Abstract
This qualitative study aimed to examine Iranian language teachers’ mindsets about language learning and teaching, and the ways in which their mindsets influenced their educational practices. The participants of this study were 20 Iranian language teachers who taught general English courses at private language institutes in a city in central Iran. The data were collected through conducting semi-structured interviews with the participants. The qualitative content analysis was conducted, and the main themes and categories were extracted. The results revealed that teachers had categorical (fixed or growth) or mixed mindsets (both fixed and growth mindsets). Moreover, the results showed that teachers’ mindsets influenced teachers’ pedagogical strategies, homework assignment, and their praise type. The findings show that it is important to raise teachers’ awareness about their mindsets and the effects they might have on their teaching strategies and the feedback/praise they give to their students.
Introduction
The belief that some people have some sort of gift for learning a second language (L2) is not uncommon among students, teachers, and scholars. Some people recognize smartness, talent, and inborn capacities as the requirements for language learning (a fixed mindset) while some others emphasize the importance of commitment and making an effort (a growth mindset). Research has shown that nearly all language learners have either one or both of these beliefs about language learning (Lou and Noels, 2016, 2017, 2020a; Mercer and Ryan, 2010; Noels and Lou, 2015). Such beliefs about language can remarkably influence the amount of time and energy the learners invest and exerts an impact on the ways in which they react to hassles and hurdles of language learning (Lou and Noels, 2017, 2019). In the past few years, several studies have tried to examine the nature of language mindsets and the ways in which they interact with motivational factors, language achievement, and learners’ behaviours related to learning specific language skills (Hanson and Brown, 2020; Lou and Noels, 2017, 2019; Papi et al., 2020). Nevertheless, all of these studies have examined learners’ mindsets and little research has been done on teachers’ language mindsets and the ways in which these mindsets can affect their pedagogical practices. Specifically, less is known about whether believing in the idea that students need talent for language learning or the idea that learners should try hard and implement appropriate strategies to master L2 can influence the ways in which teachers give feedback to language learners. The current study, therefore, used a qualitative methodology to examine teachers’ language mindsets and the ways in which these mindsets influenced teachers’ pedagogical practices and provide feedback to learners’ performance. The study is important in that it elaborates on teachers’ mindsets about the role of talent and hard work in language learning and the effects of these ideas on their pedagogical practices. The authors believe that the findings of this study can be useful for language teachers and language pedagogy since it sheds light on how teachers’ unconscious beliefs about language learning can affect the way they teach and provide feedback to language learners.
Language Mindsets
The notion of mindsets was first developed by Carol Dweck to explain people’s beliefs about the malleability of intelligence (Dweck, 2000, 2006). Dweck and her colleagues suggested that individuals endorse fixed or growth mindsets about intelligence, personality, leadership, etc. (Dweck, 2012, 2014; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Dweck and Yeager, 2019; Yeager and Dweck, 2012). Growth mindsets refer to the beliefs that one’s intelligence is malleable and can be improved by hard work and effective strategies (i.e. an incremental theory), while fixed mindsets are the beliefs that intelligence is immutable and unchangeable (i.e. an entity theory). It is believed that these mindsets are the meaning systems that learners use to make sense of learning behaviours and activities (Dweck et al., 1995; Lou and Noels, 2020b). While learners with growth mindsets tend to interpret their ability in dealing with difficulties as controllable (e.g. I can improve my language ability by hard work), those with fixed mindsets tend to perceive the ability associated with adversities as uncontrollable (Lou and Noels, 2020a; Yeager and Dweck, 2012). Previous research in educational psychology indicates that mindsets are significant predictors of learning and behaviours (Burnette et al., 2013; Dweck and Leggett, 1988) and resilience and success in many life activities (Dweck, 2006; Dweck and Yeager, 2019).
Mindsets have recently been introduced to language learning research (Lou and Noels, 2017, 2020b; Ryan and Mercer, 2012a). Lou and Noels (2019: 2) defined language mindsets “as domain-specific beliefs about whether the ability to learn languages is malleable or not.” A growth language mindset entails that language intelligence is changeable, while a fixed language mindset posits that language intelligence is stable and cannot be improved. Research on mindsets in language learning shows that mindsets influence the way we react to failures or successes in learning. For example, research has shown that a learner with a growth mindset is likely to attribute his/her failure to lack of effort (Zhang et al., 2021), think that making an effort will improve their performance in forthcoming occasions (Lou and Noels, 2017), focus on the learning process (Lou and Noels, 2016), or try to find strategies that improve performance (Papi et al., 2019). Research has shown that language learners have both fixed and growth mindsets about language, which may differ from one skill to another (Lou and Noels, 2019; Mercer and Ryan, 2010). For example, a learner might think that reading ability can be improved by hard work, but accent and pronunciation may not be improved, even if one tried hard. During the past few years, several studies have been conducted to identify the links between language mindsets and motivational factors (Bai and Guo, 2019; Bai et al., 2019; Brown and Hanson, 2019; Lou and Noels, 2017, 2020a; Mystkowska, 2014; Ryan and Mercer, 2012a, 2012b) and the role of factors in learning specific language skills (Molway and Mutton, 2019; Waller and Papi, 2017). These studies have indicated that growth language mindsets positively predict learning goals, mastery responses (Lou and Noels, 2017), development-approach and development-avoidance (Papi et al., 2019), motivation (Brown and Hanson, 2019), feedback monitoring and feedback-seeking behaviour (Papi et al., 2019, 2020), self-efficacy (Brown and Hanson, 2019), grit (Teimouri et al., 2020), cost and value (Papi et al., 2020), and willingness to communicate (Teimouri et al., 2020). On the other hand, fixed language mindsets positively correlate with fear of failure (Lou and Noels, 2017) and feedback-avoiding behaviour (Waller and Papi, 2017), and negatively correlate with feedback-seeking behaviour (Waller and Papi, 2017), intention to continue (Lou and Noels, 2017), and grit (Teimouri et al., 2020). In a pioneer study on language mindsets, Mercer and Ryan (2010) reported that language mindsets influenced learners’ goals, their proficiency level, and language skills. They also found that social comparisons with others might serve as an origin for language mindsets. Past research has also shown that teachers might have fixed and growth mindsets about different characteristics, such as their teaching ability (Fives and Buehl, 2008; Frondozo et al., 2020; Nalipay et al., 2019). Fives and Buehl (2008) found that some teachers considered teaching ability as an inborn talent, while others considered it as learnable knowledge. Also, Irie et al. (2018) found that the most comment belief among pre-service language teachers was that technical aspects of teaching are learnable. Recent research has also shown that growth mindsets about teaching are associated with engagement (Frondozo et al., 2020) and job satisfaction (Nalipay et al., 2019). Furthermore, the study by Haukås and Mercer (2021) showed that mindset beliefs were complex and interconnected with other beliefs. Their study also indicated the blending of both fixed and growth perspectives about a single competence and within a domain.
While some interesting studies have been conducted on language mindsets, several important questions about language mindsets have still remained rather unanswered. For example, little is known about teachers’ mindsets about language learning and the ways in which these mindsets influence their pedagogical practices and the ways in which they react to language learners’ errors in the classroom. Since mindsets are connected with learners’ effort and intention to continue (Lou and Noels, 2017, 2020b), knowing more about teachers’ attitudes about language and the ways in which they affect their behaviour towards students would certainly assist in creating better conditions for student engagement and interaction. To address this need, this study used a qualitative methodology to examine teachers’ mindsets about language learning and the ways in which they affected teachers’ pedagogical practices. Particularly, this study aimed to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What are Iranian EFL (English as foreign language) teachers’ mindsets about language learning and teaching?
RQ2: How do teachers’ mindsets influence their pedagogical practices?
Methodology
Participants
The study was conducted with the participation of 20 (12 female, eight male) Iranian EFL instructors. The population of the study included all language teachers who taught English in Iran. The candidates were selected randomly from the general English teachers working at a large language institute located in a city in central Iran. The names of English teachers at the institute were put in a pot and 20 names were drawn by chance. They were later contacted and asked whether they wanted to take part in the study. All teachers agreed to have an interview with the researchers. The institute had more than 300 teachers who taught courses on different languages such as English, French, and Spanish. The participants’ ages ranged from 25 to 45 (mean (M) = 35). They came from different educational backgrounds (BA = 7, MA = 12, PhD = 1). All teachers taught English to adult language learners, and their teaching experience ranged between one and eight years (M = 4.5 years). All of the participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the study.
Instrumentation
The data were collected through semi-structured interviews (see Appendix 1). In the interviews, the instructors were asked about their language teaching experience (e.g. Would you please give me some information about your teaching experience? How long have you been teaching?), and their beliefs about the role of language intelligence in the process of language learning (e.g. Do you believe in language intelligence? What do you think about it?). If they said “yes” to the question about the role of talent in language learning and the existence of language intelligence, the researcher asked some more questions and asked them to elaborate on their views. The questions were asked based on the participants’ answers. For example, the interviewer asked, “How do you think it influences language learning?” and “How do you think the students may differ in terms of language intelligence?” At this stage, teachers who believed in language intelligence compared learners by using “low” and “high” words to describe students’ language intelligence levels. Teachers used high language intelligence to mean being really talented and quick at learning English, while low language intelligence was used when teachers believed that a student had little talent for learning English. Thus, the researcher asked them to describe low and high intelligence students and give more details about them. With regards to their reactions toward students with low language intelligence, teachers were asked, for example, “How do you teach a learner who has a low language intelligence?”, and were questioned about their opinion concerning the differences between students with low and high language intelligence, and the way a learner with language intelligence learns the language (e.g. How does a learner with language intelligence learn the language? How does a learner with language intelligence differ from a learner who does not have language intelligence?).
Furthermore, the teachers were asked about their pedagogical strategies (e.g. How do you praise/give feedback/correct a learner with high language intelligence? How do you praise/give feedback/correct a learner who has a low language intelligence?), the effects of believing in language intelligence on their teaching style (e.g. What do you think is the difference in teaching style of an instructor who believes in language intelligence and an instructor who does not?), the origins of their beliefs about language intelligence (e.g. What do you think causes a teacher to believe in language intelligence?), and their further suggestions (e.g. If you have any further suggestions, tell me please). In terms of the place and time of the interviews, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted online via WhatsApp video calls in August 2020. The interviews were in Persian, and then they were typed verbatim (later, the excerpts were translated into English) by the second researcher. Each interview took about 15 to 25 minutes. Pseudonyms are used throughout the study.
Data Analysis
The qualitative content analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994) was used to find the key themes of the interviews. The researcher read and re-read the interviews once to fully grasp the data. At this point, she read the interviews for a second time and used some codes, annotations, and labels (e.g. motivation, feedback, homework). The researcher then read the interview transcripts again and tried to group the similar codes in order to form higher-level categories. For instance, codes such as motivation, eagerness, and tendency were grouped under the same category. Next, the categories were collapsed under a number of comprehensive terms. For example, speaking, writing, and production were all put under one theme – production. In the same vein, the themes were used to write the results of the study. The quotes were also translated by the second author.
Regarding the credibility assessment of the data, the researcher discussed the findings of the study with participants in some member-checking (Creswell and Poth, 2016; Dörnyei, 2007) sessions in order to make sure that the results are not biased and are based on the candidates’ stories. This was done by reading the results and interpretations to the participants. The participants confirmed the interpretations or gave us more details and elaborations on their views. A qualitative researcher who was familiar with qualitative content analysis was asked to code the data. Acceptable, inter-rater agreement was obtained (inter-rater reliability = 0.87). Finally, a co-worker who was familiar with both research and language psychology was asked to perform some external scrutiny and suggested some alterations to the report.
Results
The results of the study revealed that the teachers had three different mindset types: a fixed mindset (N = 6; Mohammad, Parak, Ashkan, Mehdi, Alli, Parisa), a growth mindset (N = 3; Mona, Zahra, Mohsen), and a mixed mindset (N = 11; Amir, Marzie, Sara, Maryam, Shiva, Ehsan, Fateme, Omid, Mandana, Farnoosh). One of the interviewees who had a fixed mindset said: “Yes, based on my own experience in my classes, I personally believe that language Intelligence exists. Some students learn faster and easier than others, so there must be an inner reason for such an issue” (Parak, 29, female). Another participant, when asked about his attitude towards language intelligence, talked about his own experience with two of his previous learners, who could not succeed in learning despite their hard work. He commented: In terms of language intelligence, I must say that when I started teaching I thought language learning not a rocket science, and any student can master it, but after sometime and gaining more experience in teaching, I came across two students, who despite their efforts, were not still successful in language learning. I even know someone who is a medical practitioner and is very good at his job, but he is not a good learner I would say. So, there must be a reason for such cases and I believe it is language intelligence. (Ashkan, 31, male)
On the other hand, some interviewees argued that they did not believe in language intelligence and that they were of the opinion that motivation, passion, and practice are the most important factors in determining one’s success in the language learning process. As one participant put it: I do not believe in language intelligence at all. Scientifically speaking, if you practice anything very well, the related part of it in the hemispheres of your brain will get strengthened. So, if someone is fond of learning a language, he or she will do his/her best and tries to master it. I have personally experienced it as a learner. I was a big fan of English songs and just because of them I became interested in learning English. (Mona,27, female)
This group did not believe that something like language intelligence existed at all, and attached language learning only to hard work and making an effort. If someone tried hard, they could learn L2, and nothing was decided by having or not having intelligence.
The third group of participants declared that they had mixed-mindsets – that is, a combination of fixed and growth mindsets – toward language intelligence. Such teachers believed that language intelligence did exist and was a significant factor, but, at the same time, they believed that hard work is also effective and working. They sometimes believed that those who had low language intelligence needed to work harder and practice more. For example, one interviewee stated: I feel language intelligence exists, but there are so many reasons because of which someone can learn a second language. Motivation and purpose of the language learner are also important. Sometimes, the students practice a lot to learn a language just because of their purpose and motivation. I have also seen a number of students who learn much faster than their peers, it can be assume that they possess language intelligence. (Marzie, 42, female)
Another candidate, who also believed in both intelligence and the significance of practice, mentioned that “According to my teaching experience, I agree with this issue about language aptitude. I also believe those students who are not so intelligent can promote by trying hard” (Sara, 39, female).
In summary, our results showed that teachers fell into three categories of mindsets – namely, fixed, growth, and mixed mindsets. In the following sections, we report our results on the effects of having these mindsets on teaching practices and classroom behaviours.
Teachers’ Reactions toward Students with Low Language Intelligence
Regarding instructors’ teaching methodology and their reactions to students with low language intelligence, almost two-thirds of the participants who were sure of the existence of language intelligence pointed out that they would assign more homework for the ones who are assumed to be less intelligent. Mehdi, one of the interviewees put it this way: “Those with low-language intelligence are given much more assignments and homework than their classmates. This is because, in my viewpoint they need to practice more” (Mehdi, 27, male). Another interviewee, when asked about his teaching method and reaction toward low-language-intelligence students, said, “If they lack language intelligence, more repetition and practice are needed, that is why I, myself, would ask them to practice more and give them more homework” (Ashkan, 31, male). Talking about this issue, a participant commented, “Those who are less intelligent must be taught with less abstract language. They also need to have more practice and do more homework than their peers” (Amir, 50, male).
The majority of those who responded to this item felt that motivation plays a crucial role in the success of students with low language intelligence. In other words, teachers believed that if someone did not have language intelligence, teachers should try to motivate them. Interestingly, even those who did not believe in language intelligence attached importance to the role of motivation. One of the teachers who did not believe in language intelligence used the notion of “less motivated students” rather than “less intelligent”. She commented, “I don’t believe in intelligence, but I do believe in motivation and I think that those who are said to be less intelligent are less motivated in my opinion, and teachers can do their best to motivate them” (Fateme, 39, female). Zohre, who had a fixed mindset, believed that motivation and passion were regarded as important factors in determining one’s success in language learning. As she put it, “When I have a student in my class who doesn’t have language intelligence, I mostly try to arouse passion in him/her, and I try to motivate them so that they can learn faster and better” (Zohre, 34, female).
As mentioned here, arousing passion was also one of the common points that was mentioned in interviewees’ responses. One participant stated that: For low language intelligence students, the teacher must use different methods to make students like the language, otherwise, they won’t be able to learn the language, because they don’t like it. When the teacher fails to arouse their passion, he/she must give up teaching to those learners. (Mandana, 28, female)
A possible explanation for putting emphasis on motivation more than anything else might be that teachers believed that unless learners’ motivation was improved, they would not feel encouraged enough to practice and work hard.
How Students with High Language Intelligence Differ from Students with Low Language Intelligence
Participants were asked to indicate how they could differentiate between a student with low language intelligence and a student with high language intelligence. Over half those interviewed reported that self-study was one of the most distinctive features that would set a line between the ones with high and low language intelligence. They claimed that the students who have high language intelligence tend to do more self-study. For example, one interviewee said, “They learn English through different methods and references when they are not in the classroom” (Mehdi, 27, male).
Another term which randomly appeared in the participants’ answers was “highly-motivated.” Some interviewees expressed the belief that those who possess higher language intelligence tend be highly motivated in the classroom. As Parisa said, “If they have high intelligence, they learn faster and they are very motivated to learn the language, and it’s easy to tell” (Parisa, 34, female).
In addition, another common viewpoint amongst interviewees was that learners with high language intelligence learn faster and easier, they are active in the classroom, and they have self-confidence. What is important here is the fact that these three factors were only mentioned by the teachers who had either a fixed mindset or a mixed mindset – no one with a growth-mindset talked about these three factors. For example, one of the interviewees with a fixed mindset about language intelligence, commented: “Students who are talented learn faster and easier in the classroom, even in unstructured settings they can become a successful learner” (Mohammad Nasir, 37, male). Talking about students’ engagement in the classroom, Ali said, “I feel a student with high language-intelligence is active in the classroom and the learning process is incredible in him/her” (Ali, 27, male). Having self-confidence was regarded as one of the features of the learners with high language intelligence. As one interviewee put it, “Talented people answer the questions faster, because they have self-confidence and they believe in themselves” (Shiva, 26, female). This view was echoed by another candidate, who also said that “I feel students who are with high language-intelligence have self-confidence and because of this self-confidence, they don’t have fear of failure. That’s why they can become very successful in language learning” (Omid, 29, male).
As in the data, teachers with fixed or mixed mindsets believed that highly intelligent students were different from less intelligent ones based on their speed of learning and level of engagement and self-confidence.
Teachers’ Praise Strategies
In response to the question about teachers’ methods of praising/giving feedback to the students, a range of striking ideas were elicited. Of the 20 candidates who responded to this question, just over half reported the use of “verbal encouragement” in their classrooms. Verbal encouragement was all three groups’ (fixed, mixed, growth) favourite approach for encouraging the language learners. One participant commented: “I would tell them you’ve done a great job, well-done. You were excellent and with more practice you can become even more successful” (Marziye, 42, female). Another interviewee who also said she uses verbal encouragement in her classes was Zahra, who said, “Whenever one of my students does or says something which is grammatically correct and I want to show them my support and encouragement, I say excellent, Bravo” (Zahra, 35, female).
When asked about praising students in the classroom, five other methods were reported. What was remarkable was that these methods were only adopted by those teachers who had fixed and mixed mindsets about language learning intelligence, and none of the teachers with growth mindsets mentioned the following methods for encouraging their students. These methods included giving the students with high intelligence a responsibility to fulfil as a way of praising him/her, giving them more homework, asking them to give an oral presentation in the classroom, visualizing their future, and introducing more references to them for further study. For example, concerning giving the student responsibility, Farnoosh commented, “For encouraging my students, I will give them the responsibility to teach something he is good at to his weak classmates, in this way he will be encouraged” (Farnoosh, 35, female). In terms of assigning more homework, Ehsan said, “If I want to approve of my students’ activity in the class, I would give them more homework, in this way their self-confidence might also promote” (Ehsan, 33, male).
Oral presentation was another technique for encouraging students. For example, one interviewee said: One of my methods for praising students’ overall activity in adult classes, I will ask them to have a lecture in the classroom, in this way this person has to allocate more time at home for studying English and getting ready for the presentation. (Maryam, 39, female)
With regards to visualizing the future of the students whom the teacher wants to praise, Ali commented, “For encouraging the hard-working and successful students, I not only tell them they’re excellent and great but also I try to visualize their future for them by telling them: a good future is waiting for you” (Ali, 27, male).
The last point that was mentioned by the candidates as a way of praising was introducing more references for self-study. One of the participants stated, “I will tell them watch these movies or series or read these books for further study, in this way your English will be even more improved” (Mehdi, 27, male). Those who believed in a growth mindset reported that they frequently used phrases such as “you tried hard”, “you made all your efforts, that’s why you were successful”, and “great, this is because of your attempts” to give feedback to learners’ successes. If someone failed, they tried to give feedback that encouraged hard work in future (e.g. “if you work harder, you will certainly succeed”).
The Effects of Believing in Language Intelligence on Teaching Style
The results indicated that believing in the existence of language intelligence could affect the teaching style of the teachers. The participants criticized the other teachers’ viewpoint by focusing on the weaknesses of believing in ideas contrary to their mindset. For example, those interviewees who had mixed mindsets toward language intelligence mainly claimed that believing in fixed mindsets would lead to ignoring the students who are presumed to lack language intelligence. As Farnoosh put it: Those who believe in language intelligence will bit by bit start to ignore the learners who they think lack language intelligence. This is because they believe that they can never learn the language. Those teachers won’t further allocate time for them. (Farnoosh, 35, female)
In contrast, candidates with fixed mindsets claimed that there are a number of similarities in the teaching styles of the instructors who do not believe in language intelligence. One of them is that they teach everyone in the same way whether they have high or low language intelligence. For example, Parisa said, “The teachers who doesn’t believe that language intelligence exists teach monotonously and they don’t care if the students are intelligent or not, they teach everyone the same” (Parisa, 34, female). Another criticism against teachers with growth mindsets was the ignorance of those with low language intelligence. This feature has been proposed by all interviewees with fixed mindsets about language intelligence. As one participant said, “The teacher who doesn’t believe in talent and intelligence, ignores less intelligent learners and also ignores their need for further practice” (Parak, 29, female). Ashkan, who also had a fixed mindset toward language intelligence, commented, “In the class of the instructors who don’t believe in language intelligence, less intelligent students may feel that the level of the class is very high and that they are being ignored” (Ashkan, 31, male). However, all groups believed that arousing passion and motivating the learners by the teacher was important, whether the teacher had a fixed or growth mindset. As one teacher commented, “The biggest responsibility of all the teachers is motivating the students, as well as igniting passion for learning among them” (Mandana, 28, female).
Mona, who is another teacher with a growth mindset said that: The teacher who doesn’t think that there exists language intelligence, won’t give up trying in her teaching and would talk to the students’ parents, in order to find out what are they really interested in and use it in the classroom for motivating them. (Mona, 27, female)
As in the data, the teachers believed that having a particular mindset might have some drawbacks for teaching, such as ignoring the learners. Those who believed in language intelligence thought that teachers with a growth mindset would neglect low-intelligence learners and teach everyone in the same way, while those with a growth or mixed mindset believed that teachers who believe in language intelligence would ignore low-intelligence students since they believe that they cannot learn an L2.
Discussion
The first research question asked about the Iranian EFL teachers’ mindsets about language learning. The results of this study indicated that teachers might have different mindsets toward language learning and teaching (i.e. fixed, growth, and mixed mindsets). The findings show that some language teachers believe in the existence of language intelligence and consider it as the determining factor for learning an L2. The results of this study are in line with the findings of previous mindset studies (e.g. Fives and Buehl, 2008) who reported that individuals might have differing ideas about the fixed nature or malleability of human characteristics (e.g. one’s teaching or learning ability). Contrary to Haukås and Mercer (2021), who reported no categorical mindsets, the results of this study showed that Iranian teachers can have a categorial fixed or growth mindset. However, almost all teachers, irrespective of their type of mindset, emphasized that motivation is more important for language learning than other factors such as language intelligence.
The second research question asked about the effect of holding different mindsets on teachers’ pedagogical practices. The teachers with fixed or mixed mindsets differentiated high- from low-language-intelligence students in terms of learning faster and easier, active participation, engaging in self-study activities, and having high self-confidence. The findings show that fixed mindset teachers’ evaluation of learners’ language intelligence can lead to a sort of differentiated teaching for low and high language intelligence. Further analysis showed that teachers with a fixed mindset adopted different strategies for low-language-intelligence students. They tried to use more homework, assignments, and repetitions to help such learners, while for those with high language intelligence, they used more demanding, higher-order strategies such as giving them more responsibility, asking them to give an oral presentation, visualizing their future, and introducing more references for further study, which needed more engagement and creative thinking. Teachers with a growth mindset, however, praised the students’ effort and told them that they can improve their language ability through hard work and making more effort. This is in line with previous research on the link between growth mindsets and delivery of praise for effort (Dweck, 2006). These findings are also in agreement with the results of Vermote et al. (2020), who reported a significant relationship between teachers’ mindsets and their motivating styles.
Finally, interview findings showed that teachers justified their mindsets and teaching practices by criticizing the opposite view. Those with fixed mindsets believed that having a growth mindset results in a teaching style that considers all students to be the same and cannot respond to the individual needs and differences. On the other hand, those who believed in growth language mindset belied that classifying learners as having low or high intelligence can lead to neglecting those perceived as having low language intelligence.
Conclusion
This study examined the language mindsets among Iranian EFL teachers and the ways in which these mindsets influenced their teaching practices. The results showed that teachers had categorical as well as mixed mindsets. The findings indicate that teachers’ mindsets can significantly influence their teaching styles and the ways in which they treat different students. The results of this study are important in that they show that there are several language teachers who have a fixed language mindset. Given that past research and theory on mindsets encourages the development and facilitation of growth mindsets and their benefits for motivation and learning (Dweck, 2006, 2012, 2014), it is important to raise teachers’ awareness about their mindsets and the effects they might have on their teaching strategies and the feedback/praise they give to their students. It is suggested that language programs have some in-service workshops for language teachers on mindset systems and inform them about different types of mindsets that teachers or learners might have about language ability. It is also suggested that language programs inform teachers about different praise types (see Zarrinabadi et al., 2021; Zarrinabadi and Rahimi, 2021) that foster fixed or growth mindsets in language learners and give them a list of instances/phrases to encourage hard work and making an effort (i.e. growth mindsets). Also, future research can examine teachers’ domain-specific mindsets (speaking, reading, writing, etc.) to see if fixed and growth mindsets are different/the same from one skill/subskill to another. Moreover, it is suggested that future research investigate the links between teachers’ mindsets and other pedagogical practices such as corrective feedback, motivational strategies, and teaching styles.
Finally, it should be mentioned that this study has some limitations. Particularly, the results of this study are limited to the teachers in this study and the context of this study. Further studies with teachers from different contexts are needed to know more about teachers’ mindsets and the effects of their teaching practices. Lou and Noels (2019) believed that mindsets are culture-dependent, as they may differ from eastern to western counties. As such, we believe that teachers in other contexts might have different beliefs about the role of talent and hard work in language learning. The authors recommend that future research examine mindsets among teachers from different cultural and sociolinguistic backgrounds. Moreover, the findings of the study are limited to the weaknesses of qualitative data collection and analysis. The authors believe that further studies using both qualitative and quantitative data can provide more generalizable results.
