Next Article in Journal
“It’s Good to Have a Voice”: What Do Students Think about the Impact of a Flexible Curricular Implementation of Student-Centered Pedagogies on Their Own Learning Experiences?
Previous Article in Journal
Barriers and Facilitators to Inclusive Education for Learners Who Are Deafblind: A Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci14101073
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Role of Growth Mindset on the Relationships between Students’ Perceptions of English Language Teachers’ Feedback and Their ESL Learning Performance

by
Priyadarshini Muthukrishnan
1,
Loo Fung Lan
2,
Hariharasudan Anandhan
3,* and
Premila Swamy D
4
1
Faculty of Education and Liberal Arts, INTI International University, Nilai 71800, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Education, Open University Malaysia, Petaling Jaya 47301, Malaysia
3
Faculty of English, Kalasalingam Academy of Research and Education, Anand Nagar, Krishnankoil 626126, India
4
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Regional Centre, Kohima 797001, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1073; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101073
Submission received: 25 June 2024 / Revised: 25 August 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 30 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Language and Literacy Education)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The importance of growth mindset and teachers’ feedback has been widely recognised to improve the English language performance of students; however, the impact of growth mindset as a mediator is least explored. Therefore, the study aimed to empirically analyse the interrelationships between growth mindset and teachers’ feedback levels on secondary school students’ English as a Second Language (ESL) performance and to study the mediation effects of growth mindset in the relationships. The research model examined growth mindset along with four types of feedback. The levels of feedback include task, process, self-regulation and self-based feedback that teachers provide to improve the ESL performance of students. Survey questionnaires were administered to 301 secondary school students in Class 9 from two private schools in India. The data were analysed using PLS-SEM 4.0 software. The results indicated that the direct effect of feedback that emphasised process and self-regulation fosters a growth mindset in ESL students. Feedback levels focused on task, process, self-regulation, and growth mindset significantly impact ESL performance. Moreover, growth mindset mediated the relationships between process and self-regulation-focused feedback and ESL performance. However, no evidence supports the relationship between self-focused feedback, growth mindset, and ESL performance. The study concludes with implications and directions for future research.

1. Introduction

One of the significant measures to enhance academic learning is inculcating a growth mindset (belief that intelligence can be developed) among students. The belief that intelligence and learning capacity may be improved by effort and commitment is known as a growth mindset [1]. Research has indicated that individuals who hold onto a growth mindset are resilient during difficult times [2]. Dweck’s Growth Mindset theory underpins the Implicit Theory of Intelligence [3]. According to the growth mindset theory, individuals with a growth mindset are believed to have changeable intelligence [4]. Alternatively, individuals with a fixed mindset (i.e., entity theory) are prone to think their talents are stable [5]. Hence, scholars have observed that growth mindset positively affects students’ academic performance [6,7], motivates learners and brings joy while learning [8,9]. Owing to the beneficial impact of a growth mindset on students’ academic achievement, many academics have worked to develop interventions and pedagogical practices that encourage students to adopt a growth mindset. Studies have reported the use of growth mindset in a diverse student population, e.g., at the primary level [10], secondary level [11], tertiary level [12], and graduate level [13]. Furthermore, to support students’ academic improvement, growth mindset interventions are frequently used in science and math classes [11,12,13,14,15]. These results showed the positive impact of growth mindset intervention in academic learning. Hence, teachers are advised to include the growth mindset theory in their teaching methods [14,16]. The conventional teaching style fails to engage the new-gen learners as they prefer to be hyper-active with gadgets or multitaskers [17]. Furthermore, fostering a growth attitude among young learners is crucial for developing persistence and a love of learning [2].
Growth mindset is considered to be a significant motivating factor that enhances foreign language learning [18]. Research has validated that students’ academic performance is favourably correlated with a growth mindset [6]. Growth mindset among language learners would create a suitable learning environment that constitutes learning through motivated spirit and enjoyment. When English is learned as a foreign language by non-native speakers, factors, such as lack of exposure or enthusiasm to learn may impede foreign language acquisition. Given this scenario, many researchers attempted to explore the pedagogies of ESL acquisition and other influencing factors that directly or indirectly help English learners [19]. One such factor that shapes learning is teachers’ feedback on students’ performance and learners’ capacity to build a growth mindset. Receiving teacher’s feedback is central to learners’ academic development.
Research has focused on the need and value of teachers’ feedback in learning environments. When the learners are gratified with the learning environment, they will become more creative and responsive and will pitch themselves in the unremitting process of self-education [17]. According to Hyland and Hyland (2006), teacher feedback acts as a medium for teachers to offer advice and recommendations to students on the scope for further improvement [20]. Also, Ferris and Roberts (2001) observe that learners who receive regular feedback claim that they prefer teacher input over other forms of feedback, such as online, peer, and self-evaluation [21].
The effects of growth mindset have been thoroughly examined across academic domains, including psychology and education. However, it has not gained enough attention in the context of foreign language learning [22]. Recent research has drawn the significance and correlation of the feedback mechanism and the growth mind in generating a positive academic climate. For example, studies show that developing positive emotions rather than negative ones accelerates learning [23]. Also, attributes like a growth mindset can be developed and nurtured among students through intervention and instruction [22,24,25]. As Wang et al. rightly pointed out, to prepare students for the challenges of foreign language learning, language teachers, educational material developers, and school administrators need to take the required actions to kindle language learners’ growth attitude, coupled with the joy of learning [26].
Therefore, analyzing the interrelation between growth mindset and teachers’ feedback is pertinent, particularly when English is primarily taught and learned as a second language. This study becomes significant in understanding students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback and their ability to build a growth mindset for greater achievement in the language learning process. Few studies have explored the interrelationship between the two given factors, especially in the context of ESL; however, studies focusing on school education are limited. Hence, this study stands pivotal in the context of school education and in filling the necessary gap, as revealed through the literature review. The current research is focused on examining the mediating effect of growth mindset on the relationships between the four levels of feedback and the ESL performance of students. Therefore, this research will address the following research questions:
○
Is there a significant influence of students’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback types on the ESL performance of students?
○
Is there a significant influence of growth mindset on the ESL performance of students?
○
Is there a significant mediation effect of growth mindset on the relationships between the four levels of feedback and the ESL performance of students?

2. Relevant Literature

2.1. Growth Mindset of ESL Students

Research has extensively shown that a growth mindset significantly influences foreign language (FL) learning [18]. Individuals with a growth mindset tend to set mastery-oriented goals, which helps them persist in the face of challenges and maintain interest in tasks [1], leading to higher academic performance [27]. This mindset is also associated with greater grit [24], motivation [28], enjoyment [26], and achievement in language learning [29]. However, despite its extensive study in various academic fields, such as psychology and education, the role of a growth mindset in FL learning, particularly in competitive, test-oriented environments like China, has not been adequately explored [22]. The concept of a growth mindset was integrated into empirical research as a crucial motivational belief that can greatly influence students’ progress in learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or ESL [30], especially in Asian educational settings where effort is highly valued, aligning with the principles of Confucian culture [18,31]. Research by Burnette et al. (2013) has shown that a growth mindset is positively associated with learners’ persistence, planning, monitoring, and regulation of their learning process and enjoyment of learning [32]. Despite extensive research on the impact of a growth mindset in various academic domains, its influence has been less explored in EFL or ESL contexts [15,22]. In language learning, many students may believe that success is linked to innate talent or a natural aptitude for languages, making them less likely to adopt a growth mindset compared to other academic areas [33]. Thus, H1 was constructed as follows:
H1: 
Growth mindset is positively related to ESL students’ performance.
The study by Matsumura et al. offers valuable insights into the relationship between task-focused feedback and the cultivation of growth mindset in ESL students’ analytic text-based writing skills [34]. It reveals a significant gap between teachers’ perceptions of challenging writing tasks aimed at fostering analytic thinking and the actual feedback students receive, with only a minority of student work receiving feedback focused on encouraging analytic thinking, use of evidence, and text comprehension. Despite perceiving tasks as challenging, most feedback provided was content-related, instructive, or localized, rather than focusing on advancing students’ conceptual understanding and adaptive expertise for writing in the genre. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the feedback in promoting a growth mindset [35]. The study underscores the need for further research to explore how feedback can be more effectively tailored to support students’ development of analytic text-based writing skills and foster a growth mindset. Task-focused feedback, which emphasizes the process and strategies students use to complete tasks, is thought to positively influence ESL students’ performance [36]. This approach aligns with the intention to foster a growth mindset in language learning, suggesting that focusing on effort and strategies can improve language proficiency [37]. The study by Kim and Kim [38] examines how learning-oriented language assessment (LOLA) [39] and task-focused feedback impact ESL students’ performance in integrated reading-to-write tasks in English for academic purposes (EAP) at a Korean university. The results show varying improvement among participants, suggesting factors beyond feedback influence performance. The study underscores the need for further research to optimize task-focused feedback’s impact on ESL students’ writing enhancement [38]. The study by Sadoughi and Hejazi (2023) provides valuable insights into factors influencing the relationship between growth mindset and ESL students’ performance [40]. It examines how perceived teacher support and L2 grit mediate this relationship, suggesting that these factors play important roles in fostering engagement and academic outcomes. While the study does not directly investigate the hypothesized mediation effect of task-focused feedback, it underscores the complexity of factors that may impact ESL students’ performance and the need for further research in this area. The proposed idea implies that the nature of feedback, particularly when it is task-focused, might play a mediating role in how growth mindsets influence ESL students’ performance. This concept aligns with the broader understanding that students’ beliefs about their abilities can significantly impact their learning outcomes. However, this proposition prompts critical questions about how growth mindsets are defined and measured in the context of ESL and the specific mechanisms through which task-focused feedback could mediate this relationship. It also raises practical considerations for educators, such as how they can effectively incorporate task-focused feedback to support students’ growth mindsets and improve performance in ESL. While this idea presents an interesting perspective, further research is necessary to explore these relationships and their implications for educational practices [22]. The following hypothesis and sub-hypotheses are framed considering the above literature review.

2.2. Task-Based Feedback in ESL Classroom

H2: 
Task-focused feedback is positively related to promoting a growth mindset in ESL students.
H2a: 
Task-focused feedback is positively related to ESL students’ performance.
H2b: 
Growth mindset mediates the relationship between task-level feedback and ESL students’ performance.
The literature suggests that process-focused feedback significantly influences students’ beliefs and motivations in ESL writing, with implications for their approach to learning. Research based on Dweck’s (2013) theory of intelligence has explored how students’ intelligence, particularly regarding writing ability, shapes their orientation toward written corrective feedback (WCF) and overall writing motivation [41]. Studies indicate that students with an incremental theory of writing intelligence, viewing writing ability as developable through effort and experience, are more inclined to seek feedback and exhibit higher motivation levels in writing tasks. Conversely, those with a fixed mindset about writing intelligence, perceiving it as a fixed trait, tend to avoid feedback and may struggle with motivation. For instance, a study involving 142 ESL writers at a US university found that the incremental theory of writing intelligence positively predicted feedback-seeking orientation, while the entity theory of writing intelligence was linked to feedback-avoiding behaviour [42].
Additionally, the incremental theory positively correlated with second language (L2) writing motivation, suggesting a strong influence of beliefs on engagement and persistence. This underscores the potential of process-focused feedback, which offers specific guidance on improving writing skills and fostering a growth mindset among ESL students. Such feedback could help students develop a more positive and adaptive learning approach by emphasising the malleability of writing ability and the importance of effort. However, while existing research provides valuable insights, further studies directly investigating the impact of process-focused feedback on promoting a growth mindset in ESL students are needed to inform effective ESL writing instruction. The literature on teacher electronic feedback (TEF) in ESL writing indicates a need to understand how feedback delivery methods, particularly electronically, impact student revisions and learning outcomes. This study examines the effectiveness of TEF, including process-focused feedback [43], in face-to-face and online ESL writing classes. TEF was provided asynchronously (via Word comments and track changes) and synchronously (through text chats between teachers and students). The analysis included 93 drafts from 64 students and 93 synchronous text chats. Results indicate that TEF was predominantly focused on content and was generally implemented successfully or attempted. Additionally, student perceptions about TEF were gathered through a survey, and participating teachers were interviewed about their TEF practices. The findings suggest that when delivered synchronously, TEF can effectively reinforce asynchronous feedback and positively affect student outcomes. This study contributes to understanding how process-focused feedback, such as TEF, can positively impact ESL students’ performance, highlighting the importance of feedback delivery methods in ESL writing instruction [44]. The existing literature explores how process-focused feedback from teachers and parents influences the development of a growth mindset and, in turn, the digital reading performance of ESL students. Analyzing data from 250,912 fifteen-year-old students across 32 OECD countries from the PISA 2018 assessment, the study finds that perceptions of process feedback positively predict a growth mindset associated with better digital reading performance [45]. Furthermore, process-focused feedback mediates the relationship between a growth mindset and ESL students’ performance, highlighting the importance of feedback in fostering a growth mindset and improving academic performance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are framed.

2.3. Process-Focused Feedback in ESL Classroom

H3: 
Process-focused feedback is positively related to promoting a growth mindset in ESL students.
H3a: 
Process-focused feedback is positively related to ESL students’ performance.
H3b: 
Growth mindset mediates the relationship between process-level feedback and ESL students’ performance.
Despite its critical role in self-regulation, the literature highlights a gap in understanding learners’ engagement with feedback in second language (L2) writing. A qualitative case study addresses this gap by examining how skilled and less-skilled self-regulators engage with teacher-written feedback in a Chinese EFL context [46]. The study reveals that the relationship between feedback and outcomes is mediated by students’ engagement with the feedback process, indicating that engagement varies across cognitive, behavioural, and affective dimensions. Skilled self-regulators demonstrate greater engagement, attributed to their awareness of feedback, ability to interpret it, and agency in translating feedback into action [47]. In contrast, less-skilled self-regulators show less engagement, suggesting a need for support in interpreting and utilizing feedback effectively. The findings underscore the importance of self-regulation in feedback engagement and offer pedagogical implications for enhancing students’ ability to use feedback to promote a growth mindset in ESL writing. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is essential for academic achievement, yet there is limited understanding of how teachers can support SRL in e-learning. In a study conducted by Wang et al. (2024), teacher support for SRL e-learning among 1473 Chinese seventh and eighth-grade ESL/EFL students was explored [27]. The proposed framework includes SRL strategy instruction, resource support, capacity support, emotional support, and a constructivist learning environment. Results show that students’ SRL e-learning levels vary based on academic achievement. Teacher feedback significantly influences students’ SRL e-learning [27]. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is crucial in second language education. A review of 58 SSCI articles found metacognitive strategies to be the most studied, with teacher support playing a key role. Self-regulated language learning strategies were effective in academic and affective domains. Recommendations for teachers include explicit strategy instruction and technological support. The review emphasized the interactions among learners, strategies, tasks, and environments in self-regulated second language learning, suggesting directions for future research [19]. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is increasingly vital in higher education, prompting a need to understand whether future time perspective (FTP) or self-efficacy more strongly predicts SRL. A study surveyed 130 undergraduate students in the UAE, finding self-efficacy to be a stronger predictor of SRL than FTP. Results suggest students struggle most with reading and comprehension. While the variables predicted only a modest proportion of SRL, the study encourages further exploration of predictors. The findings aim to support students and faculty in enhancing SRL through feedback for academic success in higher education, particularly in a Middle-Eastern context [48]. The above literature paves the way for the following hypotheses to be framed.

2.4. Self-Regulation-Focused Feedback in ESL Classroom

H4: 
Self-regulation-focused feedback is positively related to promoting a growth mindset in ESL students.
H4a: 
Self-regulation-focused feedback is positively related to ESL students’ performance.
H4b: 
Growth mindset mediates the relationship between self-regulation level feedback and ESL students’ performance.
A study conducted by Rhew et al. (2018) examined the effects of a growth mindset intervention on self-efficacy and motivation in reading among adolescent special education students with learning disabilities [49]. The intervention, Brainology, was administered to the treatment group, while a comparison group received no intervention. Results showed a significant improvement in motivation but not self-efficacy. This suggests that interventions promoting a growth mindset can positively impact motivation in this student population, indicating a potential link between self-focused feedback and developing a growth mindset in ESL students [49]. Another study examines the relationships between motivational variables, self-regulated writing strategy use, and writing competence among Hong Kong fourth graders. High-achieving students demonstrated higher motivation levels, including self-efficacy, task values (interest and utility), and growth mindset in English writing compared to low achievers. They also used self-regulated writing strategies more frequently. Self-efficacy and growth mindset were found to be significant predictors of strategy use, with interest and utility playing weaker roles. The results suggest that motivation is crucial in improving self-regulated learning and competence in English writing. The study highlights the influence of social–cultural contexts on motivation and suggests that promoting a growth mindset may be a valuable approach in ESL/EFL writing [50]. The previous literature explores how emotions influence self-regulated learning (SRL) and literacy development in adult ESL learners with limited formal education. The research uses a theoretical model to examine the relationship between learners’ emotions, SRL strategies, and L2 literacy achievement. Results suggest that SRL strategy use mediates the impact of emotions on literacy gain scores. These findings have implications for L2 teaching and assessment, indicating a potential positive relationship between self-focused feedback and ESL students’ performance [51]. Derakhshan and Fathi (2024) examine the interplay between growth mindset, ideal L2 self, grit, and student engagement in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learning. Data from 379 participants in Iran reveal a partially mediated model, highlighting the complex relationships among these variables [52]. The study finds that both ideal L2 self and growth mindset significantly impact student engagement, with grit playing a crucial role as a partial mediator. Additionally, a growth mindset indirectly affects student engagement, primarily through grit. These findings enhance our understanding of motivational factors in EFL learning and offer practical insights for educators and curriculum designers aiming to improve student engagement and perseverance in language learning environments, hinting at a potential role for self-focused feedback in mediating the relationship between growth mindset and ESL students’ performance [52].

2.5. Self-Focused Feedback in ESL Classroom

H5: 
Self-focused feedback is positively related to promoting a growth mindset in ESL students.
H5a: 
Self-focused feedback is positively related to ESL students’ performance.
H5b: 
Growth mindset mediates the relationship between self-level feedback and ESL students’ performance.
Based on the hypotheses formulated above, the current study proposed the research framework as illustrated in Figure 1. The framework shows the relationship between the exogenous, endogenous and mediating variables.

3. Materials and Methods

The researchers employed a cross-sectional study design using the survey research method to collect data for this study. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire that was distributed to the students. The study involved secondary school students in Class 9 at private schools in India, aged 14 to 15 from January 2024 to March 2024, who voluntarily took part in the study were included. The selected schools are highly academic-oriented, emphasising the high performance of students. Additionally, Grade 9 students take periodic tests and receive continuous assessment feedback as part of preparation for the public examinations, which they will take in Grade 10. Students were informed of the purpose of the study as well as the strict confidentiality and anonymity of the survey. All students were given a consent form before filling out the survey. In total, 301 valid questionnaires were collected from students, and the data were subsequently coded and analysed.
The survey instrument used consists of four sections. The Section 1 was the growth mindset inventory [1], which was used to measure students’ growth mindset. The original version of the growth mindset inventory focuses on growth and fixed mindsets, with 10 items for each. However, for the current study, four items related to growth mindset were considered. The Section 2 of the instrument is Students Perceptions on Teachers’ Levels of Feedback scale [29], which consists of 20 items that cater to the four levels of feedback. This scale has 15 items in total, which were confirmed after being validated using the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). All the items in both the questionnaires are positive, and both used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) were employed to collect responses. The Section 3 focused on the demographic data of students, such as gender and age. Finally, for the test scores in English language achievement, the average of the two recent test scores in their English mid-term examinations were considered. The questionnaire used for the survey is presented in Appendix A.
A pilot study was conducted with a sample of 50 students to validate the instruments. The instrument designed for the pilot study has 6 (Growth mindset) and 20 items (5 items in each level of feedback) in total. The two instruments were validated using EFA and Varimax rotation. Growth mindset scale resulted in unidimensionality, while the EFA results for the students’ perception of teachers’ feedback resulted in extracted four factors. The EFA analysis met the thresholds of the criteria, showing significance in the Sphericity Bartlett Test (p < 0.500) and values of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin above 0.800, Factor Loading above 0.500 with Communalities ≥ 0.300, and Eigenvalue less than 1.00. However, two out of five indicators from growth mindset inventory and five indicators from a total of 20 items from the students’ perceptions of teachers’ level of feedback questionnaire were removed due to cross-loadings.
Permission from the school principals and class teachers was obtained prior to the survey’s implementation. The confidentiality of the data collected and the consent of the students to participate in the study were both carefully considered.

4. Results Using SEM (Structural Equation Modelling)

Structural equation modelling integrates the benefits of regression and path analysis to estimate and test causal relationships among multiple variables. In the current study, the data analysis was conducted utilising the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) techniques. The research model was examined using Smart PLS 4.0 software [54].
The study aimed to predict students’ ESL performance based on exogenous variables such as growth mindset, task level, process level, self-regulation level, and self-level feedback. PLS-SEM was chosen for its advantages over other statistical methods, including its ability to accommodate formative and reflective indicators, minimal measurement scale requirements, and suitability for small sample sizes and non-normally distributed data [55]. Moreover, when the research objective is prediction rather than theory development and testing, PLS-SEM is the preferred SEM method, according to recent research.
A two-step approach was followed [55]. The first stage assessed the reliability and validity of the measurement model, followed by hypothesis testing by evaluating the structural model. To determine the statistical significance of path coefficients, bootstrapping with 5000 samples was conducted.

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

Several aspects were assessed to validate the measurement model, including internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity [55].

4.1.1. Internal Consistency Reliability

Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient were employed to assess the inter-item consistency of the measurement items. It is recommended that Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values exceed 0.70. In regard to Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability value, Hair et al. (2022) noted that reliability exceeding 0.90 is considered excellent, reliability exceeding 0.80 is considered satisfactory, reliability exceeding 0.70 is considered acceptable, reliability exceeding 0.60 is considered dubious, and reliability falling below 0.50 is deemed substandard [55]. The values of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (rho_a) for each construct are displayed in Table 1. It was apparent that every reliability value exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.70. Construct reliability was thus validated.

4.1.2. Convergent Validity

Hair et al. (2022) defined convergent validity as the degree of correlation between two measures of the same construct. Additionally, they propose that researchers evaluate convergence validity by employing composite reliability, outer loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) [55].
Outer loading was evaluated to assert the reliability of individual indicators. According to Hair et al. (2022), outer loadings should be larger than 0.70 [55]. As shown in Table 1, all loadings exceeded 0.70, signifying that the indicators exhibited substantial reliability. Furthermore, composite reliability values indicate the extent to which the construct indicators uncover the latent variable. As shown in Table 1, the composite reliability values for this study ranged from 0.760 to 0.896, exceeding 0.70 [55], indicating a high degree of internal consistency reliability.
The average variance extracted (AVE) quantifies the proportion of variance captured by the indicators in relation to the error introduced by the measurement system. It indicates how well the indicators of a latent construct converge or agree with each other. The threshold for acceptable convergent validity is an AVE value of 0.50 or higher [55]. The AVEs in this investigation varied between 0.644 and 0.757, all of which fell within the acceptable range specified in Table 1. Thus, the entire set of latent variables satisfied the predetermined threshold value and were deemed to have attained the recommended standard for convergent validity.

4.1.3. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity pertains to the extent to which each construct stands apart from others. Three criteria were examined to ensure cross-loadings: Fornell and Larcker’s criterion and the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). Cross loadings are deemed satisfactory when each indicator exhibits the highest loading for its designated construct. In this study, the discriminant validity of the measurement model was assessed alongside cross-loading measurements, aligning with Fornell and Larcker’s criterion [56].
To establish discriminant validity, a comparison was made between the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) and the correlations among the remaining constructs. Ideally, each latent variable’s AVE should surpass the correlations with other latent variables (LVC). Results revealed that the square roots of the AVE for growth mindset (GM), task, process, self-regulation and self-level feedback significantly exceeded the corresponding latent variable correlations, as indicated in Table 2. As depicted in Table 2, the Fornell and Larcker criterion was thus met.

4.1.4. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)

To fortify the Fornell–Larcker criterion, Henseler (2017) introduced the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) as a more robust measure to evaluate discriminant validity [57]. According to Henseler’s criterion, when the HTMT reaches the 0.90 threshold, it signifies a clear distinction among variables. In Table 3, the HTMT values for all variables range from 0.070 to 0.766, indicating significant distinctiveness as all values fall below the 0.90 cut-off point. Notably, the results showed clear differences among variables, further supporting their discriminant validity.

4.2. Structural Model Analysis

The inner or structural model explains the relationship between the latent constructs in the model [55]. After evaluating the measurement model, the structural model has to be evaluated for the significance of the inner paths. Ramayah et al. recommended that it is important to check the lateral collinearity of the constructs [58]. However, Kock and Lynn noted that lateral collinearity might sometimes be misleading and create issues, although the criteria for discriminant validity are met [59]. Furthermore, Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is used to evaluate the lateral collinearity. Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, criteria for VIF is stringent, and VIF value of 3.3 or higher is an indication of collinearity issues [60]. In the current study, the VIF for all the indicators is below 3.3, and no lateral collinearity is observed. The VIF values are shown in Table 1.
In the current study, Partial least squares regression was used to investigate the significant effects of students’ growth mindset (GM), task level feedback (task), process level feedback (process), self-regulation level feedback (self-reg) and self-level feedback (self) on students’ ESL performance (ESL perf), and the mediating effect of growth mindset on ESL performance. The structural model was evaluated for each hypothesis, following the guidelines provided by Hair et al. [55]. The 13 hypotheses that were tested are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2. The standardized path coefficients (β), ttvalues (t), and p-values (p) depicting the relationships between the constructs are presented in Table 4.
From the path analysis, growth mindset (GM), task, and process had significant positive effects on ESL performance, GM → ESL perf (β = 0.375; t = 8.773, p < 0.001); Task → ESL perf (β = 0.081; t = 2.152, p = 0.031); Process → ESL perf (β = 0.564; t = 14.202, p < 0.001). Thus, hypotheses H1, H2a and H3a are accepted. However, self and self-regulation-level feedback do not affect ESL students’ ESL performance, Self → ESL perf (β = 0.002; t = 0.047, p = 0.962), Self-reg → ESL perf (β = −0.026; t = 0.604, p = 0.546), and the hypotheses H4a and H5a are rejected.
Moreover, the results indicated that process and self-regulation-level feedback is significantly and positively impacting the growth mindset of students, Process → GM (β = 0.325; t = 5.498, p < 0.001), Self-reg → GM (β = 0.225; t = 3.842, p < 0.001), and support hypotheses H3 and H4. However, the results showed that task and self-level feedback had no effects on the growth mindset of students, Task → GM (β = 0.030; t = 0.539, p = 0.5901), Self → GM (β = 0.086; t = 1.361, p = 0.174), consequently rejecting the hypotheses H2 and H5.
Moreover, the influence of the four-level feedback on ESL performance through the mediation of a growth mindset was tested. The findings showed that the mediation effect of growth mindset in the relationship among process and self-regulation level feedback and ESL performance was significant and positive, Process → GM → ESL perf (β = 0.122; t = 4.807, p < 0.001), Self-reg → GM → ESL perf (β = 0.085; t = 3.741, p < 0.001), Hence, the hypotheses H3b and H4b were accepted. However, results were not supportive of the mediation effect of a growth mindset involving task and self as the latent variables, Task → GM → ESL perf (β = 0.011; t = 0.533, p = 0.594), Self → GM → ESL perf (β = 0.032; t = 1.347, p = 0.178).
Figure 2 illustrates the explanatory power (R2), indicating how well the model explains variance. It reflects the extent to which the exogenous constructs account for variance in the endogenous constructs. According to Hair et al., R2 values around 0.25 are deemed weak, around 0.50 are moderate, and approximately 0.75 represent substantial explanatory power. The model demonstrated significant explanatory power across all endogenous variables: growth mindset (R2 = 0.235) and ESL performance (R2 = 0.638). Hence, growth mindset, task and process level feedback contribute to explaining 63.8% of the variance in students’ ESL performance. At the same time, process and self-regulation level feedback contribute to explaining 23.5% of the variance in growth mindset. Figure 3 illustrates the bootstrapping result of the study [55].

4.3. Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA)

Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) examines and visualises PLS-SEM data, aiding decision-making processes. IPMA allows conclusions to be drawn along two dimensions, highlighting the significance of importance and performance [61]. In our current research, we applied IPMA analysis to identify the level of feedback that significantly influences students’ growth mindset and ESL performance but simultaneously exhibits lower-than-desired performance levels.
Table 5 and Figure 4 present the Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) results.
The findings revealed that process-level feedback (β = 0.686; performance = 37.901%) is the most important factor influencing students’ ESL performance. However, process-level feedback has average performance compared to other factors. Moreover, growth mindset (β = 0.375; performance = 40.192%) is the second most important factor influencing ESL performance compared with task, self-regulation and self-level feedback, and it has higher performance compared with task, process and self-regulation-level feedback.
Furthermore, process-level feedback (β = 0.325; performance = 37.901%) is the most significant factor influencing students’ growth mindset, followed by self-regulation-level feedback (β = 0.225; performance = 36.846%). Both process and self-regulation-level feedback have similar levels of performance.

5. Discussion and Implications

The study was motivated by the need to understand the type of feedback that plays a key role in instilling a growth mindset, and thus promoting English language performance among secondary students. The authors considered the established feedback model [62], which consists of four levels of feedback: task, process, self-regulation, and self. This study investigated which of the four levels of feedback significantly impacted the promotion of a growth mindset and the ESL performance of students. The study employed the PLS-SEM 4.0 software to test the thirteen hypotheses, of which nine involve direct effects, and the other four analysed the indirect effects of the four levels of feedback on growth mindset and ESL performance.
Seven of the thirteen hypotheses showed significant results, resulting in several major findings that need to be highlighted. Firstly, the direct effect of the growth mindset of the students (H1) and the teacher’s feedback related to the process (H3a), as well as task levels (H2a), significantly influence the performance of ESL students. Secondly, with regard to the feedback levels that foster a growth mindset in students, the study showed that process (H3) and self-regulation levels of feedback (H4) are positive and significant. Finally, we tested the mediation effects of the growth mindset in the relationships between the four levels of feedback and ESL performance. The findings of the present study concluded that growth mindset is a significant mediator in the relationships between process (H3b), self-regulation levels of feedback (H4b) and ESL performance. This concluded that process and self-regulation levels of feedback foster a growth mindset in students towards learning English.

5.1. Growth Mindset and English as a Second Language

The findings of the study provided supportive empirical evidence to promote the view that process and self-regulation level of feedback are crucial in cultivating a growth mindset in students. The results of the current study concur with the findings from Zhang et al. (2020), which concluded that there is a strong relationship between process-focused feedback and growth mindset, implying that complimenting peers on their efforts and strategies improved academic motivation and mindset development [63]. Similarly, De Araujo (2018) confirmed the relationship between growth mindset and process-based feedback, which is crucial for improving university students’ communication, motivation, learning and overall satisfaction [64]. It is crucial to understand the personal disposition of the students when attending to the feedback [65]. From the perspectives of growth mindset theory, students who endorse a growth mindset could easily decode, assimilate, and apply feedback to make progress in learning.

5.2. Task-Level Feedback

The findings related to task-oriented feedback indicated that its impact on ESL performance and on cultivating a growth mindset in ESL students have shown to be non-significant. The current findings align with previous studies that have shown that teachers’ explicit, written, and corrective feedback that requires students to revisit their work is beneficial in SLA [66,67]. Furthermore, the nature of task-level feedback is specific, finding errors in student’s assignments, and is action-oriented, which requires students to correct their mistakes. Moreover, identifying errors and incorrect answers that demand revision in students’ work may threaten their self-concept and negatively affect teachers and students. Hence, it is important to understand how students perceive task-level feedback. From the growth mindset theory perspective, receiving and responding to task-based feedback requires a shift in students’ mindset to view mistakes as opportunities to learn rather than failures.

5.3. Process-Level Feedback

The findings of the study highlight the importance of providing process feedback to students in order to enhance their growth mindset and ESL performance. The current findings are consistent with previous research, strengthening the importance of process-based learning in ESL classrooms. For successful language learning and development, teachers and researchers acknowledge the importance of monitoring the learning processes rather than the outcomes [68,69,70,71]. Furthermore, process-focused feedback creates a collaborative learning space that provides mutual support for students in the classroom by facilitating cognitive processing and promoting knowledge transfer [72]. As supported by Liu and Feng [73], teachers’ process-oriented feedback cultivates the growth mindset of ESL/EFL students. Teachers can foster growth mindset development in students by offering feedback focused on learning processes and believing that intelligence and skills can be developed through consistent efforts and practice rather than attributing learning as a fixed trait [74].

5.4. Self-Regulation Level Feedback

Findings related to the self-regulation level of feedback showed that it had a significant direct effect on the growth mindset and a significant indirect impact on students’ ESL performance via growth mindset. The literature shows evidence of the common psychological attributes shared between self-regulation level feedback [53] and the assumptions about the development of a growth mindset offered by Dweck (2006) [1]. While a growth mindset requires belief in oneself to develop intelligence by means of commitment, dedication, and consistent efforts, the self-regulation level of feedback by Hattie and Timperley’s model of feedback requires teachers to provide feedback that directs students to monitor, control, self-reflect and plan their learning process can effectively regulate student behaviour and cognition [53]. Earlier studies have established the connection between self-regulatory behaviour and the growth mindset of students [62,75,76,77]. Moreover, self-regulation level feedback leverages ownership and accountability to students for their learning. When students in ESL classrooms believe that their efforts and strategies can lead to achieving specific learning goals, they are more likely to embrace a growth mindset to overcome the challenges associated with ESL learning [18,78,79,80]. Moreover, the findings are consistent with the model of behavioural self-regulation by Carver and Mangiapanello and Hemmes, which highlights the importance of two critical elements, matching-to-standard sequence and expectancy of the feedback loop, in fostering self-regulation behaviour [81].

5.5. Self-Level Feedback

Finally, self-level feedback did not significantly impact the promotion of a growth mindset or ESL performance in students. The reasons could be attributed to the unilateral nature of the feedback that triggers self-concept threat and negative effects if the feedback is negative. Moreover, self-focused feedback closes down the potential opportunities for growth and behavioural change.

6. Conclusions

This study was motivated by the growing literature on growth mindset and feedback levels, yet a lack of empirical evidence in understanding the mediating effect of growth mindset in the relationship between feedback levels and performance, especially in understanding ESL students’ performance. This study sought to empirically investigate the relationships between the four feedback levels (task, process, self-regulation and self), growth mindset, and the achievements of ESL students. The key findings of the study were that while task, process, and self-regulation have a direct and positive impact on growth mindset and ESL performance, process and self-regulation-focused feedback levels mediated the relationships between growth mindset and ESL performance. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the type of feedback that facilitates learning in ESL students. The study promotes the use of process and self-regulation feedback to improve ESL students’ performance.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

While the study provides several valuable insights, a few limitations need to be acknowledged in this study. Firstly, the study sample was selected using a convenience sampling technique, which limits the generalisability of the study findings to all ESL students. Hence, future studies should consider selecting samples using a simple random sampling technique and include more diversity in the student population. Secondly, the theoretical framework of the study relied on the growth mindset theory by Dweck et al. (1995) [3] and feedback levels given by Hattie and Timperley (2007) [53]. Future studies could focus on various feedback types and other feedback models while also considering the fixed mindset in the research framework. Thirdly, other psychological factors and aspects that influence the dynamics of teacher–student interaction and relationships could be worth investigating. Finally, the study did not explore the demographic profile of the sample, which could provide a deeper understanding of the relationships studied. Therefore, subsequent research could aim to determine the moderating role of gender, nature of school type and age group of secondary students.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization.; methodology, P.M. and L.F.L.; software, P.M. and L.F.L.; formal analysis, P.M. and L.F.L.; investigation, P.M., L.F.L., H.A. and P.S.D.; resources, P.M., L.F.L., H.A. and P.S.D.; data curation, P.M., H.A. and P.S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.L., H.A. and P.S.D.; writing—review and editing, L.F.L., H.A. and P.S.D.; visualization, P.M. and L.F.L.; supervision, P.M. and H.A.; project administration, P.M., H.A. and P.S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, exempted by the institute as human or animal samples are not used.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert Scale with response options 5—Always; 4—Often; 3—Sometimes; 2—Rarely; 1—Never.
Growth Mindset Scale
I can always substantially change how intelligent I am.
An important reason why I do my schoolwork is that I like to learn new things.
No matter how much intelligence I have, I can always change my intelligence level.
  • Task Level Feedback
My English teacher’s feedback helps me to decide what to include or exclude in my English tasks.
My English teacher’s feedback helps me to create the kind of work that is expected from me.
My English teacher identifies and marks all the errors in my work.
2.
Process Level Feedback
My English teacher helps me to think about my wrong answer.
My English teacher describes students’ work to stimulate discussion about how it could be improved.
My English teacher understands that feedback is a two-way process between teacher and student.
My English teacher provides different strategies for error corrections.
If a student has difficulty in learning English, my English teacher guides the students on how to approach the task.
3.
Self-regulation Level Feedback
My English teacher encourages me to self-check my work.
My English teacher encourages the students to develop daily learning habits.
My English teacher encourages me to reflect on my learning.
My English teacher helps students to develop routines in English learning.
4.
Self Level Feedback
My English teacher praises the students’ outcome rather than how students approach the task.
My English teacher praises students for the task they did well.
My English teacher usually appreciates the students that have little information related to content.

References

  1. Dweck, C.S. Mindset: The New Psychology of Succes; Random: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dweck, C.S.; Yeager, D.S. Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Dweck, C.S.; Chiu, C.Y.; Hong, Y.Y. Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychol. Inq. 1995, 6, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dweck, C.S.; Grant, H. Self-theories, goals, and meaning. In Handbook of Motivation Science; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 405–416. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mueller, C.M.; Dweck, C.S. Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 33–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wang, D.; Yuan, F.; Wang, Y. Growth mindset and academic achievement in Chinese adolescents: A moderated mediation model of reasoning ability and self-affirmation. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wacowska, A.; Bokwa, M.; Paulewicz, S.D. Personal growth and key competences indispensable for professional career development in a knowledge-based-society. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2014, 2014, 265–274. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khajavy, G.H.; Pourtahmasb, F.; Li, C. Examining the domain-specificity of language mindset: A case of L2 reading comprehension. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2022, 16, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Y.; Derakhshan, A.; Zhang, L.J. Researching and practicing positive psychology in second/foreign language learning and teaching: The past, current status and future directions. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 731721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miller, R.A. Development of a Growth Mindset Approach to Reading Instruction. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Outes-Leon, I.; Sánchez, A.; Vakis, R. The Power of Believing You Can Get Smarter: The Impact of a Growthmindset Intervention on Academic Achievement in Peru; Policy Research Working Paper No. 9141; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bostwick, K.C.; Becker-Blease, K.A. Quick, easy mindset intervention can boost academic achievement in large introductory psychology classes. Psychol. Learn. Teach. 2018, 17, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lai, B.S.; Livings, M.S.; D’Amico, M.P.; Hayat, M.J.; Williams, J. A growth mindset pilot intervention for a graduate-level biostatistics course. Stat. Educ. Res. J. 2018, 17, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bedford, S. Growth mindset and motivation: A study into secondary school science learning. Res. Pap. Educ. 2017, 32, 424–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blackwell, L.S.; Trzesniewski, K.H.; Dweck, C.S. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Dev. 2007, 78, 246–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dweck, C.S.; Walton, G.W.; Cohen, G.L. Academic Tenacity: Mindsets and Skills That Promote Long-Term Learning; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Seattle, WA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nagalakshmi, R.; Tamilmani, K.T. Validating the Opportunities and Challenges of Online Courses in English. Think India J. 2019, 22, 108–113. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bai, B.; Wang, J. The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Lang. Teach. Res. 2020, 27, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, R.; Zou, D. Self-regulated second language learning: A review of types and benefits of strategies, modes of teacher support, and pedagogical implications. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2022, 37, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hyland, K.; Hyland, F. Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 39. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferris, D.; Roberts, B. Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes How Explicit Does It Need to Be? J. Second Lang. Writ. 2001, 10, 161–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lou, N.M.; Noels, K.A. Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System 2019, 86, 102126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dewaele, J.-M.; Alfawzan, M. Does the effect of enjoyment outweigh that of anxiety in foreign language performance? Stud. Second Lang. Learn. Teach. 2018, 8, 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Teimouri, Y.; Plonsky, L.; Tabandeh, F. L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-language learning. Lang. Teach. Res. 2020, 26, 893–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dewaele, J.-M.; Witney, J.; Saito, K.; Dewaele, L. Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Lang. Teach. Res. 2018, 22, 676–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, H.; Peng, A.; Patterson, M.M. The roles of class social climate, language mindset, and emotions in predicting willingness to communicate in a foreign language. System 2021, 99, 102529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, J.; Zhou, H.; Chen, S.; Tong, H.; Yang, Y. How teachers support secondary school students to become self-regulated learners in technology-enhanced language learning. System 2024, 123, 103313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ryan, S.; Mercer, S. Implicit theories: Language learning mindsets. In Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2012; pp. 74–89. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rui, Y.; Muthukrishnan, P. Growth mindset and students’ perception of their English language teachers’ feedback as predictors of language proficiency of the EFL learners. Asian EFL J. 2019, 3, 32–60. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bai, B.; Guo, W. Motivation and self-regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Lang. Teach. Res. 2019, 25, 378–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Krishnasamy, D.; Anandhan, H.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Kot-Radojewska, M. Culture of Educational Institutions on Psychological Empowerment of Women Employees in Higher Education Institutions. Cult. Manag. Sci. Educ. 2023, 7, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Burnette, J.L.; O’Boyle, E.H.; VanEpps, E.M.; Pollack, J.M.; Finkel, E.J. Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychol. Bull. 2013, 139, 655–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lou, N.M.; Noels, K.A. Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 46, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Matsumura, L.C.; Wang, E.L.; Correnti, R.; Litman, D. Tasks and feedback: An exploration of students’ opportunity to develop adaptive expertise for analytic text-based writing. Assess. Writ. 2023, 55, 100689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rastgou, A. How feedback conditions broaden or constrain knowledge and perceptions about improvement in L2 writing: A 12-week exploratory study. Assess. Writ. 2022, 53, 100633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hohnemann, C.; Schweig, S.; Diestel, S.; Peifer, C. How feedback shapes flow experience in cognitive tasks: The role of locus of control and conscientiousness. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2022, 184, 111166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boggs, J.A.; Manchón, R.M. Feedback literacy in writing research and teaching: Advancing L2 WCF research agendas. Assess. Writ. 2023, 58, 100786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kim, A.Y.A.; Kim, H.J. The effectiveness of instructor feedback for learning-oriented language assessment: Using an integrated reading-to-write task for English for academic purposes. Assess. Writ. 2017, 32, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Purpura, J.E.; Turner, C.E. A learning-oriented assessment approach to understanding the complexities of classroom-based language assessment. In Proceedings of the 3rd Teachers College Columbia University Roundtable in Second Language Studies (TCCRISLS), New York, NY, USA, 10–12 October 2014; Available online: https://www.tc.columbia.edu/tccrisls/ (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  40. Sadoughi, M.; Hejazi, S.Y. Teacher support, growth language mindset, and academic engagement: The mediating role of L2 grit. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2023, 77, 101251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dweck, C.S. Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  42. Waller, L.; Papi, M. Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2017, 35, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lin, Y.T. Praise sales personnel for talent or effort? Person versus process-focused feedback, goal orientation and performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2017, 32, 1073–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ene, E.; Upton, T.A. Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2018, 41, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hu, J.; Zhang, Y. Growth mindset mediates perceptions of teachers’ and parents’ process feedback in digital reading performance: Evidence from 32 OECD countries. Learn. Instr. 2024, 90, 101874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yang, L.F.; Zhang, L.J. Self-regulation and student engagement with feedback: The case of Chinese EFL student writers. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2023, 63, 101226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dong, L. “Does my teacher believe I can improve?”: The role of EFL learners’ meta-lay theories in their growth mindset and online self-regulation. System 2024, 122, 103269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Russell, D.; Warner, R. Motivational intermediaries of self-regulation among university students. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2017, 9, 448–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rhew, E.; Piro, J.S.; Goolkasian, P.; Cosentino, P.; Palikara, O. The effects of a growth mindset on self-efficacy and motivation. Cogent Educ. 2018, 5, 1492337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bai, B.; Wang, J.; Nie, Y. Self-efficacy, task values and growth mindset: What has the most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English writing and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Camb. J. Educ. 2020, 51, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abbott, M.L.; Lee, K.K. Relationships between students’ emotions, self-regulated learning, and literacy gains in beginning/basic level ESL literacy classes for adults. System 2023, 115, 103061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Derakhshan, A.; Fathi, J. Growth mindset and ideal L2 self as predictors of student engagement in EFL students: The mediating role of L2 grit. Porta Linguarum 2024, IX, 69–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hattie, J.; Timperley, H. The Power of Feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 2007, 77, 81–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 4. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS. 2022. Available online: https://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 24 June 2024).
  55. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  56. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Henseler, J. Partial least squares path modeling. In Advanced Methods for Modeling Markets. International Series in Quantitative Marketing; Leeflang, P.K., Wieringa, J., Bijmolt, T., Pauwels, Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 361–381. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ramayah, T.J.F.H.; Cheah, J.; Chuah, F.; Ting, H.; Memon, M.A. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using smartPLS 3.0. In An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis; Pearson Malaysia Sdn Bhd: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kock, N.; Lynn, G. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Diamantopoulos, A.; Winklhofer, H.M. Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 2001, 38, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hattie, J.; Crivelli, J.; Van Gompel, K.; West-Smith, P.; Wike, K. Feedback That Leads to Improvement in Student Essays: Testing the Hypothesis that “Where to Next” Feedback is Most Powerful. Front. Educ. 2021, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, J.; Kuusisto, E.; Nokelainen, P.; Tirri, K. Peer Feedback Reflects the Mindset and Academic Motivation of Learners. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. De Araujo, J.F.; Cardoso, I.S.; Guedes, A.C.S.; Ferreira, I.R.; De Albuquerque, H.R.R. Using of undergraduate student’s feedback, learning process and growth mindset to improve the teaching and learning at university. Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res. 2018, 6, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Forsythe, A.; Johnson, S. Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2016, 42, 850–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adams, R.H.; Strickland, J. The Effects of Computer-Assisted Feedback Strategies in Technology Education: A Comparison of Learning Outcomes. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2011, 40, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Charalampous, A.; Darra, M. The Contribution of Teacher Feedback to Learners’ Work Revision: A Systematic Literature Review. World J. Educ. 2023, 13, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dollah, M.H.B.M.; Nair, S.M.; Wider, W. Effective use of metacognitive strategies of students in ESL writing based on gender. World J. Engl. Lang. 2023, 13, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nassaji, H. Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Lang. Teach. Res. 2016, 20, 535–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nassaji, H. Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Lang. Teach. 2020, 53, 3–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Papi, M.; Rios, A.; Pelt, H.; Ozdemir, E. Feedback-Seeking Behavior in Language Learning: Basic Components and Motivational Antecedents. Mod. Lang. J. 2019, 103, 205–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Brookhart, S.M. Expanding Views about Formative Class-Room Assessment: A Review of the Literature. In Formative Classroom Assessment: Theory into Practice; McMillan, J.H., Ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar]
  73. Liu, H.; Feng, M. The role of learner engagement with corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classrooms. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1118467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sun, Y.; Huang, Y. The Relationships among Chinese University EFL Learners’ Feedback-Seeking Behavior, Achievement Goals, and Mindsets. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Panadero, E. A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Paris, S.G.; Byrnes, J.P. The Constructivist Approach to Self-Regulation and Learning in the Classroom. In Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement; Springer Series in Cognitive Development; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 169–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yeager, D.S.; Dweck, C.S. Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educ. Psychol. 2012, 47, 302–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De La Fuente, J.; Zapata, L.; Martínez-Vicente, J.M.; Sander, P.; Cardelle-Elawar, M. The role of personal self-regulation and regulatory teaching to predict motivational-affective variables, achievement, and satisfaction: A structural model. Front. Psychol. 2014, 6, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Huang, C. Self-Regulation of Learning and EFL Learners’ Hope and Joy: A Review of Literature. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 833279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Lou, N.M.; Noels, K.A. Mindsets Matter for Linguistic Minority Students: Growth Mindsets Foster Greater Perceived Proficiency, Especially for Newcomers. Mod. Lang. J. 2020, 104, 739–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mangiapanello, K.A.; Hemmes, N.S. An Analysis of Feedback from a Behavior Analytic Perspective. Behav. Anal. 2015, 38, 51–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 01073 g001
Figure 1. Framework of the study [53].
Figure 1. Framework of the study [53].
Education 14 01073 g001
Education 14 01073 g002
Figure 2. Structural model path coefficient of the study. GM Growth mindset; TaskTask level feedback; Process −Process level Feedback; Self-regSelf-regulation level feedback; Self Self-level feedback; ESL perfESL performance.
Figure 2. Structural model path coefficient of the study. GM Growth mindset; TaskTask level feedback; Process −Process level Feedback; Self-regSelf-regulation level feedback; Self Self-level feedback; ESL perfESL performance.
Education 14 01073 g002
Education 14 01073 g003
Figure 3. Bootstrapping result of the study. GM—Growth mindset; Task—Task level feedback; Process—Process level Feedback; Self-reg—Self-regulation level feedback; Self—Self-level feedback; ESL perf—ESL performance.
Figure 3. Bootstrapping result of the study. GM—Growth mindset; Task—Task level feedback; Process—Process level Feedback; Self-reg—Self-regulation level feedback; Self—Self-level feedback; ESL perf—ESL performance.
Education 14 01073 g003
Education 14 01073 g004
Figure 4. IPMA graph.
Figure 4. IPMA graph.
Education 14 01073 g004
Table 1. Measurement model validation.
Table 1. Measurement model validation.
ConstructsItemsConvergent ValidityVIF
Outer LoadingsCronbach’s AlphaComposite Reliability (rho_a)AVE
Growth mindsetGM10.8990.8310.8320.7482.313
GM20.8431.789
GM30.8521.892
Task-focused feedbackTask 10.8340.7350.7600.6441.811
Task 20.7621.736
Task 30.8101.247
Process-focused feedback Process 1 0.7920.8750.8770.6662.105
Process 20.8422.535
Process 30.8402.148
Process 40.7901.757
Process 50.8162.052
Self-regulation-focused feedbackSelf-reg 10.9110.8920.8960.7573.239
Self-reg 20.8081.875
Self-reg 30.8542.283
Self-reg 40.9033.205
Self-
focused feedback 		Self10.8290.7580.7890.6641.944
Self20.7921.959
Self30.8221.275
Table 2. Discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
Table 2. Discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
ConstructsESL PerfGMTaskProcessSelf-RegSelf
ESL perf1.000
GM0.6130.865
Task0.1370.0660.803
Process0.7190.4290.0570.816
Self-reg0.3660.3720.0620.4380.870
Self0.0730.1110.0410.0480.0350.815
Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
Table 3. Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT).
ConstructsESL PerfGMTaskProcessSelf-RegSelf
ESL Perf
GM0.673
Task0.1480.104
Process0.7660.4970.073
Self-reg0.3890.4310.0760.497
Self0.0830.1270.0770.0730.070
Table 4. Path coefficient and hypothesis testing.
Table 4. Path coefficient and hypothesis testing.
Number
Hypotheses		PathPath Coefficient (β)t-Valuesp-Values(95%) Lower Limit
and Upper Limit		Decision
Total effects
H1GM → ESL perf0.3758.7730.000 **[0.290, 0.458] Accepted
H2Task → GM0.0300.5390.590[−0.079, 0.137]Rejected
H2aTask → ESL perf0.0812.1520.031 *[0.001, 0.149]Accepted
H3Process → GM0.3255.4980.000 **[0.207, 0.440]Accepted
H3aProcess → ESL perf0.56414.2020.000 **[0.483, 0.637]Accepted
H4Self-reg → GM0.2253.8420.000 **[0.114, 0.342]Accepted
H4aSelf-reg → ESL perf−0.0260.6040.546[−0.110, 0.060]Rejected
H5Self → GM0.0861.3610.174[−0.071, 0.198]Rejected
H5aSelf → ESL perf0.0020.0470.962[−0.068, 0.074]Rejected
Mediation effects
H2bTask → GM → ESL perf0.0110.5330.594[−0.030, 0.054]Rejected
H3bProcess → GM → ESL perf0.1224.8070.000[0.075, 0.174]Accepted
H4bSelf-reg → GM → ESL perf0.0853.7410.000[0.043, 0.130]Accepted
H5bSelf → GM → ESL perf0.0321.3470.178[−0.027, 0.075]Rejected
GM—Growth mindset; Task—Task-focused feedback; Process—Process-focused feedback; Self-reg—Self-regulation-focused feedback; Self—Self-focused feedback and ESL Per—ESL performance. Note. * significant p < 0.05, ** significant p < 0.001.
Table 5. IPMA results.
Table 5. IPMA results.
Importance (Total Effect)IPMA
Performance
Growth Mindset (GM)ESL Performance
GM 0.37540.192
Task0.0300.09333.923
Process0.3250.68637.901
Self-reg 0.2250.05836.846
Self0.0860.03440.361
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muthukrishnan, P.; Fung Lan, L.; Anandhan, H.; Swamy D, P. The Role of Growth Mindset on the Relationships between Students’ Perceptions of English Language Teachers’ Feedback and Their ESL Learning Performance. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101073

AMA Style

Muthukrishnan P, Fung Lan L, Anandhan H, Swamy D P. The Role of Growth Mindset on the Relationships between Students’ Perceptions of English Language Teachers’ Feedback and Their ESL Learning Performance. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(10):1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101073

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muthukrishnan, Priyadarshini, Loo Fung Lan, Hariharasudan Anandhan, and Premila Swamy D. 2024. "The Role of Growth Mindset on the Relationships between Students’ Perceptions of English Language Teachers’ Feedback and Their ESL Learning Performance" Education Sciences 14, no. 10: 1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101073

APA Style

Muthukrishnan, P., Fung Lan, L., Anandhan, H., & Swamy D, P. (2024). The Role of Growth Mindset on the Relationships between Students’ Perceptions of English Language Teachers’ Feedback and Their ESL Learning Performance. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1073. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101073

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop