The Effect of Fostering a Growth Mindset in Primary School Children: Does Intervention Approach Matter?

Abstract

Promoting a growth mindset may positively influence learner motivation and enhance learning outcomes among primary school children. Previous studies have predominantly focused on secondary and undergraduate students, investigating the efficacy of a reading and writing intervention related to intelligence. Introducing effort-based praise during the learning process also aligns with a growth mindset and may further facilitate the development of a growth mindset in primary education. To evaluate the effects of these intervention approaches, we conducted a two-by-two between-subjects experimental study with a sample of 161 Dutch primary school children aged 10 to 12 years. This study aimed to assess the effects of two interventions both independently (main effects) and in combination (interaction effect): a growth mindset reading and writing assignment (factor 1) and effort-based praise (factor 2) on mindset beliefs and learning performance, specifically in terms of retention and transfer within the probability calculation domain. While a positive effect on growth mindset beliefs was observed, neither the individual interventions nor their combination significantly influenced learning performance.

1. Introduction

From the perspective of the implicit theory of intelligence, also known as growth mindset theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 2000), students hold different beliefs about their intelligence and abilities. Students can vary in their implicit theories, from more of a fixed theory of intelligence (fixed mindset), believing that their intelligence and abilities are unchangeable, to a more malleable theory of intelligence (growth mindset), believing that their intelligence and abilities can be developed over time. However, it is worth noting that growth and fixed mindsets are not separate concepts but rather opposite poles of the same concept of mindset regarding whether a certain attribute or ability is believed to be malleable (Yeager & Dweck, 2020).

These beliefs significantly influence students’ responses to academic challenges and have a substantial impact on learning performance (Blackwell et al., 2007). While a considerable number of growth mindset interventions have been implemented with secondary and undergraduate students (Blackwell et al., 2007; Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021), research focusing on such interventions in primary school children remains limited. Existing studies involving younger age groups have typically employed two main intervention approaches: having students read a scientific article about intelligence (Paunesku et al., 2015) and incorporating teacher praise to endorse students’ efforts (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). To assess the effectiveness of growth mindset interventions in younger students, the current study aims to investigate the effect of these two growth mindset intervention approaches on primary school children.

Improving students’ mindsets is crucial because those with growth mindsets, value learning more (Dweck, 2000), focus on goals that enhance their abilities (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and hold positive beliefs about the utility of effort (Blackwell et al., 2007; Hong et al., 1999). Even among students with comparable intellectual capabilities, a growth mindset enables them to perceive challenges as opportunities for learning rather than insurmountable barriers, which fosters greater perseverance and academic achievement (Blackwell et al., 2007). In contrast, students with a fixed mindset are more likely to give up when faced with learning difficulties (Dweck, 2007). Those with a growth mindset, however, understand that effort contributes to learning, making them more inclined to participate in deep learning processes and to transfer knowledge across different contexts (Pugh & Bergin, 2006; Xu et al., 2021). Therefore, cultivating a growth mindset can significantly increase learner motivation and enhance academic performance. To date, two primary approaches have been employed to promote a growth mindset, targeting different age groups. The following sections will first outline the intervention approach predominantly used in secondary and higher education, followed by a discussion of a second intervention approach more frequently implemented within primary education settings.

The most commonly implemented intervention approach in secondary and higher education involves a growth mindset reading and writing assignment that focuses on the concept of intelligence malleability, often presented in the form of a scientific article (see Section S1 of the Supplementary Materials for a for a screenshot from the intervention used by Paunesku et al., 2015; and an adapted version by Yeager et al., 2016). This approach promotes a growth mindset by emphasizing the fundamental idea that intelligence is not fixed but can be developed through effort and practice. The intervention materials typically include the core messages from a scientific article that highlights the brain’s malleability, using the metaphor of the brain as a “muscle” that becomes stronger with exercise (J. Aronson et al., 2002). To reinforce this concept, students are further tasked with writing a letter offering advice to a peer struggling with a challenging subject, thereby internalizing the growth mindset message. This intervention approach has proven effective across a variety of student age groups, including those in secondary school and higher education. For instance, in a study involving seventh-grade students, Blackwell et al. (2007) implemented an eight-session intervention protocol with weekly 25-min workshops. Both the experimental and control groups participated in structured workshops covering brain physiology, study skills, and anti-stereotypic thinking. The experimental group was additionally taught, through science-based readings, activities, and discussions, that intelligence is malleable and can be developed. Conducted in a public secondary school in New York City with a diverse sample (52% African American, 45% Latino, and 3% White and Asian students), this intervention successfully reversed a previously declining grade trajectory, whereas the control group continued to show grade declines. Paunesku et al. (2015) adapted the growth mindset intervention into a single 45-min online session designed to efficiently deliver the core concepts of intelligence malleability. This study, involving 9th-to-12th grade students (n = 1.594) from across the United States, showed that the intervention not only fostered a growth mindset but also enhanced academic performance, particularly among underperforming students and those at risk of dropping out. Similarly, research conducted by Yeager et al. (2016, 2019) focused on ninth-grade students (n = 6.320) from 65 public secondary schools in the United States. The intervention consisted of two short online sessions (approximately 25 min each) spaced 20 days apart and integrated into regular school hours. Results indicated significant grade improvements, particular among lower-achieving students. More recently, Xu et al. (2021) evaluated a one-time 45-min growth mindset intervention administered during a physics lesson on the Doppler Effect. Conducted with 10th-grade secondary school students (n = 138) from two Dutch public high schools, this intervention resulted in increased growth mindset beliefs and improved learning outcomes. It is noteworthy that most growth mindset interventions have been conducted with students in secondary or higher education settings (Blackwell et al., 2007; Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021). An exception is the study by Porter et al. (2022), which examined a similar intervention with sixth- and seventh-grade students. In this study, teachers implemented the intervention after receiving in-person training on pedagogical techniques to promote growth mindsets. The intervention, delivered in 20 sessions of 30–60 min over 10 weeks, targeted a sample of 1.996 students taught by 50 teachers. The results indicated increased growth mindset beliefs and improved academic performance among lower-achieving students.

Despite the limited application of growth mindset reading and writing interventions among primary school children, these findings suggest that such interventions have the potential to positively influence younger learners’ academic outcomes. One possible reason for the lack of application of this approach in primary education may be that the reading and writing demands of this approach are perceived as too advanced for younger students. However, there is currently insufficient research to fully assess its impact on this age group. Therefore, the first aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of a growth mindset reading and writing intervention on learning performance and mindset beliefs of primary school children.

A more commonly employed approach to fostering a growth mindset within the context of primary education involves process-based strategies that utilize feedback embedded in the learning process, such as providing praise for effort (Andersen & Nielsen, 2016; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Pomerantz & Kempner, 2013; Seaton, 2018). While this approach does not directly convey the concept of intelligence malleability, it reinforces the significance of effort, a fundamental component that supports the development of a growth mindset. Praising effort promotes the endorsement of attributing learning success to effort. Effort attribution refers to the way individuals interpret the reasons behind their successes and failures. This is a critical pathway with which a growth mindset promotes learning. Those with a growth mindset are more inclined to attribute their achievements to effort, perceiving it as a pathway to improvement, whereas individuals with a fixed mindset tend to attribute their success to inherent talent or intelligence (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Hong et al., 1999). As a result, when confronted with challenging tasks, children with a growth mindset are more likely to invest additional effort to enhance their performance. In contrast, students with a fixed mindset may view difficulty as a reflection of an unchangeable lack of ability, leading them to doubt their capabilities and avoid challenges to protect themselves from exposing what they perceive as a deficiency in talent. This distinction is further emphasized by contrasting the effects of different types of praise: praise for effort versus praise for intelligence.

Research has consistently demonstrated that children who receive praise for effort are more inclined to adopt the belief that intelligence is malleable, thereby fostering a growth mindset (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). In contrast, children who are praised for their intelligence are more likely to develop a fixed mindset, believing their abilities are innate and unchangeable. Savvides and Bond (2021) suggested in their meta-analysis that interventions emphasizing growth mindset elements, such as process praise (e.g., praise for effort during learning), could provide a robust foundation for future effectiveness trials, particularly in primary school settings. For example, Mueller and Dweck (1998) conducted a series of studies with primary school children aged 9–12 years, in which participants received either intelligence-based or effort-based praise after completing a task, regardless of their actual performance. The results indicated that children praised for their intelligence displayed more negative responses when faced with setbacks, such as reduced persistence, decreased enjoyment, poorer task performance, and a tendency to attribute failure to a lack of ability. In contrast, children who received praise for effort were more likely to embrace a growth mindset, believing that their intelligence and abilities could be developed through hard work and perseverance.

These findings were further supported by Yeager and Dweck (2020) in a reanalysis of replication studies involving a sample of Chinese primary school children, reinforcing the idea that effort-based praise plays a significant role in promoting growth mindset beliefs. However, a study conducted with 108 Dutch students aged 17 (Glerum et al., 2020b) found that even when the procedure from Mueller and Dweck’s original experiments was replicated, the students were not significantly influenced by the type of praise they received. This discrepancy may be attributed to the age of the participants, as older students, particularly those with more experience in vocational settings, appeared to be less sensitive to shifts in mindset when only praise of effort was implemented in the intervention approach (Glerum et al., 2020b). Therefore, to confirm and clarify the effect of this strategy, the present study aims to examine the impact of an effort-based praise intervention on the learning performance and mindset beliefs of primary school children.

Furthermore, while both the growth mindset reading and writing approach and the effort-based praise approach have been utilized in growth mindset intervention studies, their combined effect has not yet been examined. Yeager and Dweck (2020, p. 1277) pointed out that for a growth mindset intervention to be effective, “it must make an argument that ability itself has the potential to be developed”. Although the growth mindset reading and writing approach explicitly communicates the foundational concepts of a growth mindset (e.g., the importance of effort and practice), simply understanding a definition does not necessarily drive behavioral change. Likewise, merely providing praise for effort without context is insufficient for fostering a growth mindset. Praise for effort can complement the process of fostering a growth mindset. The way praise is delivered is essential as it can influence whether students attribute their success to adaptive factors (effort and practice) or maladaptive factors (innate intelligence), ultimately impacting whether the motivational outcomes are positive or negative (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Effort-based praise serves as immediate, concrete reinforcement, enhancing children’s motivation to learn and helping them internalize growth mindset beliefs. This suggests that interventions based solely on reading a scientific article about growth mindset or offering praise for effort in isolation may not effectively convey the comprehensive concept of a growth mindset. It may be more beneficial to combine both intervention approaches, particularly in contexts where praise can function as a positive reinforcement. For example, students could first be exposed to a scientific article that explains how intelligence can be developed, followed by integrating effort-based praise throughout the learning process. This combined approach would help students make a connection between the praise they receive and the growth mindset concepts from the reading material, reinforcing the idea that learning is achieved through effort and practice.

Hence, the present study aims to examine the main effects and interaction effect of two interventions—a growth mindset reading–writing intervention and a praise-for-effort intervention—on mindset beliefs and learning performance, operationalized through probability calculation problems. Specifically, it focuses on retention and transfer within the domain of probability calculation, employing a two-factor, between-group experimental design with a sample of primary school children.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

This study utilized a randomized 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial design to investigate the effects of a growth mindset reading–writing intervention (Factor 1) and a praise-for-effort intervention (Factor 2) on mindset beliefs and learning performance operationalized through probability calculation problems. Each factor had two levels: (1) growth mindset versus control condition; and (2) praise for effort versus control condition. A total of 223 primary school children from grades seven and eight, across four schools in the southern Netherlands, were approached. Because students in Dutch primary education follow practically the same curriculum, student performance is generally similar between classes and schools. Regarding the required reading skills (for the reading–writing intervention) and numeracy skills (for the learning performance task on probability calculation problems), it was expected that students with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and dyscalculia, would be excluded based on consultation with the teacher. For 161 students, consent was received; thus, 161 students took part in the experiment. Based on previous experimental research on the effect of mindset intervention (e.g., Xu et al., 2021) and a priori power calculation using G*Power for a 2-way MANOVA design, a sample size of n = 155 was originally set for an effect size of f = 0.25, power = 80%.

2.2. Procedure

Students who participated were approached through their school via a letter with information and informed consent for parents/caregivers. The schools were given a brief introduction to the study, and after initial contact with the teachers involved, the data collection dates were set.

Data was collected during the scheduled classroom time with approximately 16 participants each session. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (growth mindset reading–writing, praise-for-effort, combined and control), with corresponding envelopes randomly placed on the classroom desks. These envelopes contained all the materials and were marked with an identification number that was used to keep track of the experimental conditions.

The experiment was conducted in four phases and lasted 60 min in total (see Figure 1). Each phase was led by the experimenter and participants were asked to work in silence. In the first phase, all participants completed general questions about their age, gender, group, and prior knowledge about probability calculation problems. In the second phase all participants completed a questionnaire on mindset, after which participants in the growth mindset reading–writing and the combined condition performed a reading and writing assignment, designed to induce a growth mindset (see Section S2 of the Supplementary Materials). At the same time, participants in the control and the praise-for-effort condition performed a neutral reading and writing assignment (see Section S3 of the Supplementary Materials). After completing these tasks, all participants again completed a questionnaire on mindset. In the third phase all participants watched a 4-min instruction video (see Section S4 of the Supplementary Materials). The video explained, step by step, how to solve probability calculation problems without replacement and was adapted from Hoogerheide et al. (2014). After watching the instructional video, the participants were asked to solve eight practise calculating problems similar to the problem explained in the video. Their answers were then collected by the experimenter to be examined. While waiting for feedback, participants made a little maze puzzle or sudoku. After several minutes, all participants received their answers back with the same 80% score. Participants in the praise for effort and the combined conditions received also additional written praise for effort feedback (see Section S5 of the Supplementary Materials). In the fourth and final phase, the video was shown again. All participants then solved the performance test which consisted of 16 probability problems (see Section S6 of the Supplementary Materials). At the end of the fourth phase all materials were put back in the envelop and collected by the experimenter. After the experiment, participants and their parents received a debrief letter explaining the purpose of the study in more detail than had been initially provided.

Ethical guidelines were followed, and the study was approved by the ethical research board of the Open University under registration number U202107982.

2.3. Intervention Materials

2.3.1. Growth Mindset Reading and Writing Assignment

The growth mindset reading and writing assignment was adapted from previous studies (J. Aronson et al., 2002; Blackwell et al., 2007; Paunesku et al., 2015). Participants in the growth mindset reading–writing and the combined condition read an adapted scientific article entitled “You Can Grow Your Intelligence”, which was first developed by Paunesku et al. (2015) from materials in Blackwell et al. (2007). This article describes the idea that the brain is malleable and can become stronger like a muscle through practice. After finishing reading, the participants were asked to write a letter of a few sentences with advice to a classmate who is struggling with a subject that is hard for him/her. These “Saying-is-believing” writing assignment is a self-persuasion strategy (E. Aronson, 1999; J. Aronson et al., 2002).

Participants in the praise-for-effort condition and the control condition read a similar scientific article on general brain functioning entitled “The brain is the computer in your head”. This article also describes brain functions but does not deal with the malleability of the brain. After finishing reading, the participants were asked to write a short summary to one of their classmates.

2.3.2. Praise for Effort

The praise-for-effort intervention was implemented during the practise phase. After finishing the practise probability calculation problems, the papers were collected by the experimenter to be examined. Following previous research of Li and Bates (2019) and Mueller and Dweck (1998), all participants in all four groups received an equal score (80%) representing a success situation. Feedback was given individually handwritten so that it looked authentic. Due to the limited time, prewritten labels were used.

Participants in the praise-for-effort and the combined condition received additional written praise for effort (adapted from Mueller & Dweck, 1998). They were praised for the effort they put in referring to the growth mindset reading and writing assignment: “You must have put in good effort when you watched the explanation video and tried your best to solve these problems. Working hard makes your brain stronger and smarter!”.

Participants in the growth mindset reading and writing condition and control condition did not receive any written remarks apart from the score.

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. Learning Performance

The outcome measure, learning performance, was operationalized through probability calculation problems and assessed in terms of retention and transfer. Retention was measured by learners’ ability to recall and solve similar problems, while transfer was evaluated by assessing their ability to apply learned problem-solving strategies to new or different contexts. Both measures were based on the scores from probability calculation problems solved during the performance test phase. Since the probability concept is not part of the primary school curriculum, all participants could be regarded as novices. Participants must solve eight probability calculation problems similar to the problem explained in the video (retention items) and eight probability calculation problems without replacement (transfer items). One point was given for every correct answer. The reliability was good for the retention items (α = 0.90) and for the transfer items (α = 0.79).

2.4.2. Mindset Belief

As a manipulation check, mindset belief was measured before and after the mindset reading–writing intervention with the revised Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (Self-Theory) (De Castella & Byrne, 2015) based on the original measure by Dweck (2000). This revised version is modified to form a first-person, “self-theory” scale and displayed a good internal consistency at baseline (α = 0.75) and at post-measurement (α = 0.84). This questionnaire consists of four items on growth mindset (e.g., “I believe I can always substantially improve on my intelligence”) and four items on fixed mindset (e.g., “My intelligence is something about me that I personally can’t change very much”). Items were scored on a six-point Likert-scale from (1) completely disagree to (6) completely agree. The fixed mindset items were reverse coded and combined with growth mindset items to present a single scale for mindset belief. This approach is consistent with prior research, which conceptualizes mindset as a single continuous measure rather than two separate constructs (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). While the terms “growth” and “fixed” mindset are commonly used, the mindset scale fundamentally assesses a belief continuum, ranging from entity beliefs at one end to incremental beliefs at the other (De Castella & Byrne, 2015). This aligns with a well-established theoretical framework and the research practice in the field, including studies conducted with student populations from the country of the current study (Glerum et al., 2020a; Xu et al., 2021).

2.4.3. Prior Knowledge

To control for prior knowledge of learning performance on probability calculation problems, participants were given four fraction problems and four probability calculation problems during the pre-test phase. Scores on prior knowledge on learning performance were expected to be low. One point was given for every correct answer. The prior knowledge problems displayed a good reliability (α = 0.70).

2.5. Analysis

To test the hypotheses, quantitative data analyses were carried out with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 27). A significance level of p < 0.05 was adopted for hypothesis testing, and partial η² was reported as the effect size.

Prior to conducting the main analyses, the dataset was screened for missing values and outliers. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize sample characteristics. Assumptions for ANOVA and MANCOVA, including normality, homogeneity of variance, and independence, were evaluated using the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality, Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances, and visual inspections of scatterplots.

To ensure equivalence between the intervention and control groups prior to the intervention, an ANOVA was conducted to assess differences in baseline characteristics (e.g., age, prior knowledge, mindset belief at baseline), confirming the effectiveness of the randomization process. Additionally, a Chi-square test was performed to examine gender distribution between groups. These analyses were conducted at both the participant and school levels.

A mixed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the growth mindset intervention. This analysis included time (pre- and post-intervention) as a within-subjects factor and intervention group (growth mindset vs. control) as a between-subjects factor, with prior knowledge on learning performance included as a covariate.

A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine the effects of the growth mindset reading–writing intervention (Factor 1) and the praise-for-effort intervention (Factor 2) on learning performance, with retention and transfer scores as outcome measures. Prior knowledge on learning performance was included as a covariate to control for baseline differences. The MANCOVA assessed the main effects of each intervention, as well as their interaction effect on learning performance retention and transfer.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

A total of 161 primary school students were included in this study. The minimum age of the participants was 10 years, and the maximum was 12 years (M = 10.80; SD = 0.61;

Table 1. Descriptives Statistics.

Variables	Control M (SD)	Praise M (SD)	Mindset M (SD)	Mindset × Praise M (SD)
Age	10.85 (0.62)	10.70 (0.72)	10.85 (0.62)	10.80 (0.56)
Prior Knowledge	3.13 (1.71)	3.13 (1.91)	3.38 (1.92)	3.39 (1.79)
Mindset Belief Baseline	4.07 (0.62)	4.25 (0.80)	4.36 (0.95)	4.29 (0.76)
Mindset Belief Post	4.18 (0.78)	4.43 (0.95)	4.70 (1.20)	4.68 (0.72)
Performance Retention	6.78 (2.21)	6.75 (2.44)	6.28 (2.57)	7.07 (1.63)
Performance Transfer	4.38 (1.81)	3.95 (2.09)	4.03 (2.09)	4.59 (1.86)

). Of the participants, 55% was female (n = 89) and 45% male (n = 72). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups: control condition (n = 40), praise-for-effort condition (n = 40), growth mindset reading–writing condition (n = 40), or the combined condition (n = 41). Random assignment to condition was successful. According to results based on ANOVA, there were no significant differences in age (F(3, 157) = 0.50, p = 0.684, partial η² = 0.009), prior knowledge (F(3, 157) = 0.27, p = 0.850, partial η² = 0.005), or mindset belief at baseline (F(3, 157) = 0.97, p = 0.410, partial η² = 0.018) between the four groups. A Chi-square test revealed no significant differences in sexes between the conditions (χ2(3, N = 161) = 5.95, p = 0.114). In sum, the participants’ characteristics were comparable between the four conditions. Descriptive statistics for all variables can be found in Table 1. Additionally, to ensure that there were no major differences in prior knowledge for learning performance for students between schools, an ANOVA confirmed no significant differences at school level for prior knowledge on learning performance (F(3, 157) = 2.12, p = 0.100, partial η² = 0.039) and learning performance (F(3, 157) = 2.22, p = 0.088, partial η² = 0.041), indicating homogeneity across schools.

3.2. Growth Mindset Manipulation Check

As a manipulation check, mindset belief was measured before and after the growth mindset reading–writing intervention. Controlling for prior knowledge on learning performance, a mixed ANCOVA revealed a significant interaction effect of time and intervention group (F(1, 158) = 5.44, p = 0.021, partial η² = 0.033). Additionally, post-intervention analysis showed a significant between-subjects effect between the control and experimental groups (F(1, 158) = 4.22, p = 0.042, partial η² = 0.026). These findings suggest that the growth mindset reading–writing intervention was effective in enhancing growth mindset beliefs.

3.3. Learning Performance

According to MANCOVA with both retention and transfer performances as outcome measures, controlling for prior knowledge on probability calculation problems (

Table 2. MANCOVA results for the effects of mindset, praise, and their interaction on retention and transfer performance, with prior knowledge as a covariate.

MANCOVA Results	F (1, 156)	p-Value	Partial η2
Mindset (Retention)	0.29	0.593	0.002
Mindset (Transfer)	0.09	0.772	0.001
Praise (Retention)	1.29	0.258	0.008
Praise (Transfer)	0.05	0.829	0.000
Mindset × Praise (Retention)	1.46	0.229	0.009
Mindset × Praise (Transfer)	2.60	0.109	0.016
Covariate: Prior Knowledge (Retention)	15.03	<0.001	0.088
Covariate: Prior Knowledge (Transfer)	6.20	0.014	0.038

), the effects of the interventions on learning performance were not statistically significant. There was no main effect for the growth mindset reading–writing intervention on performance retention (*F(1, 156) = 0.29, p = 0.593, partial η² = 0.002), nor for the growth mindset reading–writing intervention on performance transfer (F(1, 156) = 0.09, p = 0.772, partial η² = 0.001). There was no main effect for the praise for effort intervention on performance retention (F(1, 156) = 1.29, p = 0.258, partial η² = 0.008), on performance transfer (F(1, 156) = 0.05, p = 0.829, partial η² = 0.000). Furthermore, there was no significant interaction effect for the growth mindset reading–writing intervention and the praise-for-effort intervention on performance retention (F(1, 156) = 1.46, p = 0.229, partial η² = 0.009) and on performance transfer (F(1, 156) = 2.60, p = 0.109, partial η² = 0.016).

The covariate, prior knowledge on learning performance was significant for performance retention (F(1, 156) = 15.03, p ≤ 0.001, partial η² = 0.088) and performance transfer (F(1, 156) = 6.20, p = 0.014, partial η² = 0.038).

4. Discussion

The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of two growth mindset interventions on the learning performance, specifically in terms of retention and transfer within the probability calculation domain, of primary school students aged 10–12. Based on this target group and previous research (J. Aronson et al., 2002; Blackwell et al., 2007; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016, 2019; Xu et al., 2021) two interventions were identified; a growth mindset reading and writing assignment, and a praise-for-effort approach. These two interventions were applied both independently and in combination in a sample of primary school students.

As hypothesized, participants in the growth mindset reading and writing and combined groups showed significantly higher growth mindset beliefs compared to the control group after their respective intervention, aligning with previous studies (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; Yeager et al., 2016, 2019). However, despite the successful enhancement of growth mindset beliefs, neither the growth mindset reading and writing intervention nor the praise-for-effort intervention led to significant improvements in learning outcomes on a math task. This indicates that while growth mindset interventions can successfully enhance mindset beliefs, these changes alone may not be sufficient to improve learning performance in this age group. It was further hypothesized that students receiving both interventions (growth mindset reading–writing and praise-for-effort) would show the highest performance outcomes. While descriptive data indicated that students in the combined condition performed better on the learning tasks than those in the single intervention groups or the control group, this difference did not reach statistical significance, indicating absence of an interaction effect. These findings suggest that while praise for effort was expected to enhance the growth mindset intervention by helping students connect effort with learning during the learning process (Blackwell et al., 2007; Hong et al., 1999; Xu et al., 2021), this anticipated synergy was not supported in the current study. It is possible that the interventions, whether in terms of content or delivery, may not have fully addressed the specific needs of younger students. This aspect will be further discussed below.

The findings regarding the growth mindset reading and writing intervention contrast with previous studies showing academic improvements through growth mindset interventions in older students. For instance, Blackwell et al. (2007) found that a growth mindset intervention reversed a declining grade trend among seventh graders, and Yeager et al. (2016, 2019) reported significant grade gains for lower-achieving ninth graders. Similarly, Paunesku et al. (2015) demonstrated enhanced performance among at-risk high school students, while Xu et al. (2021) found similar benefits for 10th graders. Together, these studies indicate that growth mindset interventions can effectively promote academic success in older students, but may require age-appropriate adaptations to achieve similar outcomes in younger learners. Although, in the present study, the intervention was simplified linguistically for younger students, more extensive adjustments may be necessary to optimize its effectiveness. Yeager et al. (2016) adapted mindset materials for high school students by integrating age-relevant examples, quotes from admired figures, and pilot-testing the material to ensure developmental appropriateness. A comparable redesign, incorporating contextually relevant examples and feedback sessions, may be necessary to tailor the intervention more effectively for students aged 10–12.

An additional consideration relates to reading proficiency, which may have affected the effectiveness of the growth mindset intervention. Not all students in this age group may have mastered the reading skills required for the intervention at the expected level (Gubbels et al., 2017). Variations in reading speed were observed during the experiment, with some students taking longer to complete the reading materials, potentially leading to incomplete responses during the questionnaire phase. This raises questions about how reading proficiency influences the outcomes of text-based interventions. Future research could explore alternative formats, such as multimedia or simplified texts, and control for reading proficiency to better understand its influence on intervention outcomes.

Aside from reading proficiency, participant engagement could also play a significant role in the success of mindset interventions. Engagement levels, such as the students’ motivation and interaction with the materials, may have varied considerably across participants, influencing the effectiveness of the interventions. To gain a deeper understanding of this factor, future studies could incorporate measures of engagement, such as observing students’ attentiveness during the intervention, or collecting self-reports on motivation. Such measures would help determine whether these factors moderate the effectiveness of growth mindset interventions. Furthermore, future studies can also explore more diverse forms of delivery methods, such as Innovative digital learning methods. These alternative formats could broaden the accessibility of growth mindset programs and adapt the content to different learning contexts or environments.

The findings on praise-for-effort deviate from previous research, where a praise-for-effort approach has led to improved performance (e.g., Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Nevertheless, Li and Bates (2019) challenge the generalizability of the praise-for-effort effect among 9- to 13-year-old Chinese children. Across three replication studies (n = 190, 222, and 211, respectively), they found that beliefs about the malleability of basic ability may not necessarily be linked to resilience to failure or academic progress. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of praise-based interventions may vary across cultural and contextual settings, highlighting the need for further exploration into these moderating factors.

Moreover, the relational and environmental factors in which praise was delivered were not fully addressed in this study. Henderlong and Lepper (2002) indicate that the impact of praise depends on both its content and the social context, including factors like the relationship between the assessor and student and classroom dynamics. Perceived sincerity, for example, can shape how praise is received; praise delivered in a trusting relationship can be motivating, while insincere praise may seem manipulative. The study acknowledges the limitation of not considering the potential influence of teacher-student dynamics on the effectiveness of praise. For instance, a teacher’s established relationship with their students may create a context where praise is perceived as more sincere and supportive. In contrast, praise given by an unknown person, as was the case in this study (where the researcher delivered written praise rather than verbal praise from a familiar teacher), may have reduced its effectiveness by creating a lack of connection with the students. Future research should explore the role of relational and environmental factors in shaping the impact of praise, including incorporating teachers into the intervention to enhance the authenticity and perceived sincerity of praise.

Additionally, it should be noted that this study did not control for students’ prior academic performance throughout their schooling career or their socioeconomic status (SES), which represent significant factors that may influence growth mindset interventions’ outcomes. Prior studies (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2007; Paunesku et al., 2015; Porter et al., 2022; Yeager et al., 2019) have demonstrated that mindset interventions tend to yield greater improvements for students who are underperforming or at elevated risk of dropping out, suggesting that baseline academic challenges or SES-related factors can affect intervention effects. To enhance the applicability and precision of future findings, subsequent research should consider including these variables to more clearly assess how prior academic performance and SES may moderate the impact of growth mindset interventions.

While this study’s limitations may have influenced the outcomes, these challenges also present valuable opportunities for refining the design in future research. For instance, addressing reading proficiency, incorporating more age-appropriate content, and enhancing the relational factors involved in praise delivery could lead to more effective interventions in future studies. In addition, conducting qualitative analyses of students’ responses to the intervention could provide a deeper understanding of how they interpret and engage with the materials. This approach would help to identify specific areas for improvement and guide the development of interventions that are better aligned with the developmental needs and comprehension levels of younger students.

Moreover, despite these challenges, this study’s strength lies in its real-world educational setting, which enhances the ecological validity of the findings. Conducting the interventions in actual classroom environments provides a clearer picture of their applicability in everyday educational contexts, making the results more relevant for educational practice. Additionally, this study’s rigorous randomization minimizes potential biases, contributing to the reliability of the results. To further improve generalisability and ensure that the findings are applicable across diverse educational settings, future research should consider expanding this study to include diverse regions and school types. This research also represents one of the first experimental studies of mindset interventions in Dutch primary education, providing important insights for a relatively unexplored population.

In conclusion, while, in this study, no significant effects on learning performance were found, it does contribute to our understanding of how growth mindset interventions influence primary school students’ mindset beliefs. The findings confirm that a growth mindset reading and writing intervention can positively influence students’ beliefs about learning, even if these changes do not immediately translate into improved academic performance. Further research is essential to refine these interventions for younger learners, ensuring developmental appropriateness and alignment with primary school students’ unique needs. From a developmental perspective (Kohnstamm, 2009), children aged 9–12 are undergoing rapid cognitive and socioemotional changes that shape their beliefs about learning. The pressure of academic assessments, peer competition, and social comparison may contribute to students’ challenges in maintaining academic confidence. Intervening during these early years provides a valuable opportunity to lay the foundation for a growth mindset, helping children build resilience and motivation for lifelong learning. Future research should continue to explore ways to foster growth mindsets in younger learners, while considering contextual and developmental factors that affect intervention success.