Do self-assessment mind maps boost kids' belief in their creativity?
Children who regularly filled in reflective mind maps during English class kept or slightly raised their belief that they could be creative, while a comparison class's belief fell, but the maps did not clearly improve English confidence or exam results.
Source
Enhancing Students' Self-Efficacy in Creativity and Learning Performance in the Context of English Learning: The Use of Self-Assessment Mind Maps
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Quasi-experiment with two intact classes: one class assigned to 8 weeks of twice-weekly self-assessment mind maps, the other to normal teaching; pre/post surveys and school exams analysed with ANCOVA
- N
- N=51 · 55 students enrolled; 51 analysed (20 in the mind-map class after 4 exclusions for missing post-data, 31 in the control class)
- Population
- Primary 4 students (ages 8-11) in two English classes taught by the same teacher in Hong Kong
- Outcome
- Self-efficacy in creativity (5-item scale), self-efficacy in learning English (MSLQ subscale), and school English exam scores
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
What they did
Two fourth-grade English classes with the same teacher were assigned by class to either an intervention or a control condition. For 8 weeks, the intervention class completed a mind-map template twice a week that prompted them to name the lesson theme, note what they learned, what confused them, and who or what could help them; the teacher gave no feedback on the maps. Before and after, students rated their creative self-efficacy and their self-efficacy in learning English, and their school exam scores served as the achievement measure.
What they found
After controlling for pretest scores, the mind-map class scored 0.54 points higher than the control class on creative self-efficacy, a medium-sized effect; this was mostly because the control class's scores dropped while the mind-map class's rose non-significantly. Self-efficacy in learning English fell in both classes, with no significant group difference. Both classes improved on the English exam and the mind-map class gained more from a much lower starting point, but because the group effect depended on starting scores the authors call the achievement result inconclusive.
The limits
What it doesn't show
Only two intact classes were compared, so class-level differences (the classes started far apart on English scores) are confounded with the intervention, and individual students were never randomised. Group sizes were small (20 versus 31), which limits statistical power, and four intervention students were dropped for missing data. Outcomes were self-report scales and ordinary school exams not designed around the taught content, and the study cannot say which part of the intervention (mind mapping, self-assessment, or simply extra reflective activity) drove the creative self-efficacy difference.
Key terms
- Creative self-efficacy
- A person's belief in their own ability to come up with ideas and take part in creative activities; here measured specifically for English class.
- Mind map
- A diagram that starts from a central theme and branches out into linked words, symbols or pictures, encouraging non-linear, divergent thinking.
- Self-assessment
- Students judging their own learning against criteria, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and seeking help or feedback.
- Quasi-experimental design
- A study that compares an intervention group to a control group without randomly assigning individual participants, often using pre-existing groups like classes.
- ANCOVA
- Analysis of covariance: compares group means on an outcome while statistically adjusting for a covariate such as pretest scores.
Flashcards
0 of 12 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
What kind of design did this study use?
Common questions
If the classes were randomly assigned, why isn't this a true randomised trial?
Randomisation happened at the level of whole classes, and with only two classes there is effectively one unit per condition, so any pre-existing difference between the classes, like their very different starting English scores, cannot be separated from the effect of the intervention.
Did the mind maps actually raise creative self-efficacy?
Partly. The intervention class showed a small, non-significant rise while the control class declined significantly, so the adjusted group difference is as much about the control class losing confidence as the intervention class gaining it.
Why might the intervention not have improved English test scores?
The authors suggest three reasons: the teacher gave no feedback on the maps, the school exams were not designed around the content being taught, and 8 weeks may be too short compared with longer mind-mapping programmes that work better.
More on Creativity