Interventions designed to improve student learning and achievement are essential to the mission of educational psychology and education in general. However, determining which interventions have strong empirical evidence and which do not can be challenging, especially for the general public (Cleary & Robinson, 2025). In the present Reflection, we compared and contrasted the evidence base of two interventions: Growth Mindset Training (GMT) and retrieval practice. Whereas retrieval practice has considerable empirical support, GMT has a mixed and debated evidence base, with average effects that appear small. The former is typically studied using intervention research methods whereas the latter usually involves observational methods. Whereas retrieval practice takes long-term sustained effort and tends to be perceived by learners in the moment as less effective than re-reading material (and less comfortable due to retrieval difficulties), GMT is a relatively short, quick, intuitive activity. This contrast may lead strategies like retrieval practice to be less readily adopted than GMT. We propose that future research should examine whether easily adopted strategies like GMT could be beneficially bundled with harder-to-embrace effective learning strategies like retrieval practice to enhance the usage and impact of both.
