PreprintCited by 5Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

"Mistakes Help Us Grow": Facilitating and Evaluating Growth Mindset Supportive Language in Classrooms

Open access
Handa, Kunal, Clapper, Margaret, Boyle, Jessica, Wang, Rose E, Yang, Diyi, Yeager, David S, Demszky, Dorottya·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Teachers' growth mindset supportive language (GMSL)--rhetoric emphasizing that one's skills can be improved over time--has been shown to significantly reduce disparities in academic achievement and enhance students' learning outcomes. Although teachers espouse growth mindset principles, most find it difficult to adopt GMSL in their practice due the lack of effective coaching in this area. We explore whether large language models (LLMs) can provide automated, personalized coaching to support teachers' use of GMSL. We establish an effective coaching tool to reframe unsupportive utterances to GMSL by developing (i) a parallel dataset containing GMSL-trained teacher reframings of unsupportive statements with an accompanying annotation guide, (ii) a GMSL prompt framework to revise teachers' unsupportive language, and (iii) an evaluation framework grounded in psychological theory for evaluating GMSL with the help of students and teachers. We conduct a large-scale evaluation involving 174 teachers and 1,006 students, finding that both teachers and students perceive GMSL-trained teacher and model reframings as more effective in fostering a growth mindset and promoting challenge-seeking behavior, among other benefits. We also find that model-generated reframings outperform those from the GMSL-trained teachers. These results show promise for harnessing LLMs to provide automated GMSL feedback for teachers and, more broadly, LLMs' potentiality for supporting students' learning in the classroom. Our findings also demonstrate the benefit of large-scale human evaluations when applying LLMs in educational domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.10637

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Handa, K., Clapper, M., Boyle, J., Wang, R. E., Yang, D., Yeager, D. S., & Demszky, D.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
8877-8897
OpenAlex
W4389520765
Cited by
5
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
FWCI
0.89
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (P2CHD042849, 2247357, 1761179, 2201928)
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-004519, INV-047751)
  • Jacobs Foundation (P2CHD042849)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD084772, P2CHD042849)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
growth mindset, teacher language, large language models, prompt engineering, student perceptions, teacher perceptions, classroom discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review