Zihniyeti Ölçmek: Zihniyet Perspektiflerinin Matematik ve Fen Bilimlerine Entegrasyonu

Öz

Öğrencilerin zekânın doğasına ilişkin inançlarını anlamak, öğrenme davranışlarını ve akademik başarıyı yordamak açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Zekânın sabit mi yoksa geliştirilebilir mi olarak algılandığını ifade eden zihniyet kuramı, eğitim araştırmalarında giderek artan bir ilgi görmektedir. Ancak mevcut ölçeklerin çoğu genel zihniyetleri (yani genel yeteneğe ilişkin inançları) ölçmekte ve bağlama özgü farklılıkları (yani belirli derslerdeki yeteneklere ilişkin inançları) göz ardı etmektedir. Bu boşluk, belirli öğrenme alanlarına yönelik hedeflenmiş müdahalelerin geliştirilmesini sınırlandırmaktadır. Bu duruma yanıt olarak, bu çalışmada öğrencilerin fen bilimleri ve matematik bağlamlarında zekâya ilişkin inançlarını değerlendirmek üzere zihniyet ölçekleri uyarlanmış ve geçerlik–güvenirlik çalışmaları yapılmıştır. Veriler, ortaokul öğrencilerinden oluşan iki bağımsız örneklemden toplanmıştır. İlk veri seti (n = 852) kullanılarak Matematik Zihniyet Ölçeği için Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiş ve iki boyutlu bir yapı doğrulanmıştır. İkinci veri seti (n = 1034) ile Fen Bilimleri Zihniyet Ölçeği için yapılan DFA, benzer bir yapısal geçerlik ortaya koymuştur. Güvenirlik analizleri ve Cronbach alfa değerleriyle desteklenen kabul edilebilir düzeyde iç tutarlılığa işaret etmiştir. Bu çalışma, bağlama özgü zihniyetlerin değerlendirilmesine yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir araçlar sunarak alanyazına katkı sağlamanın yanı sıra, fen bilimleri ve matematik alanlarında akademik gelişimi desteklemeyi hedefleyen araştırmacı ve eğitimciler için uygulamaya dönük çıkarımlar ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Örtük zeka kuramı
• Matematik
• Fen bilimleri
• Ortaokul öğrencileri
• Zihniyet

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu çalışma, Avrupa Birliği tarafından Erasmus+ Okul Eğitimi İş Birliği Ortaklıkları (KA220-SCH) programı kapsamında finanse edilen “Would You Mind-Set?” projesi çerçevesinde yürütülmüştür (Proje No: 2023-1-TR01-KA220-SCH-000155031).

Etik Beyan

Yapılan bu çalışmada, Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi kapsamında uyulması gereken tüm kurallara uyulmuş; yönergenin ikinci bölümü olan “Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler” başlığı altında belirtilen eylemlerden hiçbiri gerçekleştirilmemiştir. Bu çalışma, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım Üniversitesi İnsan Araştırmaları Eğitim Bilimleri Etik Kurulunun 26 Ocak 2024 tarihli ve 01/03 protokol numaralı izni doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Measuring Mindset: Integrating Mindset Perspectives into Math and Science

Öz

Understanding students' beliefs about the nature of intelligence is crucial for predicting learning behaviours and academic achievement. The implicit theory of intelligence, referring to whether intelligence is seen as fixed or malleable, has received growing attention in educational research. However, most existing scales measure general mindsets (i.e., beliefs about overall ability) and overlook domain-specific variations (i.e., beliefs about abilities in particular subjects). This gap restricts the development of targeted interventions for specific learning domains. To address this, the present study adapted and validated mindset scales for assessing students’ beliefs about intelligence in science and mathematics. Data were collected from two independent samples of middle school students. Using the first dataset (n = 852), we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the Mathematics Mindset Scale, confirming a two-dimensional structure. With the second dataset (n = 1034), a CFA of the Science Mindset Scale revealed comparable structural validity. Reliability analyses indicated acceptable internal consistency, supported by Cronbach’s alpha values. The study enriches the literature by offering valid and reliable tools for assessing domain-specific mindsets and provides practical implications for researchers and educators aiming to foster academic growth in science and mathematics.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Implicit theory of intelligence
• Math
• Middle school students
• Mindset
• Science

Destekleyen Kurum

: This study was conducted within the scope of the “Would You Mind-Set?” project, which is funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ School Education Cooperation Partnerships (KA220-SCH) program (Project No: 2023-1-TR01-KA220-SCH-000155031).

Etik Beyan

In this study, all rules specified in the Directive on Scientific Research and Publication Ethics of Higher Education Institutions were fully complied with, and none of the actions listed under Section Two, entitled “Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics,” were committed. This study was conducted in accordance with the approval of the Human Research Ethics Committee in Educational Sciences of Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, dated January 26, 2024, with Protocol No. 01/03.

Kaynakça

1. Asante Britwum, B., Ntow, F. D., & Smith, J. A. (2024). Influence of teaching approaches on senior high school students’ mathematical mindset. SAGE Open, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241237060
2. Ayebo, A., & Mrutu, A. (2019). An exploration of calculus students’ beliefs about mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5728
3. Bahník, Š., & Vranka, M. A. (2017). Growth mindset is not associated with scholastic aptitude in a large sample of university applicants. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.046
4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
5. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
6. Bernardo, A. B. (2021). Socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between growth mindset and learning in mathematics and science: Evidence from PISA 2018 Philippine data. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 9(2), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2020.1832635
7. 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
8. Boyd, P., & Ash, A. (2018). Mastery mathematics: Changing teacher beliefs around in-class grouping and mindset. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.016

9. Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. S. (1998). The relationship between motivational beliefs and learning strategy use among Norwegian college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(2), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0963
10. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415-449. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2001.1103
11. Burnette, J. L. (2010). Implicit theories of body weight: Entity beliefs can weigh you down. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209359768
12. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Structural Equation Modelling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(4), 567–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510802338951
13. Campbell, A., Craig, T., & Collier-Reed, B. (2019). A framework for using learning theories to inform ‘growth mindset’ activities. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 51(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1562118
14. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
15. Chen, J. A., & Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of Grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.003
16. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
17. Choi, H. M., Kim, W. G., Kim, Y. J., & Agmapisarn, C. (2019). Hotel environmental management initiative (HEMI) scale development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 562-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.08.020
18. Claro, S., & Loeb, S. (2024). Students with growth mindset learn more in school: Evidence from California’s CORE school districts. Educational Researcher, 53(7), 389-402. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X24124239
19. Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829
20. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
21. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
22. Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716–733. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031201
23. Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.666
24. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (2. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
25. Da Fonseca, D., Cury, F., Rufo, M., & Poinso, F. (2007). Predictive factors of depression in adolescents at school: The role of implicit theories of intelligence. L'encephale, 33(5), 791-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.encep.2006.08.005
26. Degol, J. L., Wang, M. T., Zhang, Y., & Allerton, J. (2018). Do growth mindsets in math benefit females? Identifying pathways between gender, mindset, and motivation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 976-990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0739-8
27. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
28. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
29. Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
30. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
31. Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26–29.
32. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
33. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
34. Dweck, C. S., & Sorich, L. (1999). Mastery-oriented thinking. Coping, 11, 232-251.
35. 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
36. Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). A growth mindset about intelligence. In G. M. Walton & A. J. Crum (Eds.), The handbook of wise interventions. The Guilford Press.
37. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
38. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
39. Gningue, S. M., Qian, G., Robinson, J. M., & Erbilgin, E. (2024). Impacts of teachers’ mindsets on their ways of teaching students in high needs schools. Sage Open, 14(2), 21582440241259355. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241259355
40. Golby, J., & Wood, P. (2016). The effects of psychological skills training on mental toughness and psychological well-being of student-athletes. Psychology, 7, 901-913. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.76092
41. Gunderson, E. A., Hamdan, N., & Sorhagen, N. S. (2017). Who needs innate ability to succeed in math and literacy? Academic-domain-specific theories of intelligence about peers versus adults. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1188-1205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000282
42. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
43. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2004). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 15-50). Psychology Press.
44. Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Motivation and achievement. In Feldman S. S., Elliott G. R. (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 308–329). Harvard University Press.
45. Hofer, B. K. (2006). Domain specificity of personal epistemology: Resolved questions, persistent issues, new models. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1-2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.006
46. Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588
47. Hooper, J. C., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-59.
48. Huang, C. C., Wang, Y. M., Wu, T. W., & Wang, P. A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(2), 217-221.
49. Hwang, N., Reyes, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2019). Who holds a fixed mindset, and whom does it harm in mathematics? Youth & Society, 51(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16670058
50. Im, S., & Park, H. J. (2023). A Mathematical Mindset Scale using the positive norms. Psychology in the Schools, 60(8), 2901–2918. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22904
51. Ingebrigtsen, M. (2018). How to measure a growth mindset. A validation study of the implicit theories of intelligence scale and a novel Norwegian measure. UiT Norges arktiske universitet.
52. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2013). The Turkish adaptation of Implicit Theory of Intelligence Scale: The validity and reliability study. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 191-221.
53. İlhan Beyaztaş, D., & Hymer, B. (2018). An analysis of Turkish students’ perception of intelligence from primary school to university. Gifted Education International, 34(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416649041
54. Johnson, R. L., & Morgan, G. B. (2016). Survey scales: A guide to development, analysis, and reporting. Guilford Press.
55. Jonsson, A. C., Beach, D., Korp, H., & Erlandson, P. (2012). Teachers’ implicit theories of intelligence: Influences from different disciplines and scientific theories. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.662636
56. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
57. Kapasi, A., & Pei, J. (2022). Mindset Theory and school psychology. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211053961
58. Kaya, S., & Karakoc, D. (2022). Math mindsets and academic grit: How are they related to primary math achievement? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 298-309. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/11881
59. Kaya, S., Eryilmaz, N., & Yuksel, D. (2024). The effects of growth mindset and resilience on immigrant students’ PISA science achievement: The mediating role of attitudes toward school. Sage Open, 14(1), 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231225870
60. Kehoe, J. (1995). Basic item analysis for multiple-choice tests. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.7275/07zg-h235
61. Kılıç, A., & Çalışkan, A. (2025). FAfA: Factor analysis for all (R package version 0.5) [Computer software]. GitHub. https://github.com/afarukkilic/fafa
62. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
63. Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: Impact on students' achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10035
64. Li, J., Ju, S. Y., Zhu, C., Yuan, Y., Fu, M., Kong, L. K., & Li, M. (2024). The development of a digital intelligence quotient scale: A new measuring instrument for primary school students in China. Heliyon, 10(16). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36437
65. Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that’s how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks, educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1640–1655. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000669
66. Limeri, L. B. (2025). Intelligence in context: A context-specific mindset measure better predicts outcomes for science and math undergraduates. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 24(1), ar19. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.24-09-0229
67. Limeri, L. B., Carter, N. T., Lyra, F., Martin, J., Mastronardo, H., Patel, J., & Dolan, E. L. (2023). Undergraduate Lay Theories of Abilities: Mindset, universality, and brilliance beliefs uniquely predict undergraduate educational outcomes. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(4), ar40. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-12-0250
68. Little, T. D., Lindenberger, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2002). On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: When “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychological Methods, 7(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.3.286
69. Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2020). Engineering mindsets and learning outcomes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 640–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20350
70. Lou, N. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2017). Interpersonal relationship mindsets and rejection sensitivity across cultures: The role of relational mobility. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.004
71. 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
72. 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
73. Megawanti, P., Supriyati, Y., & Tjalla, A. (2024). Development of mathematical mindset scale for mathematics education students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(4), 2139-2147. http://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.27845
74. Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
75. Murphy, M. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209347380
76. Noels, K. A., Lou, N. M., Vargas Lascano, D. I., Chaffee, K. E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y. S. D., & Zhang, X. (2019). Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 95–115). Springer International Publishing.
77. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
78. Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mindset interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
79. Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., Rivas, B., & Jones, F. (2017). The relation between global and specific mindset with reading outcomes for elementary school students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1313846
80. Romero, C., Master, A., Paunesku, D., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Academic and emotional functioning in middle school: the role of implicit theories. Emotion, 14(2), 227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035490
81. Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2012). Language learning mindsets across cultural settings: English learners in Austria and Japan. OnCUE Journal, 6(1), 6-22.
82. Scherer, R., & Campos, D. G. (2022). Measuring those who have their minds set: An item-level metaanalysis of the implicit theories of intelligence scale in education. Educational Research Review, 37, 100479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100479
83. Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003
84. Schroder, H. S., Moran, T. P., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2014). Mindset induction effects on cognitive control: A neurobehavioral investigation. Biological Psychology, 103, 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003
85. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.
86. Shively, R. L., & Ryan, C. S. (2013). Longitudinal changes in college math students’ implicit theories of intelligence. Social Psychology of Education, 16(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9208-0
87. Simon, B., Hanks, B., Murphy, L., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008, September). Saying isn't necessarily believing: Influencing self-theories in computing. In Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 173-184). https://doi.org/10.1145/1404520.1404537
88. Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances are growth mindsets important to academic achievement? Two meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704
89. Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.397
90. Stohlmann, M. (2022). Growth mindset in K-8 STEM education: A review of the literature since 2007. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.202213029
91. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts and applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49–74.
92. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
93. Türk, N., & Çelik, M. (2024). Psychometric properties of the Turkish Adaptation of Stress Mindset Measure. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 16(Supplement 1), 293-302. https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1541853
94. Ursachi, G., Horodnic, I. A., & Zait, A. (2015). How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00123-9
95. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
96. Vella, S. A., Braithewaite, R. E., Gardner, L. A., & Spray, C. M. (2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of implicit theory research in sport, physical activity, and physical education. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9(1), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1160418
97. Wells, C. S., & Wollack, J. A. (2003). An instructor’s guide to understanding test reliability. Testing & Evaluation Services. University of Wisconsin.
98. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237
99. 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
100. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75(9), 1269–1284. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000794
101. 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
102. Yılmaz, E. (2022). Development of mindset theory scale (growth and fixed mindset): A validity and reliability study. Research on Education and Psychology (REP), 6, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.54535/rep.1054235