Feature Article
Language Learning Mindsets AcrossCultural Settings: English Learners inAustria and Japan
Stephen Ryan
School of Economics, Senshu University
Sarah Mercer
Department of English Studies, University of Graz
This paper argues the need for greater integration of insights from mainstream
educational psychology into language education and considers the application of
one established concept—mindsets—from psychology. Two basic language learning
PLQGVHWVDUHFRQFHSWXDOLVHGDÀ[HGPLQGVHWZKLFKUHJDUGVODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJVXFFHVV
as a function of pre-existing natural talent, and a growth mindset, which values effort
over talent. These mindsets are regarded as being fundamental to how individual learners
approach learning, affecting the setting of goals, the use of strategies and the regulationof effort.
The paper goes on to consider the application of the concept across two contrasting
cultural settings and the relevance or applicability of a psychological construct developedin the West to other learning contexts. It reports on a small-scale exploratory study
ZLWKÀUVW\HDUODQJXDJHOHDUQHUVLQ$XVWULDDQG-DSDQ$QDO\VLVRI WKHGDWDIRXQGFOHDU
differences between the two cultural settings. The Austrian learners showed a clear
WHQGHQF\WRZDUGVDÀ[HGPLQGVHWIRUODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJWKDWZDVGLVWLQFWIURPWKHLURYHUDOO
beliefs about intelligence and language learning; the Japanese learners tended towards
a strong growth mindset, which appeared to be integrated with their overall beliefs
about intelligence and language learning. However, further analysis of the Japanese data
VXJJHVWHGDPRUHFRPSOH[V\VWHPRI VRPHWLPHVFRQÁLFWLQJEHOLHIVZKLFKRIWHQVHHPHG
rooted in a scripted social discourse.

6Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22
ᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺ

PLQGVHW ࡜ゝ࠺ᴫᛕࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ᚰ⌮Ꮫࡢ⌮ㄽ࡜᪉ἲࢆゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟ྲྀࡾධࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋᇶᮏ࡜࡞ࡿ㸰ࢱ࢖ࣉࡢゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺࡀᴫᛕ໬ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᅛᐃⓗ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺࡣゝㄒ⩦ᚓࡣ⏕ࡲࢀࡘࡁࡢᡯ⬟࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ỵᐃࡉࢀࠊ୍᪉ࠊᣑᙇⓗ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺࡣᡯ⬟ࡼࡾࡶດຊࢆ㔜どࡍࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭ
ࢵࢺࡣࠊಶࠎࡢゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳ᪉ࢆ᪉ྥ࡙ࡅࠊ┠ᶆタᐃࢆࡣࡌࡵᏛ⩦᪉␎ࡢ౑⏝ࡸດຊࡢ⥔ᣢ࡟ᙳ㡪ࢆཬࡰࡍࠋࡇࡢすḢᅪ࡛㛤Ⓨࡉࢀࡓ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭ
ࢵࢺᴫᛕࡢጇᙜᛶࠊ㐺ᛶࢆ㸰ࡘࡢᑐ↷ⓗ࡞␗ᩥ໬ᅪࡢᏛ⩦⎔ቃ࡟࠾࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡓࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔࡜᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫ㸯ᖺ⏕ࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡋࡓᑠつᶍ࡞ணഛⓗ◊✲ࡢ⤖ᯝࡣᑐ↷ⓗ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ࣮࢜ࢫࢺࣜ࢔ேᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ඲యⓗ࡞▱⬟࡜ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡜ࡣ୍⥺ࢆ⏬ࡍゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿᅛᐃⓗ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺ
ࢆ᭷ࡋࠊ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡣ඲యⓗ࡞▱⬟ࡸゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ⪃࠼᪉࡜ྠㄪࡍࡿ
ゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿᣑᙇⓗ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺࡢഴྥࡀぢཷࡅࡽࢀࡓࠋࡋ࠿ࡋヲࡋ࠸ศᯒࢆࡍࡍࡵࡿ࡜ࠊ᪥ᮏேᏛ⩦⪅ࡢゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿ࣐࢖ࣥࢻࢭࢵࢺࡣࡼ
ࡾ」㞧࡛ࠊ♫఍ⓗ࡟ᵓ⠏ࡉࢀࡓゝㄒᏛ⩦࡟ᑐࡍࡿᘓ࡚๓ⓗ࡞⪃࠼᪉࡜᫬࡟
ᑐ❧ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋ

Introduction
The origins of this paper lie in an ongoing series of studies (Mercer& Ryan, 2010, 2011; Ryan & Mercer, in press) that attempts to apply an
HVWDEOLVKHGFRQFHSWIURPHGXFDWLRQDOSV\FKRORJ\³PLQGVHWV³WRWKHÀHOGRI 
language learning. Foreign language education has traditionally maintained asomewhat mixed relationship with mainstream educational psychology (seeDörnyei, 2001, 2009; Mercer, Ryan, & Williams, in press), often preferring to
XVHFRQVWUXFWVDQGFRQFHSWVGHYHORSHGZLWKLQWKHVSHFLÀFFRQWH[WRI ODQJXDJH
education at the expense of others more widely recognised in other domains.
With this in mind, in this paper we make a conscious effort to look beyond
UHVHDUFKVSHFLÀFWRODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJDQGUHPDLQDZDUHRI RXUQHHGWRNHHS´DSDFH ZLWK VLJQLÀFDQW GHYHORSPHQWV LQ PDLQVWUHDP SV\FKRORJ\µ 8VKLRGD
in press).
We focus on exploring how the concept of mindsets manifests itself in twovery different language learning contexts. The mindsets construct is largely a
SURGXFWRI UHVHDUFKFRQGXFWHGZLWKLQWKH:HVWHUQRUPRUHVSHFLÀFDOO\1RUWKAmerican, context. We are interested in how such a construct can be applied
7

Ryan & Mercer

in other socio-educational contexts, and in order to do this, we look at thelanguage learning mindsets of English learners in Japan and in Austria.

Theoretical background
The mindsets construct can be traced back to Kelly’s (1955) ideas about
the role of lay theories in how individuals perceive the self and others. In more
recent educational psychology literature, these ideas have been developed
through the concept of implicit theories, which represent the deeply held
beliefs or assumptions about various aspects of the human condition that
ZH DOO KDYH ,Q WKH ÀHOG RI  HGXFDWLRQDO SV\FKRORJ\ WKH FRQFHSW RI  LPSOLFLW
theories of intelligence is most closely associated with the work of Carol
Dweck (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Hong,
Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999; Dweck, 2000, 2006; Dweck & Molden, 2007;
Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). Within SLA literature, this concept
relates most closely to the rich body of theoretical and empirical work (Horwitz,
1987, 1998, 1999; Cotterall, 1995, 1999; Benson & Lor, 1999; Barcelos, 2003;
White, 2008) investigating the relationships between beliefs and language
learning behaviour. While this body of research has contributed much tounderstandings of learners’ belief systems, as we stated in our introduction,
one of our primary objectives in this paper is to orient towards mainstream
educational psychology. Therefore, we have chosen to concentrate primarilyon the implicit theories literature while recognising the potential connections
to the beliefs literature, especially in terms of methodological approaches.
'ZHFNLGHQWLÀHVWZRSULQFLSDOVHWVRI LPSOLFLWWKHRULHVUHODWLQJWROHDUQLQJ
and intelligence: an ‘entity theory’ and an ‘incremental theory’. A person
holding an entity theory regards an individual’s intelligence and capacity to
OHDUQDVEHLQJÀ[HG,QFRQWUDVWDSHUVRQVXEVFULELQJWRDQLQFUHPHQWDOWKHRU\believes that everybody has the capacity to develop their intelligence as it is likeany other muscle that can be built up through purposeful exercise and practice.
We have chosen to employ the more accessible and easily understood term
‘mindsets’ (Dweck, 2006) when referring to the implicit theories framework.

8

Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

8VLQJ WKH PLQGVHWV WHUPLQRORJ\ D À[HG PLQGVHW LV HTXLYDOHQW WR DQ HQWLW\theory and a growth mindset corresponds to an incremental theory. Thereis general agreement in the literature (Henderson & Dweck, 1990; Good,
Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Blackwell et al., 2007) that a growth mindset
WHQGVWRIDFLOLWDWHDFDGHPLFDFKLHYHPHQWDQGWKDWOHDUQHUVPD\EHQHÀWIURP
interventions designed to encourage growth mindsets.
Mindsets represent a set of core beliefs about the nature of ability and its
UROHLQVXFFHVVIXOOHDUQLQJZLWKLQDVSHFLÀFGRPDLQDQGWKLVFRUHXQGHUSLQVthe formation of “a larger system of allied beliefs and goals” (Molden &Dweck, 2006, p. 201). These beliefs are seen as part of a constant backgroundinforming the decisions learners make, connecting to and shaping a wide rangeof variables which “work together as a motivational self-regulatory system”(Robins & Pals, 2002, p. 315). The mindsets framework links aspects of learner
behaviour and motivation that have often been investigated in isolation, suchas self-regulation, learner beliefs, and goal-setting, and suggests ways in which
they may interact.
Language learning mindsets
7ZR EDVLF ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJ PLQGVHWV DUH SURSRVHG D À[HG ODQJXDJH
learning mindset and a growth language learning mindset. A brief outline of
our conceptualisation and how the framework could affect other aspects oflearner behaviour is presented in Figure 1.
Based on our consideration of the mindsets literature, we hypothesise
WKDWDÀ[HGODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJPLQGVHWFRQVWUXFWHGDURXQGDYLHZRI ODQJXDJH
learning in which success is largely determined by one’s innate talent for
languages, is likely to lead to largely maladaptive learning behaviour, such as
avoiding challenges, giving up easily and being discouraged by mistakes. In
contrast, a growth mindset that situates learners as agents of their own learning
is likely to produce effective language learners in classroom settings given thatthey are likely to welcome feedback, be willing to learn from mistakes and
SHUVLVWLQWKHIDFHRI GLIÀFXOWLHV 5\DQ 0HUFHULQSUHVV 

9Ryan & Mercer

Figure 1. Language learning mindsets and their behavioural consequences

Language learning mindsets across cultures
An additional dimension of the mindsets framework that gives cause forboth great excitement and caution is how the concept of language learning
mindsets can be applied across different cultural settings. To what extent canideas developed in one particular context be adapted and made relevant toothers? Cultural differences pose a unique set of problems for any psychologybased theory of language learning behaviour. There is a powerful argument,
articulated most vociferously by the indigenous psychology movement, that
“The generation of psychological knowledge is culture dependent: Boththe conceptualisation of psychological phenomena and the methodology
employed to study them are informed by cultural values and presuppositions”(Ho, Peng, Lai, & Chan, 2001, p. 931).
Cross-cultural psychology research has highlighted differing notions ofintelligence across cultures (Sternberg, 2004, 2007) and different culturally
constructed concepts of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1999; Kitayama,Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). However, some mindsets
research (see Lim, Plucker, & Im, 2002) suggests a high degree of similarity
10Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

between the implicit theories of Asian learners and those from the US. Our aim
is to explore the possibilities suggested by this research to develop a language
learning mindsets framework that is supported by the robust foundations ofconcepts fundamental and common to all language learners, such as aptitude
DQGHIIRUW\HWUHPDLQVÁH[LEOHDQGVHQVLWLYHHQRXJKWRUHÁHFWDQGH[SODLQORFDO
variations.

Methods
ParticipantsThis paper reports on a small-scale exploratory study conducted amongst
English learners in Austria and Japan. A total of 81 university students
SDUWLFLSDWHG7KHSDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHDOOÀUVW\HDUODQJXDJHPDMRUV7KHGHFLVLRQWRIRFXVRQÀUVW\HDUVWXGHQWVZDVLQIRUPHGE\RXUHYDOXDWLRQRI WKHUHODWLYH
educational contexts and a judgement that both sets of learners were at asimilar transitional stage in their language learning careers. It was also felt thatthe common transitional experience of moving from secondary to tertiary
HGXFDWLRQ PD\ UHYHDO SDUWLFLSDQWV DV EHLQJ RSHQ WR UHÁHFWLRQ XSRQ ERWK
themselves and their language learning.
Table 1
Participants in the Questionnaire
Australia

Japan

Both

Male

7 (17.5%)

9 (22%)

16 (19.8%)

Female33 (82.5%)

32 (78%)65 (81.1%)

Total

40

41

81

Instrument
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: closed items and open-ended
items. The closed items reported on in this paper were adapted from the
Implicit Theories of Intelligence scale (Dweck et al., 1995; Dweck, 2000).
All of these items were measured with six-point Likert scales. Two threeitem scales were constructed to measure how far students concurred with aÀ[HG PLQGVHW RU D JURZWK PLQGVHW 7KH VFDOHV DQG WKHLU LQWHUQDO UHOLDELOLW\11

Ryan & MercerFRHIÀFLHQWVDUHJLYHQEHORZ
Table 27KHRULHVRI ,QWHOOLJHQFH4XHVWLRQQDLUH,WHPVDQG5HOLDELOLW\&RHIÀFLHQWVTheories of intelligence (FIXED)њ = .86

Theories of intelligence (GROWTH)
њ = .69

Your intelligence is something thatyou can’t change very much.

It is possible to change even your basic
intelligence level considerably.

To be honest, you can’t really change
how intelligent you are.

No matter who you are, you can change yourintelligence a lot.

You can learn new things, but you can’t
really change your basic intelligence.

You can always greatly change how
intelligent you are

Following on from studies such as Chen and Pajares (2009), we adapted
WKH ,PSOLFLW 7KHRULHV RI  ,QWHOOLJHQFH LWHPV WR VSHFLÀF GRPDLQV RI  OHDUQLQJ
7KHÀUVWWDVNZDVWRGHYHORSLWHPVWKDWORRNHGVSHFLÀFDOO\DWODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJAt this exploratory stage of the research, single items were used to investigate
À[HGDQGJURZWKPLQGVHWVIRUODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJTable 3
Language Learning Questionnaire Items
Language Learning (FIXED)There is no point to trying to learn aforeign language if you don’t have atalent for languages.

Language Learning (GROWTH)
Effort is the secret to success for language
learners.

A further dimension to the questionnaire concerned how these beliefs
about language learning related to beliefs about other domains of learning. In
the questionnaire, we decided to look at two other domains of learning; onearea was athleticism, which is non-academic and often associated with naturalability, and the second was geography, chosen as it is a classroom-based subject
QRWW\SLFDOO\LGHQWLÀHGZLWKDQ\QDWXUDODELOLW\RUWDOHQWThe open-ended items in the questionnaire were included to offer learners
the opportunity to express their own ideas about their beliefs relating tolanguage learning and the origins of those beliefs. These questionnaires were12

Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

then supplemented by a series of semi-structured interviews based on thequestionnaire items. These interviews were recorded, transcribed and codedusing the Atlas.ti data management software package (Mercer and Ryan, 2010).
Table 4
Athleticism and Geography Questionnaire Items
FIXED
Athleticism

In order to become a great
athlete it is necessary to beborn with athletic ability.

Geography Learning People who are good at
geography have a natural talent
for the subject

GROWTH
Effort is much more important
than natural ability if you want
to become a successful athlete.
People who are successful at
geography have usually worked
hard for their success.

Results
The cultural base of language learning mindsets
When we compare the two national groups shown in Table 5, the picture
LVKLJKO\UHYHDOLQJ,I ZHLVRODWHWKHÀJXUHVUHIHUULQJWRJHQHUDOLQWHOOLJHQFH
LW LV SRVVLEOH WR REVHUYH D VLJQLÀFDQWO\ VWURQJHU WHQGHQF\ WRZDUGV EHOLHIV LQ
the power of effort, beliefs indicative of a growth mindset, over beliefs in
WKHYDOXHRI QDWXUDOWDOHQW LHEHOLHIVW\SLFDOIRUDÀ[HGPLQGVHW ZLWKLQWKH
-DSDQHVH JURXS ,Q WKH $XVWULDQ VDPSOH WKHUH LV QR VLJQLÀFDQW GLIIHUHQFH
between the two sets of beliefs for general intelligence. However, when we
PRYHWRWKHVSHFLÀFGRPDLQRI ODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJWKHGLVFUHSDQF\EHWZHHQWKH
two national samples becomes more evident. The Austrian learners display amarked tendency to believe in the value of natural talent, whereas the Japanesegroup appears to set little value on natural talent, strongly favouring a belief in
effort as the key factor.
The Austrian learners appear to tend neither towards a growth mindset nor
DÀ[HGPLQGVHW\HWWKH\UHSRUWDVWURQJWHQGHQF\WRZDUGVDÀ[HGPLQGVHWIRU
language learning and a growth mindset for geography learning. The patternobserved in the Austrian data is consistent with much of the psychology
OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW PLQGVHWV WHQG WR EH GRPDLQVSHFLÀF WKDWPLQGVHWV DERXW VSHFLÀF GRPDLQV RI  OHDUQLQJ H[LVW LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI  HDFK13

Ryan & Mercer

other. However, an examination of the Japanese results reveals a more unusualand somewhat unexpected pattern that requires further investigation and forwhich additional qualitative data may be necessary. In the remainder of thispaper, we will focus on the Japanese data as this appears to present the biggest
FKDOOHQJH WR RXU JRDO RI  DSSO\LQJ WKH FRQFHSW RI  PLQGVHWV WR WKH ÀHOG RI 
language learning.
Table 5
$&RPSDULVRQRI 2YHUDOODQG'RPDLQVSHFLÀF0LQGVHWVIRUWKH7ZR1DWLRQDO*URXSVFixed mindset

Growth mindset

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t

df

Effect Size†

4.77

0.87

2.62

1.21

-8.89**

38

0.67

3.31

1.78

3.84

0.89

-1.82

39

0.08

3.77

1.27

3.85

1.82

-0.22

38

0.00

2.78

1.10

3.63

1.26

2.73*

39

0.16

1.62

0.85

5.03

0.97

14.92**

40

0.84

2.47

0.88

4.53

0.91

-9.98**

40

0.71

3.76

1.22

4.59

1.10

4.14**

38

0.30

Geography 2.22
1.24
* p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001; † eta squared

3.98

1.37

6.25**

40

0.49

Languagelearning
General
AUSTRIA Intelligence
Athleticism

JAPAN

Geography
Languagelearning
GeneralIntelligence
Athleticism

Japanese learners and a socially scripted discourse
One of the great challenges of researching implicit theories is that, byGHÀQLWLRQ LQGLYLGXDOV VWUXJJOH WR DUWLFXODWH WKHP ,W LV FRQFHLYDEOH WKDWindividuals may consciously articulate explicit beliefs that contradict otherdeeply held implicit beliefs. In the Japanese data, there was an overwhelmingly
strong reference to a belief in the importance of hard work and purposeful
effort suggesting a sense of personal agency, an apparently strong growthmindset throughout the data and across domains. This was most succinctly
expressed by one questionnaire respondent thus: “Effort is everything”(written in English by respondent).
Only one person in the Japanese data implied a potential role for natural14

Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

talent, and yet she also claimed that its absence could be overcome by hard
work: “Even if you don’t have a natural sense for languages, if you work hardand use the language every day you are sure to improve” (translation fromJapanese questionnaire).
The literature on Japanese educational values tends to highlight thecentral role of a ganbaru (effort/persistence) theory of learning (Singleton,
1989) therefore perhaps these results should not be surprising. The data
indicate that the Japanese participants are applying their general theories of
OHDUQLQJ WR WKH VSHFLÀF ÀHOG RI  ODQJXDJH OHDUQLQJ WR D PXFK JUHDWHU GHJUHH
than would be suggested by a reading of the psychology literature. We need toconsider why this is occurring and to what extent it challenges our attempts to
DSSO\WKHFRQFHSWRI PLQGVHWVWRWKHÀHOGRI ODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJOne possible explanation may relate to the nature of much language
education in Japan, which is still largely based around teacher-fronted
grammar-translation methodologies valuing the acquisition of vocabulary andstructure through perseverance and painstaking practice. Furthermore, learner
experiences of language education tend to be centred around examinations
that are used to assess one’s overall academic abilities (Brown & Yamashita,1995); therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that in the Japanese context
language learning mindsets are much closer to mindsets for general intelligencethan those observed in the Austrian data. This suggests that the nature of thelocal educational culture appears to be a possible factor in the construction ofmindsets.
7KH VWURQJ IDLWK LQ WKH HIÀFDF\ RI  HIIRUW ZDV VXSSRUWHG E\ DQ LQLWLDO
analysis of the qualitative data. However, the qualitative investigation gave
us the opportunity to explore the issues in greater depth and with moresophistication. We were particularly keen to pursue our interest (Mercer &Ryan, 2010) in the possibility of sub-domains with different beliefs within
VNLOOVSHFLÀFGRPDLQVRI ODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJ,QWKHIROORZLQJH[FHUSWIURPDQ
interview with one of the Japanese learners, the almost monolithic, uniform
picture of a strong belief in the power of effort appears less secure.

15

Ryan & Mercer

I: So which is more important the natural talent or hard work?
R: Hard work. (Laughs) Why? (Laughs) Ahh ... some people, if that
person didn’t... in some cases, people who study hard but they don’t
speak well.
I: Ok, so what’s stopping them speaking well?
R: The brain. Their brain.
In the above exchange, the respondent (R) initially expresses an ostensibly
unequivocal belief in the value of effort, indicative of a growth mindset, butwhen pressed to expand on this and to focus on speaking, she reveals a more
complex picture. Her response that ‘their brain’ is preventing some language
learners from becoming successful suggests that her belief in the power of
HIIRUWLVTXDOLÀHGE\FRQVLGHUDWLRQVRI WKHLQQDWHDELOLWLHVRI WKHLQGLYLGXDO
7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW KHU VXSHUÀFLDOO\ VWURQJ JURZWK PLQGVHW IRU ODQJXDJH
learning does not extend to the sub-domain of speaking, that her core beliefs
IRUOHDUQLQJWRVSHDNDODQJXDJHPD\DFWXDOO\EHPRUHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRI DÀ[HG
mindset.
It is also possible that learners may be responding to questionnaire items
and interview questions based on a schema or scripted discourse about thenature of language learning. This scripted discourse may not be an accurateUHÁHFWLRQRI WKHLURZQPRUHFRPSOH[SHUVRQDOGHHSO\KHOGEHOLHIVV\VWHP
However, lacking either an awareness of their own implicit beliefs or the metalanguage to articulate them, participants appear to fall back on the sociallyscripted discourse which stresses the importance of hard work and effort.

Conclusions
It is important to reiterate the point that the current discussion stems
from a small-scale exploratory study. Based on a knowledge and interest in theliterature from educational psychology, we were keen to explore to what extent
D FRQFHSW GHYHORSHG LQ WKDW ÀHOG FRXOG EH VXFFHVVIXOO\ DSSOLHG WR ODQJXDJH
learning in these two different educational contexts. Our immediate goal was
16

Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

WRH[SORUHWKHYDOLGLW\RI VXFKDQDSSURDFKUDWKHUWKDQPDNHDQ\GHÀQLWLYH
claims.
Conceptual concerns
Although in many respects the data obtained from our questionnaire were
HQFRXUDJLQJ DQG IXOÀOOHG WKH LPPHGLDWH H[SORUDWRU\ DLPV RI  WKH UHVHDUFK
subsequent analysis of the data suggests that our initial conceptualisation ofmindsets, based on the psychology literature, may have emphasised too stark a
GLFKRWRP\EHWZHHQHIIRUWDQGWDOHQW,QGRLQJVRZHPD\KDYHRYHUVLPSOLÀHGthe nature of what appears to be an extremely complex construct. A blind faith
LQHIIRUWRUSHUVLVWHQFHFRXOGDFWXDOO\EHPRUHLQGLFDWLYHRI DÀ[HGPLQGVHWDV
not giving up may represent a means of avoiding any contemplation of failure,
which in turn could pose a threat to the self-concept. Whereas an individualwith a growth mindset would not feel threatened by failure and would be
willing to abandon any unsuccessful strategies or try out fresh approaches. A
true growth mindset must therefore represent more than merely a belief inthe value of effort or persistence; there must also be a strategic component,a willingness on the part of learners to adapt their behaviour. This additional
dimension of mindsets is an area that needs to be investigated in further
UHVHDUFKERWKZLWKLQHGXFDWLRQDOSV\FKRORJ\DQGVSHFLÀFDOO\6/$
$ IXUWKHU UHÀQHPHQW VXJJHVWHG E\ WKH TXDOLWDWLYH GDWD LV WKDW PRUH
attention needs to be focused on differentiating between the sub-domains
within language learning. Our original instrument design presented language
learning as a single entity, yet the data indicate that we need to expand ourconceptualisation of language learning to include various sub-domains, suchas speaking and writing, if we wish to make our research more effective.
$ ÀQDO SRLQW VXJJHVWHG E\ RXU DQDO\VLV LV WKH QHHG WR GHYHORS PRUH
sophisticated, innovative research instruments that allow us to get beyond
possible scripted discourses. Much of the power and potential of the mindsets
construct lies in the fact that these beliefs are so deeply held that individuals
may not be immediately aware of them or able to articulate them. This
presents an obvious challenge for researchers and warns against a dependence
17Ryan & Mercer

on conventional self-report instruments, especially in cases where complex
SHUVRQDOEHOLHI V\VWHPVPD\FRQÁLFWZLWKDQDFFHSWHGVRFLDOLVHGGLVFRXUVH
Cultural context and mindsets
Our analysis of the data pointed to some clear differences between the two
QDWLRQDOVDPSOHV7KH$XVWULDQJURXSDSSHDUVWRKROGPRUHGRPDLQVSHFLÀF
beliefs, an observation consistent with the psychology literature. However, thedata obtained from the Japanese group appeared to challenge some of theassumptions underlying our research, in particular the strong link that we weremaking between a belief in the power of effort and a growth mindset. The
GDWDSRLQWWRPXOWLSOHDQGFRQÁLFWLQJEHOLHIVDQGVXJJHVWWKDWDPRUHFRPSOH[model is needed.
Some of the discrepancies between the Japanese and Austrian data—and
WKHEURDGHUSV\FKRORJ\WKHRU\³PD\EHDFFRXQWHGIRUE\VSHFLÀFIHDWXUHVLQ
the local provision of language education. This suggests that a more contextsensitive understanding of local manifestations of the mindsets framework
is required, one that offers the possibility of exploiting local strengths andresources, as opposed to problematising discrepancies from the ‘norm’.
The complexity of researching mindsets across different cultural settings
presents researchers with considerable methodological challenges, especiallythe challenge of getting beyond the socially scripted discourse of language
OHDUQLQJ 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKH VWURQJ LQÁXHQFH RI  VXFK GHHSO\KHOG EHOLHIVon language learners’ behaviours and the pedagogic possibilities offered bya greater understanding of language learning mindsets mean that this is achallenge that should be high on the agenda for future SLA research.
Stephen Ryan is a professor in the School of Economics at Senshu University, Tokyo.
He is interested in all aspects of language learning psychology, but especially issues of learnermotivation and identity connected to the role of English as a language of globalization.
ryan@isc.senshu-u.ac.jp18Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

Sarah Mercer is a lecturer at the University of Graz, Austria. Her research interests
include all aspects of language learner psychology, in particular affect, beliefs, mindsets andthe self. Recently she has become especially interested in complexity perspectives on these areas.
She is the author of the book Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-concept
and co-editor, with Stephen Ryan and Marion Williams, of Psychology for Language
Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice. sarah.mercer@uni-graz.at
Received: June 17, 2011
Accepted: May 9, 2012

References
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review.
In P. Kalaja, & A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research
approaches (pp. 7-33). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Benson P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning.
System, 27(4), 459-472.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K.H., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Implicit theories
of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: Alongitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Brown, J. D., & Yamashita, O.S. (1995). English language entrance
examinations at Japanese universities: what do we know about them?
JALT Journal, 17(1), 7-30.
Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2009). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6
science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic
motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
35, 75-87.
Chiu, C. -Y., Hong, Y. -Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism andimplicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(1), 19-30.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs.
System, 23(2), 195-205.
19

Ryan & Mercer

Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners
believe about them? System, 27(4), 493-513.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, anddevelopment. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2007). Self theories: Their impact oncompetence motivation and acquisition. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122-140). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (1995). Implicit theories andtheir role in judgements and reactions: A world from two perspectives.
Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents’standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects ofstereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645662.
Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Motivation and achievement.
In S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing
adolescent (pp. 308-329). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ho, D. Y. F., Peng, S., Lai, A. C., & Chan, S. F. (2001). Indigenization andbeyond: Methodological relationalism in the study of personality acrosscultural traditions. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 925-953.
Hong, Y. -Y., Chiu, C. -Y, Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M., & Wan, W. (1999).
Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588-599.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In
A.L. Wenden & J. Robin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp.
119-132). London: Prentice Hall.
20

Language learning mindsets..., OnCUE Journal, 6(1), pages 6-22

Horwitz, E. K. (1998). The beliefs about language learning of beginningforeign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.
+RUZLW](.  &XOWXUDODQGVLWXDWLRQDOLQÁXHQFHVRQIRUHLJQODQJXDJH
learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies.
System, 27(4), 557-576.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997).
Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Selfenhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245-1267.
Lim, W., Plucker, J. A., & Im, K. (2002). We are more alike than we think weare: Implicit theories of intelligence with a Korean sample. Intelligence,30(2), 185-208.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications forcognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 2, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the self: Implications forcognition, emotion, and motivation. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self insocial psychology (pp. 339-367). Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press.
Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about therole of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64(4), 436–444.
Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2011). Advanced learners’ perceptions of effectiveODQJXDJHOHDUQLQJVWUDWHJLHV$UHWKH\¶ÀWIRUSXUSRVH·",Q(6FKZDU]
(Ed.), Impulse zu einer sprachdidaktik im tertiaren bildungsbereich und zur
translationsdidaktik (ideas for language teaching at tertiary level and for translator
training) (pp. 9-32). Graz: GTS - Graz Translation Studies.
Mercer, S., Ryan, S., & Williams, M. (in press). Psychology for language learning:
Insights from theory, research and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding ‘‘meaning” in psychology.
American Psychologist, 61, 192–203.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic
domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and selfesteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313-336.
21

Ryan & Mercer

Ryan, S., & Mercer, S.(2011). Natural talent, natural acquisition and 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: Multilingual Matters.
Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (in press). Implicit theories: Language learning
mindsets. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.) Psychology for
language learning; Insights from theory, research and practice. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Singleton, J. (1989). Gambaru : A Japanese cultural theory of learning. In J. J.
Shields (Ed.), Japanese schooling: Patterns of socialization, equality, and politicalcontrol (pp. 8-15). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5),325-338.
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Who are the bright children? The cultural context of
being and acting intelligent. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 148-155.
Ushioda, E. (in press). Motivation: L2 learning as a special case? In S.
Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.) Psychology for language learning:
Insights from theory, research and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
:KLWH&  %HOLHIVDQGJRRGODQJXDJHOHDUQHUV,Q&*ULIÀWKV (G ,Lessons from good language learners (pp. 121-130). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

22