.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

27

APPENDIX 1
ALL KINDS OF MINDS INVENTORY
Name (Optional):

HBU Program Area:

Teaching Assignment: Pre-K K

7 8 9 10 11 12

Subject:

____________________

This is not a test! It is an opinion inventory about ability. For each item identified below in Part I, circle the
number to the right that best fits your judgment of its quality. In Part 2, please offer short answers to each.
Thank you, Wonderful Colleagues and Enjoy!

Scale
4

Do you agree or disagree?

3
1=

2=

4=
3=

Disagree

5 =Agree

Disag

Agree
Disagree

A Lot

ree

A Lot
a

A Little
Little
1.

No matter how much intelligence you have, you can

always change it a good deal.

2.

You can learn new things, but you cannot really

change your basic level of intelligence.

3.

I like my work best when it makes me think hard.

4.

I like my work best when I can do it without too much

trouble.

5.

I like work that Ill learn from even if I make a lot of

mistakes.

6.

I like my work best when I can do it perfectly without

any mistakes.

7.

When something is hard, it just makes me want to

work more on it, not less.

8.

To tell the truth, when I work hard, it makes me feel

as though I am not very smart.

9.

I prefer not to label my students.

10. I recognize each of my students strengths.

11. Gifted students learn much like regular students.

12. My present teaching assignment is demanding.

13. In general, I think gifted means___________________________________________________________.

14. In general, I think special education means_________________________________________________.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

28

15. I identify with the gifted in the following ways: _______________________________________________.

16. When I cant answer a students question, I __________________________________________________.
17. When I feel that Im losing control of the class, I ________________________________________ ______.
18. The kids I have the easiest time with are those that are good in__________________________________.
19. The kids I have the hardest time with are those that__________________________________________.
20. As an educational community, we could change or improve programs for the gifted

by_____________________________________________________________________________________.

Note. All Kinds of Minds Inventory was conducted on November 6th, 2014, in one
Educational Psychology seminar session. The inventory initially was given to 10 participants to
establish a baseline for mindset assessment. Case study intervention next was given and the
inventory immediately was re-administered during the same class period. One participant
(Queen Elizabeth) took the inventory during the next class--under the same conditions.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

29

APPENDIX 1. TreatmentIntervention: Case Study of a Twice Exceptional Learner

(Cline, 1998)
ENROLLMENT FORM NEW STUDENT: Help us welcome your new student to
your classroom. WELCOME, ROLANDO! Please tell us something about yourself.
Meet Rolando, as introduced by his mother:

I didnt think that Rolando was that different at first. When he was born just outside
Santo Domingo, his little spine was not strong. Still as a newborn, he focused on
everything around him. At three months he was duplicating sounds. At that time, we
moved to the Bronx. He became fascinated with childrens television programs and
appeared to be watching programs such as Electric Company and Sesame Street. He
would keep focused and could be attentive for long periods of time. By the time he was
year or so, he was speaking in complete sentences.

He wouldnt go to sleep at night unless his bed was full of books that he would read. I
knew he was reading by the age of three, maybe even before because he recited
excerpts from the Peanuts Comic paperbacks. I had never read these to him. He was
mispronouncing words he had apparently tried to sound out. He had an incredible
memory and would remember everything that was said, read or seen on television.

At age three Rolo was drawing and writingHere is a picture of a snail that I saved from
this time period. Between ages two and four Rolo became fascinated by dinosaurs. He
learned every fact he could find--knew every name, type and description. He would quiz

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

us all (especially grandpapa) and got annoyed when answers were not correct. By first
grade Rolo got focused on codes and ciphershe began inventing his own. Rolos
interests and abilities were not recognized by his first grade teacher.

By age six, Rolo had expressed anger about death, making me promise to bury his
favorite possessions with him were he to die. Within two years Rolo got over this and
began equating death with balance in nature--deciding that anything other than
cremation was barbaric. This happened at a time when he became really aware of the
environment. Rolo became angered when (during the Jaws movie era) people were
killing sharks with a vengeance. He had no patience with people who didnt attempt to
understand the value of all life in the greater picture.

In the third grade, Rolo was invited to participate in a gifted program in the school
district. The school gave Group IQ tests but other than telling us that he qualified for
the gifted program, we were never told that Rolandos IQ was unusual. In 4th grade,
Rolo started blinking. Other children made fun of him so we became concerned. We
spoke with the school psychologist who interviewed him and met with him on several
occasions. They never told us that Rolo was exceptional.

In middle school Rolo did a big research study of the brain. But Rolo lacked
organizational skills. When he was involved in a project that he had a passion for, he
gave it total attention and other assignments would suffer and be turned in late. The
middle school teacher in the gifted program noticed that Rolo might need some

30

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

31

guidance in high school. One of the teachers noticed Rolos profile and told the school
counselor.

When Rolo entered high school he became involved in a scientific research program on
the brain. He received an almost perfect score on his PSATs. He was taking two
languages and all the other required courses. He never went to see the school
psychologist and the psychologist never tried to see Rolo.

We didnt realize that Rolo fell into a state of depression just before his senior year.
Rolo was applying to colleges and tried to get to see his guidance counselor. Even
though he was in a depressed state when he took his SATs, he scored 1470. We knew he
was not doing well in all of his subjects. Rolo had some difficulty in AP chemistry and
integrated math, even though he was president of Mathletes and won awards.
Because his program was so overscheduled Rolo could get to the guidance counselors
office only at the end of the school day. The guidance counselor was coaching the
football team. Rolo went to see him on the football field. The teacher became enraged.
How dare he! He was angry with Rolo and wanted to know why he had not participated
in sports. He was not impressed with the fact that Rolo was involved in Mathletes and
in the World Cultures Club. Rolo seemed to crash at this time and went into therapy
three times a week. The therapist told us that sometimes Perfectionism =
Procrastination = Paralysis.

Rolo applied to five universities including the City University of New York. One school,

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

32

Colgate, noted something special about Rolo in their records. They accepted him and
told Rolo that when he felt better there was a place for him. He graduated from
Colgate cum laude with High Honors in English. He is now completing a doctoral
program in dramaturgy and critical literature.
His abilities extended beyond his ability to write. In third grade, Rolo became interested
in conducting a survey. So he gathered data and analyzed it in ways that were
statistically correct without ever being exposed to statistical procedures. Rolo said that
he sometimes surprised himself with what he knew and claimed that ideas just came to
him.

I think now there are many individuals who could have helped Rolo along the way so
that he did not have to suffer emotional trauma.

What might you say to mom as one of Rolos teachers?

Note. Teachers indicated that they had completed reviewing and reading the case study
by raising their hands. Each was individually approached and then invited to take the All Kinds
of Mind inventory again--this time as if they were the teacher of the 2E student.

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

33

Appendix II
Qualitative Data Pre-Coded Inputs

TeacherParticipants

15. I
14. In
identify
general, I with the
13. In general, think
gifted in
I think
special the
gifted
education following
means
means ways

may need
some
additional
help

Jane Doe 1

know a great
deal about a
topic or two

Jane Doe 2

exception
knowing a
al in
subject or topic many
very well
ways

think outside
Wonderwoma the
needs
n1
box/creatively extra help
needing
extra
help/or
Wonderwoma able to do
the right
n2
special things help
learning
in a
Amanda
different
Jacob 1
intelligent
way

Amanda
Jacob 2

intelligent
student

students
that need
more ...?

enjoys or
has a
passion
about a
subject.

18. The
kids I
17. When I have the
feel that
easiest
16. When I
Im
time with
cant answer a losing
are those
students
control of that are
question, I
the class, I good in

19. The
kids I
have the
hardest
time
with are
those
that

tell him/her to
let me research
and get back to
him/her

need
some
help
reading

stop and hit

the reset
button
reading

knowing
a subject tell student ''let
or topic me research & hit the reset
w/passion get back to you" button
reading

able to
catch on
quickly

ask them the

question

stop and
try to
change
things up

being
different Now would
take a
in a good want to research minute to
way
the answer.
refocus

20. As an
educationa
l
communit
y, we could
change or
improve
programs
for the
gifted by
offering
advanced
classes or
more in
depth
material in
the regular
classroom
setting
developing
lesson
plans that
have (up
arrow)
critical
thinking
activities or
delving
deeper into
a subject
content.

may
need
help in
reading
think
they
(just being know
letting them
regular
everythi explore
students) ng
more.
more
professiona
thinking don't
l
outside
want to developme
the box
try
nt

challengi say give me

ng
sometime

take a deep
breath
listening

challenge
s
think over it

take a deep
breath
listening

disruptiv
e
challenging
giving them
more
disruptiv challenging
e
work

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

Adam De la
Fuente 1

Adam De la
Fuente 2

having a
disability
having special that
abilities. Sees makes
the world
learning Higher
differently.
difficult. IQ

having an
aptitude for
learning or
special ability

exceptional in
Sasha Fierce 1 some way

exceptional,
smart, special
in one
Sasha Fierce 2 way/another

having a
disability
that
makes
learning
difficult.

high IQ,
emotional
needs not
met
need
exception more
al in some work if
way
finish fast
exception
al. May
have
strengths
&
how can I
weakness challenge
es.
him!

challenge them
to look it up
tell them good
question let me
get back with
you

need to
regroup,
and reflect
on what
happened ELA
make them
give me 5
are out
aka be
following of their
quiet
directions seats

won't do
work

tell them I will

find out the
answer

initiate
rewards
and
consequenc math and
es
reading

are
stubborn

memory
and
acquiring
knowledg tell them I will
e
find the answer

step back
and reteach
classroom math and
rules
reading

do not
want to
learn

abstract
thinking,
challengi learn or find the
ng myself answer

regroup
myself and
the
students

are not
motivate
d about
learning

struggle
to want
or have
the
wanting to desire to
learn
learn

close
monitoring,
discovery
learning
activities,
counseling

Maleficient
DeVille 2

having a lot of
knowledge and
shoring it in
different ways

Lilu 2

challenge them
to find an
answer

need to
regroup,
reflect why
this
happened reading

try to find
answer with
resources/tell
Rolo to research
it.
Give me 5. Listening

Maleficient
DeVille 1

Lilu 1

training
teachers to
continuousl
have
y push
massive them-behavior challenge
issues
them
being
aware of
creating
wellrounded
have
and
major
emotionally
behavior stable
issues
students.
not having
the
program.
delete
programs.
It labels
kids that
could
discourage
them.
by allowing
them to
show
knowledge
in different
ways
giving them
opportuniti
es to
express
themselves
in
nontraditio
nal ways
by
providing a
constant of
discovery
and
challenging
learning.

children
with
learning
having a lot of disabilitie
knowledge
s
memory

children
with
learning
disabilitie
s
learning
that
requires
the ability to
specialize
abstract think d
more than
instructio
others
n
learning
having the
&
ability to think teaching
and process
that
information in demands
an unusual
specialize
way
d

34

need to
be
challenge
d; like to seek the
evaluate
learn new information/ans my
things
wer
behaviors

listening
to
instruction
s

LONGITUDINAL 2E CASE STUDY EFFECTS ON TEACHER MINDSETS

35

instructio
n

Beyonce 1

advanced
students

gifted
students
are those
who
understan
students d the
that may content
need more faster and
assistance work
than
rapidly
others in through find out the
certain
school
answer w/them
areas
work
together

Beyonce 2
(aka Taylor
W)

students that
think
differently

a certain
type of
learning

Marie Claire 1 talented

different
learning
Marie Claire 2 capacity

need help talented

find the answer

with them
let them know
it's available
somewhere

giving them
leadership
assignment
s to help
regroup
their peers
really
getting to
know who
are students
are and in
what areas
do they
succeed in
so they can
help others
or make
take a step
does not use of their
back and
want to gift in a
rethink
participati participa teachable
things
on
te
way.
disrupt
get
class
challenging
frustrated listening flow...
them more.
evaluating
and finding
get
what's
frustrated obedience disobey needed
do not
want to
participati be at
ng in class school

Jim 1

out of the box

thinker

need
need
assistance assistance find answer
someone
who may
need a
look it up or ask clap my
little help another teacher hands

Jim 2

Students out of
this world,
high level
thinkers

Students
who are
gifted in Thinking Ask another
their own outside
teacher or
ways
the box student

behavior

do not
like to
listen

Step back Special

Are
and refocus education gifted

putting
more funds
into it.
Working
with the
students,
make sure
everything
is good.