An interactive training program produced statistically significant differences among three teaching methods on overall non-cognitive skills and on empathy, growth mindset and grit; post hoc tests found it beat traditional teaching, and the article does not report its comparison with a no-training control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-11-03 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Among university students randomly assigned to an interactive training program, traditional teaching or no training, one-way ANOVAs found significant differences on the overall non-cognitive skills scale and on empathy, growth mindset and grit (not on locus of control, planning or self-confidence); Tukey post hoc tests found the interactive group significantly above the traditional group, and the no-training control also significantly above the traditional group; the article does not report the comparison between the interactive group and the control. → Gheith and Aljaberi 2017

Evidence¶

Gheith and Aljaberi 2017¶

Eman Gheith & Nahil M. Aljaberi. (2017). The Effectiveness of an Interactive Training Program in Developing a Set of Non-Cognitive Skills in Students at University of Petra. International Education Studies, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n6p60

q2 · i? · causal · r2

ANOVA of scores from 174 students randomly distributed into three groups (57 experimental, 58 traditional, 59 control) on a 54-item researcher-designed scale. The article reports "statistically significant differences" with no effect size printed; Table 1 shows F-values of 7.5 for the overall scale and 9.1, 6.99, and 6.8 for empathy, growth mindset, and grit (overall means: interactive 84.9, control 82.1, traditional 80.6). The Tukey post hoc tests reported a significant difference between the interactive and traditional groups, in favour of the interactive group, and between the traditional and control groups, in favour of the control; the article does not report the comparison between the interactive group and the no-training control, so the study does not show that the program outperformed no training.

"The F-values indicate statistically significant differences between the different methods used on Groups A-C in the overall test, and on three dimensions: empathy, growth mindset, and grit."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The experimental group had the largest share of students at high levels of non-cognitive skills (80.7%), ahead of the traditional (62.1%) and control (59.3%) groups — related
• Post hoc comparisons showed the experimental group outperformed the traditional group, and the control group outperformed the traditional group — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Positive academic mindsets increase perseverance and academic behaviors, yielding higher grades; negative mindsets produce a self-defeating cycle — a broader claim this one bears on
• Academic behaviors have the most immediate effect on course grades; directly targeting grit is not an evidenced lever — related
• The meta-analytic correlation between growth mind-set and academic achievement is weak (r = .10) — related