University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, United States
NCT Number: NCT05542498
This study tests the impact of mindfulness vs. relaxation training on psychological threat and challenge, emotions/emotion regulation, motivation/engagement, and performance among undergraduates enrolled in introductory physics courses. Data used to compare groups will be collected from a variety of sources, including self-report surveys, experience sampling and daily diary assessments, physics learning activities, and academic records.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15260, United States
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Training is focused on learning and applying the principles of R.A.I.N. (Recognize, Allow, Investigate, Non-identify) in the context of physics learning.
Training is focused on learning and applying relaxation practices (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery) in the context of physics learning.
Time frame: From enrollment up to 1 week post-intervention
Daily Physics Emotions measured using 12 self-report items with Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (an extreme amount). Daily Physics Emotions are calculated by averaging daily emotion items, with scores closer to 4 indicating experiencing more extreme emotions in physics.
Time frame: From enrollment up to 1 week post-intervention
Daily reappraisal, perspective shifting, and relaxation measured using 6 self-report items with Likert scale from 0 (not at all true) to 4 (completely true). Composite scores for reappraisal, perspective shifting, and relaxation are calculated as an average of all items for each subscale, respectively. Daily responses to emotions ranges from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater use of reappraisal, perspective shifting, or relaxation.
Time frame: From enrollment up to 1 week post-intervention
Daily Threat vs. Challenge Appraisals measured using 3 self-report items about threat, challenge, and confidence with regarding to unpleasant physics emotions with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Time frame: From enrollment up to 1 week post-intervention
Degree to which students felt engaged in and motivated to learn physics on a daily basis. Measured using 2 self-report items measured with Likert scale from 1 (not at all motivated/engaged) to 6 (extremely motivated/engaged). Daily engagement is calculated by averaging both items, with scores closer to 6 indicating more greater physics engagement.
Time frame: during intervention, five days
Experiences of decentering and curiosity, measured using 6 self-report items with Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). State presence is calculated by averaging decentering and curiosity items, with scores closer to 4 indicating greater state presence.
Time frame: during intervention, five days
Experiences of relaxation, measured using 3 self-report items with Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). State relaxation is calculated by averaging relaxation items, with scores closer to 4 indicating greater state relaxation.
Time frame: during intervention, five days
Current level of anxiety about physics measured using 1 self-report item with Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much), with scores closer to 4 indicating higher anxiety about physics.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Anxiety evaluation or learning while doing physics work, measured using 8 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (low anxiety) to 5 (high anxiety). Physics anxiety is calculated as an average of all of the items for each subscale, respectively. Physics anxiety ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater physics anxiety.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Psychological Threat vs. Challenge, measured using 11 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Psychological threat is calculated by subtracting average of physics demands from average of physics resources. Difference score ranges from -5 to 5, with scores above zero indicating psychological threat and scores of 0 or lower indicating psychological challenge.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Belief that unpleasant emotions are a signal that learning and growth are possible, measured using 3 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Unpleasant Emotions-Can-Be-Enhancing mindset is calculated as an average of all items ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater endorsement of this mindset.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Belief of efficacy with respect to physics skills and abilities, measured using 5 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Physics Self-Efficacy is calculated as an average of all items from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy in physics.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Student's sense of belonging in their physics course, measured using 5 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Physics Belonging is calculated as an average of all items from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater sense of belonging in physics.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Metacognitive strategies, measured using 7 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Metacognitive strategies are calculated as an average of all items, ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater use of metacognitive strategies.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Belief that intelligence and abilities for physics can be developed through dedication and hard work, measured using 3 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Growth mindset is calculated as an average of all items ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater growth mindset and lower scores indicating greater fixed mindset.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Cognitive effort, measured using 4 self-report items with Likert scale from (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Cognitive effort is calculated as an average of all items, ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive effort.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
The degree by which students associate their self-concept with physics, measured using 4 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Physics Identity is calculated as an average of all items from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater identification with physics.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Proactive mindset, measured using 6 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Proactive mindset is calculated as an average of all items, with higher scores indicating greater proactive mindset.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Use of explanation and analogy as problem solving strategies when working on physics, measured using 6 self-report items with Likert scale from (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Each subscale is calculated as an average of all of the items for each subscale, respectively. Cognitive problem-solving strategies range from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater use of explanation or analogy problem solving strategies.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Perceived interest in and utility value of learning physics, measured using 2 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 to 6. Physics Value is calculated as an average of both items from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater perceived value of learning physics.
Time frame: 3 days post-intervention
Physics problem solving tasks that range in difficulty covering content from introductory physics. Each item is scored for accuracy and solution time. Multiple choice items are scored as correct or incorrect. Accuracy scores are averaged across the items with higher scores indicating better physics performance.
Time frame: 3 days post-intervention
Physics problem solving tasks that include new learning resources (e.g., a worked example) and a transfer task. Each item is scored for accuracy and latency. Explanation items are scored on a rubric. Accuracy scores are summed across items with higher scores indicating better physics learning. Latencies will be examined for how much time was spent with the learning resource and time spent solving the problems.
Time frame: 3 days post-intervention
Judgments of confidence, difficulty, and self-efficacy during physics problem solving, with each subscale measured using self-report items with Likert scale from 1 to 6. Each subscale is calculated as an average of all of the items, with higher scores indicating greater confidence, difficulty, and self-efficacy respectively.
Time frame: 3 days post-intervention
Physics problem solving tasks that range in difficulty from more to less challenging. Participants select problems to be included on a work sheet. Scores are calculated by summing the number of problems selected for each problem type.
Time frame: End of semester following intervention, approximately 12 weeks
End-of-course grades measured via school records. Higher grades indicate higher classroom performance.
Time frame: End of semester following intervention, approximately 7 months
Enrollment in second semester of introductory physics course sequence measured via official school records. Scored dichotomously, 1 for enrolling second semester physics and 0 for not.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Trait decentering and curiosity, measured using 13 self-report items with Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Trait mindfulness is calculated as an average of all items, ranging from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater mindful decentering and curiosity; will also be used as a covariate or moderator.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
Trait rational-experiential ability, measured using 10 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Each subscale is calculated as an average of all of the items for each subscale, respectively. Higher scores indicate greater rational or experiential thinking abilities.
Time frame: From enrollment, up to 3 months post-intervention
General self-reported learning and transfer strategies, measured using 5 self-report items with Likert scale from (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Physics Transfer is calculated as an average of all items, ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater use of learning and transfer strategies.
Time frame: 3 days post-intervention
Perception of credibility and expected efficacy of training, measured using 4 self-report items with Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Each subscale is calculated as an average of all of the items for each subscale, respectively. Higher scores indicate greater perceived credibility or efficacy of the training.
Time frame: during intervention, five days
Multiple choice questions gauging the attentiveness to the intervention audio. Each item is scored for accuracy, as correct or incorrect.
University of Pittsburgh
Other
Mobile Mindfulness Training and Physics Learning
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT04680611
Adjustment, Adjustment, Emotional
Aberdeen, Grampian, United Kingdom
View Trial DetailsNCT07359950
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders
Aba, Sichuan, China
View Trial DetailsNCT07291713
Activities of Daily Living, Adverse Childhood Experience
Taipei, Taiwan
View Trial DetailsNCT06051500
Behavior, Behavioral Symptoms
Madison, Wisconsin, United States
View Trial Details