THE PREDICTIVE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' MINDSET TOWARDS PROGRAMMING ON THEIR ENGAGEMENT

Öz

This study aimed to examine the relationship between high school students’ mindset towards programming and their engagement. In the study, which was carried out with the predictive relational research method, 783 vocational high school students who were reached by convenient sampling method constituted the study group of this research. Data were collected online with the "Mindset for Programming Questionnaire" and "Student Engagement Scale". Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses and structural equation modelling were used to analyze the data. In the structural equation model, the predictive effects of growth and fixed mindsets towards programming on students' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement were tested. The findings of the study showed that there were significant positive relationships between students' growth mindset towards programming and their behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. On the other hand, fixed mindset was found to have a significant negative relationship with behavioral engagement, no significant relationship with emotional engagement, and a positive but weak relationship with cognitive engagement. From this point of view, it can be said that the mindset affects student engagement, these students are more open to learning, and they are more motivated and actively participate in the programming process. It can be argued that growth mindset has the potential to increase problem solving skills and resilience by enabling students to see mistakes as learning opportunities. Based on this study, it can be suggested that future studies should develop intervention programs based on various instructional designs to strengthen students' growth mindset towards programming and examine their effects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• growth mindset
• fixed mindset
• engagement
• programming

LİSE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN PROGRAMLAMAYA YÖNELİK ZİHİN YAPILARININ BAĞLILIKLARI ÜZERİNDEKİ YORDAYICI ROLÜ

Öz

Bu çalışmada lise öğrencilerinin programlamaya yönelik zihin yapısı ile bağlılıkları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yordayıcı ilişkisel araştırma yöntemi ile gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, elverişli örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan 783 meslek lisesi öğrencisi bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu oluşturmuştur. Veriler “Programlamaya Yönelik Zihin Yapısı Anketi” ve “Öğrenci Bağlılık Ölçeği” ile çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır. Programlamaya yönelik gelişim ve sabit zihin yapılarının, öğrencilerin bilişsel, duyuşsal ve davranışsal bağlılıkları üzerindeki yordayıcı etkileri yapısal eşitlik modeli ile test edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, öğrencilerin programlamaya yönelik gelişim odaklı zihin yapısı ile davranışsal, duyuşsal ve bilişsel bağlılıkları arasında pozitif yönlü anlamlı bir ilişkinin olduğunu göstermiştir. Sabit zihin yapısının ise davranışsal bağlılıkla negatif yönde anlamlı ilişkili olduğu, duyuşsal bağlılıkla anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığı, bilişsel bağlılıkla ise pozitif yönlü fakat zayıf bir ilişkinin olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Buradan hareketle sahip olunan zihin yapısının öğrenci bağlılığını etkilediği, gelişim odaklı zihin yapısına sahip öğrencilerin öğrenmeye daha açık olduğu, programlama sürecine daha motive ve aktif şekilde katıldıkları söylenebilir. Gelişim odaklı zihin yapısına sahip olmanın, hataları öğrenme fırsatı olarak görebilme, problem çözme becerileri ve yılmazlığı artırma potansiyelini beraberinde getirebileceği ileri sürülebilir. Bu çalışmadan hareketle gelecekteki çalışmalarda öğrencilerin programlamaya yönelik gelişim odaklı zihin yapısını güçlendirmeye yönelik çeşitli öğretim tasarımlarına dayalı müdahale programlarının geliştirilmesi ve etkilerinin incelenmesi önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• gelişim odaklı zihin yapısı
• sabit zihin yapısı
• bağlılık
• programlama

Kaynakça

1. Altun, A., & Kasalak, İ. (2018). Blok temelli programlamaya ilişkin öz-yeterlik algısı ölçeği geliştirme çalışması: Scratch örneği. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(1), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.335916.
2. Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Programlamaya ilişkin öz yeterlilik algısı ölçeğinin Türkçe formumun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 3(2), 297-308.
3. Avci, U., & Ersoy, H. (2018). The adaptation of learning motivation in computer programming courses scale into Turkish: The study of validity and reliability. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 8(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2018.249
4. Bauer, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. (2017). Learnable Programming: Blocks and Beyond. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.09413
5. 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
6. Burnette, J. L., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2012). Creating mastery-oriented classrooms: The importance of supportive relationships in fostering academic resilience. In S. D. Brown & R.Wayne Fuqua (Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 299-314). Springer.
7. Burnette, J. L., Hoyt, C. L., Russell, V. M., Lawson, B., Dweck, C. S., & Finkel, E. (2020). A growth mind-set intervention improves interest but not academic performance in the field of computer science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(1), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619841631
8. Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamarahttps, B. N. (2020). How Firm Are the Foundations of Mind-Set Theory? The Claims Appear Stronger Than the Evidence. Psychological Science, 31(3), 258-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619897588

9. Bosch, N. (2021). Identifying supportive student factors for mindset interventions: A two-model machine learning approach. Computers & Education, 167, 104190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104190
10. Cavanagh, A. J., Chen, X., Bathgate, M., Frederick, J., Hanauer, D. I., & Graham, M. J. (2018). Trust, growth mindset, and student commitment to active learning in a college science course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar10. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-06-0107
11. Cannon, R. L., Clance, L. R., Correia, K. M., Morrison, B. H., Nelson, M. T., & Henning, J. A. (2022). Undergraduate surveys reveal that instructors are key in students overcoming classroom struggles during the Covid-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Education, 7(May), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.841060
12. Cartwright, T. J., & Hallar, B. (2018). Taking risks with a growth mindset: Long-term influence of an elementary pre-service after school science practicum. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 348-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1420269
13. Cheng, M.W.T., Leung, M.L. & Lau, J.CH. (2021). A review of growth mindset intervention in higher education: the case for infographics in cultivating mindset behaviors. Soc Psychol Educ 24, 1335–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09660-9
14. Celis Rangel, J. G., King, M., & Muldner, K. (2020). An incremental mindset intervention increases effort during programming activities but not performance. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377427
15. Cutler, C. S. (2020). Preservice teachers’ mathematical mindsets during pandemic-induced pivot to online learning. Frontiers in Education, 5(November), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.595264
16. Cutts, Q., Cutts, E., Draper, S., O'Donnell, P., & Saffrey, P. (2010, March). Manipulating mindset to positively influence introductory programming performance. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 431-435). https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1734263.1734409
17. DeLuca, C., Coombs, A., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2019). Assessment mindset: Exploring the relationship between teacher mindset and approaches to classroom assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.012
18. Deniz, K. Z. (2007). Psikolojik ölçme aracı uyarlama. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 40(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000180
19. Dorgnier, R., Mazerolle, M., Maquestiaux, F., & Picard, L. (2025). Enhancing primary school learning through growth mindset and memory strategy interventions. The Journal of Educational Research, 118(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2024.2431695
20. Dweck. C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality and development. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.
21. Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindsets and math/science achievement. Carnegie Corp. 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_achieveme nt_-_nov_2013.pdf
22. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. Random House.
23. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. yi, Chiu, C. yue, & Hong, Y. yi. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
24. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
25. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindsets: From the Classroom to the Middle East. İçinde D. J. Foss, R. J. Sternberg, & S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Scientists Making a Difference: One Hundred Eminent Behavioral and Brain Scientists Talk about their Most Important Contributions (ss. 293-296). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316422250.064
26. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). Mindsets: A view from two eras. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(3), 481-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618804166
27. Erdei, R., Springer, J. A., & Whittinghill, D. M. (2017). An impact comparison of two instructional scaffolding strategies employed in our programming laboratories: Employment of a supplemental teaching assistant versus employment of the pair programming methodology. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
28. Ergün, E., & Usluel, Y. K. (2015). Çevrimiçi öğrenme ortamlarında öğrenci bağlılık ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 5(1), 18-33. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.64661
29. Fang, X., Ng, D. T. K., & Yuen, M. (2025). Effects of geogebra-enhanced scratch computational thinking instruction on fifth-grade students' motivation, anxiety, cognitive load. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13052-9
30. Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. Gero, G. P. (2013). What drives teachers to improve? The role of teacher mindset in professional learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Claremont Graduate University, California, USA.
32. Gorson, J., & O’Rourke, E. (2019). How Do Students Talk About Intelligence?: An Investigation of Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Mindsets in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 21-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339413
33. Guan, Y., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Zhu, S., & Yao, Y. (2024). Investigating the relationships between language mindsets, attributions, and learning engagement of L2 writers. System, 125, 103431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103431
34. Hambleton, R. K. & Patsula, L. (1999). Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 1(1), 1-30.
35. Haimovitz, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2017). What predicts children's fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets? Not their parents' views of intelligence but their parents' views of failure. Psychological Science, 28(10), 1511–1520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617718352
36. Hasanov, Z., Antoniou, P., Suleymanov, E., & Garayev, V. (2021). The impact of behavioural, cognitive and emotional dimensions of student engagement on student learning: The case of Azerbaijani higher education institutions. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 14(1), 10–38. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKL.2021.115027
37. Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C.Y., Dweck, C.S., Lin, D.M.S.& Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, rejection sensitivity, and the vulnerability to group think among Chinese students. Psychology Science,10, 475-480.
38. Hu, S. & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful activities: the influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 43, 5, 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020114231387
39. Jones, B. D., Bryant, L. H., Snyder, J. D., & Malone, D. (2012). Preservice and inservice teachers' implicit theories of intelligence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 87-101.
40. Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2022). Yaratıcı zihniyet yapıları ölçeği: Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kıbrıs Türk Psikiyatri ve Psikoloji Dergisi, 4(2), 122-129. https://doi.org/10.35365/ctjpp.22.2.01
41. Kattoum, R. N., Montenegro-Montenegro, E., & Baillie, M. T. (2024). Students Who Perceive Instructors to Have a Fixed Mindset Report a Greater Sense of Academic Misfit That Leads to Lower Chemistry Grades. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(9), 3613-3623. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00971
42. Kaya, S. & Yüksel, D. (2022). Teacher mindset and grit: how do they change by teacher training, gender, and subject taught?. Participatory Educational Research, 9(6), 418-435. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.146.9.6
43. Khandan, R., & Shannon, L. (2021). The effect of teaching–learning environments on student’s engagement with lean mindset. Education sciences, 11(9), 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090466
44. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Third Edition ed.). NY: Guilford Publication, Inc.
45. Korkmaz, O., & Altun, H. (2014). A validity and reliability study of the attitude scale of computer programming learning (ASCOPL). Mevlana International Journal of Education, 4(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.73.4.1
46. Kosmyna, N., Gross, A., & Maes, P. (2020). The thinking cap 2.0: Preliminary study on fostering growth mindset of children by means of electroencephalography and perceived magic using artifacts from fictional sci-fi universes. Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC 2020, 458-469. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394424
47. Laurell, J., Gholami, K., Tirri, K., & Hakkarainen, K. (2022). How mindsets, academic performance, and gender predict Finnish students’ educational aspirations. Education Sciences, 12(11), 809. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110809
48. Law, R. (2017). Teaching programming using computer games: A program language agnostic approach. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Games Based Learning, ECGBL 2017, Ecel, 368-376.
49. Lee, Y. kyung, Cho, E., Kim, E. H., Lee, G. A., Capin, P., & Swanson, E. (2022). Profiles of reading mindset and self-efficacy: How are they related to achievement goals, engagement, and reading achievement? Educational Psychology. 42(8), 934–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2117277
50. Li, H. (2023). Perceived teacher-student relationship and growth mindset as predictors of student engagement in foreign student engagement in foreign language learning: the mediating role of foreign language enjoyment. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1177223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177223
51. Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9857-5
52. Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Kinnunen, P., Simon, & Sinclair, J. (2020). Theories and models of emotions, attitudes, and self-efficacy in the context of programming education. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406279
53. McGill, M. M., Decker, A., McKlin, T., & Haynie, K. (2019, February). A gap analysis of noncognitive constructs in evaluation instruments designed for computing education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Minneapolis, MN, USA (pp. 706712).
54. Margulieux, L., Ketenci, T. A., & Decker, A. (2019). Review of measurements used in computing education research and suggestions for increasing standardization. Computer Science Education, 29(1), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1562145
55. Morales-Navarro, L., Giang, M. T., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2024). Connecting beliefs, mindsets, anxiety and self-efficacy in computer science learning: An instrument for capturing secondary school students’ self-beliefs. Computer Science Education, 34(3), 387–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2023.2201548
56. Morales-Navarro, L., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2024b). Understanding growth mindset practices in an introductory physical computing classroom: High school students’ engagement with debugging by design activities. Computer Science Education, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2024.2317080
57. Murphy, L., & Thomas, L. (2008). Dangers of a fixed mindset: Implications of self-theories research for computer science education. Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 271-275. https://doi.org/10.1145/1384271.1384344
58. Nastiti, N. P., Wahidah, F. R. N., Wulandari, D. A., & Grafiyana, G. A. (2022). The role of a growth mindset on grit among teachers of senior high school in Purwokerto. Education, Sustainability & Society (ESS), 5(1), 28-31. https://doi.org/10.26480/ess.01.2022.28.31
59. Nix, S., Perez-Felkner, L., & Thomas, K. (2015). Perceived mathematical ability under challenge: A longitudinal perspective on sex segregation among STEM degree fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00530
60. Nordin, K., & Broeckelman-Post, M. A. (2019). Can I get better? Exploring mindset theory in the introductory communication course. Communication Education, 68(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1538522
61. Ortiz Alvarado, N., Quintanilla Domínguez, C., Ayala Gaytan, E., & Del Castillo de la Fuente, E. (2024). Development and validation of the Multidimensional Mindset Scale: Growth and fixed mindsets. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(3), e13054. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13054
62. Pentaraki, A., & Burkholder, G. J. (2017). Emerging evidence regarding the roles of emotional, behavioural, and cognitive aspects of student engagement in the online classroom. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(1), 1–21. https://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&sp=full&article=770
63. Rangel, J. G. C., King, M., & Muldner, K. (2020). An incremental mindset intervention increases effort during programming activities but not performance. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 20(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377427
64. Richardson, J. T. E., Long, G. L. & Foster, S. B. (2004). Academic engagement in students with a hearing loss in distance education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 1, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh009
65. Ronkainen, R., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2019). Growth mindset in teaching: A case study of a Finnish elementary school teacher. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(8), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.8.9
66. Sahagun, M. A., Moser, R., Shomaker, J., & Fortier, J. (2021). Developing a growth-mindset pedagogy for higher education and testing its efficacy. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4(1), 100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100168
67. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Müller, H., (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-offit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784 Scott, M. J., & Ghinea, G. (2013). On the domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship between aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2013.2288700
68. Sheffler, P. C., & Cheung, C. S. (2020). The role of peer mindsets in students’ learning: An experimental study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(S1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12299
69. Sun, J. C., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
70. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.).
71. Tek, F. B., Benli, K. S., & Deveci, E. (2018). Implicit theories and self-efficacy in an introductory programming course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 61(3), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2017.2789183
72. Vignoli, M., Dosi, C., & Balboni, B. (2023). Design thinking mindset: scale development and validation. Studies in Higher Education, 48(6), 926-940. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2172566
73. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2013). Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy–value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Developmental review, 33(4), 304-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001
74. Wang, C., Lu, C., Chen, F., Liu, X., Zhao, Q., & Wang, S. (2024). Growth mindset mediates the relationship between computational thinking and programming self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 29(16), 21331-21354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12735-7
75. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
76. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., ... & Paunesku, D. (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
77. Yılmaz, E. (2022). Development of mindset theory scale (growth and fixed mindset): A validity and reliability study (Turkish version). Research on Education and Psychology, 6(Special Issue), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1054235
78. Zhao, H., Xiong, J., Zhang, Z., & Qi, C. (2021). Growth mindset and college students’ learning engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic: A serial mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 621094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.621094
79. Zhao, S., Du, H., King, R. B., Lin, D., & Chi, P. (2025). Growth mindset of socioeconomic status boosts academic-related outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 28(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09972-6