Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an empirical study evaluating the effectiveness of two distinct growth mindset interventions and their combination. Using a randomized-control design, the study was conducted among 161 Dutch primary school students. The study extended growth mindset interventions to a novel context, and the authors articulated its rationale well. However, I have some concerns regarding presenting the previous literature and methodology. Below are some suggestions to further strengthen the manuscript:

1.     The term “fixed mindset” is introduced early (line 40) without a clear definition. While the authors briefly discuss the “growth mindset,” I recommend including a more thorough discussion of the implicit theory of intelligence in the introduction section, as this theory underpins growth mindset interventions. 

 

2.     In the intro, many of the cited studies lack detail regarding key contextual factors (e.g., duration of the intervention, intervention frequency, subject matter, or students' cultural backgrounds). According to prior research, these elements can significantly influence intervention effectiveness. Thus, I recommend adding more detailed descriptions of these elements to the intro. Doing so will help readers better understand potential reasons for the alignment or misalignment between the results reported in the current study and those in the previous studies.

 

3.     The authors implemented a one-time 60-minute intervention, which is relatively brief compared to a semester-long or repeated intervention. It would be helpful to clarify the rationale for this decision beyond practical limitations. Specifically, what evidence or theoretical basis supports the expectation that a one-time intervention would produce measurable changes in students’ mindset beliefs, especially when assessed immediately after the intervention?

 

4.     The authors used the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale to measure pre- and post-intervention mindset beliefs. However, the validity evidence for the instrument (e.g., factor analyses) used in this new context was not provided. I recommend exploring the validity of evidence to justify the author’s decision to combine the items into a single scale. This will help improve the trustworthiness of the reported results.

 

5.     The manipulation check demonstrates that students in the intervention groups experienced greater growth in mindset beliefs compared to the control group. However, this did not translate into greater growth in learning outcomes. Have the authors considered analyzing students’ responses to the intervention to gain deeper insights into this pattern? While the authors propose potential explanations in the discussion section, qualitative analyses could provide valuable evidence to explore the observed pattern's reasons further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: The Effect of Fostering a Growth Mindset in Primary School Children: Does Intervention Approach Matter?

Summary

This study investigates the effectiveness of two growth mindset interventions—reading-writing exercises and effort-based praise—on mindset beliefs and learning performance in Dutch primary school students aged 10–12. A randomised 2x2 factorial design with 161 participants evaluated the interventions individually and in combination. The reading-writing intervention successfully enhanced growth mindset beliefs, but neither intervention significantly improved learning outcomes in retention or transfer tasks within the probability calculation domain. The study highlights the need for developmental adaptations of these interventions for younger students and underscores the importance of refining delivery methods to enhance their practical impact.

General Assessment

The study explores a timely and significant topic: fostering growth mindsets in younger learners. Its experimental design and focus on primary education address gaps in previous research predominantly centred on older students. Despite this relevance, limitations in methodology, sample diversity, and intervention design reduce its overall impact.

Strengths

Innovative Scope: The study expands growth mindset research to primary education, an age group often overlooked in prior studies.

Comprehensive Design: A factorial design allows for nuanced analysis of individual and combined intervention effects.

Ethical and Ecologically Valid Implementation: Conducting the experiment in actual classrooms enhances its relevance for real-world educational practice.

Areas for Improvement

a)    Methodology:

Sample Size and Diversity: The study’s sample of 161 students is modest, and its focus on a single educational context limits generalisability. Expanding to diverse regions and school types could enhance external validity.

Intervention Adaptation: The reading-writing intervention, adapted from older students, may not align with the developmental levels of primary students. Tailored content and alternative delivery methods, such as multimedia formats, could address this gap.

b)    Data Analysis and Reporting:

 

While the analysis confirms significant mindset belief changes, the lack of inferential exploration of learning performance outcomes weakens the conclusions. Including deeper statistical insights (e.g., moderating effects) would strengthen the findings.

Greater exploration of participant variability in engagement or reading proficiency could illuminate why performance improvements were not observed.

c)    Discussion and Integration with Literature:

The discussion aligns findings with previous studies but lacks depth in contextualising the null results. Comparing with international or culturally distinct studies could provide richer insights.

The theoretical framework could delve deeper into why effort-based praise might have been less effective when delivered by unfamiliar researchers instead of teachers.

d)    Limitations:

The study acknowledges some limitations, such as reading proficiency and intervention adaptation. However, it omits others, like the potential influence of teacher-student dynamics on praise effectiveness.

Unmeasured factors, such as socio-economic status or prior academic challenges, could influence outcomes and should be included in future analyses.

e)    Bibliography:

The references are robust but predominantly Western-focused. Including more diverse or non-Western perspectives could broaden the theoretical base.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the understanding of growth mindset interventions for younger students, particularly their potential to enhance mindset beliefs. However, the lack of impact on learning outcomes suggests the need for further refinement, particularly in adapting interventions to the developmental needs of primary school students. Future research should prioritise larger, more diverse samples, tailor interventions more effectively, and investigate contextual variables like teacher involvement to optimise these approaches. Despite its limitations, the study offers a valuable foundation for advancing growth mindset research in early education.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf