Why do growth mindsets make you feel better about learning and your selves? The mediating role of adaptability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We argue that growth (vs. fixed) mindsets are important for positive emotions and self-development because growth mindsets can foster adaptability, referring to the ability to adjust oneself in different circumstances. This study examines the role of mindsets in adaptability and whether adaptability, in turn, predicts learning emotions (anxiety and enjoyment), self-concept, and self-efficacy. The data were collected through self-report questionnaires from 211 (141 females and 70 males, Mage = 17.2 years, SDage = 6.8) Iranian intermediate language learners. The path analysis results showed that fixed mindsets negatively predicted anxiety, enjoyment, self-concept, and self-efficacy through the mediation of adaptability, whereas growth mindsets positively predicted enjoyment, self-concept, and self-efficacy and negatively predicted anxiety through adaptability. The results held even after accounting for ideal L2 self and perceived competence. These findings highlight that growth mindset is an essential factor for developing positive learning emotions and self in foreign language classrooms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it