Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujec20

I think I can, I think I can’t: Design principles for

fostering a growth mindset in the early years

Fiona Boylan, Lennie Barblett & Marianne Knaus

To cite this article: Fiona Boylan, Lennie Barblett & Marianne Knaus (2024) I think I can, I think
I can’t: Design principles for fostering a growth mindset in the early years, Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 45:1, 96-117, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2023.2251924

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2023.2251924

© 2023 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 30 Aug 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1829

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujec20
JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION
2024, VOL. 45, NO. 1, 96–117
https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2023.2251924

I think I can, I think I can’t: Design principles for fostering

a growth mindset in the early years
Fiona Boylan , Lennie Barblett, and Marianne Knaus
School of Education, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

“I think I can, I think I can’ puffed “The Little Engine That Could.” The Received 18 December 2022
American folktale taught the value of optimism and hard work reflect­ Accepted 20 August 2023
ing a growth mindset belief about abilities. A growth mindset posi­
tively impacts academic achievement, motivation, and children’s
agency for learning. Few studies have explored how early childhood
teachers can develop children’s growth mindsets. We report on
a study that developed design principles to assist early childhood
teachers to foster a growth mindset in children in early childhood
classrooms at one school in Western Australia using design-based
research. Two iterations of the principles were designed and examined
with teachers of children aged 3.5 years to 6.5 years of age. During
three focus groups conducted at the beginning, middle and end of
two iterations, the researcher and teachers collaboratively developed,
reflected, and refined the principles. Weekly video diaries recorded the
participant’s reflections on the principles. The nine principles were
found to improve early childhood teacher knowledge and practice to
foster a growth mindset in children. The results from this study con­
tribute theoretical and practical knowledge to support the inclusion of
mindset theory in early childhood contexts to foster children’s growth
mindset for positive learning outcomes.

Introduction
Student beliefs about their abilities strongly influence motivation, achievement and learning
(Dweck, 2016). The student who thinks “I can” holds a growth mindset and is more likely to
achieve at a higher level. While the student who thinks “I can’t” is more likely to give up and
reach their achievement plateau. There is increasing evidence that students’ recognition of
their capacity to learn using a growth mindset assists them to achieve greater success in
learning and experience positive wellbeing (Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Dweck &
Yeager, 2019). Developing students’ growth mindsets in the early years builds a strong
foundation for future schooling. While much research has been conducted to support
primary and high school teachers to develop a growth mindset in older students and
adolescents, very little empirical research has investigated how to support early childhood
teachers to foster a growth mindset in students. Boylan, Barblett, and Knaus (2018) found
early childhood teachers acknowledge the need for students to develop a growth mindset for
successful learning, and believe it is their role to do so but do not believe they have the

CONTACT Fiona Boylan [email protected] School of Education, Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford St Mount
Lawley WA 6050 Australia
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms
on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 97

confidence or knowledge to incorporate the teaching of mindset theory. This study devel­
oped nine design principles to assist early childhood teachers to foster students’ growth
mindset.

Mindset theory
Mindset theory has the potential to transform the way educators think about learning and
teaching. Dweck (2017) theorized mindsets are your beliefs about basic qualities such as
your intelligence, talents, and personality. Many studies have shown that mindsets play
a significant role in motivation, self-regulation, achievement, and interpersonal processes
(Dweck, 2017; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Two types of mindsets were identified, fixed (I think
I can’t) and growth (I think I can) situated at either end of a continuum. Those with a fixed
mindset view their abilities as static, exert less effort to succeed and reject challenging
learning opportunities for fear of failure. Those with a growth mindset believe their
intelligence is malleable, understand mistakes are part of the learning process and persevere
when faced with challenges or setbacks (Dweck, 1999, 2007). Dweck (2016) describes
a person as not having one mindset or the other all the time but a mixture of both
dependent on the task. A learner can be placed along the mindset continuum for different
tasks or abilities at different times of their life. Significantly Dweck and colleagues (Dweck,
2007; Dweck et al., 1995) have shown mindsets are influenced by the messages we receive
around us and can be changed. Recognizing that one has different mindsets for learning,
maximizes opportunities for students to take charge and develop agency over their learning.
Establishing high quality learning environments during the early years to nurture a growth
mindset assists students to exercise autonomy and ownership of learning.
The established literature on mindset theory describes the findings of studies researching
the impact of mindset interventions with primary and adolescent students (Claro,
Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2019) with very few studies
researching the development of student’s growth mindset in the early years. Claro,
Paunesku, and Dweck (2016) found 10th grade students in Chile with a growth mindset
exhibited a positive relationship with achievement, and for those students from lower
income families, a growth mindset provided a buffer against the effects of poverty on
achievement. In another study, brief mindset modules delivered to 1,594 students in diverse
high schools in the United States were beneficial for poor performing students and raised
grades for students at risk of dropping out (Paunesku et al., 2015). A scalable intervention
trialed by Yeager et al. (2019) in secondary education in the United States, reported
improved grades among lower-achieving students and increased overall enrollment in
advanced mathematics courses. All three studies report positive impacts on learning and
achievement for students who hold a growth mindset.

Critique of Dweck’s Theory

The detractors of Dweck’s implicit theory of intelligence argue the model is seemingly one-
dimensional and dualistic (Graham, 1995; Harackiewicz & Elliott, 1995), has not considered
other factors such as stability of intelligence over time, hereditary and environmental factors
(Gelman, Heyman, & Legare, 2007; Gottfried, Gelman, & Schultz, 1999; Graham, 1995;
Haslam, Bastian, & Bissett, 2004; Haslam, Bastian, Bain, & Kashima, 2006) and contend that
98 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

a growth mindset is not enough, claiming a third mindset of deliberate practice is needed
(Ericson & Pool, 2016). Critics claim that the proponents of growth mindset research have
overstated findings in papers, books and the popular press, talking of the mindset revolu­
tion (Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, & Macnamara, 2018). Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, and
Macnamara (2018) undertook two meta-analyzes of the literature reviewing 273 and 43
studies respectively to examine the effectiveness of mindset interventions on academic
achievement and potential moderating factors. The findings indicated a weak correlation
(0.19) between a growth mindset and academic achievement with the average effect size for
educational interventions was 0.57. In response to this finding, Dweck (2018) argued that an
effect size of 0.20 is a large effect in a real-world setting. Additionally, costs associated with
these mindset interventions are low per student, they are practical to implement and
provide a reasonable effect on a cost basis. Dweck and colleagues recently undertook
a nationwide study of mindset interventions to examine which work best and how they
can be improved. Dweck and Yeager (2019) confirmed that mindset interventions can work
at scale, especially for low-achieving students, but that context is critical.

Educational policy
Educational policy focuses on sustaining systematic improvement with an increasing
expectation for students to become independent lifelong learners (OECD, 2019).
A review of educational policy documents internationally (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018; Ministry of Education, New Zealand, 2017; OECD, 2019; Pascal, Bertram,
& Rouse, 2017; Payler et al., 2017) and nationally (Australian) (DEEWR, 2018; DET, 2018;
Education Council, 2019) highlight an increasing focus on developing growth mindsets to
improve learning outcomes and wellbeing. A PISA report found that “a growth mindset was
positively associated with students’ motivation to master tasks, general self-efficacy, learn­
ing goals and perceiving the value of schooling; it was negatively associated with their fear of
failure” (OECD, 2019, p. 200). Additionally in Australia, revised early childhood policy and
curriculum documents suggest teachers include a focus on developing student’s metacog­
nitive skills such as a growth mindset to enhance learning (Barblett et al., 2021). Fostering
a growth mindset in the early years is important to assist students to build positive
dispositions toward learning and assists teachers in meeting the directive of policy
documents.

Developing a growth mindset in the early years

The foundations of students’ learning and development are laid in the early years as they
begin to form beliefs of themselves as learners and become aware of the messages they
receive from others. Research findings provide strong evidence that young students are
affected by failure, criticism, and praise (Cain & Dweck, 1995; Smiley & Dweck, 1994).
Dweck surmised that “young children have an early form of the whole [mindset] model”
and may not be as concerned about abilities as with issues of goodness and badness (Dweck,
2017, p. 141). Other studies investigated the effects of praise and criticism on students’ mind
sets.
Students’ mindsets are deeply affected by the praise and criticism received from adults.
Two studies in a series of experiments with preschool-aged students showed that various
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 99

kinds of criticism and praise from adults directly influenced mastery-oriented hardiness or
helpless vulnerability in students (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). The
researchers proposed young students do appear capable of forming views of themselves
when faced with a learning challenge. Further research by Haimovitz and Dweck (2017)
proposes that parents “failure debilitating mindsets” are visible to children and can influ­
ence their mindsets. Research with 160 parents found parental views of children’s failure
influence children’s intelligence mindsets; that is that intelligence is fixed or malleable.
Parents who see failure as debilitating focus on performance and ability rather than on
children’s learning. These studies highlight the impact parents and teachers have in the early
years on children’s mindsets. As students pursue their academic studies, achievement is an
issue that gains importance over the school years. The development of a growth mindset in
the early years may assist students to build effective learning strategies for future academic
success.
The remainder of the paper provides an overview of the study including the purpose,
research questions and theoretical perspective. Next, the methods are reported followed by
the results of the study. Finally, a discussion of the principles and conclusions of the study is
presented.

Present study
This paper is part of a larger four Phase PhD study undertaken by the first author and
reports on Phase Three and Four which developed a set of design principles for early
childhood teachers to foster a growth mindset in Kindergarten, Pre-primary and Year 1
students.
The research questions addressed in this paper are:

(1) How do early childhood teachers support the development of a growth mindset in
students?
(2) How effective are the design principles for guiding practice in the teaching of mind
set theory?

The research was conducted with ethical approval granted through Edith Cowan University
in alignment with the university’s Code of Ethics for researchers and research studies.
Participants informed written consent was obtained, confidentiality was observed, and
participants were protected from risk or harm.

Method
Participants
Purposive sampling was used in Phase Three and Four to identify a school with prior
knowledge and interest in developing a growth mindset in students in the early years. Four
possible schools were identified through the Association of Independent Schools of Western
Australia (AISWA). Conversations with the principal to determine suitability for the study
led to an invitation to an independent girls’ school located in the metropolitan area of Perth,
Western Australia due to their current interest in future-focused learning including
100 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Table 1. Overview of participants.

Participant Years of teaching Age of
(pseudonym) Teaching qualifications experience Year level teaching students
Participant 1 (Anne) Bachelor of Education ECE 0–5 years Kindergarten 3.5–4.5 years
Participant 2 Bachelor of Education ECE 5–10 years Pre-primary 4.5–5.5 years
(Annalyse)
Participant 3 Bachelor of Education ECE 5–10 years Pre-primary 4.5–5.5 years
(Jenna)
Participant 4 (Fay) Bachelor of Education ECE 10–15 years Year 1 5.5–6.5 years
Participant 5 Bachelor of Education ECE 10–15 years Year 1 5.5–6.5 years
(Deidre)
Participant 6 Bachelor of Education 10–15 years K, 1 and 2 3.5–6.5 years
(Dionne) Primary
Note. Kindergarten is a non-compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for students aged 3.5–4.5 years. Pre-primary is
the first formal compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for students aged 4.5–5.5 years of age and Year 1 is
a formal year of schooling for students aged 5.5–6.5 years of age.

incorporating mindset theory and a desire to expand their knowledge, and skills of mindset
theory. The Kindergarten, Pre-primary, Year 1 teachers and one early childhood education
support teacher participated in Phase Three and Four of the study. Kindergarten is a non-
compulsory year of schooling in Western Australia for children aged 3.5–4.5 years, Pre-
primary is the first formal compulsory year of schooling for children aged 4.5–5.5 years of
age and in Year 1 children are 5.5–6.5 years of age. Pseudonyms were assigned as outlined in
Table 1 and used in the reporting and discussion of the findings.

Procedure
The study used a design-based research (DBR) model comprising four phases (see Figure 1)
as developed by Reeves (2006). DBR is an agile methodology based in real world settings to
develop practical solutions through shared activity between the participants and research­
ers. DBR utilizes a systematic analysis of the situation and intelligent action to address
a problem and build new knowledge (Herrington, McKenney, Reeves, & Oliver, 2007). In
this DBR pragmatic study, “knowledge and action are seen to be intimately connected”
(Juuti, Lavonen, & Meisalo, 2016, p. 57). In the present study, DBR followed four phases
(Reeves, 2006) as the teachers and researcher developed, trialed and refined effective design
principles to help teachers foster a growth mindset in students. Phase One explored the
problem and sought theoretical inputs. The term problem “describes the discrepancy
between the existing and desired situations” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 93). Phase
Two developed a skeleton design solution to the problem drawing on the literature review,
conceptual framework and initial fieldwork. Phase Three focused on the design and
construction of a solution and consisted of two cycles of five weeks of development,
implementation and refinement in one school term. In Phase Four, the researcher devel­
oped a deep and comprehensive understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of the
design principles for the facilitation of growth mindset in the early years context through
reflection.
DBR is a suitable methodology for early childhood contexts to understand when, why
and how educational interventions work in practice (Bradley & Reinking, 2011). A range of
quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect data in each phase, as new needs
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 101

Figure 1. Design of this DBR study.

and issues emerged, to maximize the credibility of the research (Wang & Haffanin, 2005).
Only Phases Three and Four are reported on in this paper with Phase One reported in
a previous publication (Boylan, Barblett, & Knaus, 2018)
During Phase Three, prototypes of design principles to address the research problem of
how early childhood teachers can foster a growth mindset in students were developed,
trialed, and refined through two five week iterations over one school term of 10 weeks.
Prototyping refers to “the draft versions of the constructed solution” (McKenney & Reeves,
2019, p. 146). As shown in Figure 2 each iteration began with a 90–120 minute focus group
held at the school site to develop and refine the design principles. The teachers trialed the
design principles for five weeks, recording a video diary each week to reflect on the
implementation of the principles. The researcher analyzed the video data throughout
each iteration. The principles were refined at the next focus group meeting held at the
end of iteration one with the participants considering the data analysis and reflective
activities. The second cycle occurred for another five weeks to further test and refine the
principles followed by another focus group. Phase Three culminated in a set of eight design
principles developed collaboratively with the participants.
In Phase Four, a structured reflection process using Procee’s (2006) reflection techniques
required the researchers “active and thoughtful consideration of what has come together in
102 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Figure 2. Phase Three data collection methods.

research and development” (McKenney & Reeves, 2019, p. 183). The reflections used
Procee’s (2006) Kantian epistemology focusing on two main areas as asserted by Reyman
et al. (2006): the design challenge and aspects of the research process. Kant’s (cited in
McKenney & Reeves, 2019) “moments in judgment” to shape reflection described as
preparation, image forming and conclusion drawing were applied to Procee’s (2006) four
different reflective techniques of point (quantity), line (quality), triangle (relation) and
circle (modality) reflections. Reyman et al. (2006) assert that preparation and image
forming mainly involve looking into the past. Preparation requires the collection of relevant
facts or observations to be considered and image forming involves the selection and
synthesis of those facts and observations. Conclusion drawing looks ahead and uses the
results to inform what happens next. As described in McKenney and Reeves (2019), a point
reflection identifies one or more data points from which an unplanned insight may be
gained. A line reflection takes an observed instance in time and considers one or more
quality norms suspected to hold importance. The triangle reflection involves selecting
a finding and considering the perspectives of others relevant to the finding. The circle
reflection considers modality and identifies the methods used. Issues, questions or problems
are addressed in terms of what worked well and what did not work well. A new theoretical
understanding and practical solution to the problem of how early childhood teachers can
foster a growth mindset in students in the early years resulted in a set of nine design
principles.
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 103

Table 2. Overview of Sampling, data collection methods and analysis of Phases Three and Four.
Phase Three Phase Four
Sample Purposeful sample: six K–1 early childhood educators from one independent school
Data collection 3 x Focus groups (90 mins each) Structured reflection
methods Video reflections (5-10 mins once/week)
Jottings
Plus, minus, interesting (PMI) (Focus group two)
Questionnaire (Focus Group three)
Analysis Transcribed video reflections and focus groups Effectiveness and impact of design
Thematic analysis using NVivo (video reflections, jottings, principles
focus groups, PMI)
Analysis of questionnaire responses in Excel

Data collection
Data collection methods in Phases Three and Four are represented in Table 2. The use of
several data collection methods enabled the triangulation of data to increase the objectivity
of the findings.

Phase three data collection

The following data sources form the basis of this paper:

Focus group transcripts. Three focus groups of 90 mins were held in Phase Three with
sessions recorded using a Digital Voice Recorder device. Recordings were transcribed,
analyzed and discussed with participants at subsequent focus groups.

Video reflections. During Iteration One, 18 video reflections of 180 mins of footage were
recorded by the teachers using an iPad. In Iteration Two 14 video reflections with a total of
140 mins of footage on one or more of the principles were collected. Video reflections were
uploaded to an ECU Dropbox account and transcribed by the researcher. The participants
used a reflective framework (see Appendix A) based on a model developed by Rolfe,
Freshwater, and Jasper (2001) to assist in structuring a focused reflection. The framework
is organized into three parts, “What?,” “So what?” and “Now what?.” The prompts in the
“What?” section ask the participants to describe what happened (Rolfe, Freshwater, &
Jasper, 2001) with questions such as: What happened? What did you learn? What did you
do? What did you expect? What was different? What was your reaction? In the “So what?”
section the teachers considered questions such as: Why does it matter? What are the
consequences and meanings of your experiences? How do your experiences link to your
academic, professional and/or personal development? What difference did you make? How
do you know? The “Now what?” section considers: What are you going to do as a result of
your experiences? What will you do differently? How will you apply what you have learned?

Jottings. The researcher wrote detailed field notes during the focus groups which related to
the development of the principles.

Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI) Reflection Tool. In Phase Three the researcher used a PMI
reflection tool during the second focus group to gather the participant’s views on the
principles. A plus, minus, interesting (PMI) thinking tool developed by Edward De Bono
104 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

(2006) was used to help the teachers brainstorm ideas, weigh the pros and cons, and reflect
on and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the design principles for future improvement
(Appendix B). Each participant considered the positives (P) of the design principles (i.e.
what the principles had added to their practice and the classroom environment), the
minuses (M) or improvements to the design principles (i.e. what did not work so well)
and the interesting (I) points of implementing the principles (i.e. what surprised them).

Questionnaire. A questionnaire was completed by the teachers in the final focus group and
returned to the researcher to collect data on the effectiveness of the principles.

Structured Reflection in Phase Four. A structured reflection process as suggested by

Reyman et al. (2006) used Kant’s (cited in McKenney & Reeves, 2019) “moments in
judgment” to shape reflection preparation, image forming and conclusion drawing. These
were then applied to Procee’s (2006) four different reflective techniques of point (quantity),
line (quality), triangle (relation) and circle (modality) reflections. The researcher considered
theoretical inputs, empirical findings, and subjective reactions to produced new theoretical
understandings.

Data analysis
Phase three data analysis. Throughout the design and construction phase of DBR (i.e.
Phase Three) a process of refinement enabled large, vague ideas to be sculpted into an
operationalized solution. The refinement is guided by theory as well as participant expertise
(McKenney & Reeves, 2019). In the present study, the participants worked together through
two iterations of five weeks with the researcher to develop the prototype solution (i.e. a set
of design principles). Strategies such as focus group discussions and video diaries facilitated
collaboration, connection and refinement of the design principles. During the two cycles of
implementation, empirical testing of the principles identified how to move forward
throughout the study.
The research project generated a rich amount of text, video and audio data that was
analyzed using thematic content analysis (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018) in NVivo 12. Both
deductive and inductive coding were used and assisted the researcher to thematically code
data to the design principles and create new codes for findings that were not anticipated.
The codes were reviewed after each iteration to eliminate redundancy and overlap.
Hierarchy charts were created in NVivo at the end of each five-week cycle of implementa­
tion and converted to a graph for ease of interpretation for participants. This data compared
the number of codes in each node (i.e., each design principle) to determine the most and
least prominent principles being implemented by the teachers. The data analysis was
discussed with the participants during each focus group to facilitate the refinement and
modification of the design principles (i.e., nodes in NVivo) which were modified
accordingly.
Quantitative data collected via a questionnaire completed in the final focus group in
Phase Three were analyzed using Microsoft Excel due to the small number of participants
(i.e., six). Simple descriptive data analysis to generate summaries about the data were used
such as the mode. Two open-ended questions were analyzed using Strauss and Corbin’s
(1990) constant comparison analysis. The themes developed were used in Phase Four to
inform the refinement of the design principles by the researcher.
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 105

Phase four data analysis

Phase Four data analysis did not involve the participants directly as the researcher com­
pleted a structured DBR reflection on the effectiveness and impact of the final design
principles in relation to the literature and data collected.
During the DBR study, Phase Three and Four involved formative evaluation of the
design principles. All data collected from the cycles were respectively analyzed according to
their type and were compared and cross-checked for triangulation.

Results
For Phase Three and Four we present the most prominent results as linked to the develop­
ment and effectiveness of the design principles in alignment with Dweck’s (2016) mindset
theory which was the driver of change during this study. When needed, reference is made to
the findings related to the data collection method to explain the specific outcome more fully.

Development of the principles

The design principles were collaboratively developed, trialed, and refined with the teachers
over two iterations of five weeks in one school term. The frequency with which teachers
reflected on the design principles provided important data to measure the teachers’ focus
and familiarity with each principle (See Table 3). The analysis was shared with the teachers
in each of the focus groups for discussion and assisted in the refinement of the principles.

Iteration one
The data presented in Table 3 indicates the deductive analysis of the frequency of coding of
video diary reflections to the principles in the two iterations of trialing and refinement. The
principles changed throughout the two iterations according to the participants feedback on
the implementation of them. The frequency of coding to the principles is also reflected in
Table 3 and shows the teachers focus on the principles changes during each iteration.
In Iteration One the teachers focused mostly on creating a warm, safe, and
supportive learning environment where persistence, effort and mistakes are embraced
(Principle Six) with 47 coding links. Principle Seven (i.e., Teachers teach students how
the brain works when you learn) received only two coding references in Iteration One
and was not a principle commonly used and reflected on. Two nodes were added,
misinterpretations of growth mindset and inquiry learning which did not fit with the
principles. Modifications to the principles made in focus group two in collaboration
with teachers resulted in seven principles being reduced to six principles. Principles 3,
4 and 5 also changed as shown in Table 3. Closer analysis of the frequency of coding
for Iteration Two revealed that the teachers’ focus on the principles shifted in
the second five weeks. Principle Three (i.e., Teachers assist students to reflect on
their learning by setting learning goals and providing students with strategies for
struggle) received the most coding with 14 links. Principle Two (i.e., Teachers hold
high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow) received the
least coding. Interestingly, Principle Six (i.e., Teachers teach students how the brain
106 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Table 3. Frequency of coding to the principles in Iteration one and Two.

Frequency of coding to principles in Iteration One and Two

Frequency of
Iteration One Coding
Principle 1: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using 18
a growth mindset
Principle 2: Teachers should high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow. 13
Principle 3: Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle through explicit teaching and 26
normalizing mistakes
Principle 4: Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising for effort. 20
Principle 5: Teachers assist students to reflect on their learning by settings learning goals. 24
Principle 6: Teachers create a warm, safe and supportive learning environment where persistence, effort 47
and making mistakes are valued.
Principle 7: Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn. 2
Misinterpretations of growth mindset 3
Inquiry learning 2
Frequency of
Iteration Two Coding
Principle 1: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective learning using 4
a growth mindset
Principle 2: Teachers should high expectations of students and believe all students can learn and grow. 2
Principle 3: Teachers assist students to reflect on learning by setting goals and providing students with 14
strategies for struggle through explicit teaching.
Principle 4: Teachers use language to promote a growth mindset including praising for effort. 9
Principle 5: Teachers encourage persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe and supportive 4
learning environment.
Principle 6: Teachers teach students about how the brain works when you learn 4

works when you learn), which received the least coding in the first iteration, showed
an increase in coding in the second iteration. Additional data was collected in the
focus groups.

Iteration two
After trialing the principles for five weeks the teachers’ views were collected in the
form of a PMI reflective tool (Appendix B) during the second focus group to refine
the principles. Results indicated some participants had not considered incorporating
teaching students about how the brain works when you learn as a practice for
developing a growth mindset (Principles six). This principle had raised teacher
awareness to include teaching about the brain as Fay stated, “So I think, from my
perspective, I’m developing a greater awareness of the principle which stated about
brain function and growth mindsets, and the growing brain.” The participants indi­
cated that they struggled to know how to teach about the brain but were working
toward improving this. Other results of the PMI included minuses or challenges to
implementing the principles. The teachers mentioned the overlap of some principles,
the time to implement the principles and catering for different students’ understand­
ing of mindset. Anne described how “time was a challenge, to fit in the things
I wanted to do.” Fay suggested there was some overlap between the principles and
some of them needed to be “more specific” or to “simplify” them.” The challenges
were discussed in focus group two and contributed to the refinement of the principles
for Iteration Two.
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 107

The participants also described interesting or surprising findings in the PMI from
Iteration One and mentioned improvements to students’ mindfulness practice, students’
sharing knowledge of mindset with parents and being more reflective when learning.
Further, students had begun to change the language they used to reflect growth mindset
theory. Jenna shared “Mindfulness practice has really improved as we’ve been talking about
the brain, and the importance of having rest time for our brain”. During Focus Group Two
the teachers debated the overlap of Principles Three and Five and the “wordiness” of
Principle Six. These Principles were refined as shown in Table 3 in response to the teacher
feedback.
Results from Iteration Two indicated that the teachers felt some principles were complex
and needed to be simplified. During focus group three the participants reflected that
Principles One, Two, Five and Six were adequate. Principles Three and Four were much
discussed as the participants described how each one was complex and multifaceted. As
a result, Principle Three and Principle Four were each separated into two principles to
ensure the focus was not lost. Significantly the teachers reflected that collaboration with
families was also key to developing student’s growth mindsets. A final set of eight design
principles was agreed upon.
Upon the completion of a structured reflection in Phase Four, the researcher added
a ninth principle to address the reflective point raised by teachers who wanted to share mind
set theory and practices in their school community to assist parents and carers to develop
a home environment that fosters a growth mindset for learning. Anne mentioned, “it is
important to have home and school continuity when teaching students to have a growth
mindset so positive mindset messages received at school are not negated by negative or fixed
mindset messages received at home.”

Effectiveness of the design principles

Results of the survey data collected in the final focus group to assess the effectiveness of the
principles reported all teachers (n = 6) knew more about the teaching of mindset. Fay
commented, “[I know more about] specific language use associated with growth mindset
and also the relationship between growth mindset and the brain.” Nearly all (n = 5) the
teachers also indicated that the principles were highly effective in assisting them to create
a classroom environment to foster the development of student’s growth mindset for
learning. Anne, however, expressed concern about the influence of the home environment
stating, “they have been beneficial to a degree; however, environment, parents and the
language they use at home can outweigh this.” Deidre added, “I am now more reflective of
my practice, which impacts on the learning opportunities provided” and Fay mentioned,
“the principles were well scaffolded to allow for implementation in a manageable way.”
The teachers reported in question three, several unexpected outcomes from implement­
ing the principles including better awareness of the language and feedback that promote
a growth mindset. Deidre stated,

I am now more aware of some of the language that I used prior to my involvement in the study,
for example, “clever girl” or “that’s great.” The type of feedback I provided wasn’t always geared
toward a growth mindset.
108 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Additionally, the teachers observed improved relationships between the students and
more interest in learning about their brains. Fay commented there were, “improved
relationships between students through the language they adopted when reflecting on
their peers’ goals.” Anne agreed, stating, “Students are encouraging each other to be more
positive and to tell their brain they can do it.” Fay stated that “The students were more
interested in their brains” and Deidre agreed, commenting that “teaching the students about
their brains was very effective.”
Question four gathered findings about the practicality of the principles.
Practicality refers to the possibility of putting the principles into practice. Findings
indicated two thirds (n = 4) of the participants found the principles to be very
practical to implement as Fay said, “all the principles had a clear purpose and
could be implemented effectively.” Two teachers felt they were somewhat practical
suggesting time was a hindering factor. Anne clarified this as she stated that the
principles were “easy to implement – the hard part was finding the time to teach
about the brain.”
When asked in question five about which principles were particularly effective at
promoting a growth mindset in the classroom the teachers indicated that Principles
One, Three and Six were the most effective (see Table 4). Interestingly, Principle Six,
which required teaching students about the brain, was found to be challenging for
the teachers to implement in Iteration One but was utilized more regularly in
Iteration Two. Fay found that, “Teaching students about their brain was very eye
opening. They were engaged, reflective and genuinely interested. It was also lovely to
see the girls took this knowledge home and discussed it with their families.” Fay
commented further that “student interest in the brain has been amazing to see.
I think they are listening to and are more aware of comments that strengthen and
weaken the brain.”
Finally, when asked if they would continue to use the principles in the future all six of the
teachers indicated they would. This suggests that the teachers found the principles effective
at supporting them to foster student’s growth mindsets.

Discussion
The intended outcomes of this DBR research were twofold: to produce both theoretical
and practical findings in the form of design principles to assist early childhood teachers
to foster growth mindsets in students. These are important findings that whilst provid­
ing practical “rules of thumb” for teachers to create a growth mindset environment also
add to the paucity of theoretical literature on how this can be done in an early childhood
context.
During the study teacher praxis in relation to mindset theory improved with the
use of the design principles. Teachers reported greater knowledge of mindset theory
and found the principles highly effective in supporting them to foster growth mind
sets in students in the early years. Similarly, a study by Seaton (2018) found that
teachers who have more knowledge of mindset theory gain confidence to effectively
create a growth mindset culture. Further results from Seaton’s (2018) study showed
that teacher behaviors regarding mindset are related to their knowledge and beliefs
about mindset. During the two iterations the teachers felt the principles assisted
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 109

Table 4. Development of the design principles.

Iteration Two
Iteration One principles Changes made principles Changes made Final principles
1. Teachers develop None made 1. Teachers develop None made Teachers develop
knowledge of their knowledge of their knowledge of their
own mindset and own mindset and own mindset and
model effective model effective model effective
learning using learning using learning using
a growth mindset. a growth mindset. a growth mindset
2. Teachers hold high None made 2. Teachers hold high None made Teachers hold high
expectations of expectations of expectations of
students and believe students and believe students and believe
all students can all students can all students can learn
learn and grow. learn and grow. and grow
3. Teachers provide Principles Five and 3. Teachers assist Principle Three was Teachers assist students
students with Three were students to reflect split into two to set goals and
strategies for combined and on their learning by separate principles reflect on their
struggle through reworded setting goals and learning.Teachers
explicit teaching and providing students provide students
normalizing with strategies for with strategies for
mistakes. struggle through struggle as they work
explicit teaching. toward achieving
a goal
4. Teachers use None made 4. Teachers use Principle Four was split Teachers use a common
language to language to into two separate language to teach
promote a growth promote a growth principles and students about fixed
mindset including mindset including reworded to and growth mindset.
praising effort. praising effort. emphasize the use of Teachers provide
a common language feedback for effort
when teaching rather than talent or
mindset. ability.
5. Teachers assist Principle Five
students to reflect combined with
on their learning by Principle Three
setting learning
goals.
6. Teachers create Principle Six was 5. Teachers encourage Added the word Teachers encourage
a warm, safe and reworded to persistence, effort resilience resilience,
supportive learning place the and normalize persistence, effort
environment where emphasis on mistakes in a safe and normalize
persistence, effort effort, and supportive mistakes in a safe
and mistakes are persistence and learning and supportive
embraced. normalizing environment. learning
mistakes. environment
7. Teachers teach None made 6. Teachers teach None made Teachers teach
students about how students about how students how the
the brain works the brain works brain works when
when you learn. when you learn. you learn

them to be more reflective of their responses to student successes and failures to

develop a growth mindset. The creation of design principles such as in the present
study may provide a sustained, long-term approach for early childhood teachers to
foster a growth mindset in children.

Principles to foster a growth mindset in students in the early years

A discussion of the final refined set of design principles is presented to reflect on
the validity and inclusion of each principle in relation to mindset literature. In
summary, we identified nine principles emerging from our DBR study to assist
110 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

teachers to foster the development of students’ growth mindset for learning in the
early years setting. The principles represent the knowledge gained from the study
and a retrospective analysis based on the literature.

Principle One: Teachers develop knowledge of their own mindset and model effective
learning using a growth mindset.
Teacher beliefs are likely to influence the practices they use and therefore influence
students’ mindset beliefs through the quality of interactions with students (Seaton, 2018).
The messages students receive from teachers powerfully affect their mindset, goal orienta­
tion and consequently academic achievement (Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007;
Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). It is vital that teachers know their own
mindset, as the assumptions they hold about themselves and students are influenced by
their mindset.

Principle Two: Teachers hold high expectations of students and believe all students can
learn and grow.
Teachers who hold high expectations and help students see themselves as successful learners
assist students to succeed. To hold these high expectations, teachers believe that all students
can learn, grow, and improve with effort. The National Study of Learning Mindsets (Yeager
et al., 2019) found that teachers use different instructional messages according to the beliefs
they hold in each student’s abilities. In an early childhood context where students are
forming the foundational views of themselves as learners, Principle Two is important to
ensure all students form a positive view of themselves as learners from an early age.

Principle Three: Teachers assist students to set goals and reflect on their learning.
Teachers play a vital role in assisting students to develop metacognitive skills that help them
reflect, revise, and retry when learning. Students develop metacognitive skills where they set
goals, respond positively to feedback, and manage their progress toward these goals to
develop a sense of agency for learning (Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron, &
Osher, 2020). Assisting students in early years settings to develop goals, implement strate­
gies and revise them enables reflective practice that draws on a growth mindset to overcome
setbacks and challenges in learning.

Principle Four: Teachers provide students with strategies for struggle as they work
toward achieving a goal.
Teachers who demonstrate and model strategies for struggle assist students in thinking
independently and strategically to overcome learning setbacks. Growing evidence from the
neurosciences regarding early brain development and its impact on learning, requires early
childhood educators to pay attention, particularly in relation to executive function, self-
regulation, and metacognition (Payler et al., 2017). However, in an early childhood context
it may be difficult, as students are still developing their social-emotional skills including
emotional regulation and metacognition. Darling-Hammond, Flook, Cook-Harvey, Barron,
and Osher (2020) suggest that at an early childhood level, teachers can allow students time
for practice to develop confidence and competence to see improvements in their abilities
and develop a growth mindset.
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 111

Principle Five: Teachers use a common language to teach students about fixed and
growth mindset.
One participant in focus group three mentioned that there was a need for a “common
language that goes through [year levels] to teach fixed and growth mindset.” This principle
was developed with the particular words “common language” to ensure continuity in a large
school environment. Thomas and McDonagh (2013) agree that a “shared language refers to
people developing understanding amongst themselves based on language (eg. spoken, text,
visuals) to help them communicate more effectively” (p. 46). A standard list of common
vocabulary related to mindset with meanings could be created for use in discussions with
students, families, and colleagues to support this principle.

Principle Six: Teachers provide feedback for effort rather than talent or ability.
The way teachers interact with students can support or undermine resilience and assist or
hinder students to adopt a growth mindset. Research with students from preschool to
adolescence has shown those who receive process praise focusing on feedback for effort and
strategies used to overcome a learning struggle are more likely to endorse a growth mindset
(Brummelman et al., 2014; Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007; Haimovitz & Corpus,
2011; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Process praise assisted students to
become learning oriented and develop resilience to learning setbacks.

Principle Seven: Teachers encourage persistence, effort and normalize mistakes in a safe
and supportive learning environment.
Teachers in this study described several ways they encouraged persistence and effort and
normalized mistakes in a safe and supportive learning environment. For example, devel­
oping a good respectful relationship with each student, talking about instances of making
mistakes themselves, modeling growth mindset strategies and self-talk, using story texts to
draw attention to making mistakes, and using phrases such as “hakuna matata” to normal­
ize mistakes in a novel way. In a safe and supportive learning environment making mistakes
is viewed as part of the learning process and positively affects students’ responses to
challenges or setbacks in learning. Further neuroscientific research (Diamond, 2013)
affirms this and has identified that more learning occurs when students feel safe, secure,
and accepted and can take the risk of trying new things without fear of being wrong.

Principle Eight: Teachers teach students how the brain works when you learn.
The teachers reported that students were more growth mindset oriented toward learning
after teaching them simple neuroscience about learning. The teachers described when the
students were facing a learning challenge they spoke more explicitly about the brain and
how it was strengthening. Researchers (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Blackwell et al.,
2007; Good et al., 2003) have found that it is possible to promote a growth mindset by
teaching students about neuroscientific evidence such as showing the brain is malleable and
gets stronger through effort, trying new strategies and seeking help when necessary. Pascal,
Bertram, and Rouse (2017) review of the Early Years Foundation Stage recommends that
more emphasis is needed on the language of learning as young students are developing their
knowledge base, capacity for metacognition and self-regulation.
112 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Principle Nine: Teachers share mindset practices with parents/carers and the
community.
A growth mindset is best encouraged with support from family and communities as well
as schools and teachers. An African proverb states, “it takes a village to raise a child”
(ACECQA, 2018) and reinforces the idea that it takes a community to nurture and
educate a child. Interestingly, in the present study the students took growth mindset
messages home to share with parents. Haimovitz and Dweck (2017) describe that
socialization of students’ mindsets is influenced by both parents and teachers. Studies
have shown that adult responses to student’s setbacks and their beliefs about what
motivates students are important (Ferrar et al., 2019; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017).
Many parents may not be aware that their responses to student setbacks in learning
shape their mindset and academic abilities. Sharing mindset practices may assist parents
to develop an understanding of this.

Conclusion
Unique to this study is the development of a set of principles developed in collaboration
with teachers rather than a lesson format where the lessons need to be implemented as
designed. The design principles support early childhood teachers’ training and values where
sensitivity to children’s development, learning needs, and socio-cultural contexts is an
important part of pedagogy and practice. The foundations for excellence in learning are
laid early in life. Therefore, the early years are an important time to create positive
motivations for learning and to strengthen students’ self-belief in themselves as a learner.
The development of a growth mindset for learning “I think I can” rather than a fixed mind
set “I think I can’t” assists students to recognize their ability to change and grow through
perseverance. The teaching of mindset theory to foster a growth mindset in an early
childhood environment encourages students to see the power of effort and resilience for
learning.

Limitations and future research

Limitations to this study included the setting and sample size for Phase Two and Three in
which only one school and six early childhood educators participated. Additionally,
the second iteration video sample was not large due to unexpected matters from the
participants such as illness. Implementation of the principles may need ongoing teacher
review with the understanding that in early childhood the developmental stage and cultural
context of the family and program may impact application and require ongoing adaptation
of the mindset principles. Trialing and revision of the principles in a more diverse range of
settings in the future would help to mitigate the limitation of only using one school.
Future research to develop practices to support each principle would be beneficial for
teachers. Further research could also involve consultation with families to develop resources
to assist parents to develop a growth mindset in children in partnership with teachers. The
scope of this study did not allow for students’ views on their own mindsets. Further research
could focus on several questions including: How do students feel about challenges? Do they
feel their mindset affects their learning? Additionally, the paucity of research on the
development of mindsets in the early years leads to further questions such as: What are
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 113

the factors that affect ability beliefs during this developmental phase? Are the conceptions
that students have of themselves at this age a predictor for future mindsets? And when do
academic mindsets emerge? The investigation of these questions would add further knowl­
edge to assist early childhood teachers to understand the development of mindsets in
students in the formative years.

Acknowledgments
Underlying analysis and reporting can be accessed through Fiona Boylan’s thesis: Mindsets
matter: Early childhood teacher perceptions of mindset https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/2476/ The
authors disclose receipt of the following funding for the research authorship and/or publication of
this article: Fiona Boylan acknowledges and expresses her gratitude to both Edith Cowan
University and the Australian Government Research Training Program to support the doctoral
study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Fiona Boylan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2531-3559

CRediT author statement

Boylan Fiona: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Analysis, Writing – Original draft
preparation. Barblett Lennie: Supervision, Writing – reviewing and editing. Knaus Marianne:
Supervision, Writing – reviewing and editing.

References
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing stereotype threat and boosting academic
achievement of African-American students: The role of conceptions of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2018). ‘It takes a village to raise
a child’: The role of community—part 1. https://wehearyou.acecqa.gov.au/2018/07/02/it-takes
-a-village-to-raise-a-child-the-role-of-community-part-1/
Barblett, L., Cartmel, J., Hadley, F., Harrison, L. J., Irvine, S., Harris, B., & Lavina, L. (2021). National
quality framework approved learning frameworks Update: Literature review. Australian Children’s
Educations and Care Quality Authority. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-09/
2021NQF-ALF-UpdateLiteratureReview.PDF
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, V. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict
achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
development, 78(1), 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Boylan, F., Barblett, L., & Knaus, M. (2018). Early childhood teachers’ perspectives of growth mindset:
Developing agency in children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 16–24. doi:10.
23965/AJEC.43.3.02
114 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Bradley, B., & Reinking, D. (2011). A formative experiment to enhance teacher-child language
interactions in a preschool classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(3), 362–401.
doi:10.1177/1468798411410802
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., de Castro, B. O., van den Hout, M. A., & Bushman, B. J.
(2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low
self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 9–14. doi:10.1037/a0031917
Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement
cognitions through the elementary school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25–52. https://www.
jstor.org/stable/23087453
Cimpian, A., Arce, H. M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect
children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18(4), 314–316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on
academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1608207113
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design. SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for
educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24
(2), 97–140. doi:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
De Bono, E. (2006). De Bono’s thinking course. Canada: Pearson Education.
Department of Education and Training. (2018). Through growth to achievement: Report of the review
to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools. https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/
through-growth-achievement-report-review-achieve-educational-excellence-australian-0
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2018). Belonging, Being and
Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. https://k10outline.scsa.wa.edu.au/
data/assets/pdffile/0003/4629/EYLFcomplete_doc.pdf
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143750
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. New York:
The Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39. http://
www.ascd.org/Default.aspx
Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success (updated ed.). New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). The journey to children’s mindsets and beyond. Child Development Perspectives,
11(2), 139–144. doi:10.1111/cdep.12225
Dweck, C. S. (2018, June 26). Carol Dweck Responds to Recent Criticisms of Growth Mindset Research.
Mindset Scholar Network. https://mindsetscholarsnetwork.org/carol-dweck-responds-recent-
criticisms-growth-mindset-research/
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and
reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. doi:10.1207/
s15327965pli0604_1
Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 14(3), 481–496. doi:10.1177/1745691618804166
Education Council. (2019). Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. Council of Australian
Governments. http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/Alice-Springs-Mparntwe-Education-
Declaration.aspx
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Ericson, A., & Pool, R. (2016). Growth Mindset is Only Half the Solution, You Need a Deliberate
Practice Mindset, Too. https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/exclusive-growth-
mindset-only-half-solution-you-need-a-deliberate
Ferrar, S. J., Stack, D. M., Dickson, D. J., Serbin, L. A., Ledingham, J., & Schwartzman, A. E. (2019).
Maternal socialization responses to preschoolers’ success and struggle: Links to contextual factors
and academic and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33(3), 363–381.
doi:10.1080/02568543.2019.1607787
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 115

Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood educa­
tion and care 2018. In Oy, D. & Oy, P. (Trans.), Helsinki, Finland: Author.
Gelman, S. G., Heyman, G. D., & Legare, C. H. (2007). Developmental changes in the coherence of
essentialist beliefs about psychological characteristics. Child Development, 78(3), 757–774. doi:10.
1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01031.x
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance:
An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of applied developmental
psychology, 24, 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
Gottfried, G. M., Gelman, S. A., & Schultz, J. (1999). Children’s understanding of the brain: From
early essentialism to biological theory. Cognitive Development, 14(1), 147–174. doi:10.1016/S0885-
2014(99)80022-7
Graham, S. (1995). Implicit theories as conceptualized by an attribution researcher. Psychological
Inquiry, 6(4), 294–297. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_4
Haimovitz, K., & Corpus, J. H. (2011). Effects of person versus process praise on student motivation:
Stability and change in emerging adulthood. Educational Psychology, 31(5), 595–609. doi:10.1080/
01443410.2011.585950
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children’s growth and fixed mindsets: New
research and a new proposal. Child Development, 88(6), 1849–1859. doi:10.1111/cdev.12955
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliott, A. J. (1995). Life is a roller coaster when you view the world through
entity glasses. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 298–301. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_5
Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological essentialism, implicit theories,
and intergroup relations. Group Process & Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 63–76. doi:10.1177/
1368430206059861
Haslam, N., Bastian, B., & Bissett, M. (2004). Essentialist beliefs about personality and their
implications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1661–1673. doi:10.1177/
0146167204271182
Herrington, J. A., McKenney, S., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and
doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale
(Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2007: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
& Telecommunications (pp. 4089–4097). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupa
pers/627/
Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., & Meisalo, V. (2016). Pragmatic design-based research: Designing as a shared
activity of teachers and researchers. In P. Dimitris & K. Petros, Eds. Iterative design of teaching-
learning sequencespp. 35–46. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-
7808-5_3 .
Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism: Implications for
contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835–847. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.35.3.835
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9781315105642
Ministry of Education, New Zealand. (2017). Te Whāriki: Early childhood curriculum. https://www.
education.govt.nz/early-childhood/teaching-and-learning/te-whariki/
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation
and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.75.1.33
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. OECD
Publishing. 10.1787/acd78851-en
Pascal, C., Bertram, T., & Rouse, L. (2017). Getting it right in the early years Foundation stage:
A review of the evidence. Watford, UK: The British Association for Early Childhood Education.
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-
Set Interventions Are a Scalable Treatment for Academic Underachievement. Psychological
Science, 26(6), 784–793. doi:10.1177/0956797615571017
Payler, J., Wood, E., Georgeson, J., Davis, G., Jarvis, P. , and Chesworth, L. (2017). BERA-TACTYC
early childhood research review. 2003-2017. London, UK: BERA.
116 F. BOYLAN ET AL.

Procee, H. (2006). Reflection in education: A Kantian epistemology. Educational Theory, 56(3),

237–253. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00225.x
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker,
K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (Vol. 1, pp.
52–66). London, UK: Routledge.
Reyman, I. M. M. J., Hammer, D. K., Kroes, P. A., van Aken, J. E., Dorst, C. H., Bax, M. F. T., &
Basten, T. (2006). A domain-independent descriptive design model and its application to struc­
tured reflection on design processes. Research in Engineering Design, 16(4), 147–173. doi:10.1007/
s00163-006-0011-9
Rolfe, G., Freshwater, D., & Jasper, M. (2001). Critical reflection for nursing and the helping profes­
sions: A user’s guide. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seaton, F. (2018). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 34(1), 41–57. doi:10.1080/02667363.2017.1382333
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and
under which circumstances are growth mindsets important to academic achievement? Two
meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. doi:10.1177/0956797617739704
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young
children. Child Development, 65(6), 1723–1743. doi:10.2307/1131290
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. USA: SAGE Publications.
Thomas, J., & McDonagh, D. (2013). Shared language: Towards more effective communication.
Australasian Medical Journal, 6(1), 46–54. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2013.1596
Wang, F., & Haffanin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning
environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23. doi:10.1007/
BF02504682
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., &
Duckworth, A. L. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves
achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHER EDUCATION 117

Appendix A: Phase Three: Reflection Template Used in Video Reflections

Reflection template

Reflection stages Explanation of each stage Your reflection

What? What happened? What did you learn? What did
you do? What did you expect? What was
different? What was your reaction?
So what? Why does it matter? What are the consequences
and meanings of your experiences? How do
your experiences link to your academic,
professional and/or personal development?
What difference did you make? How do you
know?
Now what? What are you going to do as a result of your
experiences? What will you do differently? How
will you apply what you have learned?
Adapted from Rolfe, Freshwater and Jasper (2001)

Appendix B: Phase Three: PMI (Plus, Minus, Interesting) Completed in Focus

Group 2