Mindsets, attitudes and learning

3. Growth mindset enablers: Student self-beliefs and attitudes

Growth mindset is best understood as one central element of a system of motivational beliefs and attitudes, rather than a stand-alone construct. Educational psychology suggests that students’ academic behaviours are shaped not only by skills and knowledge but also by their beliefs about learning and competence (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002[17]; Bandura, 1997[20]). Expectancy–value models emphasise that students’ expectations for success and the value they assign to tasks can shape their choice, effort and endurance in tasks (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002[17]). For this reason, strategies cannot focus only on "belief in effort" but must consider the wider set of self-beliefs and attitudes that relate to a growth mindset.

In PISA 2022, this wider set of self-beliefs is captured through indicators such as mathematics self-efficacy, curiosity and persistence, each of which is closely related to how students translate beliefs into engagement and outcomes. Examining these dimensions alongside growth mindset helps to situate it within a wider motivational system.

Mathematics self-efficacy and growth mindset

Mathematics self-efficacy, defined as confidence in performing mathematics tasks, is strongly and positively associated with performance1 (OECD, 2024[3]). Students who are more confident in solving mathematics tasks are also more motivated to learn when faced with challenges (OECD, 2024[3]).

On average across OECD countries, students with a growth mindset are also more likely to report higher mathematics self-efficacy (Table B.19); however, this association varies across student performance groups in a way that mirrors the variation in links with performance in mathematics. Among low-performing students, the relationship between growth mindset and self-efficacy is often not significant and, in fact, negative in 28 countries/economies, suggesting that for struggling students, having growth mindset beliefs does not always relate to greater confidence in mathematics (Figure 7). By contrast, among mid-performing students, the relationship is most often positive (in 37 countries/economies), while among top performers, the relationship is mostly absent.

These findings suggest that in a number of systems, growth mindset and self-efficacy align most clearly for students in the “middle” of the performance proficiency scale (where 61% of students report a growth mindset), echoing results on the performance gaps associated with growth mindset. A plausible interpretation is that students who have accumulated enough evidence of progress to sustain confidence, growth mindset beliefs and self-efficacy align more strongly. Conversely, low-performing students with a growth mindset who have not yet performed well may doubt their efficacy because academic growth has not yet happened for them. Among top performers, the relationship appears weaker, likely because their confidence is more strongly grounded in prior achievement and mastery experiences than in beliefs about effort or the malleability of intelligence. In addition, the association may also be weaker given that top-performing students with a fixed mindset may believe they have a special, fixed ability that causes their high performance, thus providing them with greater confidence in their abilities.

Figure 7. Growth mindset, self-belief and attitudes, by level of performance

Change in the following student self-beliefs and attitudes when they disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much", by level of performance in mathematics; OECD average

Note: On average across the OECD, the percentage of students reporting a growth mindset is 49% among low performers, 61% among mid-performers, and 67% among top performers.

Differences are accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile. The socio-economic profile is measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS).

Differences that are statistically significant are shown in a darker tone (see Reader’s Guide).

Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Tables B.19 and B.21.

Curiosity and persistence: Drivers of engagement

Curiosity is often described as a foundation of intrinsic motivation, stimulating questions, the desire to understand and the enjoyment of learning new things (Kashdan and Silvia, 2009[21]). Specifically, epistemic curiosity is defined as a motivational drive that is revealed by what a person voluntarily chooses to pay attention to, study, attempt to solve, retrieve or explore in the absence of compelling external needs or incentives (Metcalfe, Schwartz and Eich, 2020[22]). The PISA index of curiosity captures not only students’ drive for knowing how things work, but also their intrinsic motivations to learn and to ask questions.

PISA 2022 data confirm that students with greater curiosity are more likely to report a growth mindset (Table B.21). Yet, here too the relationship diverges by performance group. Low-performing students with a growth mindset are often less curious, perhaps because they may focus on the more “mechanical” aspects of doing better in school (Figure 7). Among mid-performing students, growth mindset students were consistently more curious across countries/economies. Top-performing students with a fixed mindset are typically just as curious as top-performing growth mindset students, perhaps because their curiosity has compensated for any negative impact of a fixed mindset.

Importantly, curiosity also acts as a moderating factor in the link between mindset and achievement – students with greater curiosity show an additional gap of around 12 score points in mathematics related to growth mindset, even after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 10 and Table B.29).

Persistence, in turn, is clearly associated with growth mindset across countries/economies (Table B.21). The PISA index of persistence measures students’ perseverance and resilience in areas such as putting in additional effort when work becomes challenging or stopping when work becomes too difficult. Persistence and curiosity both operate through a motivational channel that underpins effort and strategic learning.

The relationship between persistence and growth mindset is positive for most students, particularly in the middle performance group, where it is rarely absent or negative. Among low and top performers, the association is often non-significant, yet still positive in some countries/economies, or even negative among low performers.

Like curiosity, persistence enhances the link between growth mindset and mathematics performance, with students in the top quarter of persistence scoring about nine score points higher than those in the lowest quarter in relation to growth mindset, after accounting for students’ socio-economic status (Figure 10 and Table B.31).

This suggests that persistence likely amplifies the motivational impact of growth beliefs. Among low performers, however, they do not channel motivation in the same way. It is possible that when curiosity or persistence is not matched by adequate instructional support or experiences of success, they can even be negatively related to growth mindsets. This pattern suggests that motivational skills may enhance the value of growth beliefs, but only when students’ learning environments provide space for them to be acted upon.

Together, these patterns suggest that growth mindset is most consistently linked with other self-beliefs and dispositions, but typically in the larger group of mid-performing students. Among low performers, associations are weaker or inconsistent, potentially because a student with a growth mindset who still performs poorly might be lacking other motivation or self-regulation skills. Among top performers, these relationships are largely non-significant, but the underlying mechanisms are likely to be different. Confidence in their abilities may already be firmly established, reducing the additional salience of mindset beliefs for self-efficacy. In addition, top-performing students with a fixed mindset might succeed, likely due to other motivational factors, despite their fixed mindsets. In such cases, growth mindset appears less relevant, not because it is absent, but because it overlaps with existing resources that lead to higher performance even among students who endorse a fixed mindset.

Note

← 1.  A one-unit increase in the self-efficacy index corresponds to an average score gap of 28 score points in mathematics across OECD countries, even after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profiles (OECD, 2024[3]).