Mindset in STEM 2 Acknowledgement I would like to thank the professors from Moyes College of Education at Weber State University. For Dr. Moulding, my chair, thank you for your unmatched support and guidance in this educational journey. I have enjoyed taking courses from you, discussing ideas, doing research, and finally presenting them in this paper. For Dr. Stewart and Dr. Williams, my committee members, who inspired me to become a better educator since my undergraduate study at Weber State University. Dr. Wang, for her academic advice at the early stage of developing this project, and many other professors at Weber State University. Thank you all! I also would like to thank my best friend in life, my husband, Epeli Pohahau, for being extremely supportive and understanding as I moved along this study path. You are the one who always believes in me. My two beautiful children, Setaleki and Lesieli, thank you for your inspiration, I chose to study this growth mindset topic to inspire more children like you. Finally, for my students and all the learners, thank you for your effort in learning that helps me see the potential in all of us. 书山有路勤为径，学海无涯乐做舟。 Mindset in STEM 3 Abstract The purpose of this empirical study was to investigate whether a combined framework of growth mindset and scaffolded instruction would improve middle grade Dual Language Immersion (DLI) students’ motivation and self-efficacy in STEM. The sample included 6th grade DLI students who were learning the STEM content in a second language, Mandarin Chinese. The study used a mixed method with two cases study in design which included implementing interventions with all participants. All the participants received a growth mindset intervention adapted from Khan Academic Growth Mindset Unit for Elementary and Middle school students. Meanwhile, all the DLI students took scaffolded science lessons during the research period. The Growth Mindset survey and Science Learning Self-Efficacy questionnaire were used to measure whether there were differences in the mean scores for mindset and self-efficacy in STEM in the DLI setting. Results suggested that a combined framework of growth mindset intervention and scaffolded instruction had made a measurable difference in DLI students’ motivation and self-efficacy. In addition, participants demonstrated confidence and perseverance in facing challenging tasks. Findings also suggested that high self-efficacy was bonded to growth mindset. Students who believed in malleable intelligence showed higher self-efficacy in challenging learning tasks, while students who didn’t react much to the intervention, their self-efficacy went down as learning became more difficult. Keywords: growth mindset, scaffolded instruction, self-efficacy, DLI program Mindset in STEM 4 Table of Contents Literature Review....................................................................................................................... 7 Mindsets and Self-Efficacy ............................................................................................ 7 Mindset and Self-Efficacy in Integrated STEM Education ........................................... 9 STEM in the Dual Immersion Program Settings ......................................................... 12 STEM Educators’ Roles in DLI settings ..................................................................... 14 Gaining Support from the Community ........................................................................ 17 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 18 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Method ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Setting and Participants................................................................................................ 21 Measures ...................................................................................................................... 22 Pre-assessments for Targeted Participant Selection ........................................ 22 Outcome Measures........................................................................................... 24 Interventions ................................................................................................................ 25 Growth Mindset Intervention ........................................................................... 25 Scaffolded Instruction ...................................................................................... 25 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 25 Case Study Participant Selection ..................................................................... 26 Data Analysis Plan ....................................................................................................... 27 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Growth Mindset Results .............................................................................................. 28 Self-Efficacy Results ................................................................................................... 29 Interview Results ......................................................................................................... 30 Case Study 1: Growth Mindset Helped Student H. be a Motivated Learner ... 32 Mindset in STEM 5 Case Study 2: Scaffolded Instruction Helped Student T. Improve Self-efficacy in STEM ........................................................................................................... 33 Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 34 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research .................................................................. 36 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 37 References ................................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix A: Informed Consent ............................................................................................... 45 Appendix B: Parent Information Letter ................................................................................... 48 Appendix C: Measures ............................................................................................................. 50 Appendix D: IRB Approval ..................................................................................................... 55 Mindset in STEM 6 Cultivating Growth Mindset and Self-Efficacy in STEM Class with Chinese Dual Immersion Elementary Students Mindsets are people’s different ideas about intellectual abilities (Dweck, 2006). Students’ mindsets are influenced directly or indirectly by their teachers, families, and surroundings (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016). Self-efficacy is self-judgment about a person’s own ability in certain areas (Bandura, 1997). Successful experiences enhance high self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). There is a growing body of research that shows that a growth mindset and self-efficacy play important roles in STEM motivation and achievement (Blackwell et al., 2007; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Rhew et al., 2018; Schleicher, 2019). Other studies indicate that talent alone cannot explain achievements in every aspect, regardless of culture, age, or gender group (Dweck, 2008; Kijima et al., 2021; Lee & Stankov, 2018). Even when students show equal intellectual ability, their core beliefs about STEM determine their positive or negative responses to STEM learning (Blackwell et al., 2007; Niepel et al., 2018). Research about STEM learning indicates that growth-minded students have high self-esteem and self-efficacy, and they seek ways to solve complex concepts (Blackwell et al., 2007). When facing challenges, students with a growth mindset orient their focus on learning goals and emphasize learning effort with persistence (Dweck, 2008). In contrast, fixed mindset harms learning outcomes (Dweck, 2008). Students with a fixed mindset are more likely to exhibit helplessness to challenges and quickly withdraw themselves from tasks (Dweck, 2008; Murphy & Thomas, 2008). Fixed mindset learners believe intelligence is a talent that people are born with (Dweck, 2006). When confronting challenging tasks, a fixed mindset leads to low self-esteem and doubt in intelligence competency (Dweck, 2008; Murphy& Thomas, 2008), resulting in accepting lower grades (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006, 2008). Mindset in STEM 7 Unfortunately, a fixed mindset and lack of self-efficacy are common among students in Dual Language Immersion (DLI) settings, causing them to quickly withdraw when dealing with learning challenges. DLI students face double pressures in STEM learning since their daily learning tasks are set to understanding the STEM knowledge in the target language (Kennedy & Medina, 2017). Though some research examined the effects of language growth mindset, the impact of growth mindset and self-efficacy on STEM success in DLI settings has not been directly investigated. To empower learning, it might be appropriate to implement early intervention of growth mindset along with scaffolded instructions with the DLI students. Literature Review Mindsets and Self-Efficacy People have different beliefs about intellectual abilities (Dweck, 2008). Self-beliefs are judgments about self and what an individual can or cannot achieve (Lee & Stankov, 2018). Studies have shown that self-beliefs and attitudes toward mathematics and science are strong predictors of individuals’ learning motivation and outcomes (Blackwell et al., 2007; Guzey et al., 2014; Lee & Stankov, 2018; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Rhew et al., 2018; Schleicher, 2019). Across diverse cultures and nationalities, self-beliefs are the strongest predictors of achievement (Lee & Stankov, 2018) on two large, international assessments that compare educational achievement in math, science, and reading (Lee, 2006): Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Self-efficacy refers to self-belief in one’s own ability to accomplish tasks in certain circumstances (Bandura, 1997). Psychologist Albert Bandura described self-efficacy attitudes as a necessary component of success. Bandura believed that self-efficacy has an impact on Mindset in STEM 8 people’s “coping behavior, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences” (Bandura, 1997, p. 191). A growth mindset is a theory of intelligence (Dweck, 2006). People with a growth mindset believe self-efficacy can be cultivated and developed over time (Dweck, 2008). Students who believe in their abilities and intelligence can develop and seek ways to understand science and mathematics concepts and solve problems proactively (Niepel et al., 2018; Schleicher, 2019). A growing body of research shows that a growth mindset plays a vital role in STEM achievement (Blackwell et al., 2007; Lee & Stankov, 2018; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Schleicher, 2019). In the PISA 2018 report, the students with a growth mindset reported a higher level of self-efficacy and motivation, more desire to be successful in academic fields, including completing university degrees later in life (Schleicher, 2019). In contrast, students and teachers with a fixed mindset view intelligence as innate and intellectual abilities are fixed (Dweck, 2006; Kijima et al., 2021). These students agree with the statement “Your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change much” (Dweck, 2006, p.12) and tend to give up quickly rather than invest more effort (Schleicher, 2019). Thus, a fixed mindset leads to low self-esteem and doubt in intelligence competency (Dweck, 2008; Murphy & Thomas, 2008). Consequently, students with a fixed mindset are more likely to accept lower grades, especially when they find the tasks more challenging (Dweck, 2006). However, social-psychological researchers contend that talent alone cannot explain achievements in every aspect, regardless of age or gender group (Dweck, 2008; Kijima et al., 2021; Lee & Stankov, 2018). Depending on the mindsets and self-efficacy, the learning outcomes vary as students make different decisions on learning plans, efforts, and strategies chosen in the STEM study (Blackwell et al., 2007; Niepel et al., 2018). Mindset in STEM 9 Similarly, a growth mindset also contributes to second language learning (Lou & Noels, 2019). According to Lou and Noels’ (2019) study, a growth mindset shapes second language learners’ motivation and behaviors in the long-term. Influenced by various cultures and experiences, students are more likely to have a mixture of a growth mindset and a fixed mindset about language abilities (Lou & Noels, 2019). Furthermore, students can develop different beliefs through contact with various learning materials (Haimovitz & Dweck, 2017 as cited in Lou & Noels, 2019). However, research finds girls with low self-concepts have lower expectations of achievement (Else-Quest et al., 2013; Herbert & Stipek, 2005; Sadler et al., 2012, as cited in Wilang, 2021), and it is hypothesized that boys’ and girls’ growth mindsets may differ in language learning as well (Wilang, 2021). Therefore, promoting a growth mindset is important for DLI students, for its interventions may benefit both genders. Mindset and Self-Efficacy in Integrated STEM Education There is a need for more students to be involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (Granovskiy, 2018). To maintain America’s competitive position in the global economy, more graduates with STEM degrees are needed (National Science Board, 2007). According to the report Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited Rapidly Approaching Category 5, students' interests in STEM fields and careers were increasing but still modest (National Academy of Science, 2010), especially among less advantaged groups (Granovskiy, 2018). To increase learners’ interests in STEM, integrated STEM education merges the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and it is an instructional paradigm that deepens students’ understanding by contextualizing concepts, broadening their understanding of STEM disciplines (Moore et al., 2014). Studies have shown positive attitudes toward science lead students to the STEM career track (Guzey et al., 2014). Distinct from scientific attitude, individual attitudes are the emotions toward science, including Mindset in STEM 10 feelings, opinions, and beliefs (Guzey et al., 2014). To better understand students’ attitudes, Ma and Kishor’s (1997) study found that attitude measurement needs to be more age-specific or grade-specific to meet reliability and validity standards. When facing challenges, students with a growth mindset emphasize learning, effort, and persistence (Dweck, 2008). Murphy and Thomas (2008) found in their teaching that college students who held a fixed mindset about their intelligence and majored in computer science expressed more frustration and avoided challenges in the programming lab. Another study done by Grant and Dweck (2003) examined pre-med college students’ achievement and their ability to cope with stress when taking a challenging yet important course. They found students with a growth mindset oriented their focus on learning goals, but fixed mindset students oriented toward validating their intelligence. The result explains why students with fixed mindset quickly withdraw when dealing with difficulties in learning. In addition, a growth mindset has a time effect on students’ STEM achievement (McCutchen et al., 2016). McCutchen et al. (2016) conducted a longitudinal study on initial mindsets and standardized test achievement over time. The participant students with a growth mindset showed a slower decline in standardized testing outcomes than students with a fixed mindset. Furthermore, another study by Blackwell and colleagues (2007) showed that, even when students showed equal intelligence, the incremental self-believers (students with a growth mindset) used more effort to overcome challenges and boost their math achievement. Also, a growth mindset is a critical component of female students’ decision-making when entering STEM study (Kijima et al., 2021). Despite the growth mindset beliefs that can cultivate positive characteristics in learning, students still need tools and support to develop strong positive self-beliefs, especially when they face failures (Dweck, 2006). Growth mindset intervention is described by a memorable metaphor: The brain is like a muscle that grows stronger with use, and it Mindset in STEM 11 stretches itself and makes new connections when it undergoes a rigorous learning experience (Dweck, 2008). Blackwell and colleagues claimed that multiple studies show notable improvement and achievement in math and science outcomes after growth mindset interventions (2007). For this reason, growth mindset intervention is most beneficial for closing gender achievement gaps, and for students who are struggling (Yeager et al., 2019). Blackwell et al. (2007) showed that seventh-grade students who received growth mindset training had a clear rebound in math scores versus the control group who continually declined without receiving growth mindset training. In Yeager and colleagues’ (2019) study, participating schools with online growth mindset interventions had a positive effect on math and science GPAs. Self-efficacy is bonded to mindsets. Dweck's study (2009) suggested that students with a stronger growth mindset usually had high academic self-efficacy, were more proactive in tasks, and showed longer perseverance resulting in academic achievement. Rhew and colleagues (2018) found growth mindset intervention significantly increased middle school students’ (6th, 7th, and 8th graders) motivation but did not change self-efficacy. Therefore, the research team suggested that educators should consider measuring STEM motivation and mindsets to determine the target group of students who would benefit most from growth mindset interventions. As learning continues, self-efficacy has a substantial relationship to students' persistence in STEM pathways (Brown et al., 2016). Bandura (1997) explained that people develop self-efficacy based on their accomplishments or mastery, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasions, and physical and emotional states. Research done by Brown and colleagues (2016) found that by taking a leading role in STEM group work, students’ STEM self-efficacy beliefs predicted students’ intentions to persist in STEM before and after instruction. Brown et al. (2016) suggested that educators should implement an explicit approach to develop students’ self-efficacy. In Mindset in STEM 12 addition, other research found that self-efficacy was improved through meaningful learning experiences (Samsudin et al., 2020). Samsudin et al. (2020) found that self-efficacy was hightened directly when students were engaged in STEM project-based learning. Therefore, STEM educators have a critical role in selecting instructional styles and materials to facilitate self-efficacy in solving real-life problems (Samsudin et al., 2020). STEM in the Dual Immersion Program Settings Apart from the need to involve more students in the STEM field, a global world also needs more modern citizens to be bilingual, biliterate, achieve elevated levels of education, and gain cross-cultural competence (Kennedy & Medina, 2017). In the field of instructed second language acquisition, content-based instruction has received much attention for its successful idea of combining content information and language knowledge to promote academic aims (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). A variety of content-based instructional models have been developed, including dual immersion programs for K-12 students (Grabe & Stoller, 1997). Dual immersion language education refers to programs that teach all participating students’ grade-level content through two languages, English and a partner language (Kennedy & Medina, 2017). Dual immersion programs provide multilingual opportunities for all participating students (Kennedy & Medina, 2017). Studies have found dual immersion programs improved achievement gaps and showed improved academic, linguistic, and emotional outcomes (Esposito & Baker-Ward, 2013; Kennedy & Medina, 2017). Furthermore, learning a second language through STEM courses enriches the learning experience and extends the interest both in linguistic and STEM content (Guzey et al., 2014; Kennedy & Medina, 2022). While dual immersion students are involved in rich content materials, they are also fully exposed to the target language, leaving the learning tasks more challenging. According to Lou and Noels, studies across psychology and second language Mindset in STEM 13 learning realized the connections between mindsets and outcomes and encourage educators to link language learning with learners’ mindsets and motivation (2019). Empirically, Lou and Noels claimed many studies support the advantages of a language-growth mindset (2019). Students oriented to a language-growth mindset view success as hard work and believe that effort is the key to improvement (Blackwell et al., 2007; Lou & Noels, 2019). They may not be confident in every aspect of language development, such as grammar or pronunciation, but students focus on the learning process and aim to develop and improve language competence through practice (Lou & Noels, 2019). In contrast, students who subscribe to a fixed language mindset tend to avoid practicing the target language. Sometimes these students disengage themselves from class discussions or group work to hide their language incompetency and do more harm to their language development (Lou & Noels, 2019). Practicing the following strategies can foster a STEM growth mindset in a DLI setting: (a) emphasize more conceptual understanding (STEM) through learning materials (e.g., authentic language materials) (Seaton, 2017); (b) eliminate the deficit, unrealistic (e.g., the student doesn’t do well because not working hard), and fixed mindset language (e.g., you are so smart) (Lou & Noels, 2019); (c) follow through and provide effective strategies as students face challenges (Sun, 2018 b); (d) give process feedback (e.g., thank you for trying so hard on this) but not praise intelligence feedback (e.g., you are so talented) (Dweck, 2008). In sum, great achievements never come easily to learners, whether it is a STEM subject or second language, but one vital educational goal for all students is to develop the ability to persist through difficulty, and this must be done with positive and highly motivated teachers (Martinez, 2010). Mindset in STEM 14 STEM Educators’ Roles in DLI settings The ecology of human development theory by Bronfenbrenner (1989) provides the basis for considering various environmental contexts in which students grow up. In the microsystem, each member affects and is affected by others in the group (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). In addition, Bronfenbrenner also highlighted the importance of understanding the cultural groups in which students grow up (Marion, 2011). Understanding self-beliefs evokes the urgent need for setting up role models, particularly teachers, establishing a goal-oriented class environment, and creating a safe school climate (Dweck, 2006; Schleicher, 2019). For many students, expectations for behavior are different at school than at home (Ormrod, 2012). While adjusting to the imbalanced understanding of the world surrounding them, students often imitate people who are famous or powerful in their daily interactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Ormrod, 2012). In many cases, that person is a knowledgeable teacher the student interacts with daily. Influenced by their surroundings, students develop different mindsets, not only through explicit workshops or interventions but also implicitly in their daily classroom experiences (Noels & Lou, 2015 as cited in Lou & Noels, 2019). Therefore, educators play a key role in cultivating students’ mindsets (Dweck, 2008). Schleicher (2019) found that teachers from top-ranking countries in STEM achievements did not vary individual plans for students but did whatever they could to ensure everyone learned the materials. A successful program from Finland indicated professional collaboration as one key factor to establishing a strong growth mindset culture in school. Schleicher (2019) shared that the Finnish special education teachers worked closely with other members of the school to support struggling students, including principals, school nurses, school psychologist, and social workers. Mindset in STEM 15 It is long known that students achieve higher levels when they are immersed in a safe learning community and feel a sense of belongingness (Ormrod, 2012). In a learning community, teachers and students share common goals, mutual respect, and collaborative support (Ormrod, 2012). Successful workshops suggest teaching students about a growth mindset within the school system (Lee & Stankov, 2018) will enhance individuals’ positive self-beliefs and facilitate a safe school climate (Dweck, 2006; Kijima et al., 2021; Schleicher, 2019; Yeager et al., 2019). Despite the cultural differences in understanding the acquisition of learning, teachers’ professional belief oriented toward a growth mindset has a direct influence on students’ achievement (Dweck, 2008). Bostwick and colleagues (2020) suggested teachers’ growth construct may contribute to the interaction with students in the class. Bostwick et al. (2017) defined the term growth orientation as a compound product of a growth mindset, self-based growth goals, and task-based goals. In this study there was a direct relationship between teachers’ growth orientation and math achievements. It was confirmed that growth-oriented teachers showed more significant interactions and improved learning engagement (Bostwick et al., 2020). When it comes to enacting the curriculum, teachers’ professional beliefs impact their daily practice (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Sun, 2018a; Lou & Noels, 2019). The accountability movement has been a powerful force in federal education policymaking, and some education analysis argues the solution for current STEM issues is to implement constructive curriculums (Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). However, teachers’ up-to-date pedagogical belief is equally important as the innovation in the curriculum (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Gonzalez & Kuenzi, 2012). Therefore, constructive curriculum implementation might only occur on the surface if teachers rely more on their own beliefs and judgment rather than the current trends in pedagogy (Handal & Herrington, 2003). Mindset in STEM 16 Thus, teachers' critical self-evaluation of their own educational beliefs followed by an adjustment of instructional strategies is imperative to ensure a growth-oriented learning environment in class (Lou & Noels, 2019; Sun, 2018a). Generally speaking, teachers want their students to succeed, but sometimes misleading messages are sent unintentionally (Dweck, 2008; Lou & Noels, 2019; Sun, 2018a). For example, rigorous math tasks are only provided to certain students who can finish assignments quickly (Sun, 2018a). In other cases, teachers may ask a series of leading questions to funnel students’ thinking and remove learning opportunities (Sun, 2018a). Since everyone holds some elements of a growth mindset and fixed mindset beliefs (Dweck, 2006), and beliefs change frequently, teachers should not categorize students into mindset groups based on the mindset questionnaires (Lou & Noels, 2019), and make instructional decisions without thoughtful practices (Sun, 2018b). Instead, the information should be interpreted as reflecting pieces “in a group in a certain situation at a certain point in time” (Lou & Noels, 2019, p. 9). Therefore, a successful Integrated STEM program depends on teachers’ effective practice (Stohlmann et al., 2012). Stohlmann and colleagues studied the middle school integrated STEM program, Project Lead the Way, and suggested implementing well-structured science activities using a student-centered approach could enhance teachers' success in class with students’ achievement (2012). When teachers focus on helping students understand, learning happens. Sattem and colleagues (2022) studied the impact of Covid-19 on math achievement. The research team found that a powerful pedagogical practice was when “great educators ask kids questions over and over until the missing step on the staircase reveals itself” (Sattem et al., 2022, p.10). The effective practice that these studies suggested is aligned with Vygotsky's scaffolding theory. Scaffolded instruction happens when students are engaged in the practice (student-centered) and interventions are needed because of struggle moments in solving complex problems (focus on understanding) (Belland, 2017). Mindset in STEM 17 Gaining Support from the Community Given that various parenting styles exist in the social and cultural context, researchers consistently encourage all parents to be more aware of their children’s interests and concerns and show interest in students’ life especially when they are facing challenges (Schleicher, 2019). Parents with a growth mindset encourage and trust their children’s potential in achieving the highest levels in all aspects (Dweck, 2006). With trustful parental support and expressing growth-oriented messages, parents shape children’s growth mindset in their microsystems. Studies that focus on parental involvement suggest that parents’ academic pressure or support may have a negative or positive effect on students’ academic achievement (Levpušček & Zupančič, 2008). Levpušček and Zupančič found parental academic support had a positive influence on students’ math goal orientation. In contrast, the negative, distrustful, and critical messages sent from fixed mindset parents are learned and internalized by students and gradually lead to low self-efficacy and fixed mindset belief in their math ability (Dweck, 2006; Levpušček & Zupančič, 2008). As students move up to the secondary level, parental academic help decreased, and shows no significant relationship to math achievement. All parents want the best for their children. Parents can be a supportive part of students’ active participation in out-of-school STEM programs. As the PISA 2018 stated, future education needs to connect real-world context with a rich array of resources in the community (Schleicher, 2019). Productive out-of-school STEM programs provide opportunities for young people to explore STEM topics in a broader learning ecosystem and connect STEM learning in out-of-school, school, and home settings (Feder, 2015). In addition, productive out-of-school STEM programs address misconceptions of gender bias and develop young people’s interest in STEM fields (Kijima, et al., 2021). Kijima Mindset in STEM 18 et al. (2021) found that Japanese female youths who participated in the design thinking workshop had increased interest in engineering, greater creativity confidence, and developed a more positive perspective of STEM. Female and underrepresented groups, participating in integrated STEM interventions, show a potential influence on students’ growth mindset related to STEM (Kijima et al., 2021). In sum, parental support and parents’ growth mindsets have direct influences on shaping children’s growth mindset orientation towards STEM and second language learning. Parental support reflects parents’ growth mindsets. Constantly sending positive messages and showing interest in their children’s work creates a warm and trustful home environment. Moreover, families need to have opportunities to participate in out-of-school STEM programs and cultural events so students can make real-life connections between school-learned knowledge and after-school life experiences. These out-of-school experiences often further develop their STEM confidence. Summary All in all, self-belief is one of the most important non-cognitive predictors of STEM and/or language learning outcomes. Students with a growth mindset seek ways to understand complex STEM concepts and are more resilient in facing failures. While a fixed mindset leads to low self-esteem and quick withdrawal, growth mindset interventions inspire students and teachers. High self-efficacy is bonded with growth mindsets. Students with more of a growth mindset see the potential for their success and are willing to work hard to accomplish tasks. Low self-efficacy affects students’ persistence in STEM pathways. However, it can be improved by various learning experiences. Therefore, STEM educators play a critical role in facilitating a growth-oriented class environment. Teachers with a growth mindset foster a positive learning environment and help create a proactive learning climate for their students. In addition, parental support shapes students’ self-beliefs and nurtures their well-being. Mindset in STEM 19 The future is a world fast changing and full of innovation. To empower lifetime learners, we need to provide students with growth mindset strategies to help them maintain strong self-efficacy and motivation for learning and growing. Purpose Despite differences between culture, age, or gender, talent alone cannot explain achievement in every aspect (Dweck, 2008; Kijima et al., 2021; Lee & Stankov, 2018). Research shows that self-belief is the strongest non-cognitive predictor of academic achievements (Lee & Stankov, 2018). People have various mindsets about intellectual abilities and self-efficacy about certain abilities (Bandura, 1977; Dweck, 2006). A great deal of research indicates that a growth mindset intervention empowers learning and increases learning outcomes (Blackwell et al., 2007; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Schleicher, 2019). Furthermore, multiple studies found that explicit scaffolded instruction enhanced self-efficacy which determines STEM persistence (Brown, 2016; Rhew et. al., 2018; Samsudin et al., 2020). Growth-minded students have many advantages in STEM and second language learning. They have high self-esteem, and they seek ways to engage in practicing the second language, understand complex concepts, and solve problems by investing efforts (Blackwell et al., 2007; Lou & Noels, 2019). Students with a growth mindset are more resilient when confronting challenges. Growth mindsets influence one’s self-efficacy (Dweck, 2006). Students with a growth mindset focus on learning goals and emphasize learning effort with persistence (Dweck, 2008). On the other hand, fixed mindsets harm learning outcomes (Dweck, 2008). Students with a fixed mindset are more likely to blame their intelligence for their failures (Dweck, 2008; Murphy & Thomas, 2008). They do not believe that ability grows by investing more effort (Dweck, 2006). When confronting challenging tasks, a fixed mindset leads to low self-esteem and doubt in intelligence competency (Dweck, 2008; Mindset in STEM 20 Murphy & Thomas, 2008), resulting in accepting lower grades (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006, 2008). However, students’ mindsets are influenced directly or indirectly by their teachers, families, and experiences (Bandura, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Haimovitz & Dweck, 2016; Sun, 2018b). Students participating in the DLI program experience content-rich learning but also face double academic pressures, both in STEM learning and second language development. Therefore, DLI educators must cultivate and influence students’ core beliefs about learning STEM in a second language setting so all students can achieve the highest potential. Many growth mindset and self-efficacy studies conducted have been in the STEM field or linguistic studies independently, but the impact of these theories on success in DLI has not been directly investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this empirical study was to determine the integrated effects of a growth mindset intervention and explicit scaffolded instruction on sixth grade DLI students’ motivation and self-efficacy in STEM. The study attempted to answer the following questions. 1. Was there a measurable difference in STEM growth mindset and self-efficacy among 6th grade DLI students before and after the growth mindset intervention along with phenomenon-based explicit scaffolded instruction? 2. To what extent did the growth mindset intervention help the DLI students improve their growth mindset in STEM achievement? 3. To what extent did phenomenon-based scaffolding instruction help develop the DLI students’ self-efficacy in STEM learning? The goal of this study was to provide some growth mindset and STEM instructional strategies for DLI teachers to implement in their future practice. Mindset in STEM 21 Method Setting and Participants The participants in the study were students from a suburban school district in Utah, United States. At the time of the study, the district had 49 schools, which included thirty elementary schools, ten junior high schools, seven high schools, one adult education program, and a K-12 online program. There were two DLI programs in the school district, which were Spanish DLI and Chinese DLI. The study site was in one of the Chinese DLI elementary schools. The estimated population in the county consisted of 267,066 residents in 2021. The district’s student population was 32,423, with 81.3% Caucasian, 0.9% African-American, 0.9% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 13.1% Hispanic or Latino, 0.3% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.7% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The study site had 118 students in the 6th grade; 43 students have been enrolled in the DLI program since first grade. Out of the 43 DLI students, there were 26 female students and 17 male students; three students were receiving special accommodations to support their academic progress due to disability. All 43 students took science lessons taught in the target language, Mandarin Chinese. A consent form (see Appendix A) and parent information letter (see Appendix B) were sent to all students and their parents or guardians, and 33 forms were returned with parents’ or guardians’ permission; thus, these 33 were enrolled in the study. Three students did not complete the Khan academic workshop, pre-assessments, or post assessments. They were removed from the data collecting process later because of incomplete information, respectively. There was a total of 30 participants in the study result. Out of 30 participants, five students were selected as targeted participants for impact of the intervention at an individual level, based on their progress of growth mindset or self-efficacy in evidence. Among the five targeted participants, two students were selected as case studies because of their elaborate reflection. Mindset in STEM 22 The teacher-researcher designed and implemented the intervention during the study period. The teacher researcher has some background knowledge about motivation theories and is a proponent of growth mindset theory and self-efficacy theory. Measures Two questionnaires were used to measure the growth mindset and self-efficacy in the current study. The three-item growth mindset (GM) scale was from Dweck’s mindset study (1999, 2006). The questionnaire of self-efficacy of learning STEM (SELS) from Zheng and colleagues’ survey on self-efficacy in learning science (2017) was used with permission and adapted to simplify the language and reduce the number of items (see Appendix C). In addition, two types of artifacts were reviewed: high-stakes test results to determine students’ proficiency levels in science and target language were used to identify a subset of participants for further observation; and reflections and interviews of the subset during the study period to understand the outcomes at individual levels. All participants participated in the intervention and completed pre- and post-surveys and questionnaires. The data were used to compare the differences before and after interventions. Pre-assessments for Targeted Participant Selection A targeted subset of participants was selected based on four circumstances: growth mindset scale score indicating a fixed mindset, SELS questionnaire score determining the low level of self-efficacy, 2021-2022 end of school year RISE Science result indicating below science benchmark population, and 2021-2022 mid-year AAPPL result determining above Chinese benchmark population. The targeted participants were students whose language skills were good, whose science scores were poor, and who had a fixed mindset and low self-efficacy. As a result, these five targeted participants were grouped into a subset and monitored for evidence of improved mindset and self-efficacy. Mindset in STEM 23 Growth Mindset Survey. The growth mindset scale was given in class to gain knowledge on students’ self-perception of intelligence as learners. This scale had been used in other studies among high school students and adults (Dweck, 1999, 2006). The participants were asked to respond to three statements. On a scale of one (strongly agree) to six (strongly disagree), the respondents gave a score of how much they agreed with the statements. To calculate the total score for each participant, the average rating was calculated. The final score indicated students’ mindsets. A final score of one means a strong fixed mindset. In contrast, receiving a final score of six indicates a strong growth mindset. For the current study, the participants who received a final score of two or below were selected as targeted participants. See Appendix C. SELS Questionnaire. The SELS questionnaire was adapted based on measures used by Zheng et al. (2017). See Appendix C. The SELS questionnaire included four subscales and 19 items: a five-item conceptual understanding subscale; a six-item science communication subscale; a five-item practical work subscale; a three-item everyday application subscale. The questionnaire was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The questionnaire was in students’ native language, English. The survey process was administered in English during school hours. This instrument aimed to measure participants’ natural self-efficacy. Participants who scored low were selected as targeted participants. RISE Science Results. Participating students took Summative RISE assessments in the last quarter of 5th grade in 2022. The Summative RISE assessment is adaptive, meaning the questions students are asked are based on how they answer the previous questions. Summative RISE Science assessment is to evaluate students learning progress and achievement by the end of a school year. On a scale from one (“below proficiency”) to four (“high proficient”), the result is a transformation of raw scores taking into account questions’ Mindset in STEM 24 overall difficulty levels. Participants who got 2 or below from the 5th grade science Summative RISE assessment and have a strong fixed mindset or (and) a lower self-efficacy were selected as targeted participants. AAPPL Results. ACTFL (American Council on The Teaching of Foreign Languages) Assessment of Performance Toward Proficiency in Languages (AAPPL) is a language assessment that is given to DLI students to measure the target language’s proficiency and performance. DLI students take AAPPL assessments in the mid-school year from grade three to nine. AAPPL scores range from N-1 (Novice low) to A-1 (Advance low). Participants who scored N4 (meeting the 5th grade benchmark) for speaking the target language but have a low science score (2 or below 2), have a strong fixed mindset, and (or) a lower self-efficacy were selected as targeted participants. Outcome Measures Self-efficacy. The post-SELS questionnaire was given to all participating students following the intervention. This instrument aimed to measure the effects of self-efficacy after the growth mindset intervention and scaffolded instruction. Growth Mindset. All participating students took the post-GM scale (Dweck, 1999, 2006) following the intervention. The purpose was to see if any changes happened in various aspects of participants’ beliefs about intelligence since the intervention. Participants had an opportunity to compare their previous scores to the later ones to do some reflecting. Interview. Five targeted participants from the sample were interviewed. Five interviewees completed the growth mindset intervention post study questionnaire that evaluated support and satisfaction with the general effects of the growth mindset workshop and scaffolded science instruction. See Appendix C: The Growth Mindset Intervention Post Study Questionnaire. Mindset in STEM 25 Interventions Growth Mindset Intervention The intervention was the Khan Academy Growth Mindset Unit: Elementary and Middle School Activities. The unit is an online program that allows students to independently progress through lessons about growth mindset. The intervention program was assigned to each participant's Canvas account and given as a home assignment to complete, due to the “no English print” policy in the DLI program. Parental support was vital in this step. Students responded digitally on Canvas to each lesson about what they had learned or discovered. Five targeted participants from the monitored subset’s responses were reviewed by the researcher. Words and expressions that showed growth mindset and self-efficacy were coded for analysis purposes. Scaffolded Instruction Science lesson plans were adapted from Going 3-D with GRC (Moulding, n.d.), an online science three-dimensional lesson plans collection. Going 3-D with GRC provides phenomenon-based STEM lessons which are aligned with the Utah SEEd standards. The original lesson plans are in English. The teacher-researcher added language components (key terms in Chinese, conversation structures in Chinese, etc.) to her lessons. Student responses and work were collected during the study and kept in a separate folder for later data analysis purposes. For the study period, scaffolded science lessons focused on the topic of patterns of moon phases. Procedure After receiving permission from the university and school district IRB (see Appendix D), the current study used a mixed method, including collecting data from pre- and post-surveys, evaluating participants’ digital reflection journals, and conducting targeted participants’ interviews for data analysis. All the DLI students received scaffolded science Mindset in STEM 26 lessons. All participating students completed both the GM scale and SELS questionnaire before and after the GM workshops. Although all the participants received Khan Academic Growth Mindset Unit Intervention and explicit project-based science lessons, only the targeted subset was monitored during the project. The current study eliminated the students from the subset selection if they scored below both the AAPPL benchmark and Science assessment, because of the unclear causes of low performance for STEM. The targeted participants were students whose language skills are good, whose science scores were poor, and who had a fixed mindset and/or low self-efficacy. These targeted participants were monitored for evidence of improved mindset and self-efficacy. These participants reflected on each growth mindset lesson they took. In addition, they received Tier II scaffolded interventions in science from the teacher (researcher), when it was appropriate. Case Study Participant Selection Two targeted participants were selected for case studies. They were selected based on their self-reported progress of growth mindset or self-efficacy. Student H. received a score of 1 in math and 2 in science in the 5th grade RISE assessments. Student H. met the language benchmark in Mandarin Chinese. Student H. also had a strong fixed mindset before the intervention, with a score of 1.3. The pre-SELS score was 82 and was not considered as low. However, student H. did not actively participate in STEM class conversations before the intervention. At the beginning of the school year, student H’s parents came and met with the 6th grade teachers, sharing their concerns about student H.’s struggles in math and science. On the other hand, student T. had also been selected as a targeted participant because of a low score on the RISE science test (scored 2 out of possible 4) in 5th grade. Another reason for the inclusion was that student T. scored 53 in the pre-SELS, one of the lowest scores in class. Student T.’s pre-GM survey was in the mid-range with a score of 3.5. Two students were Mindset in STEM 27 interviewed later for investigating the social validity of the GM workshops and scaffolded instructions. Data Analysis Plan Questions about the effectiveness of growth mindset intervention and scaffolded instruction were evaluated through the pre- and post- survey/questionnaire results. The data were stored and organized in secured file cabinets either with a key or password. Each type of data was kept separately. The data from all participants was reviewed and analyzed. From the reflective journals, words and phrases about growth mindset or self-efficacy that signal the effectiveness of the intervention were coded. Analytic memos about different codes and what they mean to the research questions were recorded in a memo notebook. Five targeted participants were selected to be closely observed and interviewed. Out of five targeted participants, two were chosen for case studies. The data analysis identified the changes between pre- and post-surveys and tried to determine the effect of the interventions. Results Prior research has indicated that measuring mindsets among struggled students so interventions could be implemented for potential achievement (Rhew, 2018). The current study examined DLI 6th grade students’ mindsets and science learning self-efficacy regarding the effectiveness of growth mindset intervention and scaffolded instruction to seek insight on cultivating students’ self-esteem and self-efficacy in STEM. Response data were collected to answer the following questions (a) was there any measurable differences before and after the interventions (b) to what extent did growth mindset intervention help improve DLI students’ mindsets (c) to what extent did scaffolded instruction help increase the self-belief in STEM. Mindset in STEM 28 Growth Mindset Results After the intervention, a total of 30 participants’ data was complete and included in the analysis. All the participants turned in their consent forms, completed the module study in the Khan’s Academic Growth Mindset unit and finished their pre-and post- surveys. The assumption about implementing a growth mindset intervention would increase students’ mindsets has been met. The comparison result showed that after the intervention, most of participants were more likely to believe that their brain can change over time through rigorous brain exercise. Intelligence is fluid and exercising the brain can help people become more intelligent. Figure 1 shows the results of pre- and post- GM surveys. There is a substantially increased number of students shifting to a strong growth mindset after the intervention; 73% of participants reported growth mindset after the intervention vs. 37% growth mindset population before the intervention. Associated with it is the decreased number of students holding a mixed mindset; 57% of participants claimed themselves as fixed mindset before the intervention vs. 23% of participants afterward. Figure 1 Pre- and Post-Growth Mindset Survey Results Note. A total of 30 participants. Mindset in STEM 29 Self-Efficacy Results A procedure similar to the Growth Mindset Surveys was conducted with the participants. The SELS questionnaire measured participants’ self-belief in four areas of STEM learning (a) conceptual understanding about the science content, (b) ability to do practical work in science experiments, (c) ability to conduct science communication in the classroom settings, (d) capabilities to understand science news/documentaries or everyday life phenomenon. The assumption of implementing scaffolded lessons would improve students' understanding of STEM content, therefore, increase their self-efficacy in STEM was met. All the 6th grade DLI students participated in three weeks of science lessons. Science lesson plans were adapted from Going 3-D with GRC (Moulding, n.d.), focusing on understanding and developing a model of Sun-Earth-Moon to describe the cyclic patterns of moon phases. The unit standard aligned with the Utah SEEd 6.1. The lessons were conducted in the target language, Mandarin Chinese. Participants took pre-and post- questionnaires. Figure 2 shows the results of pre- and post- SELS questionnaires. The results indicated some levels of effectiveness of three weeks scaffolded instruction in STEM learning. The average SELS score went up 5 points after the intervention. The average pre-score was 77.53 and the post average score was 82.5. In addition, some notable class engagements were observed. More details will be discussed in the case study session. Mindset in STEM 30 Figure 2 Pre- and Post- Self-Efficacy of learning STEM Questionnaire Results Note. A total of 30 participants. Individual bars show the pre- and post- average scores for each subscale. Interview Results At the posttest, five targeted participants also completed a social validity scale to assess their satisfaction with the interventions. An owned-developed self-report scale was used to examine participants’ acceptance and perceived value of the GM intervention and scaffolded science lessons. This scale was developed based on social validity with mindfulness (Felver et al., 2017). Five targeted participants responded and gave feedback with the following ten questions: (1) do you think the GM lessons were helpful for your learning STEM; (2) why or why not; (3) what parts of GM lessons help you; (4) what didn’t help; (5) what would you do if you face a learning challenge in the future; (6) do you think the science lessons were helpful for your learning STEM; (7) why or why not; (8) what parts Mindset in STEM 31 of science lessons help you; (9) what didn’t help; (10) please share any additional information. The five targeted participants all agreed that GM lessons were helpful for their learning STEM. In the interviews, they mentioned that GM lessons taught them new information about the brain and mind. The GM intervention cultivated the targeted participants’ perseverance. They mentioned words like “never give up”, “try again” “ask for help” in their answers. The participants shared their strategies which they learned from the GM lessons. For example, one participant said, “take a few deep breaths and figure it out”; another participant used positive self-talk “I got this”. They said they “aren’t as scary as before” to ask for help when they didn’t understand. Coupled with the effectiveness of the GM intervention, the five targeted participants thought the scaffolded STEM lessons were also helpful for their learning STEM. During the interviews, they brought up that scaffolded STEM lessons were fascinating. They described the science lessons as “cool” and “taught me things I didn’t know before.” One participant compared this year’s science lessons to the previous experience, “I was confused a lot before but now I understand.” Another participant wrote, “sometimes I get confusing [confused], but it helped me build courage to ask for help”. Meanwhile, the five targeted participants were assigned as group leaders for a scientific activity, making Oreo cookies moon phases. They were initially engaged in the activity and group discussions. Among the five targeted participants, two were selected for a case study. Although five participants all agreed the GM intervention and science lessons help them in learning STEM, the measurement outcomes of their self-reported survey and questionnaires showed various levels of effectiveness. Student K.’s post GM stayed the same as the pre-survey, and the post self-efficacy went down slightly from a score of 65 to 63. Student H. showed great improvement in GM after the intervention, but not so much in self-efficacy changes. Student Mindset in STEM 32 L. had more increase with self-efficacy but little change in GM. Therefore, two participants who have had greater progress in both GM and self-efficacy outcomes were selected as candidates for case studies. Case Study 1: Growth Mindset Helped Student H. be a Motivated Learner The growth mindset workshop changed the dynamic of student H.’s learning attitude. Student H. wrote in the reflective journal, “The more you tell yourself you can do it than you will be abel [able] to do the stuff you set your mind to! Say that you want to master a trick but you keep telling yourself that you suck or you will never be abel [able] to do this than [then] you won't master a trick you just have to think positive and be kind to your brain!! So next time you want to do something, be positive and be kind to your brain and think positive [ly] !!” When the intervention started, student H. showed great interest in learning about the brain and how it can develop over time. As the intervention went on, student H. became more positive about learning and seeing challenges as part of academic growth, writing in the journal, “Learning math would make my life better because it would help my [me] in JH and Highschool so i [I] can understand it and not fail math. Learning Chinese would make my life better because it is a difrent [different] langues [language] and it is so cool to spek [speak] another langes [language] than English.” It was noticeable that student H. paid more attention during the science class starting the second week of the project. Student H. initially raised hands to answer questions, worked on the assignments independently, and asked questions when they did not understand. One of student H.’s strategies was using positive self-talk when facing challenges. Student H. posted a powerful verbal message in responding to “When I hear a fixed mindset voice in my head, I will tell myself to stick in there and I can do this.” Mindset in STEM 33 Towards the end of the project, in the third week, student H. showed more effort in learning. H. was motivated to learn and understood the pattern of moon phases accurately. H. began to help nearby classmates who missed school on how to recognize the pattern of Lunar phases. The post GM survey found that student H. had a score of 4, compared to 1.3 in the pre-GM survey. The post SELS score was 86, versed a score of 82 from the pre-questionnaire. Case Study 2: Scaffolded Instruction Helped Student T. Improve Self-efficacy in STEM Similar to student H., student T. also struggled with math and science. According to the pre-SELS, T. received a score of 53, the lowest one in class, which might be more accurate to reality compared to the peers. A complete accurate sense of self-efficacy may not be ideal to help people learn (Martinez, 2010). According to Martinez, slightly exaggerated self-efficacy beliefs could increase their degree of control in a situation (2010). In response to the GM intervention, student T. wrote in his journal, “I made mistakes in math. Recently [,] even though I tried my best on my test, I looked at my bad score.” Student T. was frustrated with his learning outcomes after he thought he had tried to do his best. The frustration could have been influenced by his low self-efficacy in STEM and a fixed mindset (focusing on his grades). Analyzing Student T.’s learning process, the growth mindset intervention helped him persevere in learning. In another journal note, student T. wrote, “Your brain is super powerful, it holds all the knowledge. [I] it is full of billon[billion] neurons. A neuron is a brain cell in your brain that help [s] you think…it as a bodybuilder, it keeps growing, growing, and growing.” Student T. realized people’s brain can make new connections over time. It was observed that, after the intervention, student T. showed less concern about his grades but more about trying to understand the mistakes he made. Mindset in STEM 34 More observation of student T.’s response to difficult tasks indicated scaffolded instruction helped student T. experience successful performance. He wrote, “I looked at my bad grade, so I asked my teacher how to fix it. I went back to fix it and I gave it back to my teacher and I got a good grade.” In the post study questionnaire, student T responded “it [science lesson] helps me a lot in STEM. I understand the moon and the solar system. I would do my best to read the test slow [ly] and use the strategies.” Student T. received a score of 5.3 for his post GM, along with a score of 76 for his post SELS; while the pre-GM score was 3.5 and a score of 53 for his pre SELS, respectively. Discussion Past research emphasized the importance of shifting students’ mindset and self-beliefs in certain areas to promote learners’ motivation and increase learning outcomes (Blackwell et al., 2007; Guzey et al., 2014; Lee & Stankov, 2018; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Rhew et al., 2018; Schleicher, 2019). Growth mindset studies suggested that implementing growth mindset intervention could enhance students’ attitudes towards STEM as well as second language learning (Guzey et al., 2014; Lee & Stankov, 2018; Lou & Noels, 2019). In addition, Dweck claimed that students with a growth mindset tend to have higher self-efficacy, which is critical to STEM success (2008). By implementing scaffolded instruction, STEM educators support learning through daily educational activities that facilitate STEM interests and cultivate self-efficacy in STEM (Handal & Herrington, 2003; Sun, 2018a). To confirm and expand existing research, the current study set to test a combination framework of growth mindset and scaffolded instruction. It shows that a short, three-week growth mindset intervention can make a positive impact on 6th grade DLI students’ perceptions of STEM, self-efficacy attitudes, and create confidence and perseverance in facing challenging tasks. The post growth mindset survey shows that 73% of students Mindset in STEM 35 changed their mindset from a fixed or mixed to a growth mindset. As noted in prior research, motivational beliefs emerged actively when challenges appeared (Blackwell et al., 2007; Dweck, 2006). The outcome of the post growth mindset survey confirmed the statement above. The class participated in learning more proactively in general after the intervention. Closer observation with two students indicates that the growth mindset intervention made a more positive impact with students who struggle with STEM, respectively. Along with the growth mindset intervention, the experimental framework also included implemented scaffolded instruction to equip students in learning. In this experimental study, scaffolded teaching was implemented in teaching a complicated topic in a second language. With the dual learning tasks, the framework of combining growth mindset and scaffolded instruction was successful in enhancing those participants’ self-efficacy in STEM, who believed the theory of malleable intelligence. These students viewed the obstacles (understanding abstract concepts) as a challenging but interesting learning experience. They were actively engaged in learning with less concern for their grades. Hence, these students who developed a growth mindset through the intervention also had a higher self-evaluation score in the post SELS questionnaire. On the other hand, about one third of participants who did not react much to the GM interventions, either continued holding a fixed mindset or did not change their mixed mindset status to a growth mindset, had a lower self-evaluation in the post SLSE questionnaire (see Table 1). The finding supports the assumption of high self-efficacy is bonded to Growth mindset. As student T. stated, “I will use my [growth mindset] strategies and ask help from my teacher.” It is the shift of mindsets that opens the scaffolded opportunity, both for teachers and students. See cross table below for the comparison data. It is suggested that future studies compare and investigate correlation between a fixed mindset and self-efficacy. Mindset in STEM 36 Table 1 Average Self-Efficacy Scores based on GM Effectiveness Pre-GM Average Score Pre-Self Efficacy Average Score Post GM Average Score Post Self- Efficacy Average Score Participants who did not respond to intervention 4.3 79.7 4.6 74.5 Participants who did respond to intervention 4.2 77.0 5.5 87.1 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research There are several limitations to consider for this study. First, all the participants in the current study were DLI students from one school and had the researcher as their science teacher. Since everyone has some degree of bias, it would be interesting to examine a larger population across the state DLI program and compare how this combined framework could influence STEM learning with different age groups. Future research can involve larger sample sizes with multiple DLI programs across age groups. Second, the study focused on data collected in a short period of time with one STEM topic, enabling a snapshot of the participants’ growth mindset and self-efficacy within the time frame. It would be ideal to evaluate the practice using longitudinal data and investigate the learning outcomes. In the future, researchers could examine whether longer GM and scaffolded science lessons program vs. shorter period project in terms of effectiveness. Moreover, the growth mindset and self-efficacy were solely using self-reports. Future study that includes end of year benchmark assessments which will offer additional insight of the correlation between learner’s attitudes and behavior as well as learning outcomes. Mindset in STEM 37 Conclusion In conclusion, the fast-changing world needs young people to be problem solvers with a growth mindset. DLI education program provides students with learning opportunities so they can embrace the future. By examining the combined framework of growth mindset and scaffolded instruction in STEM, the current study has extended previous research findings relevant to the positive impact of growth mindset intervention and scaffolded practice in a DLI setting. Results from this study revealed integrating growth mindset intervention and scaffolded instruction help change students’ belief of intelligence and increase their self-efficacy in STEM while learning a second language. Mindset in STEM 38 References Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. Belland, B. R. (2017). Instructional scaffolding in Stem Education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. Springer. 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 Bostwick, K. C. P., Collie, R. J., Martin, a A. J., & Durksen, T. L. (2017). Students’ growth mindsets, goals, and academic outcomes in mathematics. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 225(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000287 Bostwick, K. C. P., Collie, R. J., Martin, A. J., & Durksen, T. L. (2020). Teacher, classroom, and student growth orientation in mathematics: A Multilevel Examination of growth goals, growth mindset, engagement, and achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 94, 103100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103100 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals of Children Development. 6, 187-251. Brown, P. L., Concannon, J. P., Marx, D., Donaldson, C., & Black, A. (2016). An examination of middle school students' stem self-efficacy, interests and perceptions. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research. Retrieved August 8, 2022, from https://www.jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2137 Dweck, C. (1999, 2006). Growth Mindset Scale. SPARQtools. Retrieved September 27, 2022, from https://sparqtools.org/mobility-measure/growth-mindset-scale/ Mindset in STEM 39 Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. (2016). Mindset tempers effects of poverty on achievement. National Academy of Sciences, 113 (31), 8664-8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113 Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new phycology of success. Random House, New York. Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset and Math/Science Achievement. The Carnegie Corporation of New York Institute for Advanced Study Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. http://www.growthmindsetmaths.com/uploads/2/3/7/7/23776169/mindset_and_math_ science_achievement_-_nov_2013.pdf Else-Quest, N. M., Mineo, C. C., & Higgins, A. (2013). Math and science attitudes and achievement at the intersection of gender and ethnicity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(3), 293–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480694 Esposito, A. G., & Baker-Ward, L. (2013). Dual-language education for low-income children: Preliminary evidence of benefits for executive function. Bilingual Research Journal, 36(3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.837848 Felver, J. C., Felver, S. L., Margolis, K. L., Kathryn Ravitch, N., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2017). Effectiveness and social validity of the soles of the feet mindfulness-based intervention with special education students. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0133-2 Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012, August). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foundations. The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content, 1, 5-21. Mindset in STEM 40 Granovskiy, B. (2018, June). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education: An overview. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45223 Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12077 Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Parents’ views of failure predict children’s fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets. Psychological Science, 27(6), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616639727 Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03217369 Kennedy, B., & Medina, J. (2017 July 6). Dual language education: Answers to questions from the field - center for applied linguistics. Center for Applied Linguistics -. Retrieved July 18, 2022, from https://www.cal.org/publications/dual-language-education- answers-to-questions-from-the-field/ Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M., & Maekawa, M. S. (2021). Using design thinking to cultivate the next generation of female STEAM thinkers. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1). http://dx.doi.org.hal.weber.edu:2200/10.1186/s40594-021- 00271-6 Lee, J. & Stankov, L. (2018). Non-cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65(7), 50-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009 Mindset in STEM 41 Lee, P. Y. (2006). Panel B — what are Pisa and TIMSS? what do they tell us? Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians Madrid, August 22–30, 2006, 1663– 1672. https://doi.org/10.4171/022-3/80 Levpušček, M., & Zupančič, M. (2008). Math achievement in early adolescence: The role of parental Involvement, teachers’ behavior, and students’ motivational beliefs about math The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 541–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431608324189 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, 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126 Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Assessing the relationship between attitude toward mathematics and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 26-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/749662 Martinez, M. E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Merrill. Marion, M. (2011). Guidance of young children. Person. McCutchen, K. L., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau, K. J., & Mueller, C. E. (2016). Mindset and standardized testing over time. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.027 Murphy, L., & Thomas, L. (2008). Dangers of a fixed mindset. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education - ITiCSE '08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1384271.1384344 Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H. H., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. In Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 35-60). Purdue University Press. Mindset in STEM 42 Moulding, B. (n.d.). GRC lesson resources. https://sites.google.com/3d-grcscience. org/going3d/grc-lesson-resources National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12999. National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsb07114 Niepel, C., Burrus, J., Greiff, S., Lipnevich, A. A., Brenneman, M. W., & Roberts, R. D. (2018). Students' beliefs and attitudes toward mathematics across time: A longitudinal examination of the theory of planned behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.010 Ormrod, J. E. (2012). Essentials of educational psychology: Big ideas to guide effective teaching. Pearson. Sattem, J., Dawson, M., & Peyser, E. (2022). The impact of covid-19 on math achievement. NASBE. Retrieved August 11, 2022, from https://www.nasbe.org/the-impact-of-covid- 19-on-math-achievement/ Rhew, E., Piro, J. S., Goolkasian, P., & Cosentino, P. (2018). The effects of a growth mindset on self-efficacy and motivation. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1492337. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1492337 Samsudin, M. A., Jamali, S. M., Md Zain, A. N., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2020). The effect of STEM project-based learning on self-efficacy among high-school physics students. SSRN. Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3574024 Mindset in STEM 43 Schleicher, A (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 17, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%2 0FINAL%20PDF.pdf Seaton, F. S. (2017). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2017.1382333 Stohlmann, M., Moore, T., & Roehrig, G. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated stem education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653 Sun, K. L. (2018a). Beyond rhetoric: Authentically supporting a growth mindset. Teaching Children Mathematics, 24(5), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.24.5.0280 Sun, K. L. (2018b). Brief report: The role of mathematics teaching in Fostering Student Growth Mindset. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(3), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.3.0330 Wilang, J. (2021). Mindsets of High School Students in English Language Learning. TESOL International Journal, 16 (2), 86-105. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Yang, S. M., Carvalho, C. M., … Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466- y Mindset in STEM 44 Zheng, L., Dong, Y., Huang, R., Chang, C.-Y., & Bhagat, K. K. (2017). Investigating the interrelationships among conceptions of, approaches to, and self-efficacy in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1402142 Mindset in STEM 45 Appendix A: Informed Consent IRB STUDY # IRB-AY22-23-44 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT Cultivating Growth Mindset and Self-Efficacy in STEM Class with Chinese Dual Immersion Elementary Students Your child is invited to participate in a research study of the growth mindset in science within the DLI class. Your child was selected as a possible subject because your child is a DLI student in Mrs. Pohahau’s class. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Laukaupouli Pohahau as part of her master’s degree from Weber State University. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to help your DLI student improve their motivation in science learning by building a growth mindset and self-efficacy. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to allow your child to participate, they will be one of up to 44 subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the one or more of following things: • Take pre and post survey of Growth Mindset. • Take pre and post questionnaire of self-efficacy science learning. • Participate in one-week Khan Academic Growth Mindset unit study at home, 4 lessons total, 15-20 minutes per lesson length. • Participate in daily 6th grade science lesson in Chinese class. Mindset in STEM 46 • Participate in an interview by Mrs. Pohahau. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: For face-to-face research, the risks include the possibility of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or other communicable diseases while attending school. The risks of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is low. Other risks might be feeling uncomfortable during the interview or during class. This risk is the same as a typical day of school. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Instead of being in the study, you have this option: participating in regular science lessons in class without the interventions. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY There is no risk of physical injury if your child participates in this study. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your child’s personal information confidential. No identifying information will be shared beyond the classroom. Scores generated by the pre and post assessments will be held on school computers which are password protected. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Any paper copies will be stored similar to other assignments and destroyed or returned to you. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the Mrs. Pohahau, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) who may need to access Mindset in STEM 47 your medical and/or research records. The research documents will be destroyed after three years from the date of November 1st, 2022. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Laukaupouli Pohahau at 801-452- 4580 or the researcher’s mentor Dr. Moulding at 801-626-7665 For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. SUBJECT’S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject’s Printed Name: Subject’s Signature:Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent:Date: If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures: Printed Name of Parent/Guardian: Signature of Parent/Guardian:Date: Mindset in STEM 48 Appendix B: Parent Information Letter Mrs. Mi’s Growth Mindset Workshop What is a growth mindset? Dear Parent(s)/Guardian(s), As your child’s teacher this year, I am happy to inform you that our class will have the opportunity of learning about how to develop a growth mindset. Carol Dweck introduced the growth mindset concept to explain the belief that, despite obstacles and/or challenges, a person can develop abilities and achieve goals through motivation, hard work, and practice. Your brain helps you feel, see, hear, think, remember, move, and experience the world. The brain is an organ that lives inside your skull. You can help your brain grow and stretch! Practicing difficult concepts and learning new things will help your brain get stronger. Research indicates that holding a strong growth mindset can help student achieve more in STEM learning. I hope you will support your child learning about growth mindset. This project has been approved by WSU Institutional Review Board and Weber School District. What do I do in the workshop? In the next two to three weeks, we will be learning and practicing growth mindset from home and at school. Here’s a brief list of what we will be doing in the workshop: 1. To be eligible to participate, parents need to sign the consent form and return to the teacher. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC Mindset in STEM 49 2. Students take a growth mindset survey and self-efficacy questionnaire during the school hours. 3. Students study Khan academic growth mindset unit and write reflections at home (It’s posted on the Canvas). 4. Participate in the daily science classes. We will discuss growth mindset during the lessons. 5. In about two weeks of time, students will take the growth mindset survey and self-efficacy questionnaire again at school to see if any changes happen after the interventions. 6. Students might be interviewed by your teacher. Share what you think about growth mindset and science lessons with her. 7. Use the strategies you learn from the workshop in your future study. Questions? Feel free to contact Mrs. Mi: Phone#: (385)-294-8657 E-mail: lapohahau@wsd.net Mindset in STEM 50 Appendix C: Measures Mindset in STEM 51 Mindset in STEM 52 Mindset in STEM 53 Mindset in STEM 54 Mindset in STEM 55 Appendix D: IRB Approval Mindset in STEM 56