The Effectiveness of the Growth Mindset Program in Developing the Projects Proposal Writing Skills
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
The purposes of this research were 1) to construct a growth mindset program on improving the ability of teacher professional students to prepare projects 2) to examine the impact of the growth mindset curriculum, and 3) to examine the mental shift that occurs in students who get growth mindset instruction. Four-year education students in two classrooms were split into experimental and control groups at random. The trial phase of a teaching program’s development was used, and data were gathered using research instruments including a project writing test and a mentality evaluation. In the analysis, the independent t-test and one-way ANOVA with repeated measures were utilized as statistics. The study’s results showed that using a growth mindset program, the experimental group’s pre-learning project writing achievements differed from post with a statistical significance of 0.01, its post-learning project writing achievements differed from the control group with a statistical significance of 0.05, and its pre-learning, post-learning, and follow-up mindset changes with mean scores that were not different from each other.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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