Growth Mindset Interventions and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Implications for Educational Management

Growth mindset interventions are widely adopted in schools on the premise that teaching students that intellectual abilities can be developed will raise academic achievement, yet published syntheses disagree about how large, and how dependable, the effect is. This study conducted a systematic review and second-order meta-analysis of the strongest available evidence in order to clarify what the pooled effects imply for educational management. Following a PRISMA 2020-adapted protocol, we identified three large meta-analytic syntheses and four large randomized field experiments conducted in the United States, England, and Norway. Effect estimates were extracted, standard errors were reconstructed from confidence intervals, and estimates were compared through contrast tests, heterogeneity statistics, prediction-interval-based probabilities, and practical-significance translations. Pooled effects on academic achievement ranged from d = 0.02 (highest-quality studies) through d = 0.05 (all studies) to d = 0.14 (targeted subsamples with high implementation fidelity). The difference between the quality-restricted and the targeted estimate was statistically detectable (z = 2.08, p = .038), and between-estimate heterogeneity was high (I2 = 76.9%). Under a prediction interval of -0.08 to 0.35, an approximately 89% chance of a positive effect in a new, comparable implementation is implied, but only about 63% of an effect of at least 0.10. We conclude that growth mindset interventions are best treated as a low-cost, context-dependent supplement rather than a system-wide strategy. Managers should target at-risk students, secure fidelity, align school structures with the message, and evaluate locally.