4.6 Review

Mindsets in health professions education: A scoping review

Journal

NURSE EDUCATION TODAY
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104863

Keywords

Academic success; Health professions; Growth mindset; College student; Learning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The growth mindset model has been shown to enhance academic success in college students, particularly in the health professions field. Students with a fixed mindset may avoid feedback, hide errors, and exhibit negative behaviors that hinder learning. Integrating the growth mindset model into curricula can help cultivate adaptive health professionals. More robust studies are needed to further support the efficacy of the growth mindset model in health professions education.
The growth mindset model has been linked with enhancing academic success in college students. A scoping review was conducted detailing evidence of the growth mindset model?s application in health professions. Databases searched included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Conference Papers Index, Embase, and Education Database. A hand search was also carried out. 1296 articles were reviewed. Inclusion/exclusion resulted in 22 articles from health professions articles: medical education (10), nursing (3), veterinary (3), pharmacy (2), physiotherapy (1), and general health professions education (3). This study demonstrated that fixed mindset student learners may avoid constructive feedback, hide errors, and express negative maladaptive behaviors that threaten their learning. To cultivate an adaptive lifelong learning health professional, the growth mindset model shows promise and should be integrated into curricula. In closing, many articles were not empirical research. Implications: The growth mindset model shows promise for academic success in health professions education, but more robust studies are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available