Janssen Tieme W P, van Atteveldt Nienke
Department of Clinical, Neuro- & Developmental Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Br J Educ Psychol. 2025 Jun;95(2):280-302. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12572. Epub 2022 Dec 11.
Although past research demonstrated growth mindset interventions to improve school outcomes, effects were small. This may be due to the theoretical nature of psychosocial techniques (e.g., reading about brain plasticity), which may not be optimally convincing for students.
To address this issue and improve effectiveness, we developed a growth mindset intervention, which combined psychosocial and psychophysiological components. The latter adds a convincing experience of influencing one's own brain activity, using mobile electroencephalography (EEG) neurofeedback, emphasizing the controllable and malleable nature of one's brain.
In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), twenty high-school classes (N = 439) were randomized to either the active control condition (no mindset messaging) or our newly developed growth mindset intervention condition (4 × 50 min).
School outcomes (pre, post, 1-year follow-up) were analysed with Linear Mixed Models (LMM: variable-oriented) and Latent Transition Analysis (LTA: person-oriented).
LMM: students in the growth mindset intervention reported increased growth mindset directly after the intervention (post, d = .38) and at 1-year follow-up (d = .25) and demonstrated a protective effect against deterioration of math grades at 1-year follow-up (d = .36), compared to controls. LTA: we identified three mindset profiles (Fixed, Growth competitive, Growth non-competitive), with more frequent transitions from fixed to one of the growth mindset profiles at 1-year follow-up for students in the growth mindset intervention compared to controls (OR 2.58-2.68).
Compared to previous studies, we found relatively large effects of our intervention on growth mindset and math grades, which may be attributable to synergetic effects of psychosocial and psychophysiological (neurofeedback) components. The person-oriented approach demonstrated more holistic effects, involving multiple motivational constructs.
尽管过去的研究表明成长型思维干预可改善学业成果,但效果甚微。这可能是由于心理社会技术的理论性质(例如,阅读关于大脑可塑性的内容),对学生来说可能没有足够的说服力。
为了解决这个问题并提高有效性,我们开发了一种成长型思维干预,它结合了心理社会和心理生理成分。后者通过使用移动脑电图(EEG)神经反馈增加了一种影响自身大脑活动的令人信服的体验,强调大脑的可控性和可塑性。
在这项随机对照试验(RCT)中,二十个高中班级(N = 439)被随机分配到主动控制组(无思维模式信息传递)或我们新开发的成长型思维干预组(4×50分钟)。
使用线性混合模型(LMM:面向变量)和潜在转变分析(LTA:面向个体)对学业成果(干预前、干预后、1年随访)进行分析。
LMM:与对照组相比,接受成长型思维干预的学生在干预后(干预后,d = 0.38)和1年随访时(d = 0.25)报告成长型思维增强,并且在1年随访时对数学成绩下降具有保护作用(d = 0.36)。LTA:我们确定了三种思维模式类型(固定型、成长竞争型、成长非竞争型),与对照组相比,接受成长型思维干预的学生在1年随访时从固定型向成长型思维模式类型之一的转变更为频繁(优势比2.58 - 2.68)。
与先前的研究相比,我们发现我们的干预对成长型思维和数学成绩有相对较大的影响,这可能归因于心理社会和心理生理(神经反馈)成分的协同作用。面向个体的方法显示出更全面的效果,涉及多种动机结构。