Mathematics Learning through the Lens of Neuroplasticity: A Researcher’s Perspective

Mathematics Learning through the Lens of Neuroplasticity: A Researcher’s Perspective

Adedayo Olatunde Afolabi

PhD. Student – Department of Curriculum & Instruction (STEM Education), Texas Tech University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803299S

Received: 27 August 2024; Accepted: 07 September 2024; Published: 08 October 2024

ABSTRACT

This paper synthesizes key findings in neuroplasticity research to debunk the myth of a “fixed” mathematical ability, suggesting that cognitive capabilities in mathematics are not preordained but can be significantly improved through focused practice and tailored educational methods. Through an examination of selected research studies, this article demonstrate that consistent mathematical practice not only leads to improved problem-solving skills but also induces significant neural changes in brain regions associated with numerical processing. Furthermore, the paper delves into the critical role of focused attention and cognitive control in effective learning and proposes actionable strategies for educators to leverage these insights. This paper underscores the transformative implications of neuroplasticity for curriculum development, teaching strategies, and broader societal attitudes towards mathematical learning.

Keywords: neuroplasticity, brain, mathematics, educators, growth mindset.

INTRODUCTION

In the ever-evolving field of neuroscience, few concepts have captured the imagination and interest of scientists and educators alike as much as neuroplasticity. This dynamic property of the brain—the ability to change its structure and function in response to experiences (Turrini et al., 2023)—marks a seismic shift from previous beliefs (Spreng & Turner, 2019). For many years, the prevailing notion was that after a certain age, the human brain reached a stage of immutability, fixed in its ways and resistant to change. This viewpoint painted a rather deterministic picture, where an individual’s cognitive capabilities were largely preordained by biology and early experiences (Ezaki et al., 2018).

However, with advancements in neuroimaging and a deeper understanding of the brain’s intricate architecture, this age-old belief is being dismantled. Research has shown that our brains are not just passively shaped by experiences but can actively reconfigure themselves, forming new neural pathways and strengthening or weakening existing ones (Kole, 2014). This adaptability, termed neuroplasticity, underscores the brain’s remarkable resilience and capacity for lifelong learning and adaptation.

But why is this discovery so monumental? Firstly, it challenges and overturns a plethora of long-held myths about learning abilities, cognitive decline with age, and the potential for rehabilitation after brain injuries. It brings hope to those who once felt limited by their neurobiology, suggesting that with the right stimuli and interventions, change is possible.

Furthermore, in the educational sphere, this insight into the brain’s malleability holds potential for positive transformation. Particularly in subjects like mathematics, where many students and even adults harbor anxieties and self-limiting beliefs, understanding neuroplasticity can revolutionize teaching methods, curricula, and student approaches to learning (Keller & Just, 2016). The realization that the brain can be trained, much like a muscle, to improve mathematical thinking and problem-solving offers an optimistic view of what is achievable, no matter one’s starting point.

Theoretical Framework

This paper builds on the foundational theory of neuroplasticity which challenges the traditional notion of fixed mathematical ability, proposing instead that cognitive capabilities, specifically in mathematics, can significantly improve with focused practice and tailored educational strategies.

Through thematic synthesis of selected literature, insights from cognitive development theory (Piaget) and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory were integrated into this article to understand how mathematical understanding evolves and is influenced by both individual cognitive processes and social interactions. In this context, Piaget’s theory suggests that engaging with mathematical concepts leads to cognitive adaptations, while Vygotsky emphasizes the importance of social context and cultural tools in learning processes.

Furthermore, Carol Dweck’s growth mindset theory intersects with neuroplasticity to critique the myth of innate mathematical talent. This perspective encourages the belief that effort and persistence can lead to improvement, fostering a more inclusive and adaptive approach to mathematics education.

This framework suggests a multidimensional approach to research and practice in mathematics education. It highlights the need for educational practices that not only stimulate neuroplastic changes but also consider the developmental stage of the learner and the socio-cultural context of learning. For educators, it emphasizes creating environments that promote growth mindsets and engage students in meaningful mathematical practices.

Integrating neuroplasticity with theories of cognitive and social development offers a comprehensive approach to understanding and enhancing mathematics learning. It calls for a shift in educational strategies, curriculum development, and societal attitudes towards learning mathematics, underscoring the dynamic nature of cognitive capabilities and the potential for educational practices to foster significant neural and cognitive growth.

Through this framework, I intend to inspire further research and discussion on the transformative implications of neuroplasticity for mathematics education, urging a reevaluation of how we teach, learn, and perceive mathematical abilities.

METHOD

This study employs a qualitative research design grounded in thematic synthesis, drawing on a range of existing literature related to neuroplasticity and its implications for mathematical learning. The objective was to challenge the notion of fixed mathematical ability and explore how focused educational interventions can lead to cognitive and neural changes, enhancing mathematical performance.

The primary method used in this research was a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and studies published between 1990 and 2023. Key databases searched include PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). The following keywords were used: “neuroplasticity,” “mathematical ability,” “growth mindset,” “brain development,” and “educational neuroscience.” Sources were selected based on their relevance to neuroplasticity in learning, brain plasticity in mathematical cognition, and the efficacy of educational interventions.

Data for this study was collected through an extensive literature search, focusing on research that explored the interaction between neuroplasticity and educational practices, particularly in mathematics learning. A total of 45 peer-reviewed articles were initially identified, with 18 meeting the inclusion criteria after abstract screening. Studies that did not directly investigate the impact of neuroplasticity on learning outcomes or that were not peer-reviewed were excluded from this review.

Thematic analysis was employed to identify recurring patterns and concepts within the reviewed literature. The analysis focused on categorizing the findings into major themes, such as the role of practice and effort in brain plasticity, the impact of focused attention on learning outcomes, and the effects of real-world problem-solving tasks on brain development. The reviewed studies were further classified based on their contributions to understanding how targeted educational interventions lead to neural changes in areas of the brain associated with mathematical processing.

Thematic Analysis

Debunking the Myth of Fixed Mathematical Ability

The belief that certain skills—like mathematical aptitude—are innate traits one is simply born with has been a long-standing cultural narrative (Rattan et al, 2012). This viewpoint has perpetuated the dichotomy between those deemed “mathematically inclined” and those who are not. Consequently, this belief can often deter individuals who struggle with math early on from further pursuing it, solidifying a fixed mindset that poses barriers to their future learning and career opportunities. In essence, the notion that one either “has it” or “doesn’t” when it comes to math creates an unwelcome determinism that can limit potential and opportunity.

However, the emerging body of research on neuroplasticity is flipping this narrative on its head. Studies, such as those conducted by Judd and Klingberg (2020), have brought groundbreaking evidence to the forefront. These studies reveal that children who demonstrated significant improvement in their mathematical skills also show remarkable changes in their brain activity. Specifically, scans showed increased activity in regions of the brain associated with numerical processing and problem-solving (Judd & Klingberg, 2020).

What does this mean? It means that mathematical ability isn’t a fixed trait, cemented at birth and unchangeable throughout life. Instead, the research indicates that our brains are malleable and can be ‘trained’ to become better at mathematical tasks. The brain is capable of forming new neural pathways and strengthening existing connections in response to focused mathematical learning and practice (Judd & Klinberg, 2020).

This is an incredibly empowering insight. It not only reshapes our understanding of mathematical learning but also provides a more compassionate and optimistic frame for educational approaches. By recognizing the potential for growth and development in every student, educators can better tailor their teaching methods to facilitate this neural change. This could involve varied teaching techniques that engage different parts of the brain, utilizing real-world math problems that make the learning context more meaningful, or providing continual assessment and feedback to help students refine their skills.

Therefore, instead of dismissing students as ‘not being good at math,’ the focus should shift toward harnessing the incredible adaptability of the human brain. This would involve designing educational environments that are both stimulating and supportive, encouraging a growth mindset, and thereby unlocking the latent potential within each individual for mastering mathematics.

Neuroplasticity research dispels the damaging myth that mathematical abilities are immutable traits we are born with (Zacharopoulos et al, 2021). Instead, it opens up a hopeful avenue that positions mathematical learning as an evolving skill—one that can be nurtured, developed, and improved, no matter where one is starting from.

The Importance of Effort and Practice

One of the most compelling insights from the research on neuroplasticity is the pivotal role that consistent, focused effort and practice play in skill development—particularly in a complex subject like mathematics (Zacharopoulos et al, 2021). This reinforces a fundamental principle: our brain, similar to a muscle, benefits from regular exercise and training. The more we engage it, the stronger and more capable it becomes, demolishing the long-held belief that our intellectual capacities are rigid and unchangeable.

Practicing mathematical problems does more than simply lead to better test scores. Consistent practice actually reconfigures the neural landscape of the brain, strengthening existing connections while forming new neural pathways (Baeck et al, 2012). This is crucial because these neural changes make the brain more efficient at problem-solving, enabling us to tackle mathematical challenges with greater ease over time. As the saying goes, “practice not only makes perfect”—in this context, but practice also actively reshapes our neural architecture, setting the groundwork for more effective and efficient problem-solving (Carlson et al., 1990).

For educators, understanding that dedicated practice can substantially alter students’ brain function offers a powerful tool for curriculum development. It means moving beyond rote memorization and instead integrating problem-solving exercises that stimulate neural change. It encourages the use of teaching methods that allow for repeated, varied practice, thus helping to consolidate learning and encourage the formation of new neural connections.

For students, this research underscores the value of persistence, resilience, and continuous effort in their learning journey. Rather than feeling defeated by initial setbacks or difficulties, students can view these challenges as opportunities for brain growth. Knowing that their efforts are contributing to tangible neural changes can serve as a motivating factor, encouraging a more engaged and active approach to learning.

Importantly, this perspective on effort and practice has broader societal implications as well. For parents, it serves as a reminder that supporting consistent practice routines for their children is an investment in their intellectual growth. For policymakers and educational stakeholders, it stresses the need for curricula that focus on conceptual understanding and real-world problem-solving, rather than mere test preparation.

Focused Attention and Cognitive Control

Another fascinating dimension brought to light by neuroplasticity research is the crucial role of focused attention and cognitive regulation, or control, in effective learning and problem-solving, particularly in mathematics. Cognitive regulation encompasses abilities such as attention control, working memory, and emotional self-regulation (Perels et al., 2005). This is a game-changer because it shifts the conversation from merely practicing a skill to the quality of that practice, emphasizing how the mind’s focus can significantly enhance the learning experience and outcomes.

Researchers have consistently found that individuals with strong attentional control perform better in solving complex mathematical problems. They are not merely better at arithmetic or formulaic calculations but excel in dissecting complicated issues, identifying patterns, and constructing logical solutions (Commodari & Blasi, 2014). This skill—often overlooked in traditional educational settings—offers a window into tailoring more effective teaching methods.

So, what are the classroom implications? For educators, this research suggests the need for methods that help students cultivate their attention and cognitive control skills. Strategies could include mindfulness exercises aimed at enhancing focus, metacognitive techniques that help students monitor their own thought processes, or even ‘attention-training’ tasks that can be woven into the curriculum. These activities can serve a dual purpose: they can help students engage more fully with the subject matter while also training their brains to focus more efficiently.

For students, understanding the role of attention and cognitive control provides them with another layer of tools to improve their academic performance (Burgoyne & Engle, 2020). Knowing that focus can be as important as raw computational skill can change the way they approach problems, encouraging more thoughtful and deliberate efforts. This could involve techniques to minimize distraction, improve mental stamina, or better allocate cognitive resources during tasks that require sustained attention.

Moreover, these insights extend beyond the individual to the educational system at large. For policymakers, it emphasizes the need to integrate cognitive training into existing curricula, going beyond traditional subjects to equip students with the holistic skills they need for academic and life success. It might even prompt a reevaluation of assessment techniques, as tests that only measure the ability to quickly answer questions may not fully capture a student’s skill in focused problem-solving.

The Value of Engaging Learning Experiences

One of the most transformative insights offered by neuroplasticity is the crucial role that engaging, meaningful learning experiences play in education (Hilton et al, 2008), especially in subjects like mathematics. The concept goes beyond the textbook or rote memorization; it delves into the heart of how interactive activities and real-world problem-solving scenarios can fuel the brain’s development, resulting in enhanced mathematical understanding and capabilities.

Jung-Beeman et al. (2004) suggests that when students engage in activities that are not just theoretical but are deeply interactive, they stimulate the formation of new neural connections. This happens because such experiences require a higher level of cognitive involvement—analyzing, synthesizing, and applying knowledge—than simply memorizing formulas or procedures. These richer activities encourage the brain to reshape itself, making it more adept at mathematical reasoning and problem-solving.

So, what does this look like in a practical classroom setting? For educators, the application is twofold:

1. Curriculum Design: The curriculum could be structured to include more project-based learning, real-world applications of mathematical principles, or interdisciplinary projects that involve math alongside other subjects. This could mean designing lessons around creating budget plans, evaluating environmental data, or even calculating probabilities in social sciences. Such a curriculum does not just teach math; it teaches the application of math in various facets of life, making the learning experience more relatable and engaging.
2. Teaching Methods: Traditional lecture methods could be supplemented, or even replaced, with more interactive teaching styles that encourage student participation and collaboration. Techniques could include everything from small group problem-solving activities to class-wide debates on mathematical theories and their implications in the real world. Digital platforms could also be employed, leveraging educational technology to create immersive learning experiences.

For students, this approach could be particularly liberating. They would move from passive to active learners, empowered to explore, question, and apply their knowledge. They would learn not just the ‘what’ but also the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of mathematical concepts, making their educational journey far more meaningful and memorable.

For parents and caregivers, understanding the importance of engaging learning experiences could guide choices around supplementary activities and educational games. They could select tools and programs that challenge the child’s cognitive abilities and stimulate interest in numbers and logical thinking, further reinforcing the classroom learning experience.

Policymakers and administrators also stand to gain valuable insights from the link between neuroplasticity and engaging learning experiences. Educational policy could shift toward funding and supporting more innovative, interactive educational methods and technologies, emphasizing the development of a well-rounded skill set that includes critical thinking and problem-solving.

Building a Growth Mindset Culture

At its core, a growth mindset is built on the belief that abilities and intelligence can be developed. Unlike a fixed mindset, where individuals believe that their qualities are static, a growth mindset fosters the idea that effort, strategy, and feedback can lead to development and learning. This perspective sees challenges as opportunities and mistakes as learning tools, which are closely aligned with the principles of neuroplasticity.

For a growth mindset culture to truly take root, it should start with educators and administrators. When those at the helm lead by example—showcasing their own willingness to learn, adapt, and grow—it paves the way for students to adopt the same attitude. Professional development sessions can be tailored to incorporate growth mindset strategies, ensuring that educators are equipped with the tools to foster this environment (Zeng et al, 2019).

A fundamental tenet of a growth mindset is seeing mistakes as growth opportunities. To encourage this perspective, the classroom environment must be one where mistakes are not feared but embraced. Educators can promote this by discussing their own errors, exploring what they learned from them, and emphasizing the iterative nature of learning. This approach not only demystifies failure but also showcases it as a steppingstone toward mastery.

In a growth mindset culture, challenges are not deterrents but catalysts for development. Educators should design lessons and activities that push students out of their comfort zones. However, it’s crucial that these challenges are paired with the necessary support and resources, ensuring students have the means to navigate these tasks successfully.

Reflection is a cornerstone of growth. By encouraging students to regularly contemplate their learning journeys, challenges faced, strategies employed, and feedback received, educators foster deeper self-awareness. This self-awareness, in turn, enables students to identify areas of improvement and adapt their strategies, embodying the very essence of a growth mindset.

While outcomes are important, a true growth mindset culture celebrates the journey as much as the destination. Praise in the classroom should shift from results-focused feedback (“You got an A!”) to effort and strategy-focused feedback (“I can see how hard you worked on this, and how you applied the new strategy we discussed.”).

Ongoing Assessment and Feedback

Assessments in education play a dual role. Firstly, they help educators gauge the efficacy of their teaching methods and curricula (Chroinin & Cosgrave, 2013). Are students grasping the concepts? Are there gaps in understanding that need to be addressed? On the other hand, they also provide students with a measure of their own understanding, offering insights into areas they have mastered and where they need to focus more.

Feedback goes hand-in-hand with assessment. While assessments identify the ‘what’ (areas of strength and weakness), feedback provides the ‘how’—how can one improve, what strategies can be employed, and what resources might be beneficial. Effective feedback is constructive, specific, and timely. It not only points out areas of improvement but also offers actionable recommendations, ensuring students are not left feeling lost or overwhelmed (Guskey, 2019).

When ongoing assessments and feedback are incorporated effectively, they reinforce a growth-oriented approach to learning. By providing students with regular insights into their performance, educators can nurture a mindset that values consistent effort, resilience in the face of challenges, and the understanding that learning is an iterative process.

Not all students learn at the same pace or in the same way. Regular assessments enable educators to identify individual learning styles, strengths, and areas of improvement. With this data at hand, lessons can be tailored to cater to different needs, ensuring that all students remain engaged and supported. Also, ongoing feedback encourages students to take an active role in their learning journey. When students are aware of their performance metrics and receive guidance on how to improve, they are more likely to take ownership of their education. This heightened engagement and sense of responsibility can lead to increased motivation and academic achievement.

Assessments are not just beneficial for students; they offer invaluable insights for educators too. By understanding where students are excelling and where they’re facing difficulties, educators can refine their teaching strategies, adapt the curriculum, and ensure that their methods are as effective as possible.

A classroom that values ongoing assessment and feedback fosters a culture of open communication. Students become more receptive to feedback, understanding its role in their growth. Educators, too, can benefit from feedback from their peers, constantly evolving and improving their teaching methods.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study support the argument that mathematical ability is not a fixed trait but can be significantly enhanced through focused practice, cognitive engagement, and effective educational strategies. Neuroplasticity research demonstrates that the brain can adapt and rewire itself in response to mathematical challenges, especially in regions associated with numerical processing and problem-solving. This insight has profound implications for both educators and learners, particularly in dispelling the myth that some individuals are simply “not good at math.”

The evidence that sustained practice can reshape neural pathways reinforces the importance of creating learning environments that encourage consistent effort. It shifts the focus away from rote memorization and toward engaging students in meaningful problem-solving tasks that stimulate brain growth. Educators should consider incorporating strategies that not only emphasize repetition but also promote active cognitive engagement, such as real-world applications of mathematical concepts and interdisciplinary approaches.

Furthermore, the research underscores the critical role of focused attention and cognitive control in learning outcomes. Students who are trained to regulate their focus and cognitive efforts tend to perform better in complex mathematical tasks. This suggests that education systems should go beyond teaching content and incorporate techniques for enhancing cognitive skills like attention and working memory, which are foundational for academic success.

LIMITATION AND GAP

One limitation of this study lies in its reliance on synthesizing existing research findings to explore the implications of neuroplasticity for mathematics learning. While the article rigorously examines and integrates key findings from selected studies to challenge the myth of fixed mathematical ability and propose educational strategies, it does not directly engage in primary empirical research to observe neuroplastic changes in real-time or assess the efficacy of specific educational interventions in a controlled setting. This approach, while valuable for theoretical exploration and generating hypotheses, may limit the ability to directly link specific educational practices with quantifiable changes in brain structure or function. Consequently, the recommendations provided, though grounded in a robust theoretical framework, would benefit from further empirical validation to establish causal relationships between proposed teaching strategies and observed neuroplastic outcomes in learners. This limitation underscores the need for future research that combines qualitative insights with empirical data to more comprehensively understand the dynamics of mathematics learning through the lens of neuroplasticity.

CONCLUSION

Understanding neuroplasticity is a game-changer for both educators and students in the realm of mathematics learning. No longer should we be bound by the limiting belief that mathematical skills are immutable. The malleable nature of the brain highlights the untapped potential in every student. The use of focused practice, coupled with engaging and diversified learning experiences, can significantly improve mathematical proficiency. By embracing these insights, educators can help pave the way for a more adaptive, effective, and inclusive approach to mathematics education.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

As this research did not involve primary data collection from human subjects, ethical approval was not required. All secondary sources were appropriately cited, and the intellectual property of the authors was respected throughout the synthesis process.

REFERENCES

1. Baeck, J., Kim, Y., Seo, J., Ryeom, H., Lee, J., Choi, S., Woo, M., Kim, W., Kim, J., & Chang, Y. (2012). Brain activation patterns of motor imagery reflect plastic changes associated with intensive shooting training. Behavioural Brain Research, 234, 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.06.001.
2. Burgoyne, A., & Engle, R. (2020). Attention Control: A Cornerstone of Higher-Order Cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 624 – 630. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969371.
3. Carlson, R., Khoo, B., & Elliott, R. (1990). Component Practice and Exposure to a Problem-Solving Context. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 32, 267 – 286. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089003200302.
4. Chróinín, D., & Cosgrave, C. (2013). Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: teacher perspectives and experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18, 219 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.666787.
5. Commodari, E., & Blasi, M. (2014). The role of the different components of attention on calculation skill. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2014.03.005.
6. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house.
7. Ezaki, T., Sakaki, M., Watanabe, T., & Masuda, N. (2018). Age‐related changes in the ease of dynamical transitions in human brain activity. Human Brain Mapping, 39, 2673 – 2688. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24033.
8. Guskey, T. (2019). Grades versus comments: Research on student feedback. Phi Delta Kappan, 101, 42 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719885920.
9. Hinton, C., Miyamoto, K., & Della-Chiesa, B. (2008). Brain Research, Learning and Emotions: Implications for Education Research, Policy and Practice.. European Journal of Education, 43, 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1465-3435.2007.00336.X.
10. Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., Haberman, J., Frymiare, J., Arambel-Liu, S., Greenblatt, R., Reber, P., & Kounios, J. (2004). Neural Activity When People Solve Verbal Problems with Insight. PLoS Biology, 2. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.0020097.
11. Keller, T., & Just, M. (2016). Structural and functional neuroplasticity in human learning of spatial routes. NeuroImage, 125, 256-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.015.
12. Kole, K. (2014). Experience-dependent plasticity of neurovascularization.. Journal of neurophysiology, 114 4, 2077-9. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00972.2014.
13. Judd, N., & Klingberg, T. (2020). Training spatial cognition enhances mathematical learning in a randomized study of 17,000 children. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1548 – 1554. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01118-4.
14. Perels, F., Gürtler, T., & Schmitz, B. (2005). Training of self-regulatory and problem-solving competence. Learning and Instruction, 15, 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2005.04.010.
15. Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N., & Dweck, C. (2012). Can everyone become highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103 5, 787-803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029263.
16. Spreng, R., & Turner, G. (2019). The Shifting Architecture of Cognition and Brain Function in Older Adulthood. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 523 – 542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619827511.
17. Turrini, S., Bevacqua, N., Cataneo, A., Chiappini, E., Fiori, F., Candidi, M., & Avenanti, A. (2023). Transcranial cortico-cortical paired associative stimulation (ccPAS) over ventral premotor-motor pathways enhances action performance and corticomotor excitability in young adults more than in elderly adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 15, 1119508.
18. Zacharopoulos, G., Sella, F., & Kadosh, R. (2021). The impact of a lack of mathematical education on brain development and future attainment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013155118.
19. Zeng, G., Chen, X., Cheung, H., & Peng, K. (2019). Teachers’ Growth Mindset and Work Engagement in the Chinese Educational Context: Well-Being and Perseverance of Effort as Mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00839.