The impact of teaching growth mindset to biology students at Sentinel high school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This classroom research project investigated the impact of teaching growth vs fixed mindset lessons twice a month for four months to nine and tenth grade biology students and eleventh and twelfth grade AP biology students. Mindset has been shown in many studies to have a large impact on student learning and future success. This project was conducted to try and shift a student mindset towards the growth and away from the fixed side on the mindset spectrum. In addition, to try and improve student mindsets, I also wanted to see if there was a correlation to student learning and growth, as well as overall student wellness. I collected data from student mindset survey and a student wellness survey before and then after administering the treatment. The treatment was a series of mini lessons that were taught to the students twice a month for four months. Student interviews were conducted after the treatment as well. The students' overall grades from quarter 1 and quarter 2 were used as a metric to measure academic growth. Results showed growth in student mindsets and various aspects of wellness from pre to post assessments. Out of all students that completed the pre and post mindset assessment nearly 90% of them increased their mindset score. Every class period showed an increase of average mindset score. There was no correlation between student mindsets and academic achievement or academic growth. There were some categories of student wellness that were unchanged, but there were many aspects of student wellness that showed improvement from pre to post assessment. The students verbal and written responses to prompts about mindset and wellness support these findings. In conclusion, students who were exposed to a treatment of mindset lessons showed increases in both their mindset score and overall wellness.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".