Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, and Motivation

Abstract

“Mindset”, or beliefs concerning whether a psychological characteristic is more or less malleable, is an influential psychological concept that has had a wide impact on motivation research and educational practices. This chapter surveys research on mindsets in language learning, which shows that mindsets predict how learners make sense of their learning situations and their motivation during second/foreign language development. Synthesizing research in language learning and other domains, the “Language-Mindset Meaning System (LMMS)” framework highlights how language mindsets, as a fundamental belief about the nature of language, relate to aspects of language learning motivation (e.g., effort beliefs, attribution, achievement goal orientation, failure mindset, self-regulatory tendency, and competence-based emotions). A research agenda designed to better understand the LMMS’s content, impact, contextual influences, and dynamics is presented.

Full text

537
© e Author(s) 2019
M. Lamb et al. (eds.), e Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_26
26
Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making,
andMotivation
NigelMantouLou andKimberlyA.Noels
“Mindset” is an inuential psychological concept that has had a wide impact
on the motivation research in the past thirty years, as well as on therecent
reform of educational practices (Dweck, 1999, 2006;Dweck & Yeager, 2019;
Yeager etal., 2019). Mindsets, also termed as lay/implicit theories, refer to
beliefs about whether a person’s characteristics, such as personality and intel-
lectual abilities, are mutable (i.e., a growth mindset/incremental theory) or
immutable (i.e., a xed mindset/entity theory). ese beliefs, which are often
taken for granted and seldom reected upon in a systematic manner, orient
people’s thoughts and actions towards relevantactivities. Despite pervasive lay
beliefs about natural talent and biological constraints (especially age) in for-
eign language learning, it is not until recently that researchers in second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA) have addressed how mindsets play a role in
motivational processes (Lou & Noels, 2016, 2017; Mercer & Ryan, 2010;
Ryan & Mercer, 2012).
Given increasing interest in mindsets in SLA, this chapter provides an
overview of research and theories addressing the value of studying language
mindsets, particularly in understanding how learners sustain motivation dur-
ing second/foreign language (L2) development. We rst discuss our theoreti-
cal conceptualization of language mindsets by reviewing relation to and
distinctiveness from mindsets in other domains. We then synthesize relevant
research with a proposed model regarding how language mindsets are linked
N. M. Lou (*) • K. A. Noels
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
e-mail: mantou@ualberta.ca; knoels@ualberta.ca

538
to two dierent meaning-making systems that underlie language learning
motivation. ird, we elaborate language mindsets as part of a dynamic and
contextualized motivational system (cf. Csizér, this volume; Hiver & Papi,
this volume). Finally, we discuss current research limitations and provide sug-
gestions for the development of L2 motivation theory and research using the
lens of language mindsets.
What Is Language Mindset?
How much do you believe these three statements are true? “People either have
a knack for languages or they do not; the ability to learn foreign languages is
mostly innate and immutable; adults do not have the capacity to learn a new
language like children do.” For decades, scientists have attempted to address
these questions with dierent theories and come up with dierent conclu-
sions. Like scientists, lay people also have their own theories explaining how
human psychology functions, and they often assume that some people have a
certain psychological capacity that makes them better than others at learning
an L2. is analogy of “lay theory” oers a useful way of studying how people
think and make sense of language learning.
Although people rarely explicitly and systematically test their lay theories,
they use them in their everyday life to simplify complicated information and to
make sense of their experience (Molden & Dweck, 2006; Ross & Nisbett,
2011). For example, using a theory that language intelligence and foreign lan-
guage aptitude are genetically based can create a cognitive frame that helps peo-
ple to explain individual dierences in prociency levels and to make sense of
diverse learning situations. With such a theory to guide them, people can rea-
sonably attribute past failures and current struggles to their lack of talent, and
thus predict any future diculty to be unmanageable or only attainable through
luck or extraordinary circumstances. ose who subscribe to a belief that the
capability to acquire a new language is biologically determined by age (akin to
the critical period hypothesis) can use this belief to understand and explain to
themselves and others why adults seem to have diculty learning new lan-
guages. Simply put, lay theories are information-processing paradigms that help
people to form, revise, transform, and even change their everyday experience
into a meaningful system of beliefs (Kelley & Michela, 1980; Oyserman & Yan,
in press; Ross, 1977). Studying these lay theories thus yields important insights
into how language learners make sense of their learning experiences, which is
fundamental to motivational processes and to the sense of self.
Recognizing this long tradition of research on lay theories, Dweck (2006)
suggested that the xed and growth mindsets are fundamental to motivation
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

539
because they can guide people in how to think, feel, and act across dierent
domains, including learning and education and interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Lou & Li, 2017; Molden & Dweck, 2006). For example, in educational
settings, students who hold growth mindsets (i.e., beliefs that their intellec-
tual abilities can be improved) are motivated to develop competence through
hard work because they believe that intelligence is attributable to changeable
factors (e.g., stimulating environment and eort). Accordingly, they seek out
challenging experiences that enable them to develop skills and acquire new
knowledge. Conversely, learners who hold xed mindsets (i.e., beliefs that
intelligence is immutable) are motivated to validate competence because they
believe that intellectual abilities are attributable to xed personal factors (e.g.,
genes). Consequently, they develop the tendency to avoid challenging situa-
tions, because potential failures may invalidate their innate ability (Hong,
Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999). Many studies found that learners with
growth (versus xed) mindsets are more motivated, adaptive, and successful
(Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013).
It is important to note that the terms–mindsets, lay theories/beliefs, and
implicit theories/beliefs–are used interchangeably in the literature. However,
the notion of “implicit” can create confusion, because in cognitive psychol-
ogy, implicit often refers to unconscious attitudes and beliefs thatpeople are
unable to articulate (e.g., Nosek & Banaji, 2002; see also Al-Hoorie, this
volume). Research on mindsets runs counter to this idea because most people
are aware of and able to report their beliefs, although they might seldom have
a reason to explicate them and might rarely realize that they use these “theo-
ries” when explaining phenomena. Mindsets are argued to be “learned knowl-
edge systems” accessible to most people upon reection(Poon & Koehler,
2006). erefore, although implicit theories are used often in academic litera-
ture, to avoid this confusion we use the term “mindsets”.
Dimensions andMeasurement ofLanguage Mindsets
In earlier work, mindsets were described using a dichotomous framework,
such that individuals hold either a growth mindset or a xed mindset. Some
incautious educators may adopt this oversimplied framework and even dif-
ferentiate students as either a xed-mindset learner or a growth-mindset learner
(see a recent response to this issue from Dweck, 2015). is dichotomous
formulation of mindsets has received little support in research. For example,
an interview study reported that language learners are able to express a clear
opinion about xed and growth language mindsets in various degrees, and
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

540
many learners have a mix of both mindsets (Mercer & Ryan, 2010). is nd-
ing suggests that xed and growth mindsets are commonly endorsed among
language learners, and the dichotomy of xed-vs-growth fails to reect what
learners actually think (Mercer, Ryan, & Williams, 2012). From a method-
ological perspective, dividing language mindsets into two categories may sim-
plify measurement and research designs, but it can also lessen measurement
reliability and validity, minimize individual variations, and bias eect sizes and
statistical signicance (MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002).
e content of both xed and growth language mindsets is comprised of at
least three prevalent themes: General-language-intelligence beliefs, L2-aptitude
beliefs, and age-sensitivity beliefs. ese three themes resemble three lines of
academic debates in SLA that are also common in public discussion. Firstly,
general-language-intelligence beliefs concern the concept of linguistic/verbal
intelligence that are central to multi-componential intelligence theories (e.g.,
Gardner, 2011). Some researchers maintain that there is a xed linguistic/
verbal intelligence that determines ability in language-related tasks, including
L2 learning. Some may believe the ability to become a successful writer, ora-
tor, and/or translator is wired into the brain; you either have it or you donot.
Secondly, L2-aptitude beliefs parallel scholarly debate about whether the apti-
tude to learn an L2 (distinct from native language/general language ability) is
xed and has a genetic basis or is changeable through training and eort
(Wen, 2011). Lastly, age-sensitivity beliefs correspond with arguments around
the critical/sensitive period hypothesis. Some scientists strongly argue that the
capacity for SLA is malleable up to a younger age, and then drops thereafter
due to neurobiological changes (DeKeyser, 2000). is claim is in line with
the popular belief that adults cannot “fully” acquire native-like prociency in
a new language as well or as quickly as young children can. However, others
argue that age does not biologically constrain the capability to learn (Abello-
Contesse, 2009). ey may further maintain that age dierences mainly
reect adults’ lack of time and motivation due to social constraints and stereo-
types (Marinova-Todd, Marshall, & Snow, 2000).
is operationalization of language mindsets emphasizes that these beliefs
are neither a categorical nor a unidimensional construct. Based on these prop-
ositions, we developed and validated the Language Mindsets Inventory (LMI)
(Table26.1) with learners of a variety of foreign languages and students who
use English as their L2 (Lou & Noels, 2017, in press; Lou & Noels, 2018a).
We found that the LMI conrmed the underlying theoretical framework;
learners endorse dierent degrees of entity and incremental theories regarding
general-language-intelligence, L2-aptitude, and age-sensitivity beliefs. ese
dierent beliefs can be further reduced into two hierarchical structures reect-
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

541
Table 26.1 A revised version of language mindsets inventory (LMI)
Instructions: Please rate how much you personally agree or disagree with these
statements. There is no right or wrong answer.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly
Agree
Moderately
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. General language Intelligence
Below are statements about language intelligence, the capacity to use spoken and
written languages to express what’s on your mind and to understand other
people. People with high language intelligence are typically good at reading,
writing, telling stories.
To be honest, you can’t really change your language intelligence.
Your language intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very
much.
You have a certain amount of language intelligence, and you can’t really do much
to change it.
aYou can always improve your language intelligence substantially.
aNo matter who you are, you can significantly improve your language intelligence
level.
aNo matter how much language intelligence you have, you can always improve it
quite a bit.
2. Second Language Aptitude
Below are statements about one’s ability to learn new languages. People who are
high in such ability are typically good at acquiring new sounds, grammatical
structures, and vocabularies from new languages.
You can’t change how capable you are at learning new languages.
To be honest, you can’t really change your basic ability to learn and use new
languages.
To a large extent, your ability to learn new languages is innate and you can’t
change much.
aYou can always improve how good you are at learning new languages.
aNo matter who you are, you can always improve your basic ability to learn new
languages.
aNo matter how much ability you have in learning new languages, you can
improve it considerably.
3. Critical/Sensitive Period Hypothesis
Below are statements about the ability to learn new languages in relation to age.
After a certain young age, you have very limited ability to learn new languages.
You don’t really have the ability to learn new languages after a certain young
age.
Your ability to learn new languages is restricted after a certain young age, and
you can’t really change it.
aNo matter how old you are, you can always improve your ability to learn new
languages.
(continued)
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

542
ing xed and growth mindsets (Lou & Noels, 2017). Moreover, although
xed and growth mindsets are negatively correlated, factor analyses did not
support that they were a single construct. is nding indicates that many
people can be exible and dialectical thinkers who ascribe to seemingly con-
tradictory concepts if they are not forced to choose one concept or the other,
and thus endorsing both entity and growth theories (Kruglanski, 1989).
erefore, treating language mindsets as a single bipolar factor may obfuscate
the nuances of language mindsets, although such reduction may be practical
and warranted depending on a study’s objectives (Lou & Noels, 2017).
e construct of language mindsets is related to but distinct from other
mindsets. Language mindsets were only weakly correlated with mindsets
about general intelligence and other specic abilities such as athletics and
math (Lou & Noels, 2017). ese ndings support the domain-specic
nature of mindsets (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995). As such, it is possible
that people canhold, for example, a weak growth language mindset but a
strong growth mindset in other intellectual domains (Ryan & Mercer,
2012). More importantly, learners’ motivation is context-specic and thus
corresponds better with mindsets when both constructs are assessed within
the same domain. For example, compared to general intelligence mindsets,
language mindsets are a more direct and stronger predictor of language
motivation (Lou & Noels, 2017). erefore, to understand language moti-
vation, it is more appropriate to assess learners’ language mindsets rather
than their intelligence mindsets.
Table 26.1 (continued)
aRegardless of age, you can significantly improve how good you are at learning
new languages.
aEven after a certain young age, you can substantially improve your ability to
learn new languages.
aIndicates growth mindsets items
This revision is based on feedback from the field. One change is to specify the direction
of improvement rather than a general notion of change for the items about growth
mindsets (cf. Lou etal., 2017)
Another change is to modify three items in the theme of L2B by emphasizing the word
of ability is about the ability to learn (aptitude) not competence (learning outcomes),
such that the three items are consistent with other items in the same theme
This adapted version of LMI was found to be reliable and predicted effort beliefs (Lou
& Noels, 2018a, 2018b), but more psychometric research is needed
It is also important to note that researchers do not need to always use all of the sub-
scales and which subscales should be used depends on the objectives of a study (Lou &
Noels, 2017)
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

543
Language Mindsets andMotivation
To illustrate how language mindsets contribute to language learning motiva-
tion, we conceptualized the Language-Mindset Meaning System (LMMS).
is framework highlights the central role of mindsets among dierent lan-
guage beliefs identied to be important in language motivation (e.g., Dörnyei
& Ryan, 2015; Henry, 2014; Horwitz, 2007; Kalaja, Barcelos, & Aro, 2018;
Yashima, Nishida, & Mizumoto, 2017). We argue that language mindsets are
acorner stone for meaning-making that helpspeople to make sense of their
L2 experiences. Specically, the LMMS comprises the growth-oriented and
xed-oriented meaning subsystems. Each subsystem includes a parallel con-
stellation of allied cognitive and aective factors that together produce sys-
tematic dierences in a range of fundamental motivational processes that
aecthow people think, feel, and act (Molden & Dweck, 2006).
In the following discussion, we focus on mindset-driven motivational pro-
cesses particularly in challenging situations, which are inherent to the long-
term language learning process (e.g., rejection by interlocutors, making
mistakes in communication, criticism from teachers and peers, and perform-
ing badly in language tasks). We suggest that language mindsets can frame
learner’s construals of these situations and guide themto develop dierent
aective and behavioural coping strategies. Specically, the LMMS synthe-
tizes a set of descriptive and prescriptive functions for meaning-making (e.g.,
“What do eort and failure mean?”; “What are the reasons I can’t speak the
language well?”; “Should I continue learning?”), which are dierent from
evaluative meaning-making structures (e.g., attitudes and values) (Plaks, Levy,
& Dweck, 2009). Table 26.2 presents how xed and growth mindsets are
systematically linked to dierent motivational beliefs and self-regulatory pro-
cesses: eort beliefs, attributions, achievement goals, failure mindsets, self-
regulatory tendencies, and competence-based emotional tendencies. Although
many of these concepts and connections have been addressed in the SLA lit-
erature, some have not, and thus the following discussion of LMMS includes
research published in educational psychology literature.
Effort Beliefs: Believing intheUtility ofPurposeful Effort
Learners’ language mindsets are tied to their perceptions about what eort
can do (Lou & Noels, 2017). For learners who believe their ability can be
developed, eort is an eective way to become more competent. ey believe
the harder they strive, the better they will become at language learning (e.g.,
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

544
“Eort is the key to improvement”). However, for learners who believe lan-
guage ability is xed, eort may reect one’s lack of natural ability. ey
believe that eort is ineective in language success, and showing others that
they are hardworking can also make them feel less talented (e.g., “ose who
try hard obviously don’t have the talent”). Because eort expenditure is one of
the most powerful predictors of language achievement, positive eort beliefs
Table 26.2 Language-mindset meaning system
Fixed-oriented subsystem Growth-oriented subsystem
Effort beliefs: What
does effort mean?
Negative: effort is futile, and
exertion of effort reflects
one’s lack of natural talent
Positive: effort is the key to
improvement and a means
to become talented
Attribution: What
causes different
learning outcomes?
Uncontrollable: interpret
successes to one’s own
talent and failures to the
lack of natural ability
Controllable: interpret success
to hard work and
challenges/mistakes to the
insufficient effort
Achievement goals:
What are your
goals for your
learning activities?
Performance goals: aim to
out-perform others and
validate ability (when
perceived competence is
high) or avoid being seen
as incompetent (when
perceived competence is
low)
Mastery goals: aim to
develop and improve
language competence; focus
on the learning process
Failure/mistake
mindsets: What
does failure mean?
Failure as debilitating:
Failure or making mistakes
inhibits one’s learning and
debilitates one’s
performance; one should
avoid failure or making
mistakes in order to learn
and perform well
Failure as enhancing: failure
or making mistakes provides
opportunity to understand
what is needed and to
facilitate improvement; one
should take advantage of
failure to learn and grow
Self-regulatory
tendency: What do
you tend to do
when dealing with
setbacks?
Self-defensive strategies:
avoid similar situations to
protect self-esteem
Self-improvement strategies:
seek for better learning
strategies and feedback to
improve
Competence-based
emotional
tendency: How do
you tend to feel
about your
language ability in
challenging tasks?
Anxiety: afraid of challenges
and failure; anxious to use
the target language and
fear of being judged/
rejected
Confidence: enjoy difficult
tasks; confidence to use the
language and to develop
competence
Note. It is important to note that the description of fixed- and growth-oriented systems
are extremes of two independent but correlated continuums; it does not suggest that
learners hold only one or the other system
It is likely that learners have a mix of both systems
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

545
are considered a key motivational factor to the pathway of language success
(Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005).
Attribution: Interpret Successes andFailures
Learnerswho endorse xed mindsets also explain their performance with
dierent rationalesfrom those who endorse growth mindsets. ose with
entity beliefs tend to attribute achievement and challenges to one’s talent
and/or lack thereof– success validates their natural ability and failures indi-
cate their incapability to learn. is uncontrollable attribution tendency
undermines learners’ sense of autonomy and intrinsic motivation. In con-
trast, learners with incremental beliefs attribute performances to their own
eorts– success indicates their eort has paid o and making mistakes sig-
nals more eort is needed. is controllable attribution tendency is impor-
tant in sustaining motivation for future learning tasks (Kelley & Michela,
1980; Weiner, 2014; orner & Kikuchi, this volume). ese dierent attri-
butions of performance, derived from dierent mindsets, can in turn guide
how learners feel and act dierently in learning situations.
Achievement Goals Orientations: Goal ofMastering
theLanguage or Presenting aPositive Self-image
Language mindsets are also linked to the learner’s purpose for becoming com-
petent in language learning and/or succeeding in the language class. Learners
strive for language success for various reasons (Woodrow, 2006): to master the
language and improve their competence (i.e., mastery, or learning, goals); to
prove their ability and outperform other students (i.e., performance-approach
goals); and to hide their lack of competence and to avoid performing worse
than the others (i.e., performance-avoidance goals). Mastery goals concern self-
development and competence per se; they are linked to stronger eort and
motivational intensity, persistence, and better oral test performance. On the
other hand, the two performance goals concern normative achievement
relative to others. Performance-approach goals are associated with stronger
language anxiety, and performance-avoidance goals are related to stronger lan-
guage anxiety and poorer oral test performance (Woodrow, 2006). is pat-
tern possibly arises because people with performance goals are easily distracted
from learning by the need to validate their performance through social
comparison.
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

546
Based on Dweck and Leggett’s work (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), we argue
that learners’ goal setting relies on both their mindsets and evaluations of
their language competence. Learners with growth mindsets set mastery goals
to “learn as much as possible from their language class” (Lou & Noels, 2017).
Holding growth mindsets provides learners with a sense of control over their
own ability, and thus orients them towards the learning process itself rather
than towards performance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Accordingly, these
learners are more likely to develop learner autonomy, to take responsibility,
and to engage in activities that enable them to grow (Lou & Noels, 2016).
Conversely, xed mindsets predict performance-approach goals, particularly
when learners think that they have high language competence. ese learners
are more likely to engage in activities that portray them in a positive
light.However, we did not nd that learners’ mindsets predict performance-
avoidance goals. It is possibly because the eects of language mindsets on
avoidance goals are more salient when learners are facing actual challenges,
for example, receiving negative feedback and experiencing language-
based rejection in intercultural contact (Sisk, Burgoyne, Sun, Butler, &
Macnamara, 2018).
Failure Mindsets: Are Failures Debilitating or Enhancing?
Fixed and growth mindsets also guide people to construe failure in dierent
ways, above and beyond controllable versus uncontrollable attributions.
When performance is unsatisfactory, learners with growth mindsets are more
likely to positively reappraise their setbacks, to reect on their mistakes, and
to look for ways to improve. For example, they are more likely to think, “is
misunderstanding makes me realize that I should improve my pronunciation”
and “Even though I used the wrong word, I learned the right word in the
process; I learned something new because of my mistake.” ey see failures as
a means to facilitate learning and growth. Conversely, learners with xed
mindsets tend to regard failure as debilitating; they assume the failure is last-
ing and uncontrollable. ey may say that, “If I can’t communicate well in my
target language, it means I really am not a language person” and “I won’t talk
because I don’t know how to say it perfectly.” Research in general education
shows that failure-is-enhancing and failure-is-debilitating mindsets are only
moderately related to (thus distinct from) intelligence mindsets (Haimovitz
& Dweck, 2016).
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

547
Self-regulatory Tendencies: Implications forResilience
Language mindsets also impact learners’ tendencies to engage in self- regulation
or to resign from goal pursuit (Burnette et al., 2013; Molden & Dweck,
2006). When their goals are not met, learners with growth mindsets intend to
take remedial actions. ey adopt a self-improvement orientation that
prompts them to take control over their own learning, such as actively seeking
help to improve their learning (Heine etal., 2001; Waller & Papi, 2017).
Conversely, people with xed mindsets aim to prevent failures from hurting
their self-esteem. ey are more likely to avoid future learning opportunities
when criticism is possible; they are also more concerned about negative judg-
ments from teachers as they construe corrective feedback and help-seeking as
an exhibition of “being dumb.” Instead, they utilize self-defensive strategies,
such as avoidance and self-handicapping, for example by avoiding eort and
creating obstacles that allow them to justify possible failures (Nussbaum &
Dweck, 2008). As a result, compared to learners with incremental beliefs,
learners with entity beliefs are more likely to give up studying foreign lan-
guages (Lou & Noels, 2017).
Competence-Based Emotional Tendencies: Confidence
andAnxiety
During and after learning activities, learners’ emotional responses will be acti-
vated based on their existing emotional tendencies developed through their
reactions to previous similar situations (Barrett, 2017; MacIntyre, Ross &
Clément, this volume). By constantly guiding learners’ emotional reactions to
achievement situations, learners’ mindsets can facilitate the development of
dierent competence-based emotional tendencies (Robins & Pals, 2002).
Fixed mindsets are linked to maladaptive emotional tendencies, including
language anxiety, fear of failure, and concerns over being rejected by inter-
locutors (Lou & Noels,2019b). In line with resilience perspectives, learners
with growth mindsets reported a lesslanguage anxiety (Lou & Noels, 2017,
2018a, 2018b), possibly because they tend to reappraise and regulate their
emotions by seeing the positive in failure situations (e.g., think that obstacles
can be overcome if they work harder) (Chaee, Lou, & Noels, 2018). Given
that language condence is comprised of a positive self-perception of compe-
tence and low anxiety (Sampasivam & Clément, 2014), it is not dicult to
imagine the link between mindsets and language condence. We found that
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

548
learners with growth mindsets have more positive emotions and condence
to use the target language and have more positive expectations about interact-
ing with native speakers (Lou & Noels, 2018a). Furthermore, the eect of
language mindsets on language anxiety is found to go beyond what goal ori-
entations and perceived language competence predict, suggesting that lan-
guage mindsets play a unique role in emotional experiences (Lou & Noels,
in press).
A Complex Dynamic Perspective onLMMS
So far, we have described language mindsets and related concepts as relatively
stable beliefs (i.e., a relatively enduring, trait-like individual factor). However,
language mindsets, like other motivational constructs, are also situated in par-
ticular social contexts. Because most people have at least some knowledge and
experience that supports both entity and incremental theories (Poon &
Koehler, 2006), either mindset can be readily activated depending on situa-
tional cues. For example, experimental research shows that people’s language
mindsets can be primed or induced, at least in the short-term, through per-
suasive articles that support either entity or incremental theories about lan-
guage learning (e.g., Lou & Noels, 2016). Studying whether and how mindsets
change not only provides an avenue to examine theoretical questions about
the impact of mindsets on motivation and achievement, but also provides
practical insights for how to improve learners’ subjective experience in lan-
guage development.
e eco-dynamic systems perspective considers that motivation exists not
only within the individual, but also as an interaction with socio-cultural con-
texts. Similarly, meaning making is a contextualized and dynamic process
rather than a decontextualized and stable trait (Oyserman & Yan, in press).
e fact that mindsets can be activated by dierent experimental procedures
underscores the dynamic of language mindset-based meaning-making sys-
tems (Molden & Dweck, 2006; Wilson & English, 2017). Rather than hold-
ing only one mindset system consistently across all contexts, learners shift
their beliefs and goals to adapt to dierent social situations. For example, in
situations where performance goals are promoted, learners need to out-
perform others to get a good grade, and so they may bemore likely to endorse
xed mindsets (Leith etal., 2014). On the other hand, helping learners to
interpret their challenges as opportunities to learn can foster the adoption of
growth mindsets (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016). In turn, activating one mind-
set can increase the accessibility of other related concepts or schemas (e.g.,
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

549
eort beliefs and aective response) that guide them in how to think, feel, and
act in those situations. In summary, the LMMS conceives language motiva-
tion as a dynamic and contextualized meaning-making system that changes
depending on the situation.
Research Agenda
As research on language mindsets is still in its early stages, more research is needed
to understand the content and construct of language mindsets, their inuences,
and the dynamic processes of the LMMS(see also Lou & Noels, 2019a). Below,
we highlight four potential research areas that we believe are imperative to the
understanding of how and why language mindsets aect language development.
Testing theLMMS Model
e constructs that we argue are predicated on mindsets (i.e., eort beliefs,
attribution, achievement goals, failure mindsets, self-regulatory tendency, and
competence-based emotional tendency) have also been found to be linked to
educational achievement and language success independently of mindsets
(Lamb, 2017; Mercer etal., 2012). However, instead of viewing the impacts
of these dierent constructs on language development separately, the LMMS
suggests that integrating them into a system can better describe learners’
motivation.
To explain one way of how these factors can link together, in a recent study
(Lou & Noels, 2017), we chose the components of goal orientation, self-
regulatory tendency, and emotional responses and conceptualized a testable
path model (termed “Mindset-Goal-Response Model”). e results showed
that mindsets directly predict eort beliefs and goal orientation, and, through
goal orientation, indirectly predict emotional and behavioural responses to
failure. Namely, learners who believe their language ability is xed despite
their eorts are more likely to explain failures as a reection of lack of ability,
toapproach or avoid performance, tofeel helpless and anxious, and toavoid
trying the next time. ere are other possibilities of how the LLMS compo-
nents connect to each other, and understanding the theoretical connections
and under what situations they arise can broaden understanding of the moti-
vational processes more holistically. In addition to understanding how dier-
ent variables in the LLMS are connected, more experimental and longitudinal
methods should be implemented to test the dynamic of the LMMS.
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

550
Nuances andDifferent Aspects ofLanguage Mindsets
Although we have proposed three aspects of language mindsets (i.e., general-
language- intelligence, L2-aptitude, and age-sensitivity beliefs), little research
has dierentiated them with regard to their predictive power on dierent out-
comes. For example, it is conceivable that adult learners’ age-related beliefs are
more xed than younger learners. Such beliefs may be inuenced by a range
of socio-cultural factors (e.g., cultural stereotypes about older learners) and
have a stronger inuence on older adults’ motivation. Understanding how the
three aspects of language mindsets predict dierent motivational outcomes in
dierent populations may provide insight into the nuances of why and for
whom language mindset matters. Furthermore, we can revise the current
understanding of language mindsets from at least two perspectives: the con-
struct of mindsets and the domain-specicity of language learning.
Regarding the construct of mindsets, researchers recently argued that
mindsets include not only entity and incremental dimensions, but also a dec-
remental dimension (i.e., beliefs about negative change, such that ability can
be decreased) (Lou, Masuda, & Li, 2017). In the general intelligence domain,
decremental beliefs are found to be independent of entity and incremental
beliefs, and have a unique contribution in predicting prevention-oriented
motivation (Lou etal., 2017). In terms of language learning, many people
acquire the beliefs through their informal and implicit observation that peo-
ple’s ability to learn a language declines with age and that “if you don’t use it,
you’ll lose it.” Accordingly, learners who endorse decremental mindsets might
feel motivated to prevent the potential loss of their language ability. ese
“use-it-or-lose-it” beliefs reect more closely to “decremental” rather than
“incremental” beliefs. us, incorporating decremental beliefs into the con-
struct of language mindsets can enrich our understanding of the language-
mindset meaning system and language motivation.
Regarding domain-specicity, it is important to examine the extent to
which people hold dierent mindsets about dierent aspects of linguistic
skills (e.g., writing, communication, pronunciation, and grammar). For
example, some learners may hold growth mindsets about learning grammar,
but xed mindsets about pronunciation (Mercer & Ryan, 2010). Unpacking
these nuances can contribute to the understanding of the domain-specicity
of language mindsets as well as motivational processes across dierent lan-
guage abilities. If researchers are interested in a specic outcome (e.g., writ-
ing), it is best to assess learners’ mindsets in the same domain (e.g., mindsets
about writing) rather than on a more general level (c.f. Waller & Papi, 2017).
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

551
Although mindsets in dierent domains can operate relatively independently
of each other, little is known about how much overlap there is among dier-
ent aspects of language learning. Future research should pay more attention to
less well-studied aspects of L2 mindsets (e.g., pronunciation and grammar
learning) to understand the uniqueness of dierent language-skill mindsets
and their connections with general language intelligence beliefs.
Links andIntegrations withOther L2 Motivational
Components
We acknowledge that additional motivational constructs can potentially
enrich this mindset-based meaning system. Given that ideal selves reect
growth beliefs about one’s future L2 abilities, it is not dicult to see the link
between mindsets and the construct of ideal selves (Dörnyei, 2009; Yashima
etal., 2017). According to the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) (Csizér,
this volume), L2 motivation can be generated by a positive image of ideal L2
self (i.e., who you want to become) (Dörnyei, 2009). We argue that learners
with xed mindsets, especially those who think they don’t have the aptitude
to learn, may not be able to envision themselves becoming eective in using
the target language. Conversely, growth mindsets can facilitate envisioning a
more positive ideal self (Dörnyei, 2009). Because learners with growth mind-
sets strive to improve their L2 ability, they are more likely to see a clearer
image of their ideal self and take action to approach their ideal L2 self. More
importantly, envisioning how they can overcome obstacles and gradually
improve to reach their ideal self can better sustain learners’ motivation along
the journey of L2 development, compared to simply envisioning an ideal self.
Another important motivational framework that can be linked to the
mindset meaning system is self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan,
2004), which emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, eectance,
and interpersonal connectedness for sustaining intrinsic interest and/or self-
determined motivation (Noels, Chaee, Lou, & Dincer, 2016; Noels etal.,
this volume; Lou & Noels, 2018b). We propose that holding growth mindsets
and mastery goals can facilitate internalization of regulation into the self by
fostering positive perceptions of challenging learning tasks and lessening the
anxiety that arises when dealing with those tasks. In contrast, xed mindsets
and performance goals hinder the internalization processes by engendering
external pressure, and creating performance anxiety (Deci & Ryan, 2004).
Both L2MSS and SDT are frameworks that promote growth values and
orientations. Understanding their connections with language mindsets can
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

552
potentially further integrate dierent theoretical perspectives in language
development. erefore, more research is needed to understand how these
processes together inuence language motivation.
Effects onImprovement andCompetence
People often assume more learning experience is related to better competence.
However, how learning shapes competence depends, in part, on the extent to
which learners expect their learning opportunities can shape competence, and
these expectancies depend, in part, on language mindsets. Although cross-
sectional data supports the view that mindsets are linked to learners’ grades in
the foreign language course through the connection of eort beliefs and goal
setting, no study has examined the causal link of mindsets on long-term lan-
guage success in and outside of the classroom (Chaee etal., 2018). Research
in mindsets can inspire pedagogical strategies for cultivating growth mindsets
in general educational contexts (e.g., Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
Outside of a language class, many language learners hold a goal of intercul-
tural contact with target communities (Gardner & Lambert, 1959). However,
some intercultural interactions can result in negative outcomes. Learners also
rely on their meaning-making systems to make sense of their experience with L2
communication. Endorsing growth mindsets might help a person to perceive L2
communication in a more optimistic way, such that even awkward, negative
encounters can be simultaneously construed as an opportunity for learning and
growth (Lou & Noels, in press). us, a growth mindset may help learners
develop condence, willingness to communicate, and eventually competence.
Because learners use their meaning-systems to understand their language
experience, changes in their contact experience and competence are likely to
revise the way they understand language learning. For example, seeing their
own improvement in language learning compared to the past may change
learners’ ideas that language learning ability is malleable (Lou & Noels,
2018a). Longitudinal and idiodynamic approach are needed to understand
how mindset-system changes follow from dierent learning and communica-
tion experiences.
Socio-cultural Influences onLMMS
Learners internalize dierent cultural meaning systems about language learn-
ing through social learning within the socio-cultural environment (see Lou &
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

553
Noels, 2017 for a discussion of mindsets in dierent levels of ecological sys-
tems). For example, research has shown that growth mindsets and external
attributions are more prevalent in collectivistic cultures (e.g., Asian countries)
than individualistic cultures (e.g., Western European and North American
countries; Heine etal., 2001). Similarly, research has reported that Japanese
show more growth language mindsets whereas Austrians demonstrated more
xed mindsets (Ryan & Mercer, 2012). is dierence could be due to dier-
ences in cultural values: Confucian-inuenced societies emphasize eort and
persistence, as well as maintaining social harmony with authority and external
social environment, whereas Western cultures encourage internal ability and
autonomy in learning (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Noels, Chaee, Michalyk,
& McEown, 2014). Accordingly, research shows that in challenging situations,
East Asian students show more self-improvement strategies that prioritize per-
sistence, while North American students show more self-enhancing/protecting
tendencies that emphasize individual self-esteem (Heine etal., 2001).
Although research demonstrates that intelligence mindsets predict Asian
students’ motivation in a similar way as the results found in North America
(e.g., Hong etal., 1999), little is known about whether the results of language
mindsets studies are generalizable outside of Western countries. In addition to
comparing the mean levels of language mindsets and their functional relations
with other variables across dierent socio-educational contexts, future cross-
cultural research should also systematically examine the construct of language
mindset itself (most likely through qualitative methods initially), as well as
the lay understanding of the conceptual aspects (e.g., the three aspectsof lan-
guage mindsets:general-language-intelligence, L2-aptitude, and age-sensitivity
beliefs) and their combination as a general construct might also be inuenced
by the socio-cultural contexts.
Conclusions
We started this chapter by discussing the consensus that language mindsets
should be conceived as a more complex construct than a dichotomous cate-
gorical or a bipolar unidimensional formulation implies, based on both
qualitative and quantitative research (Lou & Noels, 2017; Mercer & Ryan,
2010). With this assumption, we operationalized language mindsets as the
crux of two meaning-making subsystems by positing a growth-oriented sub-
system and a xed-oriented subsystem (Molden & Dweck, 2006). is
approach aims to understand how conceptually similar language motivational
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

554
constructs, including eort beliefs, attributions, and achievement goals, work
together and give rise to how learners think, feel and act (Lou & Noels, 2016).
e xed-oriented system includes negative eort beliefs, uncontrollable
attributions, performance goals, failure-is-debilitating mindsets, self- defensive
strategies, and language anxiety, which are assumed to be maladaptive. In
contrast, the growth-oriented system includes positive eort beliefs, control-
lable attributions, mastery goals, failure-is-enhancing mindsets, self-
improvement strategies, and self-condence. We maintain that a
growth-oriented system can serve as a personal resource, or a form of motiva-
tional capital, which buers the negative eects of competence threats on
motivation by guiding people to proactively cope with failure situations
(Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008; Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Moreover, this moti-
vational capital can be increased with backing from the socio-cultural learn-
ing environment, and in turn supports the long-term investment in language
learning (Darvin, this volume).
Readers must be mindful that these two subsystems are not mutually exclu-
sive and that most people likely possess both mindset-systems to a dierent
extent, which can change depending on domains, social contexts, and time.
e two mindset-based subsystems are considered two complex dynamic sys-
tems– learners’ meaning-making processes are not stable across time and situa-
tion but rather uctuate, not only dueto powerful contextual inuences but
also as a result of learners’ personal agency. Dierent mindset-related tenden-
cies can also co-occur depending on learning situations and they operate
together to predict language development and intercultural communication.
erefore, we conclude that language motivation can be conceived of as
embedded in a dynamic meaning-making system.
Research on language mindsets also sheds light on language pedagogy
regarding how to motivate language learners to strive for developing compe-
tence and to persist in language learning. Many large-scale mindset-related
interventions and workshops have been implemented across the world (e.g.,
Yeager & Dweck, 2012). However, before considering such interventions in
language classrooms, more evidence-based research is needed to identify what
intervention strategies work best, under what circumstances the interven-
tions are eective, and who benets most from the interventions (Sisk etal.,
2018). Simply endorsing growth mindsets is not enough to lead to positive
learning outcomes; integrating important elements in the LMMS is likely to
be necessary (e.g., encouraging learners to make mistakes and helping them
to correct mistakes). Importantly, growth mindsets also need to pair with a
supportive learning environment that allows them to take root. us, more
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

555
research is needed to empower language teachers to undertake actions to sup-
port learners’ development of growth orientations.
As an interdisciplinary subject with clear applied interests, language moti-
vation often draws upon theories and methods from social and educational
psychology to understand language learners’ beliefs, emotions, and learning
behaviours, as well as how learners develop the tendency to think, feel, and
behave in specic ways (e.g., Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Noels et al., 2016;
Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2016). When borrowing theories and terms,
researchers have to be mindful of the construct in relation to some unique
aspects of SLA research. For example, conceptualizing and assessing language
mindsets should not simply change a few wordings from the general mindset
scale, given that language mindsets are conceptualized and found to be more
complex regarding the content and dimensionality. After incorporating theo-
retical and qualitative work specic to SLA, we need to thoroughly validate
new measurements as ndings in one domain or setting may not translate
directly to others. is validation process requires a collective eort from
researchers with a wide range of theoretical or methodological perspectives. In
turn, this collaborative process can provide valuable theoretical contributions
into the psychology of language learning and pedagogical implications for
language education.
References
Abello-Contesse, C. (2009). Age and the critical period hypothesis. ELT Journal,
63, 170–172.
Barrett, L. (2017). How emotions are made: e secret life of the brain. Houghton
Miin Harcourt.
Burnette, J., O’Boyle, E., VanEpps, E., Pollack, J., & Finkel, E. (2013). Mind-sets
matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological
Bulletin, 139, 655–701.
Chaee, K., Lou, N., & Noels, K. (2018). Language mindsets and goal orientations:
Links with intrinsic motivation, coping, and language class achievement. Unpublished
manuscript.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). e internal structure of language learning motiva-
tion and its relationship with language choice and learning eort. e Modern
Language Journal, 89, 19–36.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-determination research.
NewYork: University Rochester Press.
DeKeyser, R. (2000). e robustness of critical period eects in second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

556
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). e L2 Motivational Self System. In Z.Dornyei & E.Ushioda
(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). e psychology of the language learner revisited.
NewYork: Routledge.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: eir role in motivation, personality, and develop-
ment. Hove: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C.S., Chiu, C.Y., & Hong, Y.Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in
judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,
6(4), 267–285.
Dweck, C.S., & Yeager, D.S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481–496.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: e new psychology of success. NewYork: Random House.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the ‘growth mindset’. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-
revisits-the-growth-mindset.html
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Fisher, O., & Oyserman, D. (2017). Assessing interpretations of experienced ease
and diculty as motivational constructs. Motivation Science, 3(2), 133.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: e theory of multiple intelligences. NewYork:
Basic books.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.
Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. (2016). Parents’ views of failure predict children’s xed
and growth intelligence mind-sets. Psychological Science, 27, 859–869.
Heine, S., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., etal. (2001).
Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An
investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599–615.
Henry, A. (2014). Swedish students’ beliefs about learning English in and outside of
school. In D.Lasagabaster, A.Doiz, & J.-M.Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign
language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 93–116). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C., Lin, D., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attri-
butions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social
psychology, 77, 588–599.
Horwitz, E. (2007). Why student beliefs about language learning matter: Issues in
the development and implementation of the beliefs about language learning
inventory. AAUSC, 31(2), 2–8.
Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M. F., & Aro, M. (2018). Revisiting research on learner beliefs:
Looking back and looking forward. Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

557
Kruglanski, A. (1989). e psychology of being “right”: e problem of accuracy in
social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409.
Lamb, M. (2017). e motivational dimension of language teaching. Language
Teaching, 50, 301–346.
Leith, S., Ward, C., Giacomin, M., Landau, E., Ehrlinger, J., & Wilson, A. (2014).
Changing theories of change: Strategic shifting in implicit theory endorsement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 597–620.
Lou, N., Chaee, K., Lascano, D., Dincer, A., & Noels, K. (2018). Complementary
perspectives on autonomy in self-determination theory and language learner
autonomy. TESOL Quarterly., 52(1), 210–220.
Lou, N., & Li, L. (2017). Interpersonal relationship mindsets and rejection sensitiv-
ity across cultures: e role of relational mobility. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 108, 200–206.
Lou, N., Masuda, T., & Li, L. (2017). Decremental mindsets and prevention-focused
motivation: An extended framework of implicit theories of intelligence. Learning
and Individual Dierences, 59, 96–106.
Lou, N., & Noels, K. (2016). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal
orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language class-
room. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33.
Lou, N., & Noels, K. (2017). Measuring language mindsets and modeling their rela-
tions with goal orientations and emotional and behavioral responses in failure
situations. e Modern Language Journal, 101, 214–243.
Lou, N., & Noels, K. (2018a). Social comparisons inuence migrants’ language mindsets
and cultural adjustment. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology (SPSP) Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2018b). Western and heritage cultural internalizations
predict EFL students’ language motivation and condence. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-15.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2019a). Promoting growth in foreign and second lan-
guage education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teach-
ing.System, 86, 102126.
Lou, N., & Noels, K. (2019b). Sensitivity to language-based rejection in intercultural
communication: e role of language mindsets and implications for migrants’
cross-cultural adaptation. Applied Linguistics,40(3), 478–505.
MacCallum, R., Zhang, S., Preacher, K., & Rucker, D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40.
Marinova-Todd, S., Marshall, D., & Snow, C. (2000). ree misconceptions about
age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9–34.
Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of
natural talent. ELT Journal, 64, 436–444.
Mercer, S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (2012). Psychology for language learning: Insights
from research, theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation

558
Molden, D., & Dweck, C. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories
approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. American
Psychologist, 61, 192–203.
Noels, K.A., Chaee, K., Lou, N., & Dincer, A. (2016). Self-determination, engage-
ment, and identity in learning German. Some directions in the psychology of
language learning motivation. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 45, 12–29.
Noels, K.A., Chaee, K., Michalyk, M., & McEown, M.S. (2014). Cuture, auton-
omy and the self in language learning. In K.Cziser & M.Magid (Eds.), e impact
of self concept on second language acquisition (pp. 131–154). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Nosek, B. & Banaji, M. (2002). (At least) two factors moderate the relationship
between implicit and explicit attitudes. In R.K.Ohme & M.Jarymowicz (Eds.),
Natura Automatyzmow (pp.49–56).
Nussbaum, A., & Dweck, C. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories
and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 599–612.
Oyserman, D., & Yan, V. (in press). Making meaning: A culture-as-situated cogni-
tion approach to the consequences of cultural uency and disuency. In
S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. New York:
Guilford Press.
Plaks, J., Levy, S., & Dweck, C. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of
meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6),
1069–1081.
Poon, C., & Koehler, D. (2006). Lay personality knowledge and dispositionist think-
ing: A knowledge-activation framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
42(2), 177–191.
Robins, R., & Pals, J. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain:
Implications for goal orientation, attributions, aect, and self-esteem change. Self
and Identity, 1(4), 313–336.
Ross, L. (1977). e intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the
attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (2011). e person and the situation: Perspectives of social psy-
chology. NewYork: Pinter & Martin Publishers.
Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2011). Natural talent, natural acquisition, and study abroad:
Learner attributions of agency in language learning. In G.Murray, X. Gao, &
T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning
(pp.160–176). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2012). Language Learning Mindsets across Cultural Settings:
English Learners in Austria and Japan. OnCUE Journal, 6(1), 6–22.
Sampasivam, S., & Clément, R. (2014). e dynamics of second language con-
dence: Perspective and interaction. In S.Mercer & M.Williams (Eds.), Multiple
perspectives on the self (pp.23–40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
N. M. Lou and K. A. Noels

559
Sisk, V., Burgoyne, A., Sun, J., Butler, J., & Macnamara, B. (2018). To what extent
and under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic
achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571.
Stevenson, H., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). Learning gap: Why our schools are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. Simon & Schuster.
Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of
intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65.
Wilson, A., & English, J. (2017). e motivated uidity of lay theories of change. In
e Science of lay theories (pp.17–43). Springer, Cham.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2016). Exploring psychology in language learn-
ing and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Weiner, B. (2014). e attribution approach to emotion and motivation: History,
hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6, 353–361.
Wen, Z. (2011). Foreign language aptitude. ELT Journal, 66, 233–235.
Woodrow, L. (2006). A model of adaptive language learning. e Modern Language
Journal, 90, 297–319.
Yashima, T., Nishida, R., & Mizumoto, A. (2017). Inuence of learner beliefs and
gender on the motivating power of L2 Selves. e Modern Language Journal,
101, 691–711.
Yeager, D., & Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students
believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist,
47(4), 302–314.
Yeager, D.S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G.M., Murray, J.S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C.,
et al. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves
achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369.
26 Language Mindsets, Meaning-Making, andMotivation