Learner Mindset Meaning Systems in Japanese Higher Education: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

High-stakes, test-driven education can discourage academic engagement by promoting fixed views of intelligence. This study explored Japanese university students’ learner mindset meaning systems (LMMS) to understand how they shape beliefs about intelligence, effort, mistakes, and failure. Conducted as a longitudinal qualitative case study within a 16-week English for Academic Purposes course at a top national university, the research used weekly reflections and post-course interviews to examine students’ interpretations of academic experiences. Template analysis revealed clear differences: growth mindset– oriented students interpreted challenges as opportunities for improvement, responded to failure with reflection and persistence, and demonstrated increasing resilience. In contrast, fixed mindset–oriented students linked setbacks to personal inadequacy and were more likely to avoid risk due to fear of judgment. Students’ LMMS were shaped by multiple sociocultural influences, including parents, teachers, peers, media, and cram school environments. These belief systems strongly influenced motivation, emotional responses, and academic behavior. The findings suggest that fixed views of intelligence in high-pressure academic contexts can undermine confidence, increase performance anxiety, and reduce student engagement. In contrast, supportive learning environments that normalize struggle and value effort can encourage more adaptive learning behaviors. This study contributes to understanding how mindset beliefs operate in a non-Western context and highlights the need for classroom practices and institutional cultures that support the development of growth-oriented mindsets.

Keywords: Learner mindsetgrowth mindsetuniversityJapan

Introduction

A primary goal of institutional education is to facilitate students' learning and prepare them for academic and future success (Dweck et al., 2014; Farrington et al., 2012). Yet in recent years, educators and stakeholders have voiced growing concern that students are not being adequately equipped with both the academic capabilities and dispositions that support motivation and resilience needed for long-term learning in a rapidly evolving world (Lucas & Spencer, 2018). Echoing these concerns, colleges and employers continue to report that incoming students “are woefully underprepared for what is needed of them to be successful” (Martin, 2021, p. 54). Historically, educational systems have emphasized cognitive skill development, especially as measured by intelligence tests and academic performance, forming the basis of policy worldwide (Datu et al., 2016; Wanzer et al., 2019). These policies often focus on raising academic standards through rigorous curricula and standardized assessments—such as high-stakes tests—and rely on performance indicators like grade point average (GPA) to predict students’ academic and future success (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; Farrington et al., 2012). Underlying these practices is the belief that content mastery signifies readiness for higher education and career success. As a result, standardized testing has become a central feature of institutional education, shaping school curricula and influencing the skills teachers prioritize and students are expected to acquire (Watson, 2019). With accountability policies in place, instructors often feel pressured to “teach to the test,” leading to an overemphasis on rote memorization and performance comparisons among students (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). However, researchers have increasingly questioned the assumptions underlying these policies, arguing they promote a narrow and misguided view of which academic and social competencies should be valued (Datu et al., 2016; Dweck et al., 2014). Recent U.S. data reveal a troubling decline in students’ motivation, engagement, and attitudes toward learning (Dweck & Yeager, 2019), with many feeling “disengaged, stressed, depressed, and burned out” (Martin, 2021, p. 53). One contributing factor is that students begin to equate academic results not as a reflection of their current level, but as evidence of fixed, lifelong intelligence/ability (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). A consequence of this fixed view is that students who struggle academically often become discouraged, gradually losing confidence and disengaging from the learning process (Martin, 2021). This can lead to lower performance, as unmotivated students tend to study less, underperform, and avoid challenging coursework—creating a vicious self-reinforcing cycle (Yeager et al., 2014). Left unaddressed, this pattern can compound over time, resulting in “a serious loss of human potential” (Dweck et al., 2014,

p. 2), with lasting consequences for students’ academic and life outcomes. Because meaningful learning depends on a belief in growth through effort, educational policies that emphasize fixed outcomes over development may ultimately hinder student success (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). Academic achievement is multifaceted and cannot be explained by cognitive ability alone, as students often respond differently to similar academic challenges, even in standardized settings (Lucas & Spencer, 2018). These differences highlight a key factor often overlooked in policy and curricula: students’ mindset toward learning (Limeri et al., 2020). Research increasingly shows that mindsets play an equally —if not more—important role in academic success (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014; Weissberg et al., 2015), and that fostering positive mindset development can improve educational outcomes (e.g., Dweck et al., 2014; Farruggia et al., 2018). Thus, student success requires more than content mastery or high test scores; students also must be equipped with the mindsets needed to navigate and overcome the diverse academic and real-world challenges they will encounter (Bernardo et al., 2016; Lucas & Spencer, 2018). Students’ mindset beliefs—specifically whether they view intelligence as fixed or improvable— shape their motivation, learning behavior, and persistence (e.g., Dweck, 2017; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). These beliefs form broader meaning systems that influence how students interpret effort, setbacks, and failure. Yet despite their impact on student outcomes, mindset development remains largely overlooked in mainstream educational policy and practice. Furthermore, while decades of research support the influence of mindset beliefs on academic behavior and performance, most studies have focused on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) populations, with limited exploration of how these beliefs manifest and operate in other cultural contexts—particularly East Asia—where differing sociocultural norms may shape students’ thinking in important ways. This qualitative study addresses this gap by investigating how Japanese university students interpret their academic experiences through the lens of fixed and growth mindset beliefs. Situated in a high-level English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course, it examines how students’ beliefs about intelligence, effort, mistakes, and failure are shaped by personal experience and sociocultural context—and how these beliefs influence their academic motivation, engagement, and identity. Drawing on students’ reflections and lived experiences, this study deepens understanding of how learner mindset meaning systems manifest and operate in a non-WEIRD cultural setting.

Literature Review

A growing body of research in psychology and education—led by Carol Dweck and others—has shown that students’ academic motivation, persistence, and achievement are strongly shaped by their beliefs about learning, often referred to as learner mindsets (e.g., Dweck, 2017; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017). Rooted in the cognitive perspective, this concept emphasizes that learning and development occur primarily within the individual through changes in thinking, knowledge, and skills. Dweck’s research showed that students’ beliefs about the malleability of intelligence and ability influence their motivation and learning behaviors. Students with a fixed mindset view intelligence as an innate and unchangeable trait—something one either has or does not. Success confirms natural ability, while failure signals a lack of it. Because they see effort as unlikely to change outcomes, hard work may even be perceived as evidence that they lack ability. In contrast, students with a growth mindset believe intelligence/ability can always be developed through effort, effective strategies, and learning from mistakes. These beliefs shape how students respond to academic challenges: while a dominant GM-orientation fosters persistence, adaptability, and a willingness to learn from failure, a dominant FM-orientation often leads students to avoid difficulty and give up easily—especially when they fear failure reflects their innate ability. Over time, these patterns can lead to significantly different academic outcomes, even among students with similar potential (e.g., Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Yeager & Dweck, 2020).

Fixed and growth learner mindset meaning systems

Students’ beliefs about learning are shaped by an interrelated set of factors, including how they attribute success and failure (e.g., to effort or innate ability; Smiley et al., 2016; Yeager & Dweck, 2020), how they view effort (productive or pointless; Dweck et al., 2014; Yeager & Dweck, 2012), the types of goals they pursue (mastery vs. performance; Dweck, 2017; Yeager & Dweck, 2020), and their emotional and behavioral responses to challenges (mastery-oriented vs. helpless; Cury et al., 2006; Limeri et al., 2020). Together, these beliefs make up a distinct learner mindset meaning system (LMMS), which guides how students interpret their abilities and respond emotionally and behaviorally to academic challenges. These systems exist along a continuum, with fixed and growth mindsets at opposite ends and blended beliefs in between (Dweck & Yeager, 2019; Lou & Noels, 2019; see Figure 1).

See Full Size >

Building on these distinctions, LMMSs offer a useful lens for understanding students’ varied responses to similar academic challenges, as they shape how students interpret effort, feedback, and setbacks, ultimately influencing motivation, goals, and achievement (e.g., Lou & Noels, 2019; Yeager & Dweck, 2020; see Figure 2).

See Full Size >

Despite decades of neuroscience research demonstrating the brain’s lifelong malleability (e.g., Dubinsky, 2010; Faulkner et al., 2008), many students still mistakenly believe intelligence is largely determined by genetics and that effort cannot meaningfully improve their academic potential (Willis, 2010). This misconception reinforces a FM meaning system, which views intelligence and ability as innate and unchangeable traits. Students with a strong FM often attribute success to being naturally "smart" and interpret failure as a reflection of inherent inadequacy. Within this belief system, effort is frequently seen as a sign of low ability—something required only by those who lack talent—and is therefore viewed as largely ineffective (Dweck et al., 2014; Yeager & Dweck, 2020). This can trigger a cascade of limiting beliefs and behaviors that ultimately undermine academic performance. These students typically pursue performance or avoidance goals—aiming to validate their ability or avoid situations where they might fail or appear incompetent (Yeager & Dweck, 2020). As a result, they become preoccupied with how others perceive them, often prioritizing the appearance of competence over actual growth. This self-validation motive can heighten anxiety, particularly in high-pressure settings where the risk of negative evaluation is high (Dweck, 2017; Robins & Pals, 2002). Because failure is seen as a reflection of who they are—not just what they did—FM-oriented students are especially fragile in the face of setbacks. They may reject constructive feedback, avoid effort to protect their self-esteem, or compare themselves to less capable peers to preserve a sense of competence (e.g., Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). Over time, repeated setbacks can reinforce the belief that success is beyond their control, leading to reduced motivation, learned helplessness, and eventual disengagement from learning (Dweck, 2017; Dweck & Yeager, 2019). In contrast, students with a GM-orientation view intelligence and ability as qualities that can be developed through effort, strategy, and learning over time. As such, their meaning system includes effort- as-positive beliefs, a tendency to attribute outcomes to controllable factors like persistence and study habits, and a preference for mastery goals over performance comparisons (Lou & Noels, 2019; Yeager & Dweck, 2020). Rather than focusing on performance or avoiding failure, they prioritize developing competence and understanding through sustained effort and reflection. These students often embrace and even enjoy challenging tasks, seeing them as essential for growth and self-improvement (e.g., Dweck, 2017), and are more likely to believe in what Blackwell et al. (2007) called “the utility of effort versus the futility of effort given difficulty or low ability” (p. 247). Setbacks are not seen as threats to self-worth but instead as constructive feedback that offer valuable insights for improvement (e.g., Robins & Pals, 2002). This mindset also fosters emotional resilience and sustained motivation, encouraging students to adjust strategies, seek support, and invest continued effort over time (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Even when success is not immediate, they remain engaged, guided by the belief that meaningful progress comes through overcoming difficulty. In short, FM and GM beliefs form distinct meaning systems that shape how students interpret effort, setbacks, and ability—resulting in markedly different patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior throughout the learning process (Lou & Noels, 2019; Yeager & Dweck, 2020). While a FM-orientation is often linked to maladaptive academic beliefs and behaviors, a GM-orientation fosters resilience, mastery goals, and productive learning habits (Dweck & Yeager, 2019). Importantly, research has shown that a GM-orientation can be developed through explicit instruction and supportive environments, improving student outcomes over time. This suggests all students have the potential to adopt a GM with the right guidance. The implications of this are far-reaching: resilience is essential not only for academic success but also for long-term well-being, and even high-potential students may struggle when operating within an FM- orientation (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2017).

Method

Data collection and analysis

This study utilized two qualitative data sources: weekly reflective writings and end-of-semester semi-structured interviews.

 

Reflective writing

The primary data consisted of student weekly reflective writings for each learning module submitted via Google Documents in a private Google Classroom throughout the 16-week Seminar (Figure 3). They included open-ended prompts exploring students’ beliefs, experiences, and behaviors. Responses averaged 1,000 words per student. As English language learners, this format allowed respondents to express their thoughts at their own pace, reducing language anxiety and supporting deeper reflection. It also aligned with the Seminar’s goal of encouraging metacognitive awareness and the practical application of course concepts. Additionally, these writings provided an indirect means of observing students' beliefs and habits (Yin, 2018).

See Full Size >

 

End-of-semester semi-structured interviews

In the final week, students completed a 10–15-minute Zoom interview. Questions were provided in advance to reduce anxiety. The semi-structured format followed a set of open-ended questions, while allowing for follow-up questions to elicit richer responses and clarify key insights. Interviews were recorded using Zoom, with the videos for the purposefully selected participants transcribed using Otter.ai.

 

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using a type of thematic analysis, Template Analysis (TA), which balances deductive and inductive approaches, integrating theoretical concepts while remaining open to new insights (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Brooks et al., 2015). TA was selected for its flexibility in refining coding structures throughout analysis. Initial a priori categories were derived from the Seminar’s module topics and the theoretical framework of LMMS. Coding was both inductive and deductive, using in vivo and values coding to center participants’ perspectives (Saldaña, 2013). The coding process was iterative, with each new data subset compared to the evolving coding framework and revised as needed to ensure comprehensive representation. MAXQDA was used to code, organize, and refine themes Qualitative analysis of students’ reflective writings and final interviews centered around three core areas of the LMMS: (1) intelligence and effort, (2) mistakes, and (3) failures. These categories, drawn from the study’s theoretical framework, structured the analysis. Within each, data were coded for GM and FM beliefs and behaviors, along with emerging themes reflecting students’ lived experiences and the social influences that shaped their mindset beliefs. Participant quotes are included to illustrate key themes, with selections chosen for depth and insight rather than frequency (Patton, 2015). To indicate prevalence, “a number” and “some” refer to common responses, while “several” and “a few” reflect less frequent perspectives. These terms are used interpretively to convey variation without quantifying. Many students displayed a stronger tendency toward either a FM or GM. To reflect this, “FM-oriented” and “GM-oriented” are used to indicate respondents’ dominant patterns of thinking in a given context, without implying fixed traits or deficiencies. Since mindsets exist on a continuum and shift in response to experience and social influence, these terms capture broad tendencies while acknowledging their dynamic nature. The tables below present key themes and exemplar quotes illustrating participants’ perspectives.

Results

Category 1: Students’ intelligence & effort beliefs/practices

 

GM-Oriented

GM-oriented students' reflections revealed two key themes: (1) intelligence can grow through effort, and (2) persistence leads to success regardless of innate ability. While some acknowledged natural talent, most emphasized motivation and perseverance as the primary drivers of academic progress.

See Full Size >

Many students described gaining confidence and resilience through effortful learning, often contrasting natural ability with the benefits of persistence. Although some acknowledged innate differences, they consistently viewed effort as the key to long-term success. These reflections highlight how GM- oriented LMMSs emphasize malleability, sustained effort, and growth through challenge.

 

FM-Oriented

However, some students expressed a FM-orientation, believing intelligence is innate and largely unchangeable. They described ability as genetically determined, using terms like “natural intelligence” and “talent.” Comparing themselves to their “naturally” gifted peers reinforced this perspective and made them less likely to view effort as a means of improvement.

See Full Size >

Viewing intelligence as predetermined, FM-oriented students placed limited value on hard work, believing success stemmed from inborn traits. This perspective discouraged persistence, reduced academic confidence, and made them less likely to embrace challenges or strive for improvement.

 

Key influential socializers and lived experiences KIS 1: Friends/Peers

Students frequently reflected on significant lived experiences and key influential socializers (KIS) that shaped their beliefs about intelligence and effort. Overall, five categories emerged: friends/peers, family, teachers, athletes, and popular media.

Friends and peers were among the most frequently cited KIS, particularly those who demonstrated strong work ethic and commitment to their goals. GM-oriented students often admired peers who, despite already being high achievers, continued to put in significant effort. Conversely, FM-oriented students made negative comparisons, attributing peer success to innate talent rather than effort, which undermined their confidence.

See Full Size >

Peers shaped students’ beliefs in contrasting ways. While GM-oriented students viewed hardworking peers as motivating role models, reinforcing their belief that intelligence/ability grows through effort, FM-oriented students instead tended to interpret peer success as evidence of fixed intelligence— shaping their academic confidence, motivation, and resilience.

KIS 2-5: Family, Teachers, Athletes, and Popular Media Beyond peers, students identified family, teachers, athletes, and media figures as KIS all positively influencing their beliefs about intelligence/effort. These key socializers all reinforced the idea that sustained effort leads to success.

See Full Size >

These socializers shaped students’ views in distinct but complementary ways. Family members often modeled persistence and encouraged sustained effort. Teachers emphasized disciplined practice and sustained effort in learning, while role model athletes embodied that success is earned through discipline, not talent. Lastly, fictional characters served as sources of motivation and inspiration by portraying resilience in the face of adversity. Together, these KIS helped strengthen students’ GM-oriented beliefs.

Category 2: Beliefs and responses to mistakes

The second major difference in students’ LMMS involved their beliefs and responses to mistakes. GM-oriented students viewed mistakes as a natural and essential part of learning, especially as tools for improvement and resilience-building. Two core themes emerged: learning from mistakes to avoid repeating them, and using mistakes to develop perseverance. In contrast, FM-oriented students tended to interpret mistakes as signs of personal inadequacy, triggering embarrassment, loss of confidence, and fear of judgment, which often led to avoidance and disengagement from academic tasks and learning opportunities.

 

GM-oriented

Many GM-oriented students described mistakes as valuable opportunities to deepen understanding, refine strategies, and strengthen adaptability.

See Full Size >

GM-oriented students used mistakes to pinpoint weaknesses, revise their learning strategies, and build confidence through persistence. Some tracked errors to prevent repeating them, while others saw mistakes as necessary stepping stones toward success. They believed that discomfort or embarrassment of mistakes risked hindering their growth. Thus, rather than threats to self-worth, for these students’ mistakes were reframed as essential experiences that contributed to both academic and personal development.

 

FM-Oriented

Conversely, FM-oriented students viewed mistakes as inherently negative, often associating them to embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of social judgment. Many traced these beliefs to past academic experiences, a results-driven education system, and cultural pressures, which led to avoidance of mistakes and reduced academic participation, risk-taking, and confidence.

FM-oriented students associated mistakes with personal inadequacy, which discouraged participation or attempting academic challenges. These beliefs were often rooted in past schooling experiences where mistakes were seen as judgements of ability rather than learning opportunities. Believing intelligence was fixed, they often compared themselves to others to gauge self-worth, resulting in heightened social anxiety and an aversion to making mistakes publicly. High-achieving students especially struggled with mistakes later in their academic lives, having faced few setbacks earlier and thus lacking strategies to cope. In some cases, fear became overwhelming, leading to withdrawal or giving up altogether. Contextual factors—such as emotional climate, classroom norms, and perceived peer support—also shaped whether students felt safe to participate. Cultural expectations also played a role. Some participants expressed concern about causing meiwaku—a culturally significant Japanese concept of burdening others —and became overly self-conscious that their mistakes might inconvenience classmates or disrupt the class, which discouraged participation. Students also described shifting views over time. In secondary school, where there was often one correct answer, mistakes were seen as personal shortcomings. At university, however, particularly in classrooms with supportive teachers and collaborative atmospheres, mistakes were reframed as opportunities for learning, with greater emphasis on expressing and developing ideas rather than producing a single correct answer.

See Full Size >

Category 3: Beliefs and Responses to Failure

 

GM-Oriented

The final key difference in students’ LMMS concerned their perceptions and responses to failure —a theme that appeared more frequently than any other, underscoring the importance these beliefs had on students’ academic experiences. GM-oriented students expressed three main perspectives: the importance of reflecting on failure to support growth and future success, managing and overcoming the negative emotions tied to failure, and holding optimistic or indifferent beliefs about how others perceived their failures.

GM-oriented students saw failure as essential to learning and long-term development. They used it to reflect on mistakes, refine strategies, and build resilience. Some also noted that failure helped prevent overconfidence, keeping them humble and focused on growth. Participants also emphasized the importance of emotional coping. While many initially experienced frustration or disappointment, they ultimately redirected those emotions toward improvement. Some processed emotions independently through reflection or goal-setting, while others relied on encouragement from peers or mentors. A final distinction was how students believed others perceived their failures. Participants generally felt that others were supportive or unconcerned. This normalization of failure reduced fear of judgment and helped them stay focused on learning and progress.

See Full Size >

 

FM-oriented

In contrast, FM-oriented students viewed failure as a reflection of personal inadequacy, leading to diminished confidence, social embarrassment, and ongoing emotional distress. Many also exhibited perfectionistic tendencies and feared judgment from others, making them particularly sensitive to failure and prone to self-criticism.

See Full Size >

For many FM-oriented students, failure triggered intense emotions such as shame, discouragement, and self-doubt. Rather than using setbacks to improve, they often saw them as proof of inadequacy. Perfectionistic students especially struggled, interpreting even minor failures in rigid, all-or-nothing terms that deepened their emotional distress and negatively impacted their confidence. Many were also highly concerned with how others perceived their failures, fearing judgment, ridicule, or disappointing those who expected them to succeed. This fear discouraged vulnerability, risk-taking, and help-seeking. Overall, FM- oriented students viewed failure as a threat to both self-worth and social standing. Their fear of judgment and difficulty separating failure from identity reduced their willingness to engage with challenges, limiting resilience and academic development.

Discussion

This study examined how Japanese university students’ LMMS manifested across academic contexts. Participant responses reflected a range of orientations, with GM- and FM-oriented students expressing contrasting beliefs about intelligence, effort, and responses to academic challenges, mistakes, and failures. These differences shaped their motivation, attitudes, and behaviors. Consistent with prior research, the findings suggest that LMMS significantly influence academic engagement and performance (e.g., Dweck, 2017; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017).

Conclusion

Learner mindset beliefs fundamentally shape how students think, feel, and act in academic settings. This study offers insight into how these beliefs manifest in Japanese higher education, highlighting how students’ interpretations of effort, mistakes, and failure—whether as threats or opportunities—are deeply rooted in their underlying views of intelligence and ability. Overall, GM-oriented students demonstrated greater resilience, persistence, and motivation, while FM-oriented students were more likely to disengage due to fear of judgment or self-doubt. These findings underscore the powerful influence of LMMS in shaping academic engagement and performance. In restrictive, test-driven environments, students may internalize narrow definitions of intelligence, which can foster performance anxiety, diminish confidence, and reduce motivation. In contrast, learning environments that normalize struggle and value effort help promote beliefs that growth is possible, failure can be instructive, and ability is not fixed. Educators play a central role in shaping these beliefs through their expectations, classroom culture, and the messages they communicate about learning and success. When teachers model a love of learning, demonstrate care for students as unique individuals, and encourage persistence, they help cultivate learner mindsets that support both academic achievement and long-term personal growth. Understanding how students perceive their academic experiences—and what beliefs those experiences reinforce—is essential to creating environments that support every student’s capacity to grow.

Author Contributions

The author confirms sole responsibility for the study conception and design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript preparation, and final approval of the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Indiana Institutional Review Board (Protocol # 2002564806).

Funding

The author declares that there is no funding received for this research.

References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing

• Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10(3), 378-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230001000308

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Bernardo, A., Esteban, M., Fernández, E., Cervero, A., Tuero, E., & Solano, P. (2016). Comparison of personal, social and academic variables related to university drop-out and persistence. Frontiers in psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01610

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners

• Brooks, J., McCluskey, S., Turley, E., & King, N. (2015). The utility of template analysis in qualitative psychology research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.)

• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4 th edition)

• Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666-679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Datu, J. A. D., Valdez, J. P. M., & King, R. B. (2016). Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the short grit scale in a collectivist setting. Current Psychology, 35(1), 121-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9374-2

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research

• Dubinsky, J. (2010). Neuroscience education for prekindergarten-12 teachers. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(24), 8057-8060. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2322-10.2010

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Dweck, C. S. (2017). Mindset. Updated edition: Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential

• Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A View from Two Eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Dweck, C. S., Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2014). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote long-term learning. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

• Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance

• Farruggia, S. P., Han, C. W., Watson, L., Moss, T. P., & Bottoms, B. L. (2018). Noncognitive factors and college student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(3), 308-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116666539

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Faulkner, R., Jang, M., Liu, X., Duan, X., Sailor, K. A., Kim, J. Y., Ge, S., Jones, E. G., Ming, G. L., Song, H., & Cheng, H. J. (2008). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Development of hippocampal mossy fiber synaptic outputs by new neurons in the adult brain, 105(37), 14157-14162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806658105

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). The origins of children's growth and fixed mindsets: New research and a new proposal. Child development, 88(6), 1849-1859. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12955

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Limeri, L. B., Carter, N. T., Choe, J., Harper, H. G., Martin, H. R., Benton, A., & Dolan, E. L. (2020). Growing a growth mindset: Characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00227-2

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. System, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2018). Developing Tenacity: Teaching learners how to persevere in the face of difficulty (Pedagogy for a Changing World series)

• Martin, K. (2021). Evolving education: Shifting to a learner-centered paradigm

• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation

• Murphy, F., & Gash, H. (2020). I Can’t Yet and Growth Mindset. Constructivist Foundations, 15(2), 83-94. https://constructivist.info/15/2/083

• Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self-theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207312960

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.)

• Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(4), 313-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers

• Smiley, P. A., Buttitta, K. V., Chung, S. Y., Dubon, V. X., & Chang, L. K. (2016). Mediation models of implicit theories and achievement goals predict planning and withdrawal after failure. Motivation and Emotion, 40(6), 878-894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9575-5

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Tsunekawa, K. (2023). Never Allowed to Fail? The Unspoken Culture of the Japanese. TsunaguJapan. https://www.tsunagujapan.com/behind-the-stereotype-what-is-japan-really-like/

• Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S., & Young, T. (2018). Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15- year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Wanzer, D., Postlewaite, E., & Zargarpour, N. (2019). Relationships among noncognitive factors and academic performance: Testing the University of Chicago Consortium on School Research model. AERA Open, 5(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419897275

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Watson, K. M. (2019). The Operationalization of Integrated Internal Action Frameworks for Classroom Identity Development and Self-regulating Learners. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 25(2), 2948-2976. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.257

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, T. P. Gullotta, & J. Comer (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice (pp. 3-19)

• Willis, J. (2010). Assessment for learning as a participative pedagogy. Assessment Matters, 2, 65-84. https://doi.org/10.18296/am.0079

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Woodman, K. (2023). Japan Under Pressure: When Social Pressure Becomes Too Strong. Living in Japan. https://jobsinjapan.com/living-in-japan-guide/japan-under-pressure-when-social-pressure-becomes-too-strong/

• Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75 (9), 1269-1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., D’Mello, S., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Spitzer, B. J., & Duckworth, A. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self- regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 559-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037637

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage