Exploring the interplay of language mindsets, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceived proficiency in L2 learning

Prior research shows learners’ beliefs shape motivation, engagement, and outcomes in second/foreign language (L2) learning. Language mindsets—beliefs about the malleability of language-relevant abilities—have been influential, but most studies have examined their effects in isolation from related constructs such as self-efficacy. This study targets the motivational dynamics among language mindsets, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceived proficiency (PP). PP reflects students’ subjective judgments of their skills and can more strongly drive motivation and behavior than objective proficiency. The study shifts emphasis from actual achievement to PP to explore how beliefs and self-beliefs translate into motivational outcomes. Research questions: (RQ1) How are language mindsets related to self-efficacy, engagement, and PP? (RQ2) What indirect effects do language mindsets have on engagement and PP through self-efficacy?

Language mindsets: Mindsets encompass beliefs about whether personal qualities (e.g., aptitude, intelligence) are fixed or malleable. In L2 contexts, the Language Mindset Inventory (Lou & Noels, 2017) captures beliefs about general language intelligence, language aptitude, and age sensitivity. Growth mindsets are linked to persistence and adaptive responses; fixed mindsets relate to avoidance and giving up. Evidence supports considering both fixed and growth components and examining domain-general vs domain-specific mindsets. Studies show mixed but generally positive associations between growth mindsets and language outcomes, with a multilevel meta-analysis (Shirvan et al., 2024) finding growth mindset positively related to L2 outcomes (r=0.26) and fixed mindset negatively (r=-0.19). Domain-general growth mindsets sometimes show consistent predictive value across contexts. Self-efficacy: Distinct from mindsets, self-efficacy concerns judgments of capability to accomplish tasks (Bandura, 1997). It regulates motivation and behaviors and is strongly associated with L2 motivation and achievement. Evidence suggests growth mindsets can bolster self-efficacy (Jourden et al., 1991; Zarrinabadi et al., 2022). Some studies find both growth mindset and self-efficacy predict strategy use and achievement, with self-efficacy often the stronger predictor (Fathi et al., 2024). The mediating role of self-efficacy between mindsets and outcomes remains underexplored in L2. Engagement and perceived proficiency (PP): Engagement reflects energy, dedication, and absorption in learning and relates to mindsets and other regulatory constructs. Growth mindsets can influence engagement via motivational pathways, with situational factors moderating effects. PP, learners’ self-ratings of proficiency, correlates with intrinsic motivation and may more strongly predict intrinsic motivation than actual achievement (Tanaka, 2023). PP likely interacts with mindsets, but its relationship to language mindsets has been understudied. This study examines how mindsets, self-efficacy, and engagement together shape PP to illuminate motivational mechanisms in L2 learning.

Design: Cross-sectional survey with path analysis to examine direct and indirect relationships among variables. Participants: N=257 Korean university students (118 male, 139 female; mean age=19.81, SD=1.86) from three universities (Seoul, Gangneung, Gyeongbuk). English was a required course. Average PP suggested low-intermediate proficiency across skills (overall M=3.26, SD=0.97 on 1–6 scale). Instruments: (a) Perceived proficiency (PP) in reading, writing, listening, speaking via single-item self-ratings per skill on a 6-point scale. (b) Language Mindsets Inventory (Lou & Noels, 2017): nine-item growth and nine-item fixed subscales covering general language intelligence, language aptitude, and age sensitivity. (c) Self-efficacy: five items adapted from Bong (2001) targeting confidence in English course tasks. (d) Engagement: nine items adapted from Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya (2014) capturing energy, dedication, absorption. Mindsets, self-efficacy, and engagement used a 6-point agreement scale. All items were translated into Korean and reviewed by instructors. Procedures: Four English instructors (including the author) administered the online survey after class (~10 minutes) with informed consent. Participation was voluntary and incentivized with a small gift. Data analysis: SPSS 25 used for descriptives, reliabilities, correlations; exploratory factor analyses (principal axis factoring, direct oblimin) to assess construct validity. LISREL 8.80 used for path analysis with maximum likelihood estimation. Hypothesized model specified self-efficacy and engagement as mediators between language mindsets and PP; the direct fixed mindset→PP path was omitted based on prior literature.

Construct validity: EFA supported two-factor structures for mindsets (growth vs fixed; 52.50% variance explained; all 9 growth items on Factor 1; 8/9 fixed items on Factor 2) and for self-efficacy vs engagement (57.55% variance; all items loaded cleanly). PP across four skills loaded as a single factor (55.62% variance). Descriptives and reliability (6-point scales): Growth mindset M=4.69 (SD=0.92), Fixed mindset M=2.81 (SD=0.88), Self-efficacy M=4.09 (SD=0.95), Engagement M=3.55 (SD=1.04), PP M=3.26 (SD=0.97). Internal consistencies ≥0.82 for all. Correlations (r): Growth with fixed r=-0.46 (p<.01); growth with self-efficacy r=0.55, with engagement r=0.33, with PP r=0.25 (all p<.01). Fixed with self-efficacy r=-0.23 (p<.01), non-significant with engagement and PP. Self-efficacy with engagement r=0.50, with PP r=0.47 (p<.01). Model fit: Excellent fit: χ²/df=0.45 (p>.50), CFI=1.00, RMSEA=0.001, SRMR=0.008. Direct effects (standardized, t): Growth→Self-efficacy β=0.56 (t=9.43***), Growth→Engagement β=0.15 (t=2.15*), Growth→PP β=-0.02 (ns); Fixed→Self-efficacy β=0.03 (ns), Fixed→Engagement β=0.15 (t=2.55*); Self-efficacy→Engagement β=0.46 (t=7.15***), Self-efficacy→PP β=0.40 (t=5.63***); Engagement→PP β=0.15 (t=2.42*). R²: Self-efficacy=0.30; Engagement=0.28; PP=0.26. Indirect effects (standardized, t): Growth→Engagement via Self-efficacy β=0.25 (t=5.69***); Growth→PP via Self-efficacy and Engagement β=0.29 (t=6.01***); Self-efficacy→PP via Engagement β=0.07 (t=2.30*). Fixed mindset showed no significant indirect effects to Engagement or PP. Key takeaways: Growth mindset did not directly predict PP but influenced PP fully via self-efficacy (and partially via engagement). Self-efficacy was the strongest proximal predictor of both engagement and PP. Fixed mindset related negatively to self-efficacy and only weakly, positively to engagement; it had no meaningful links to PP.

The findings address RQ1 by showing that a domain-general growth mindset is strongly associated with higher self-efficacy and modestly higher engagement, while not directly predicting perceived proficiency (PP). Self-efficacy, in contrast, robustly predicts both engagement and PP, underscoring its central role in L2 motivational processes. Fixed mindset is negatively related to self-efficacy and only weakly positively related to engagement, with no relation to PP. For RQ2, the study demonstrates that self-efficacy mediates the influence of growth mindset on engagement and fully mediates growth mindset’s effect on PP. Engagement further provides a small, additional pathway from self-efficacy to PP. Introducing growth mindset as an antecedent strengthens the indirect pathway to PP relative to self-efficacy and engagement alone. These results position growth mindset as an initiator of adaptive motivational processes, with self-efficacy serving as the key mechanism translating beliefs about malleability into confident action and improved self-perceptions of proficiency. The unexpected positive link between fixed mindset and engagement likely reflects different engagement motives (e.g., externally driven) and warrants caution given the cross-sectional design. Overall, the study highlights mindsets as deep-seated beliefs shaping self-regulation and emphasizes building self-efficacy to convert growth-oriented beliefs into engagement and higher PP.

This study examined how language mindsets, self-efficacy, engagement, and perceived proficiency (PP) interrelate in Korean EFL university students. It shows that growth mindset initiates beneficial motivational processes by enhancing self-efficacy, which in turn increases engagement and improves PP. Self-efficacy is the primary proximal determinant of engagement and PP, and it fully mediates the link between growth mindset and PP. Pedagogically, fostering growth-oriented beliefs alongside structured opportunities to build self-efficacy (e.g., mastery experiences, constructive feedback) can strengthen students’ engagement and positive self-perceptions of proficiency. Future research directions include: (a) larger and more diverse samples to improve generalizability; (b) mixed-methods approaches to enrich understanding of PP; (c) examining domain-specific mindsets (e.g., reading, speaking) and their distinct relations with PP in skill areas; and (d) longitudinal and intervention studies to evaluate the sustained impact of growth mindset cultivation on engagement and motivational outcomes.

- Generalizability is limited: data from 257 students across three Korean universities may not represent broader populations. - PP differed from objective achievement; its multifaceted, context-dependent nature may obscure direct effects of growth mindset. The study relied primarily on quantitative PP measures; qualitative data (e.g., interviews) could provide richer insights. - Focus on domain-general mindsets; effects of domain-specific mindsets on PP in particular skills were not examined. - Cross-sectional design precludes causal inference over time; longitudinal or intervention designs are needed to track sustained effects on engagement and PP.