My research interests lie in the realm of Education and the different levers that are involved in the learning sciences. Motivation and growth mindset are very well studied and integral parts of researching how humans learn, how humans view intelligence, and the science behind continuous learning both outside and inside the school environment. For this reason, Haimovitz’s study on children’s implicit theories on intelligence and how they are developed in the home environment is very applicable to my research interests. I believe that understanding how children develop mindsets about their intelligence and how this impacts their motivation to learn.
This study focuses on the distinction between fixed and growth mindset for children in school and the effect that this has on their motivation. The potential that this intelligence mindset has on children is tremendous, and thus it is important to study where and how these mindsets get developed from the home environment — specifically the parents’ own intelligence mindset. There are four different studies that study this link. For the sake of this replication project, I will focus on study 4, which examines “the causal effect of parents’ failure mind-sets on their responses to their children’s hypothetical failure.”
In this study, 132 parents were recruited to take a survey about failure mindsets and tasked to imagine a scenario in which in which their child came home from school with a failing grade on a math quiz. They were then asked what they would do. It was shown that parents that were induced a “failure-is-debilitating mind-set were more likely to react with concerns about their child’s performance and lack of ability.” These results were then used to conclude that parental beliefs about failure are visible and can shape children’s attitudes and beliefs about their own intelligence. This experiment requires a study that is 1) able to induce and differentiate between the two intelligence mindsets for parents, 2) a case where parents can tap into realistic hypothetical failures, and 3) a method to establish causation between parents’ failure mindsets their perspective on their children’s failures. Some challenges include the effectiveness with which we can induce different failure mindsets and accuracy with which the survey questions can accurately portray parental beliefs towards their children.
Link to Repository: git@github.com:psych251/haimovitz_rescue.git Link to Paper: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7172/b578bfc9a77fbcd34c8e2417b674977f73fc.pdf?te=1&nl=nyt-parenting&emc=edit_ptg_20200108
Based on the prior write-up, describe any differences between the original and 1st replication in terms of methods, sample, sample size, and analysis. Note any potential problems such as exclusion rates, noisy data, or issues with analysis.
Original effect size, power analysis for samples to achieve 80%, 90%, 95% power to detect that effect size. Considerations of feasibility for selecting planned sample size.
How much power does your planned sample have for original effect? For an attenuated effect that is half the size of the original?
(If power analysis is not possible or precise, discuss more fully how you determined a sample size that would be sufficient for rescue.)
Planned sample size and/or termination rule, sampling frame, known demographics if any, preselection rules if any.
All materials - can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.
Can quote directly from original article - just put the text in quotations and note that this was followed precisely. Or, quote directly and just point out exceptions to what was described in the original article.
What attention checks, positive or negative controls, or other quality control measures are you adding so that a (positive or negative) result will be more interpretable?
Can also quote directly, though it is less often spelled out effectively for an analysis strategy section. The key is to report an analysis strategy that is as close to the original - data cleaning rules, data exclusion rules, covariates, etc. - as possible.
Clarify key analysis of interest here You can also pre-specify additional analyses you plan to do.
Explicitly describe known differences in sample, setting, procedure, and analysis plan from original study. The goal, of course, is to minimize those differences, but differences will inevitably occur. Also, note whether such differences are anticipated to make a difference based on claims in the original article or subsequent published research on the conditions for obtaining the effect.
You can comment this section out prior to final report with data collection.
Sample size, demographics, data exclusions based on rules spelled out in analysis plan
Any differences from what was described as the original plan, or “none”.
Data preparation following the analysis plan.
How did people perform on any quality control checks or positive and negative controls?
The analyses as specified in the analysis plan.
Three-panel graph with original, 1st replication, and your replication is ideal here
Any follow-up analyses desired (not required).
Combining across the original paper, 1st replication, and 2nd replication, what is the aggregate effect size?
Open the discussion section with a paragraph summarizing the primary result from the confirmatory analysis and the assessment of whether it replicated, partially replicated, or failed to replicate the original result.
Add open-ended commentary (if any) reflecting (a) insights from follow-up exploratory analysis, (b) assessment of the meaning of the replication (or not) - e.g., for a failure to replicate, are the differences between original and present study ones that definitely, plausibly, or are unlikely to have been moderators of the result, and (c) discussion of any objections or challenges raised by the current and original authors about the replication attempt. None of these need to be long.