Comparing the Effectiveness of Growth Mindset and Self-Determination Training on Math Performance of the Eighth- and Ninth-Grade High School Girl Students

Zadshir, Matin; Abolma'ali Al Hosseini, Khadijeh; Dortaj, Fariborz

Volume 13 - Articles-1402 MEJDS (2023) 13: 157 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Zadshir M, Abolma'ali Al Hosseini K, Dortaj F. Comparing the Effectiveness of Growth Mindset and Self-Determination Training on Math Performance of the Eighth- and Ninth-Grade High School Girl Students. MEJDS 2023; 13 :157-157
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2925-en.html

Comparing the Effectiveness of Growth Mindset and Self-Determination Training on Math Performance of the Eighth- and Ninth-Grade High School Girl Students

Matin Zadshir ^*¹

, Khadijeh Abolma'ali Al Hosseini²

, Fariborz Dortaj³

1- PhD Candidate, Science & Technology Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,Iran
2- Associate Professor of Psychology, Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
3- Professor of Educational Psychology, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract: (893 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objectives: The development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) competencies have become very important these days, as they are the foundation for responsible citizenship. Mathematics plays an outstanding role in STEM education, and poor mathematics performance can cause difficulties and disabilities in performing other STEM subjects. Consequently, the tendency to study STEM in the future is reduced, especially in high school girls. There is vast research about influential factors on mathematics performance. The cognitive and motivational components seem to be the most influential factors in math performance, as they modify irrational beliefs, enhance rational ones, and increase self–efficacy and intrinsic motivation in individuals when studying mathematics. Growth mindset and self–determination training have both cognitive and motivational aspects that can affect math performance. In this regard, the present study aimed to compare these two interventions and evaluate their effectiveness in improving math performance.
Methods: The current quasi–experimental research employs a pretest–posttest with a 1–month follow–up design and a control group. The statistical population included all the ninth– and eighth–grade female students in the city of Shahr–e–Ray's high schools in the 2018–2019 academic year. Of those who qualified and volunteered to participate in the research,45 students were selected using the random method and placed in three groups. Growth mindset and self–determination training were applied to the experimental groups, and no training program was implemented for the control group. For the growth mindset group, we used growth mindset intervention designed by Khan non–profit Academy (2018) under the supervision of Stanford University. This group received 5 sessions of growth mindset intervention. The other experimental group received a self–determination intervention designed by Dashti Daryan et al. (2019) for 6 sessions. We considered students' final math scores at the end of the first semester as the pretest score, their midterm math scores of the second semester as the posttest, and students' final scores at the end of the second term as the follow–up score. The statistical data analysis was done in SPSS version 24 at two descriptive and inferential statistics levels. At the level of descriptive statistics, the mean and standard deviation, the level of inferential statistics, the analysis of variance with repeated measurements, and the Bonferroni post hoc test were used at the significance level of α=0.05.
Results: The results showed that the group, time, and group × time interaction effects on the math performance variable were significant (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between the average scores of the experimental groups in the math performance variable (p>0.999). However, a significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups (p<0.05). The difference between the average of the pretest and posttest stages, as well as the pretest and follow–up in the variable of math performance in the groups of growth mindset (p=0.012, p<0.001, respectively) and self–determination (p=0.006, p=0.004, respectively), was significant. However, there was no significant difference between the average scores of the math performance variable in the posttest and follow–up stages in the experimental groups (p>0.999).
Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, growth mindset and self–determination training effectively increase students' math performance. So, it is recommended that these two methods be used to improve students' mathematics performance.

Keywords: Growth mindset, Self–determination, Math performance

Full-Text [PDF 445 kb] (272 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Psychology

References

1. Kohen Z, Nitzan O. Excellence in mathematics in secondary school and choosing and excelling in STEM professions over significant periods in life. Int J of Sci and Math Educ. 2022;20(1):169–91. [DOI]

2. León J, Núñez JL, Liew J. Self–determination and STEM education: effects of autonomy, motivation, and self–regulated learning on high school math achievement. Learning and Individual Differences. 2015;43:156–63. [DOI]

3. Beiramipur A, Semsāri Z, Hāshemi E, il. The relationship between the contextual factors and mathematical performance of Iranian students in the TIMSS 2015. Journal of Educational Innovations. 2020;19(3):33–62. [Persian] [DOI]

4. Mohsen Pour M, Hejāzi E, Kiāmanesh A. The role of self–efficacy, achievement goals, learning strategies and persistence in math achievement of grade 11 high school students (math branch) in Tehran. Journal of Educational Innovations. 2006;5(2):9–35. [Persian] [Article]

5. Niyaie S, Imanzadeh A, Vahedi S. The effectiveness of flipped teaching on math anxiety and math performance in 5th grade students. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ). 2021;15(3):419–28. [Persian] [DOI]

6. Rezaei A, Jalal Abadi Ravari M, Borhani Nejad Rayeni S. The effectiveness for education MOOC–based in academic conflict and mathematical performance of 11th grad students in Ravar city. Technology and Scholarship in Education. 2022;1(2):13–26. [Persian] [DOI]

7. Suárez–Pellicioni M, Demir–Lira ÖE, Booth JR. Neurocognitive mechanisms explaining the role of math attitudes in predicting children's improvement in multiplication skill. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2021;21(5):917–35. [DOI]

8. Abín A, Núñez JC, Rodríguez C, Cueli M, García T, Rosário P. Predicting mathematics achievement in secondary education: the role of cognitive, motivational, and emotional variables. Front Psychol. 2020;11:876. [DOI]

9. Bandura A, Freeman WH, Lightsey R. Self–efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Springer; 1999.

10. Dweck CS. Self–theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press; 2014.

11. Rezaei F, Soleyman-poor Emran M. The application of theory of documents and intelligence beliefs in education A school. Challenges of the World. 2021;3(2):85–106. [Persian] [Article]

12. Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 2007;78(1):246–63. [DOI]

13. Lee J, Lee HJ, Bong M. Boosting children's math self–efficacy by enriching their growth mindsets and gender–fair beliefs. Theory Into Practice. 2022;61(1):35–48. [DOI]

14. Yeager DS, Hanselman P, Walton GM, Murray JS, Crosnoe R, Muller C, et al. A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature. 2019;573(7774):364–9. [DOI]

15. Ryan RM, Deci EL. on assimilating identities to the self: a self–determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In: Leary MR, Tangney JP, editors. Handbook of Self and Identity. Guilford Press; 2003. pp: 253–72.

16. Deci EL, Olafsen AH, Ryan RM. Self–determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2017;4(1):19–43. [DOI]

17. Vahedi S, Frajian F, Hatami J. Students' motivational profiles and academic achievement in mathematics from a self–determination perspective. Educational Psychology. 2017;13(45):97–119. [Persian] [DOI]

18. Brandenberger CC, Hagenauer G, Hascher T. Promoting students' self–determined motivation in maths: results of a 1–year classroom intervention. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2018;33(2):295–317. [DOI]

19. Malekzadeh S, Hejazi E, Kiamanesh A. Designing and editing an empowerment education package (with self–determination approach) and its effectiveness on student math performance and beliefs (with low performance in this lesson). Journal of Psychological Science. 2021;20(103):1095–116. [Persian] [Article]

20. Olson MH, Hergenhahn BR. An introduction to the theories of learning. Seif AA. (Persian translator). 8th edition. Tehran: Doran Pub; 2016, p:423.

21. Sweet SN, Fortier MS, Strachan SM, Blanchard CM. Testing and integrating self–determination theory and self-efficacy theory in a physical activity context. Canadian Psychology. 2012;53(4):319–27. [DOI]

22. Van Voorhis CRW, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2007;3(2):43–50. [DOI]

23. Elementary and middle school activities [Internet]. 2018 Jan 10 [cited 2023 Sep 10]; Available from: [Article]

24. Dashti Daryan E, Hashemian K, Abolma'ali Al Husseini K. Combining the education of psychological capital and self–determination on reducing academic burnout among students. Middle Eastern Journal of Disability Studies. 2019;9:31. [Persian] [Article]

25. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

26. Boggiano AK, Flink C, Shields A, Seelbach A, Barrett M. Use of techniques promoting students' self–determination: effects on students' analytic problem–solving skills. Motiv Emot. 1993;17(4):319–36. [DOI]

27. Banerjee R, Halder S. Amotivation and influence of teacher support dimensions: a self–determination theory approach. Heliyon. 2021;7(7):e07410. [DOI]

28. Cavusoglu C, Karatas H. Academic procrastination of undergraduates: self–determination theory and academic motivation. The Anthropologist. 2015;20(3):735–43. [DOI]

29. Farzan A. The effectiveness of class structure based on self–determination theory on mathematical performance and academic motivation among six grades male students [Thesis for M.A]. [Tehran, Iran]: Faculty of psychology, University of Tehran; 2013, pp: 120–2.[Persian]

30. Burnette JL, Hoyt CL, Russell VM, Lawson B, Dweck CS, Finkel E. A growth mind–set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2020;11(1):107–16. [DOI]

31. Li Y, Bates TC. You can't change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that's how we get hard things done: testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2019;148(9):1640–55. [DOI]

32. Macnamara BN, Rupani NS. The relationship between intelligence and mindset. Intelligence. 2017 Sep 1;64:52–9. [DOI]

33. Orosz G, Péter–Szarka S, Bőthe B, Tóth–Király I, Berger R. How not to do a mindset intervention: learning from a mindset intervention among students with good grades. Front Psychol. 2017;8:311. [DOI]

34. Voss P, Thomas ME, Cisneros-Franco JM, de Villers–Sidani É. Dynamic brains and the changing rules of neuroplasticity: implications for learning and recovery. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1657. [DOI]

35. Sarrasin JB, Nenciovici L, Foisy LMB, Allaire–Duquette G, Riopel M, Masson S. Effects of teaching the concept of neuroplasticity to induce a growth mindset on motivation, achievement, and brain activity: a meta–analysis. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 2018;12:22–31. [DOI]

36. Renaud–Dubé A, Guay F, Talbot D, Taylor G, Koestner R. The relations between implicit intelligence beliefs, autonomous academic motivation, and school persistence intentions: a mediation model. Soc Psychol Educ. 2015;18(2):255–72. [DOI]

37. Zhao Y, Niu G, Hou H, Zeng G, Xu L, Peng K, et al. From Growth Mindset to Grit in Chinese Schools: the Mediating Roles of Learning Motivations. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2007. [DOI]

38. Liu WC. Implicit theories of intelligence and achievement goals: a look at students' intrinsic motivation and achievement in mathematics. Front Psychol. 2021;12:593715. [DOI]

39. Rezaei A, Bahadorikhosroshahi J. The role of implicit intelligence theories, supporting autonomy and epistemological beliefs in predicting academic engagement of students. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2020;13(1):33–42. [Persian] [Article]

40. Feng X, Xie K, Gong S, Gao L, Cao Y. Effects of parental autonomy support and teacher support on middle school students' homework effort: homework autonomous motivation as mediator. Front Psychol. 2019;10:612. [DOI]