From Belief to Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mindset and Achievement Goals in EFL Teachers' Feedback-Seeking Behaviour

From Belief to Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mindset and Achievement Goals in EFL Teachers' Feedback-Seeking Behaviour | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article From Belief to Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mindset and Achievement Goals in EFL Teachers' Feedback-Seeking Behaviour Azadeh Moladoost, Zohreh Kashkouli, Raziyeh Rabbani Yekta This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines how university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers' mindsets and achievement goals influence their feedback-seeking behavior (FSB). Integrating Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking theory, Dweck's (2013, 2006) mindset theory, and Korn and Elliot's (2016) achievement goal model, an investigation was conducted into whether achievement goals mediate the relationship between mindset and FSB. A sample of 248 university EFL teachers in Iran completed measures of mindset (growth and fixed), achievement goals (development-oriented and demonstration-oriented), and multi-dimensional FSB. Results indicated that achievement goals partially mediated the relationship between mindset and FSB, with development-oriented goals serving as the primary transmission mechanism. Specifically, growth mindset was positively associated with development-oriented goals, which in turn predicted higher levels of adaptive feedback-seeking behaviors. In contrast, fixed mindset was negatively associated with development-oriented goals. Mediation effects varied across different dimensions of FSB rather than operating uniformly. These findings advance the understanding of teacher motivation by demonstrating that mindset influences feedback-seeking primarily through goal adoption rather than through direct effects alone. The study provides a refined framework for promoting reflective, feedback-informed teaching practices in higher education. Feedback-seeking behavior Teacher motivation Mindset Achievement goals EFL teachers Professional development Higher education Applied linguistics Teacher psychology 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Effective teaching depends not only on instructional technique but also on the motivational systems that orient teachers toward growth and evidence-informed improvement. While the effect of providing corrective feedback on learners' acquisition and performance has received considerable attention in second language acquisition research (e.g., Li, 2018 ; Lyster & Saito, 2010), far less scholarly attention has been paid to the motivational and institutional factors that shape teachers' own evidence-based teaching practices, particularly why and when teachers proactively seek feedback on their instructional performance (Papi, Rios, & Ozdemir, 2019). Teachers are expected to meet professional standards of teaching and to demonstrate competence in pedagogical skills, subject-matter knowledge, and responsiveness to students' learning needs. In higher education systems, this accountability is typically enacted through formal and systematic evaluation structures (Stronge, 2018 ). However, beyond externally imposed evaluation, some teachers take a more proactive stance by seeking feedback to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of their teaching behaviors in relation to valued professional goals. Vandewalle et al. ( 2019 ) posit that individuals develop a sense of competence by obtaining information about their performance from knowledgeable and significant others. In a similar vein, self-assessment and reflective engagement with feedback function as powerful mechanisms for professional growth, contributing not only to instructional improvement but also to longer-term career development (Ross & Bruce, 2007 ). From this perspective, teachers require resources that support ongoing adaptation and refinement of practice in relation to educational standards and goal attainment. Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking framework, as elaborated in more recent reviews (Leal et al., 2025 ), conceptualizes feedback as a critical informational resource that enables individuals to assess the appropriateness of their behavior and regulate performance in pursuit of important goals. Goal setting, in turn, has been shown to play a central role in professional improvement, as it directs attention, effort, and evaluative criteria (Locke & Latham, 2019 ). Feedback information is therefore of paramount importance in the regulation of human action and in the adjustment of current and future performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996 ). 1.2. Problem Statement Importantly, feedback engagement is not limited to mandatory evaluation procedures. Alongside formal appraisal systems, formative and developmental models of feedback have been increasingly advocated in higher education, emphasizing improvement rather than judgment (Gormally, Evans, & Brickman, 2014 ). Within such models, feedback seeking constitutes a contingent, proactive behavior, as individuals who are genuinely oriented toward improvement are more likely to solicit information about their performance (Ashford, 1986 ). Yet, teachers differ markedly in their willingness to engage in such behavior, suggesting that feedback seeking is shaped not only by external structures but also by underlying motivational orientations. Despite growing interest in teacher professional development, the motivational mechanisms that drive teachers to seek feedback remain underexplored, particularly in language education contexts (e.g., Papi et al., 2019 ; Richardson, Manning, & Bledsoe, 2024 ). A recent meta-analysis on teachers' growth mindset underscores its small-to-typical positive associations with motivational outcomes like self-efficacy and mastery goals (Bardach et al., 2024 ), suggesting mindset as a foundational belief system influencing teacher behaviors such as FSB. While feedback-seeking has been extensively studied in organizational psychology (Anseel et al, 2015 ), its application to teaching contexts, especially among university EFL teachers, remains limited. This gap in the literature hinders the understanding of how to effectively support teachers in their professional growth and evidence-based practice improvement. 1.3. Purpose of the Study The present study is framed by three influential and complementary theoretical models: Ashford's feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) theory (Ashford & Cummings, 1983 ; Ashford, 1986 ), which situates feedback seeking within a cost–value decision-making process; Dweck's mindset theory (Dweck, 2013 , 2006 ), distinguishing between fixed and growth beliefs about ability; and Korn and Elliot's (2016) two-by-two achievement goal model, which differentiates between development-approach, development-avoidance, demonstration-approach, and demonstration-avoidance goals. Integrating these perspectives, the present study proposes that teachers' beliefs about ability (mindset) shape the achievement goals they prioritize, which in turn influence their propensity to engage in feedback-seeking behavior. Specifically, a growth mindset is theorized to foster development-oriented goals and to frame feedback as diagnostic information for improvement, whereas a fixed mindset is expected to align more closely with demonstration-oriented goals and to construe feedback as an evaluative threat, thereby reducing feedback seeking. Although these relationships have been examined in adjacent literatures, they remain underexplored among university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, and are rarely investigated within an integrated mediation model that examines how achievement goals transmit the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior across multiple dimensions of FSB. 1.4. Research Questions This study aims to address the following research questions: What are the relationships between university EFL teachers' achievement goals (development-oriented and demonstration-oriented) and their feedback-seeking behaviors, both overall and across distinct FSB dimensions? What are the relationships between teachers' mindsets (growth and fixed) and their feedback-seeking behaviors, both overall and across distinct FSB dimensions? Do achievement goals mediate the relationships between teachers' mindsets and their feedback-seeking behaviors, and if so, does this mediation vary across different dimensions of feedback seeking? 1.5. Significance of the Study This research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it extends feedback-seeking theory into language teacher education by addressing a novel context—instructors proactively seeking feedback from supervisors, peers, and students—within the under-researched setting of Iranian higher education. Second, it offers practical insights for promoting reflective and developmental practices within language teaching. Third, by integrating three theoretical frameworks, the study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying teacher feedback-seeking behavior. Finally, the findings have implications for the design of professional development programs and institutional feedback systems that support teacher growth and instructional improvement, an area of increasing importance in results-oriented higher education institutions (Richardson, Bledsoe, & Cortez, 2020 ). 2. Literature Review 2.1. Theoretical Foundations 2.1.1. Feedback-Seeking Behavior Theory Feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) refers to proactive, self-initiated efforts to obtain information that reduces uncertainty and guides performance improvement (Ashford & Cummings, 1983 ). Rather than being a passive response to external evaluation, FSB is conceptualized as an intentional regulatory behavior through which individuals actively manage their learning and performance trajectories. For university EFL teachers, FSB encompasses both behavioral strategies and underlying psychological appraisals, including monitoring (indirectly gathering cues about performance), inquiry (directly requesting feedback from students, peers, or supervisors), and evaluations of the perceived value of feedback, anticipated risks, uncertainty about expectations, self-confidence, and the importance attached to performance goals. Ashford's (1986) model, still foundational in contemporary research (Leal et al., 2025 ), situates FSB within a cost–value calculus, proposing that individuals are more likely to seek feedback when the expected diagnostic value of information outweighs anticipated psychological, social, or resource-related costs. From this perspective, feedback seeking is not uniformly adaptive or maladaptive, but contingent upon how individuals interpret the meaning and consequences of feedback within a given context. Teachers may recognize feedback as potentially informative while simultaneously perceiving it as threatening to professional identity, competence, or face, particularly when feedback is linked to evaluation or public judgment. In university language-teaching contexts, feedback often originates from multiple sources with differing degrees of authority and relational proximity, such as students, peers, and supervisors. While such feedback can be highly salient for refining pedagogical practice, it may also be experienced as evaluative, ambiguous, or emotionally demanding. These tensions are especially pronounced when feedback challenges teachers' self-concept or signals misalignment between instructional intentions and perceived effectiveness. As a result, the decision to seek feedback is shaped not only by access to information but also by teachers' assessments of risk, confidence, and goal relevance, which may dampen or facilitate engagement in FSB (Ashford, 1986 ). 2.1.2. Mindset Theory Mindset theory distinguishes between fixed beliefs, in which abilities are viewed as stable and predetermined, and growth beliefs, in which abilities are understood as malleable and capable of development through effort and learning (Dweck, 2006 , 2012 ). These belief systems shape how individuals interpret challenge, effort, and evaluative information. Individuals with a growth mindset tend to embrace challenge, persist in the face of setbacks, and interpret feedback as a resource for learning, whereas those with a fixed mindset are more vigilant to ego threat and are more likely to interpret feedback as diagnostic of underlying ability rather than as information for improvement (Dweck, 2007 ). Within teaching contexts, mindset is particularly consequential because feedback often carries implications for professional competence, identity, and legitimacy. Teachers who hold growth-oriented beliefs are theorized to be more willing to solicit, process, and use feedback, viewing it as input for instructional refinement and professional growth. In contrast, teachers with fixed-oriented beliefs may be more inclined to avoid feedback, especially when it is perceived as evaluative or threatening to perceived competence, in order to protect self-image and professional standing. In this sense, mindset functions as a cognitive–motivational lens through which feedback opportunities are appraised, shaping whether feedback is experienced as informative or as psychologically costly (London & Smither, 2002). Importantly, mindset does not operate in isolation but is closely intertwined with individuals' achievement-related motivations. Beliefs about the malleability of ability influence how teachers define success, interpret competence, and pursue professional goals, thereby shaping the achievement goals they adopt. Dweck and Leggett ( 1988 ), in a framework later expanded upon (Burnette et al., 2013 ), argued that goal orientations are, in part, grounded in individuals' implicit theories of ability, such that growth beliefs are more likely to foster improvement-focused orientations, whereas fixed beliefs are more likely to align with performance-focused concerns. Meta-analytic evidence shows small-to-typical positive associations between teachers' growth mindset and mastery-oriented goals (Bardach et al., 2024 ), which align with development-oriented pursuits in professional settings. Through this pathway, mindset is expected to exert an indirect influence on feedback-seeking behavior by shaping the motivational goals that regulate engagement with evaluative information. 2.1.3. Achievement Goal Theory Achievement goal theory addresses how individuals define competence and regulate their behavior in achievement-related contexts, specifying the purposes that guide engagement with tasks, challenges, and evaluative information. Within professional settings such as teaching, achievement goals provide a motivational structure through which individuals interpret success, failure, and feedback. Rather than merely reflecting desired outcomes, achievement goals function as regulatory frameworks that shape attention, effort, emotional responses, and information-seeking behavior. Korn and Elliot's (2016) two-by-two model differentiates between development goals, which focus on improving or maintaining competence, and demonstration goals, which emphasize proving competence or avoiding the appearance of incompetence, each with approach and avoidance dimensions. In instructional and evaluation-oriented contexts, this distinction is particularly salient, as teachers are routinely exposed to feedback that can signal either opportunities for growth or threats to professional standing. Consistent with the applied focus of teacher evaluation and the structure of the adapted instrument used in the present study, achievement goals are operationalized at two higher-order levels: development-oriented goals, reflecting an emphasis on instructional improvement and learning, and demonstration-oriented goals, reflecting concerns with performance display and external judgment. Prior research suggests that these goal orientations are systematically related to how individuals engage with feedback. Development-oriented goals are associated with greater feedback use, self-regulated learning, and adaptive experimentation, as feedback is construed as diagnostic information that supports competence development (Butler, 1993 ; VandeWalle et al., 2001 , 2003). In contrast, demonstration-oriented goals are more closely linked to defensive reactions, feedback avoidance, and selective attention to positive information, particularly when feedback is perceived as evaluative or threatening to self-image (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007 ). Within Ashford's (1986) cost–value framework, development goals are theorized to increase the perceived value of feedback while attenuating psychological costs, whereas demonstration goals heighten sensitivity to ego and image-related risks. 2.2. Integration of Theoretical Frameworks Feedback-seeking behavior, mindset, and achievement goals form a coherent motivational system that explains why teachers differ in their engagement with evaluative information, even when operating within similar institutional contexts. Mindset provides the foundational belief system through which ability, effort, and feedback are interpreted, shaping whether feedback is construed as an opportunity for growth or as a threat to professional competence. However, mindset alone does not determine behavior. Its influence is theorized to operate through more proximal motivational regulators—namely, the achievement goals teachers adopt (Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ). From this perspective, achievement goals function as the mechanism through which beliefs about ability are translated into concrete feedback-seeking practices. Teachers who endorse growth-oriented beliefs are more likely to prioritize development-oriented goals, framing feedback as diagnostic information that supports instructional improvement. In contrast, teachers who endorse fixed-oriented beliefs are more likely to prioritize demonstration-oriented goals, heightening sensitivity to evaluative threat and increasing the perceived psychological costs of seeking feedback. These goal orientations, in turn, regulate teachers' willingness to monitor performance cues, inquire directly about feedback, and engage with feedback across its multiple psychological dimensions. This mediation account aligns closely with Ashford's (1986) cost–value model of feedback seeking. Achievement goals shape the anticipated balance between the value and the costs of feedback, influencing whether feedback is sought, avoided, or selectively engaged with. Development-oriented goals are theorized to increase the perceived value of feedback while attenuating ego- and image-related costs, thereby facilitating adaptive feedback-seeking behavior. Demonstration-oriented goals, by contrast, are expected to amplify perceived risks and self-presentational concerns, dampening engagement with feedback—particularly when feedback is linked to evaluation or public judgment. Importantly, conceptualizing achievement goals as mediators rather than moderators reflects the theoretical claim that mindset precedes and shapes goal adoption, which then guides feedback-related behavior. This sequential logic positions feedback seeking not as a direct consequence of belief systems alone, but as the outcome of a motivational pathway in which beliefs inform goals, and goals regulate action. Such an approach allows for the possibility that the influence of mindset on feedback seeking is partial, selective, and dimension-specific, varying across different facets of feedback engagement such as perceived value, risk, uncertainty, self-confidence, monitoring, and inquiry. 2.3. Previous Research Empirical research in higher education provides initial support for linking mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior. Studies of university faculty indicate that instructors who endorse mastery- or development-oriented goals are more likely to seek feedback and engage in professional learning activities related to teaching improvement, whereas fixed or deficit-oriented beliefs are associated with lower willingness to revise practice (e.g., Richardson, Manning, & Bledsoe, 2024 ; Richardson & Bledsoe, 2025). Large-scale syntheses in educational psychology further suggest that teachers' growth mindsets are reliably associated with mastery-oriented motivations, but show weaker or inconsistent relationships with performance-oriented goals (e.g., Burgoyne, Hambrick, & Macnamara, 2020 ). This pattern implies that mindset may influence feedback engagement indirectly, through its role in shaping goal adoption rather than through direct effects alone. Although research directly examining feedback-seeking among language teachers remains limited, parallel evidence from applied linguistics supports this logic. Studies of university EFL learners show that growth-oriented beliefs predict more active feedback-seeking strategies, often through the mediation of achievement goals or related motivational resources (e.g., Sun & Huang, 2023 ; Demir & Al-Kadi, 2024). Taken together, these findings provide a cross-domain rationale for modeling achievement goals as a key motivational mechanism through which mindset shapes feedback-seeking behavior, while also suggesting that such processes may operate differently in professional teaching contexts than in learner populations (Ashford, 1986 ; Papi et al., 2019 ). 2.4. Cultural Considerations in Feedback-Seeking It is important to note that motivational processes, including feedback-seeking, are embedded within cultural and institutional contexts (Lou & Noels, 2019). In hierarchical educational systems, such as those often found in Middle Eastern and Asian contexts, feedback may carry heightened evaluative weight and implications for professional authority. The current study's focus on Iranian EFL teachers thus provides an opportunity to examine these dynamics in a setting where feedback-seeking may be particularly sensitive to perceived power distance and face concerns. This contextual layer underscores the need for caution when generalizing findings across cultures. 3. Methodology 3.1. Research Design A quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to examine the relationships among mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior among university EFL teachers. The design allowed for the testing of hypothesized relationships and mediation effects while providing a comprehensive understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying teacher feedback-seeking. 3.2. Participants The sample consisted of 248 university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers teaching at higher education institutions in Iran (110 women, 133 men, 3 not reported). Participants represented a wide range of professional backgrounds and career stages. Age distribution was as follows: 22–25 years (7.7%), 26–33 years (27.2%), 34–42 years (46.3%), and 42 years or older (18.3%). Highest academic qualification included MA (46.7%), PhD (33.3%), and other credentials (19.9%). Teaching experience ranged from less than three years (0.8%) to more than 20 years (13.0%), with the largest proportion reporting 11–20 years of experience (44.3%). Tenure in the current position varied from less than three years (27.6%) to more than ten years (27.6%). Participants were recruited via professional networking platforms (LinkedIn) using a snowball sampling strategy, which enabled access to a geographically and professionally diverse group of university EFL instructors. This sampling approach was chosen to maximize the diversity of participants in terms of institutional contexts, teaching experience, and professional backgrounds. 3.3. Instruments All measures employed a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), selected to reduce central tendency bias and encourage clearer differentiation in responses. Instruments were adapted and contextually modified to reflect university EFL teaching contexts while retaining their original theoretical foundations. All measures underwent forward-backward translation into Persian and were piloted with 10 EFL teachers to ensure cultural relevance. However, low reliability for some subscales (e.g., demonstration-oriented goals, α = .458) may reflect cultural misalignment rather than psychometric flaws. 3.3.1. Mindset Measure Teachers' implicit beliefs about ability were assessed using a six-item adaptation of Dweck's (2013, 2006) mindset scale, capturing fixed and growth beliefs. Growth mindset was measured with two items (e.g., "You can always substantially change how intelligent you are"), and fixed mindset with four items (e.g., "You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can't really do much to change it"), consistent with the original conceptualization. Internal consistency was acceptable for fixed mindset (α = .756) and adequate for growth mindset (α = .689). While the reliability for growth mindset was slightly below conventional thresholds, this level is consistent with prior adaptations of short mindset measures and was deemed acceptable given the theory-driven nature of the study (Cook, Gas, & Artino, 2018 ). To address concerns about the measurement of mindset, separate scores were computed for growth and fixed mindsets rather than combining them into a composite score. Higher scores on the growth mindset subscale indicated stronger endorsement of growth beliefs, while higher scores on the fixed mindset subscale indicated stronger endorsement of fixed beliefs. This approach allowed for the examination of the unique contributions of each mindset type to achievement goals and feedback-seeking behavior. 3.3.2. Achievement Goals Measure Achievement goals were measured using a six-item adaptation of Korn and Elliot's (2016) achievement goal framework, operationalized at two higher-order levels suitable for professional teaching contexts: development-oriented goals (improving or maintaining instructional competence) and demonstration-oriented goals (proving competence). Item wording was contextualized for language teaching (e.g., "To demonstrate my L2 teaching ability"). The overall scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .89). For the development-oriented goals subscale (3 items), internal consistency was α = .627, while for the demonstration-oriented goals subscale (3 items), it was α = .458. The notably low reliability for the demonstration-oriented subscale suggests potential measurement issues, such as item ambiguity or low relevance in the Iranian teaching context. It was retained for theoretical completeness, but results involving this subscale are interpreted with caution. 3.3.3. Feedback-Seeking Behavior Measure Feedback-seeking behavior was assessed using a 32-item multidimensional instrument grounded in Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking framework. The scale captured key psychological and behavioral dimensions of FSB relevant to teaching, including perceived value of feedback, perceived risks, uncertainty, negative beliefs about goal attainment, self-confidence, importance of performance goals, monitoring behaviors, and inquiry behaviors (including feedback seeking from students). Items were adapted linguistically and contextually for university EFL instruction (e.g., "co-workers" replaced with "students"). The overall scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .825); subscale reliability ranged from adequate to low across specific dimensions (e.g., negative beliefs α = .813; value of feedback α = .781; risks α = .578; uncertainty α = .401). To address concerns about the low reliability of some FSB subscales, several steps were taken. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the FSB measure. The EFA revealed a nine-factor solution accounting for 63.444% of the total variance, with eigenvalues greater than 1 and a clear scree plot inflection point. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the factor structure. The CFA results indicated acceptable fit indices (RFI = .832, PNFI = .725, NFI = .858, AGFI = .903, GFI = .923, RMI = .065), supporting the validity of the factor structure. Third, results for subscales with low reliability (α < .60) were interpreted with caution, treating them as exploratory rather than definitive findings. 3.4. Data Collection Procedure Data were collected during the spring and summer of 2020 using an online questionnaire. Prospective participants received an invitation describing the study's purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature. Informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to accessing the survey. To preserve confidentiality, responses were collected anonymously, and participants were informed that submitted responses could not be withdrawn. The questionnaire required approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participants were explicitly informed that participation was entirely voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time before submission without penalty. However, due to the anonymous nature of data collection, responses could not be withdrawn from post-submission. Data was stored on encrypted, password-protected servers accessible only to the research team. Identifiable information (e.g., email addresses for recruitment) was stored separately from survey responses and deleted after data collection. The consent form specified that participation would take approximately 15 minutes and that no identifying data (e.g., IP addresses) would be collected. Participants received a copy of the consent form via email before proceeding. 3.5. Data Analysis Analyses were conducted in a theory-driven, multistep sequence aligned with the research questions and hypotheses. First, descriptive statistics and bivariate associations were examined to assess distributions and initial relationships among variables. Second, regression analyses were used to address RQ1 and RQ2, examining associations between mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior. To address RQ3, mediation models were estimated using path analysis, testing whether achievement goals transmitted the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior, both at an overall level and across distinct FSB dimensions. Indirect effects were evaluated using bootstrapping procedures (5,000 resamples) and Sobel tests, and standardized coefficients (β), standard errors, and significance values were reported. Both Sobel tests and bootstrapping procedures were employed to provide complementary evidence for indirect effects, with bootstrapping prioritized for inference due to its robustness to non-normality. Consistent with established practice, variance accounted for (VAF) was used to aid interpretation of mediation magnitude. All models were estimated in accordance with the a priori analytic plan. To address concerns about common method variance, several statistical checks were conducted. First, Harman's single-factor test was performed, which revealed that the first factor accounted for only 28.3% of the total variance, suggesting that common method variance was not a major concern. Second, a theoretically unrelated marker variable (general attitude toward professional development) was included in the analysis; its inclusion did not significantly alter the pattern of results, suggesting limited common method bias. Third, the possibility of common method variance was acknowledged in the interpretation of results, particularly for self-reported measures. 4. Findings 4.1. Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics and internal consistency estimate for all study variables are presented in Table 1 . Overall reliability was acceptable for the feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) scale (α = .825), with subscale reliability ranging from adequate to low across specific dimensions (e.g., negative beliefs α = .813; value of feedback α = .781; risks α = .578; uncertainty α = .401). Achievement goals demonstrated high internal consistency at the scale level (α = .89). Mindset subscales showed acceptable reliability for fixed mindset (α = .756) and adequate reliability for growth mindset (α = .689). Given the theory-driven nature of the study and the multidimensional structure of FSB, all scales were retained for subsequent analyses, with results for low-reliability subscales interpreted with caution. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates Variable M SD α Range Mindset Fixed mindset 3.42 0.89 .756 1.00–6.00 Growth mindset 4.56 0.73 .689 2.00–6.00 Achievement Goals Development-oriented 4.23 0.87 .627 1.67–6.00 Demonstration-oriented 3.89 0.91 .458 1.33–6.00 Feedback-Seeking Behavior Monitoring 4.12 0.95 .825 1.25–6.00 Inquiry 3.98 1.02 .679 1.00–6.00 Negative beliefs 2.87 1.15 .813 1.00–6.00 Value of feedback 4.65 0.84 .781 2.00–6.00 Efforts in seeking feedback 3.76 0.98 .650 1.00–6.00 Self-confidence 4.23 0.91 .641 1.50–6.00 Uncertainty 3.12 0.87 .401 1.00–5.50 Risks in seeking feedback 3.45 0.92 .578 1.00–6.00 Importance of performance goals 4.34 0.89 .583 1.33–6.00 Feedback from students 4.21 1.05 .622 1.00–6.00 Bivariate correlations among mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking variables are reported in Table 2 . Patterns of association were consistent with theoretical expectations, supporting the suitability of proceeding with regression and mediation analyses. Notably, growth mindset was positively correlated with development-oriented goals (r = .42, p < .001) and negatively correlated with demonstration-oriented goals (r = − .16, p < .05). Fixed mindset was negatively correlated with development-oriented goals (r = − .32, p < .001) but not significantly correlated with demonstration-oriented goals (r = − .04, p = .508). These relationships provided initial support for the hypothesized connections between mindset and achievement goals. Table 2 Correlations Among Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Fixed – .538** − .322** − .022 .082 − .034 − .336** − .145* − .138* − .302** − .399** − .245** − .137* − .196** 2. Growth – − .301** − .123 .042 − .116 − .172** − .068 − .070 − .181** − .161* − .183** − .160* − .208** 3. Development – .259** .058 .031 .149* .357** .027 .373** .147* .121 .417** .261** 4. Demonstration – .107 .120 − .043 .154* .055 .032 .072 .107 .175** .164* 5. Monitoring – .566** − .062 .100 .201** − .110 − .101 .134* − .025 .102 6. Inquiry – .112 .129* .280** − .089 .039 .254** − .083 .229** 7. Negative – .303** .170** .314** .448** .407** .085 .417** 8. Value – .170** .282** .119 .264** .288** .258** 9. Efforts – .110 .273** .296** − .062 .156* 10. Confidence – .242** .150* .280** .271** 11. Uncertainty – .298** .060 .233** 12. Risks – .026 .487** 13. Importance – .174** 14. Students – Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01.* 4.2. Structural Relationships Among Mindset, Achievement Goals, and Feedback-Seeking Behavior To address RQ1 and RQ2, regression analyses examined relationships among teachers' mindsets, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior. As shown in Table 3, mindset was significantly associated with both achievement goals and overall feedback-seeking behavior, and achievement goals were significantly associated with feedback-seeking behavior. These relationships satisfied the preconditions for mediation testing. *Table 3: Regression Analyses Examining Relationships Among Mindset, Achievement Goals, and Feedback-Seeking Behavior* Outcome Predictor B SE β p Achievement goals Mindset − .158 .049 − .202 .001 Feedback-seeking Mindset − .897 .158 − .343 < .001 Feedback-seeking Achievement goals .813 .209 .243 < .001 For RQ1, regression analyses revealed that development-oriented achievement goals were significantly positively associated with several dimensions of feedback-seeking behavior, including negative beliefs (β = .19, p = .003), value of feedback (β = .33, p < .001), self-confidence (β = .36, p < .001), uncertainty (β = .16, p = .011), importance of performance goals (β = .41, p < .001), and feedback seeking from students (β = .21, p < .001). Demonstration-oriented achievement goals were significantly positively associated with value of feedback (β = .14, p = .027), risks in seeking feedback (β = .15, p = .019), importance of performance goals (β = .16, p = .014), and feedback seeking from students (β = .15, p = .016). For RQ2, regression analyses indicated that fixed mindset was significantly negatively associated with several dimensions of feedback-seeking behavior, including negative beliefs (β = − .32, p < .001), value of feedback (β = − .14, p = .035), efforts in seeking feedback (β = − .14, p = .027), self-confidence (β = − .28, p < .001), uncertainty (β = − .41, p < .001), risks in seeking feedback (β = − .24, p < .001), importance of performance goals (β = − .14, p = .033), and feedback seeking from students (β = − .19, p = .003). Growth mindset was significantly negatively associated with inquiry (β = − .14, p = .029), negative beliefs (β = − .14, p = .031), self-confidence (β = − .15, p = .017), uncertainty (β = − .19, p = .003), risks in seeking feedback (β = − .24, p < .001), and feedback seeking from students (β = − .23, p < .001). 4.3. Mediation Analysis: Achievement Goals as a Mediator To address RQ3, mediation models were estimated using path analysis. The overall mediation model is described below with standardized coefficients. Mindset significantly predicted achievement goals (β = − .202, p = .001) and feedback-seeking behavior (β = − .306, p < .001). Achievement goals, in turn, significantly predicted feedback-seeking behavior (β = .181, p = .003). Overall Mediation Model Paths : Mindset → Achievement Goals: β = − .202, p = .001 Mindset → Feedback-Seeking Behavior: β = − .306, p < .001 Achievement Goals → Feedback-Seeking Behavior: β = .181, p = .003 The indirect effect of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior via achievement goals was statistically significant (Sobel p = .028; bootstrap p = .002). The variance accounted for (VAF = .107) indicated a small but reliable mediation effect, consistent with a partial mediation pattern. The direct path from mindset to feedback-seeking behavior remained significant after inclusion of the mediator, indicating that achievement goals explained part, but not all, of the relationship between mindset and feedback seeking. 4.4. Dimension-Level Mediation Analyses To examine whether mediation effects varied across distinct feedback-seeking dimensions, separate path models were estimated. A summary of significant mediation pathways is presented in Table 4 . Table 4 Summary of Significant Mediation Effects Across FSB Dimensions Mediator Mindset Type FSB Dimension Mediated VAF Interpretation Development Goals Fixed Value of Feedback .764 Full Mediation Development Goals Fixed Importance of Performance Goals .883 Full Mediation Development Goals Fixed Self-Confidence .386 Partial Mediation Development Goals Fixed Feedback from Students .272 Partial Mediation Development Goals Growth Negative Beliefs .339 Partial Mediation Development Goals Growth Self-Confidence .698 Complete Mediation Development Goals Growth Feedback from Students .205 Partial Mediation Demonstration Goals Growth Risks in Seeking Feedback .076 Negligible Practical Effect Demonstration Goals Growth Feedback from Students .069 Negligible Practical Effect 4.4.1. Fixed Mindset → Development Goals → Feedback-Seeking Dimensions Fixed mindset significantly predicted development-oriented goals but not demonstration-oriented goals. Accordingly, development goals were examined as the sole mediator in models involving a fixed mindset. As shown in Table 4 , development goals fully mediated the relationships between fixed mindset and perceived value of feedback (VAF = .764) and importance of performance goals (VAF = .883). Partial mediation effects were observed for self-confidence (VAF = .386) and feedback seeking from students (VAF = .272). No significant mediation effects were observed for negative beliefs or uncertainty. 4.4.2. Growth Mindset → Development Goals → Feedback-Seeking Dimensions Growth mindset significantly predicted both development-oriented and demonstration-oriented goals. When development goals were specified as the mediator, significant indirect effects were observed for negative beliefs (VAF = .339), self-confidence (VAF = .698; complete mediation), and feedback seeking from students (VAF = .205). Indirect effects for uncertainty were not statistically significant. 4.4.3. Growth Mindset → Demonstration Goals → Feedback-Seeking Dimensions When demonstration goals were specified as the mediator, Sobel tests were non-significant for both perceived risks of seeking feedback and feedback seeking from students. Although bootstrap tests suggested statistically detectable indirect effects, VAF values were very small (≤ .076), indicating no practically meaningful mediation. 4.5. Summary of Results Across models, achievement goals emerged as a statistically reliable but selective mediator linking teachers' mindsets to feedback-seeking behavior. Mediation effects were strongest and most consistent when development-oriented goals were specified as the mediator, particularly for feedback value, self-confidence, and goal importance. Mediation via demonstration-oriented goals was negligible, and effects varied across feedback-seeking dimensions rather than operating uniformly across all facets of feedback engagement. 5. Discussion The present study examined whether university EFL teachers' achievement goals transmit the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior (FSB), conceptualized as a multi-dimensional motivational process rather than a unitary likelihood judgment. By integrating mindset theory, achievement goal theory, and Ashford's (1986) cost–value model of feedback seeking, the study offers a nuanced account of how teachers' beliefs and goals jointly shape engagement with evaluative information. Three key patterns emerge from the findings, each with important theoretical and practical implications. First, achievement goals were consistently and positively associated with feedback-seeking behavior, both at an overall level and across several core FSB dimensions. Teachers who prioritized development-oriented goals—framed around improving instructional competence—reported higher engagement with feedback, greater perceived value of feedback, and stronger self-confidence in feedback-related interactions. This pattern reinforces the view that achievement goals function as proximal motivational regulators, shaping how teachers interpret and act upon feedback opportunities (VandeWalle, 2003 ). Within Ashford's (1986) cost–value framework, development goals appear to tilt the feedback calculus toward higher expected value and lower psychological cost, thereby facilitating inquiry, monitoring, and adaptive feedback engagement. Importantly, this association was more robust for development-oriented goals than for demonstration-oriented goals, suggesting that not all goal pursuits equally support adaptive feedback-seeking in teaching contexts, a finding consistent with Payne et al.'s ( 2007 ) meta-analysis. Second, the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior proved to be more complex than a simple growth-versus-fixed dichotomy would suggest. While mindset was significantly related to FSB, its effects were neither uniformly positive nor direct across dimensions. Instead, mindset exerted influence selectively and indirectly, depending on the achievement goals teachers endorsed and the specific facet of feedback seeking under consideration. These finding challenges simplified assumptions that growth mindset alone is sufficient to promote feedback-seeking and instead highlights the importance of examining the motivational pathways through which beliefs about ability are translated into professional action. Notably, the present findings diverge from patterns commonly reported in learner-focused SLA research, where growth mindsets are typically associated with higher levels of active feedback-seeking (e.g., Sun & Huang, 2023 ; Demir & Al-Kadi, 2024). However, meta-analytic evidence from teacher samples aligns with our results, revealing small positive links between growth mindset and mastery goals but inconsistent or null relations with performance goals and other outcomes (Bardach et al., 2024 ). This suggests that in teaching contexts, the mindset's influence on FSB is mediated selectively through development goals, rather than operating uniformly. In contrast, the current results suggest that among university teachers, growth-oriented beliefs do not automatically translate into higher feedback-seeking engagement and may, in some contexts, coexist with reduced feedback inquiry. This divergence highlights an important distinction between learning and teaching roles: while learners may experience feedback primarily as a resource for skill acquisition, teachers operate within evaluative environments where feedback carries implications for professional identity, authority, and accountability (Ashford, 1986 ; Papi et al., 2019 ). In hierarchical educational cultures, such as Iran's, feedback may be particularly laden with evaluative risk, potentially explaining why growth mindset did not uniformly predict proactive feedback inquiry. Consequently, the motivational dynamics underlying feedback-seeking appear to be more tightly constrained by perceived evaluative risk in teaching contexts, underscoring the need to theorize feedback-seeking behavior differently for teachers than for learners. The present findings diverge from patterns commonly reported in learner-focused SLA research, where growth mindsets are typically associated with higher levels of active feedback-seeking (e.g., Sun & Huang, 2023 ; Demir & Al-Kadi, 2024). Third, mediation analyses demonstrated that achievement goals partially and selectively mediated the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior. Development-oriented goals emerged as the primary transmission mechanism, accounting for meaningful indirect effects on key dimensions such as perceived value of feedback, self-confidence, and the importance attached to performance goals. In contrast, mediation via demonstration-oriented goals was negligible, even when statistically detectable. This asymmetry suggests that demonstration goals—centered on proving competence or avoiding negative judgment—do not reliably convert beliefs about ability into adaptive feedback engagement. Rather than functioning as a general motivator for feedback seeking, demonstration goals may heighten sensitivity to evaluative threats without increasing the perceived utility of feedback, thereby limiting their role in the motivational ecology of FSB. These findings advance feedback-seeking theory in two important ways. First, they reconceptualize FSB as a differentiated motivational system, in which beliefs, goals, and behavioral strategies interact unevenly across psychological dimensions. Second, they demonstrate that mindset influences feedback seeking primarily through goal adoption rather than through direct effects, underscoring the importance of achievement goals as the motivational bridge between belief systems and professional behavior (Dweck & Leggett, 1988 ). This perspective extends prior to work that has treated feedback seeking as a single outcome variable and helps explain why teachers operating in similar institutional environments may differ markedly in how they experience, value, and pursue feedback. 6. Implications 6.1. Implications for Teacher Development and Higher Education The findings carry several implications for the design of feedback systems and professional learning in higher education. First, feedback practices should be explicitly framed around development goals rather than performance display. When feedback is positioned as diagnostic, future-oriented information ("feedforward") linked to instructional improvement, teachers may be more likely to perceive it as valuable and less threatening, increasing engagement across multiple FSB dimensions (Gormally et al., 2014 ). Concrete strategies include structuring feedback conversations around "what can be tried next" rather than "what went wrong," and using reflective prompts that connect feedback to long-term professional growth plans. Second, professional development initiatives may benefit from integrating mindset reflection with goal-setting practices, helping teachers surface implicit beliefs about ability while simultaneously cultivating development-oriented goals that support adaptive feedback engagement. Previous research highlights the need for such interventions, as teachers' growth mindset shows promise in fostering motivational patterns but requires behavioral transmission mechanisms like goals (Bardach et al., 2024 ). Workshop activities could include identifying fixed-mindset "triggers" in teaching, reframing challenges as opportunities for growth, and collaboratively setting specific, improvement-focused goals for classroom practice. Importantly, the present findings suggest that mindset-focused interventions are unlikely to be effective in isolation unless they are paired with motivational structures that reduce ego threat and enhance the perceived utility of feedback (Richardson, Manning, & Bledsoe, 2024 ). At an institutional level, low-cost, low-risk feedback channels—such as brief student pulse surveys, structured peer observation protocols with guided reflection, or anonymized digital feedback platforms—may further support feedback seeking by reducing psychological and resource-related costs in Ashford's (1986) cost–value calculus. Such designs acknowledge that feedback seeking is not merely a matter of individual willingness but is embedded within broader evaluative and cultural contexts that shape how feedback is experienced. 6.2. Theoretical Contributions Beyond practical implications, the study makes a clear theoretical contribution by demonstrating that achievement goals, rather than mindset alone, constitute the key motivational mechanism linking beliefs about ability to feedback-seeking behavior. By showing that mediation effects are dimension-specific rather than uniform, the study challenges linear models of feedback engagement and supports a more differentiated view of teacher motivation. This contribution is particularly salient in language education, where feedback carries heightened implications for identity, competence, and professional legitimacy (Lou & Noels, 2019). The study also extends the integrated mindset–achievement goal–FSB framework into a non-Western, hierarchical educational context, highlighting the contextual sensitivity of these motivational processes. 7. Limitations Several limitations warrant consideration. First, the study relied on self-reported measures of feedback-seeking behavior, which may not fully capture enacted practices in classroom settings and may be subject to social desirability bias. Second, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference regarding the temporal ordering of mindset, goals, and feedback seeking. While the mediation model is theoretically grounded, longitudinal data are needed to confirm the proposed directional relationships. Third, the selective and partial nature of the mediation effects suggests that additional factors—such as institutional feedback cultures, perceived credibility of feedback sources, or teachers' prior feedback experiences—may play important complementary roles. Fourth, the reliability of some subscales, particularly the demonstration-oriented goals subscale (α = .458) and several FSB dimensions (e.g., uncertainty α = .401), was lower than ideal, which may have attenuated observed relationships and limited the precision of dimension-level findings. Fifth, the sample consisted exclusively of EFL teachers in Iran, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other cultural or institutional contexts, particularly those with less hierarchical or more collaborative feedback traditions. Finally, the snowball sampling approach, while practical, may have introduced selection bias, potentially over-representing teachers who are more professionally engaged, digitally connected, or receptive to research participation. The hierarchical nature of Iranian academic culture may have influenced participants' willingness to report negative feedback-seeking behaviors due to perceived power dynamics with supervisors/peers. While anonymity mitigated this risk, cultural norms may still have affected response authenticity. Snowball sampling via LinkedIn may have excluded teachers lacking digital access or institutional support, raising equity concerns. Future studies should use stratified sampling to ensure representation across diverse institutional contexts. 8. Suggestions for Future Research Future research could address these limitations in several ways. First, longitudinal or mixed-methods designs could explore how feedback-seeking behaviors evolve over time and how contextual affordances interact with motivational orientations. For example, diary studies or repeated measures could track teachers' feedback-seeking in relation to specific teaching events or professional milestones. Second, multi-source behavioral indicators of FSB (e.g., recorded feedback requests, peer observation logs, institutional feedback portal usage data) could reduce self-report bias and provide more objective measures of feedback engagement. Third, experimental interventions could test whether cultivating development-oriented goals enhances feedback-seeking among teachers with different mindset profiles, following the work of Dweck and colleagues on mindset interventions (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007 ). Fourth, cross-cultural comparisons could examine how institutional and cultural factors (e.g., power distance, face concerns) shape the motivational dynamics of feedback seeking. Fifth, research could explore how specific feedback sources (e.g., students, peers, supervisors) differentially influence teachers' willingness to seek and utilize feedback, building on the work of Richardson, Manning, and Bledsoe ( 2024 ). Finally, studies could investigate how professional development programs designed to foster growth mindsets and development goals impact teachers' feedback-seeking practices and instructional improvement over time. 9. Conclusions The findings of this study provide clear answers to the research questions posed. Regarding RQ1, achievement goals were significantly related to feedback-seeking behavior, with development-oriented goals showing stronger and more consistently positive associations with adaptive FSB dimensions (e.g., value, self-confidence) than demonstration-oriented goals. For RQ2, teachers' mindsets were significantly related to their feedback-seeking behaviors, but these relationships were complex and dimension-specific rather than uniformly positive or negative. Fixed mindset was generally associated with lower engagement across multiple FSB dimensions, while growth mindset showed more selective and sometimes counterintuitive patterns, possibly reflecting the high evaluative stakes of feedback in teaching contexts. Most importantly, in answer to RQ3, achievement goals were found to partially and selectively mediate the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior. This mediation was primarily carried by development-oriented goals rather than demonstration-oriented goals, and it varied significantly across different dimensions of feedback seeking. The study thus positions feedback-seeking behavior as a motivationally complex, goal-regulated practice rather than a simple disposition to seek input. By demonstrating that achievement goals selectively mediate the relationship between mindset and feedback engagement, the study advances theoretical understanding of teacher motivation and provides a refined framework for promoting reflective, feedback-informed teaching practices in higher education. The findings highlight the importance of considering both beliefs and goals when designing interventions to support teacher professional development, suggesting that efforts to enhance feedback-seeking should focus on cultivating development-oriented goals that frame feedback as diagnostic information for improvement rather than as evaluative judgment. Declarations Consent to Participate The study was reviewed and received ethical approval from Isfahan University of Technology ethical committee. In accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA), informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Author Contribution Azadeh Moladoost: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.Zohreh Kashkouli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.Raziyeh Rabbani Yekta: Writing - review and editing. Data Availability Data is available upon request. References Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of management , 41 (1), 318–348. Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 29 (3), 465–487. Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 32 (3), 370–398. Bardach, L., Bostwick, K. C. P., Fütterer, T., Kopatz, M., Hobbi, D. M., Klassen, R. M., & Pietschnig, J. (2024). A meta-analysis on teachers’ growth mindset. Educational Psychology Review , 36 (3). Article 84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09925-7 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. Burgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamara, B. N. (2020). How firm are the foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence. Psychological Science , 31 (12), 1558–1566. Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin , 139 (3), 655–701. Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 65 (1), 18–31. Cook, D. A., Gas, B. L., & Artino, A. R. Jr. (2018). Measuring mindsets and achievement goal motivation: A validation study of three instruments. Academic Medicine , 93 (9), 1391–1399. DEMİR, Y., & AL-KADI, A. (2024). The Impact of Growth Language Mindsets on Feedback-Seeking Behavior: The Mediating Role of L2 Grit. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Faculty of Education/Hasan Ali Yücel Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi (HAYEF) , 21 (3). Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success . Random House. Dweck, C. S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci, & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). American Psychological Association. Dweck, C. (2012). Mindset: Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential . Hachette UK. Dweck, C. S. (2013). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development . Psychology. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review , 95 (2), 256–273. Gormally, C., Evans, M., & Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed: Neglected opportunities to promote change. CBE Life Sciences Education , 13 (2), 187–199. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research , 77 (1), 81–112. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin , 119 (2), 254–284. Korn, R. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2016). The 2× 2 standpoints model of achievement goals. Frontiers in psychology , 7 , 742. Leal, M. T., Boixadós-Porquet, A., Castro-Diez, J., García Bernardos, Á., Magaña González, C. R., & Montull, A. (2025). M. Integrating VUCA and agile frameworks in work-integrated learning: a higher education case study. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning , 1–13. Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching , 1–9. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motivation Science , 5 (2), 93–105. London, M., Smither, J. W., Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12 (1), 81–100. 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. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 265–302. Papi, M., Rios, A., Pelt, H., & Ozdemir, E. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern Language Journal , 103 (1), 205–226. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological network. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (1), 128–150. Richardson, D. S., Bledsoe, R. S., & Cortez, Z. (2020). Mindset, motivation, and teaching practice: Psychology applied to understanding teaching and learning in STEM disciplines. CBE—Life Sciences Education , 19 (3), ar46. Richardson, D. S., Manning, K. Q., & Bledsoe, R. S. (2024). Faculty mindset, goal orientation, and likelihood of seeking feedback about teaching. College Teaching . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2024.2392268 Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education , 23 (2), 146–159. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD. Sun, Y., & Huang, Y. (2023). The relationships among Chinese university EFL learners’ feedback-seeking behavior, achievement goals, and mindsets. Behavioral Sciences , 13 (2), 190. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & SlocumJr, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of applied psychology , 86 (4), 629. Vandewalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review , 13 (4), 581–604. Vandewalle, D., Nerstad, C. G., & Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal orientation: A review of the miles traveled and the miles to go. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 6 , 115–144. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8555505","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":575299925,"identity":"992294c8-d225-4b40-9761-0f0168968dbe","order_by":0,"name":"Azadeh Moladoost","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Warwick","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Azadeh","middleName":"","lastName":"Moladoost","suffix":""},{"id":575299928,"identity":"cfa57878-0bf4-4994-9d3f-e2ee91dd2479","order_by":1,"name":"Zohreh Kashkouli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Isfahan University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zohreh","middleName":"","lastName":"Kashkouli","suffix":""},{"id":575299930,"identity":"24cbcda5-4efb-47d4-9b5a-b7b617c8d948","order_by":2,"name":"Raziyeh Rabbani Yekta","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Payame Noor University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Raziyeh","middleName":"Rabbani","lastName":"Yekta","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-09 00:23:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":100617265,"identity":"5bf93878-2aef-4298-aa10-464d2ec94b68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:50:17","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":56147,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1.FinalRevisedManuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/8d2a955234934645125e4ae7.docx"},{"id":100617269,"identity":"c446b615-c5f3-4a0b-a0cd-7e4f0ab2d92e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:50:25","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5087,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"94e2d61cb5ae4e819aebc006d9ea9c19.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/4e5a8a2609cb822cd026b6dd.json"},{"id":100617363,"identity":"0d543ea4-bf4a-40bc-b2d9-f8523b89e9da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:51:34","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137919,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"94e2d61cb5ae4e819aebc006d9ea9c191enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/a936a4ddc564f0c63cdd1f2c.xml"},{"id":100617143,"identity":"10f354de-abda-4ec6-86ce-be90af87c039","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:49:21","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":135696,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"94e2d61cb5ae4e819aebc006d9ea9c191structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/791d4cfe8cd2222232918414.xml"},{"id":100617173,"identity":"ec3bde92-7a9d-43ab-a448-e9427a62a152","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-19 17:49:24","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":149387,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/ad9fdbc45561755e852bc8a1.html"},{"id":107849707,"identity":"8c8104c7-f6d6-46ac-a055-4c271d538c02","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 01:54:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":497300,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8555505/v1/93a70214-28b2-4cb6-96a1-ff901c650f80.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"From Belief to Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mindset and Achievement Goals in EFL Teachers' Feedback-Seeking Behaviour","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1. Background\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective teaching depends not only on instructional technique but also on the motivational systems that orient teachers toward growth and evidence-informed improvement. While the effect of providing corrective feedback on learners' acquisition and performance has received considerable attention in second language acquisition research (e.g., Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lyster \u0026amp; Saito, 2010), far less scholarly attention has been paid to the motivational and institutional factors that shape teachers' own evidence-based teaching practices, particularly why and when teachers proactively seek feedback on their instructional performance (Papi, Rios, \u0026amp; Ozdemir, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers are expected to meet professional standards of teaching and to demonstrate competence in pedagogical skills, subject-matter knowledge, and responsiveness to students' learning needs. In higher education systems, this accountability is typically enacted through formal and systematic evaluation structures (Stronge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, beyond externally imposed evaluation, some teachers take a more proactive stance by seeking feedback to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of their teaching behaviors in relation to valued professional goals. Vandewalle et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) posit that individuals develop a sense of competence by obtaining information about their performance from knowledgeable and significant others. In a similar vein, self-assessment and reflective engagement with feedback function as powerful mechanisms for professional growth, contributing not only to instructional improvement but also to longer-term career development (Ross \u0026amp; Bruce, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, teachers require resources that support ongoing adaptation and refinement of practice in relation to educational standards and goal attainment. Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking framework, as elaborated in more recent reviews (Leal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), conceptualizes feedback as a critical informational resource that enables individuals to assess the appropriateness of their behavior and regulate performance in pursuit of important goals. Goal setting, in turn, has been shown to play a central role in professional improvement, as it directs attention, effort, and evaluative criteria (Locke \u0026amp; Latham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Feedback information is therefore of paramount importance in the regulation of human action and in the adjustment of current and future performance (Hattie \u0026amp; Timperley, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Kluger \u0026amp; DeNisi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2. Problem Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, feedback engagement is not limited to mandatory evaluation procedures. Alongside formal appraisal systems, formative and developmental models of feedback have been increasingly advocated in higher education, emphasizing improvement rather than judgment (Gormally, Evans, \u0026amp; Brickman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Within such models, feedback seeking constitutes a contingent, proactive behavior, as individuals who are genuinely oriented toward improvement are more likely to solicit information about their performance (Ashford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, teachers differ markedly in their willingness to engage in such behavior, suggesting that feedback seeking is shaped not only by external structures but also by underlying motivational orientations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite growing interest in teacher professional development, the motivational mechanisms that drive teachers to seek feedback remain underexplored, particularly in language education contexts (e.g., Papi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson, Manning, \u0026amp; Bledsoe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). A recent meta-analysis on teachers' growth mindset underscores its small-to-typical positive associations with motivational outcomes like self-efficacy and mastery goals (Bardach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting mindset as a foundational belief system influencing teacher behaviors such as FSB. While feedback-seeking has been extensively studied in organizational psychology (Anseel et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), its application to teaching contexts, especially among university EFL teachers, remains limited. This gap in the literature hinders the understanding of how to effectively support teachers in their professional growth and evidence-based practice improvement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.3. Purpose of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study is framed by three influential and complementary theoretical models: Ashford's feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) theory (Ashford \u0026amp; Cummings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Ashford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e), which situates feedback seeking within a cost\u0026ndash;value decision-making process; Dweck's mindset theory (Dweck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), distinguishing between fixed and growth beliefs about ability; and Korn and Elliot's (2016) two-by-two achievement goal model, which differentiates between development-approach, development-avoidance, demonstration-approach, and demonstration-avoidance goals. Integrating these perspectives, the present study proposes that teachers' beliefs about ability (mindset) shape the achievement goals they prioritize, which in turn influence their propensity to engage in feedback-seeking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, a growth mindset is theorized to foster development-oriented goals and to frame feedback as diagnostic information for improvement, whereas a fixed mindset is expected to align more closely with demonstration-oriented goals and to construe feedback as an evaluative threat, thereby reducing feedback seeking. Although these relationships have been examined in adjacent literatures, they remain underexplored among university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers, and are rarely investigated within an integrated mediation model that examines how achievement goals transmit the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior across multiple dimensions of FSB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.4. Research Questions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to address the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are the relationships between university EFL teachers' achievement goals (development-oriented and demonstration-oriented) and their feedback-seeking behaviors, both overall and across distinct FSB dimensions?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat are the relationships between teachers' mindsets (growth and fixed) and their feedback-seeking behaviors, both overall and across distinct FSB dimensions?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo achievement goals mediate the relationships between teachers' mindsets and their feedback-seeking behaviors, and if so, does this mediation vary across different dimensions of feedback seeking?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.5. Significance of the Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it extends feedback-seeking theory into language teacher education by addressing a novel context\u0026mdash;instructors proactively seeking feedback from supervisors, peers, and students\u0026mdash;within the under-researched setting of Iranian higher education. Second, it offers practical insights for promoting reflective and developmental practices within language teaching. Third, by integrating three theoretical frameworks, the study provides a more comprehensive understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying teacher feedback-seeking behavior. Finally, the findings have implications for the design of professional development programs and institutional feedback systems that support teacher growth and instructional improvement, an area of increasing importance in results-oriented higher education institutions (Richardson, Bledsoe, \u0026amp; Cortez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Theoretical Foundations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1. Feedback-Seeking Behavior Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-seeking behavior (FSB) refers to proactive, self-initiated efforts to obtain information that reduces uncertainty and guides performance improvement (Ashford \u0026amp; Cummings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than being a passive response to external evaluation, FSB is conceptualized as an intentional regulatory behavior through which individuals actively manage their learning and performance trajectories. For university EFL teachers, FSB encompasses both behavioral strategies and underlying psychological appraisals, including monitoring (indirectly gathering cues about performance), inquiry (directly requesting feedback from students, peers, or supervisors), and evaluations of the perceived value of feedback, anticipated risks, uncertainty about expectations, self-confidence, and the importance attached to performance goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAshford's (1986) model, still foundational in contemporary research (Leal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), situates FSB within a cost\u0026ndash;value calculus, proposing that individuals are more likely to seek feedback when the expected diagnostic value of information outweighs anticipated psychological, social, or resource-related costs. From this perspective, feedback seeking is not uniformly adaptive or maladaptive, but contingent upon how individuals interpret the meaning and consequences of feedback within a given context. Teachers may recognize feedback as potentially informative while simultaneously perceiving it as threatening to professional identity, competence, or face, particularly when feedback is linked to evaluation or public judgment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn university language-teaching contexts, feedback often originates from multiple sources with differing degrees of authority and relational proximity, such as students, peers, and supervisors. While such feedback can be highly salient for refining pedagogical practice, it may also be experienced as evaluative, ambiguous, or emotionally demanding. These tensions are especially pronounced when feedback challenges teachers' self-concept or signals misalignment between instructional intentions and perceived effectiveness. As a result, the decision to seek feedback is shaped not only by access to information but also by teachers' assessments of risk, confidence, and goal relevance, which may dampen or facilitate engagement in FSB (Ashford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.2. Mindset Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset theory distinguishes between fixed beliefs, in which abilities are viewed as stable and predetermined, and growth beliefs, in which abilities are understood as malleable and capable of development through effort and learning (Dweck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). These belief systems shape how individuals interpret challenge, effort, and evaluative information. Individuals with a growth mindset tend to embrace challenge, persist in the face of setbacks, and interpret feedback as a resource for learning, whereas those with a fixed mindset are more vigilant to ego threat and are more likely to interpret feedback as diagnostic of underlying ability rather than as information for improvement (Dweck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin teaching contexts, mindset is particularly consequential because feedback often carries implications for professional competence, identity, and legitimacy. Teachers who hold growth-oriented beliefs are theorized to be more willing to solicit, process, and use feedback, viewing it as input for instructional refinement and professional growth. In contrast, teachers with fixed-oriented beliefs may be more inclined to avoid feedback, especially when it is perceived as evaluative or threatening to perceived competence, in order to protect self-image and professional standing. In this sense, mindset functions as a cognitive\u0026ndash;motivational lens through which feedback opportunities are appraised, shaping whether feedback is experienced as informative or as psychologically costly (London \u0026amp; Smither, 2002).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, mindset does not operate in isolation but is closely intertwined with individuals' achievement-related motivations. Beliefs about the malleability of ability influence how teachers define success, interpret competence, and pursue professional goals, thereby shaping the achievement goals they adopt. Dweck and Leggett (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e), in a framework later expanded upon (Burnette et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), argued that goal orientations are, in part, grounded in individuals' implicit theories of ability, such that growth beliefs are more likely to foster improvement-focused orientations, whereas fixed beliefs are more likely to align with performance-focused concerns. Meta-analytic evidence shows small-to-typical positive associations between teachers' growth mindset and mastery-oriented goals (Bardach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), which align with development-oriented pursuits in professional settings. Through this pathway, mindset is expected to exert an indirect influence on feedback-seeking behavior by shaping the motivational goals that regulate engagement with evaluative information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.3. Achievement Goal Theory\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement goal theory addresses how individuals define competence and regulate their behavior in achievement-related contexts, specifying the purposes that guide engagement with tasks, challenges, and evaluative information. Within professional settings such as teaching, achievement goals provide a motivational structure through which individuals interpret success, failure, and feedback. Rather than merely reflecting desired outcomes, achievement goals function as regulatory frameworks that shape attention, effort, emotional responses, and information-seeking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKorn and Elliot's (2016) two-by-two model differentiates between development goals, which focus on improving or maintaining competence, and demonstration goals, which emphasize proving competence or avoiding the appearance of incompetence, each with approach and avoidance dimensions. In instructional and evaluation-oriented contexts, this distinction is particularly salient, as teachers are routinely exposed to feedback that can signal either opportunities for growth or threats to professional standing. Consistent with the applied focus of teacher evaluation and the structure of the adapted instrument used in the present study, achievement goals are operationalized at two higher-order levels: development-oriented goals, reflecting an emphasis on instructional improvement and learning, and demonstration-oriented goals, reflecting concerns with performance display and external judgment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior research suggests that these goal orientations are systematically related to how individuals engage with feedback. Development-oriented goals are associated with greater feedback use, self-regulated learning, and adaptive experimentation, as feedback is construed as diagnostic information that supports competence development (Butler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; VandeWalle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e, 2003). In contrast, demonstration-oriented goals are more closely linked to defensive reactions, feedback avoidance, and selective attention to positive information, particularly when feedback is perceived as evaluative or threatening to self-image (Payne, Youngcourt, \u0026amp; Beaubien, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Within Ashford's (1986) cost\u0026ndash;value framework, development goals are theorized to increase the perceived value of feedback while attenuating psychological costs, whereas demonstration goals heighten sensitivity to ego and image-related risks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Integration of Theoretical Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-seeking behavior, mindset, and achievement goals form a coherent motivational system that explains why teachers differ in their engagement with evaluative information, even when operating within similar institutional contexts. Mindset provides the foundational belief system through which ability, effort, and feedback are interpreted, shaping whether feedback is construed as an opportunity for growth or as a threat to professional competence. However, mindset alone does not determine behavior. Its influence is theorized to operate through more proximal motivational regulators\u0026mdash;namely, the achievement goals teachers adopt (Dweck \u0026amp; Leggett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, achievement goals function as the mechanism through which beliefs about ability are translated into concrete feedback-seeking practices. Teachers who endorse growth-oriented beliefs are more likely to prioritize development-oriented goals, framing feedback as diagnostic information that supports instructional improvement. In contrast, teachers who endorse fixed-oriented beliefs are more likely to prioritize demonstration-oriented goals, heightening sensitivity to evaluative threat and increasing the perceived psychological costs of seeking feedback. These goal orientations, in turn, regulate teachers' willingness to monitor performance cues, inquire directly about feedback, and engage with feedback across its multiple psychological dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis mediation account aligns closely with Ashford's (1986) cost\u0026ndash;value model of feedback seeking. Achievement goals shape the anticipated balance between the value and the costs of feedback, influencing whether feedback is sought, avoided, or selectively engaged with. Development-oriented goals are theorized to increase the perceived value of feedback while attenuating ego- and image-related costs, thereby facilitating adaptive feedback-seeking behavior. Demonstration-oriented goals, by contrast, are expected to amplify perceived risks and self-presentational concerns, dampening engagement with feedback\u0026mdash;particularly when feedback is linked to evaluation or public judgment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, conceptualizing achievement goals as mediators rather than moderators reflects the theoretical claim that mindset precedes and shapes goal adoption, which then guides feedback-related behavior. This sequential logic positions feedback seeking not as a direct consequence of belief systems alone, but as the outcome of a motivational pathway in which beliefs inform goals, and goals regulate action. Such an approach allows for the possibility that the influence of mindset on feedback seeking is partial, selective, and dimension-specific, varying across different facets of feedback engagement such as perceived value, risk, uncertainty, self-confidence, monitoring, and inquiry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Previous Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical research in higher education provides initial support for linking mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior. Studies of university faculty indicate that instructors who endorse mastery- or development-oriented goals are more likely to seek feedback and engage in professional learning activities related to teaching improvement, whereas fixed or deficit-oriented beliefs are associated with lower willingness to revise practice (e.g., Richardson, Manning, \u0026amp; Bledsoe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Richardson \u0026amp; Bledsoe, 2025). Large-scale syntheses in educational psychology further suggest that teachers' growth mindsets are reliably associated with mastery-oriented motivations, but show weaker or inconsistent relationships with performance-oriented goals (e.g., Burgoyne, Hambrick, \u0026amp; Macnamara, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This pattern implies that mindset may influence feedback engagement indirectly, through its role in shaping goal adoption rather than through direct effects alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough research directly examining feedback-seeking among language teachers remains limited, parallel evidence from applied linguistics supports this logic. Studies of university EFL learners show that growth-oriented beliefs predict more active feedback-seeking strategies, often through the mediation of achievement goals or related motivational resources (e.g., Sun \u0026amp; Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Demir \u0026amp; Al-Kadi, 2024). Taken together, these findings provide a cross-domain rationale for modeling achievement goals as a key motivational mechanism through which mindset shapes feedback-seeking behavior, while also suggesting that such processes may operate differently in professional teaching contexts than in learner populations (Ashford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Papi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Cultural Considerations in Feedback-Seeking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is important to note that motivational processes, including feedback-seeking, are embedded within cultural and institutional contexts (Lou \u0026amp; Noels, 2019). In hierarchical educational systems, such as those often found in Middle Eastern and Asian contexts, feedback may carry heightened evaluative weight and implications for professional authority. The current study's focus on Iranian EFL teachers thus provides an opportunity to examine these dynamics in a setting where feedback-seeking may be particularly sensitive to perceived power distance and face concerns. This contextual layer underscores the need for caution when generalizing findings across cultures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA quantitative, cross-sectional survey design was employed to examine the relationships among mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior among university EFL teachers. The design allowed for the testing of hypothesized relationships and mediation effects while providing a comprehensive understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying teacher feedback-seeking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample consisted of 248 university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers teaching at higher education institutions in Iran (110 women, 133 men, 3 not reported). Participants represented a wide range of professional backgrounds and career stages. Age distribution was as follows: 22\u0026ndash;25 years (7.7%), 26\u0026ndash;33 years (27.2%), 34\u0026ndash;42 years (46.3%), and 42 years or older (18.3%). Highest academic qualification included MA (46.7%), PhD (33.3%), and other credentials (19.9%). Teaching experience ranged from less than three years (0.8%) to more than 20 years (13.0%), with the largest proportion reporting 11\u0026ndash;20 years of experience (44.3%). Tenure in the current position varied from less than three years (27.6%) to more than ten years (27.6%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited via professional networking platforms (LinkedIn) using a snowball sampling strategy, which enabled access to a geographically and professionally diverse group of university EFL instructors. This sampling approach was chosen to maximize the diversity of participants in terms of institutional contexts, teaching experience, and professional backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Instruments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll measures employed a 6-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree), selected to reduce central tendency bias and encourage clearer differentiation in responses. Instruments were adapted and contextually modified to reflect university EFL teaching contexts while retaining their original theoretical foundations. All measures underwent forward-backward translation into Persian and were piloted with 10 EFL teachers to ensure cultural relevance. However, low reliability for some subscales (e.g., demonstration-oriented goals, α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.458) may reflect cultural misalignment rather than psychometric flaws.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Mindset Measure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers' implicit beliefs about ability were assessed using a six-item adaptation of Dweck's (2013, 2006) mindset scale, capturing fixed and growth beliefs. Growth mindset was measured with two items (e.g., \"You can always substantially change how intelligent you are\"), and fixed mindset with four items (e.g., \"You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can't really do much to change it\"), consistent with the original conceptualization. Internal consistency was acceptable for fixed mindset (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.756) and adequate for growth mindset (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.689). While the reliability for growth mindset was slightly below conventional thresholds, this level is consistent with prior adaptations of short mindset measures and was deemed acceptable given the theory-driven nature of the study (Cook, Gas, \u0026amp; Artino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address concerns about the measurement of mindset, separate scores were computed for growth and fixed mindsets rather than combining them into a composite score. Higher scores on the growth mindset subscale indicated stronger endorsement of growth beliefs, while higher scores on the fixed mindset subscale indicated stronger endorsement of fixed beliefs. This approach allowed for the examination of the unique contributions of each mindset type to achievement goals and feedback-seeking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. Achievement Goals Measure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement goals were measured using a six-item adaptation of Korn and Elliot's (2016) achievement goal framework, operationalized at two higher-order levels suitable for professional teaching contexts: development-oriented goals (improving or maintaining instructional competence) and demonstration-oriented goals (proving competence). Item wording was contextualized for language teaching (e.g., \"To demonstrate my L2 teaching ability\"). The overall scale demonstrated high internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89). For the development-oriented goals subscale (3 items), internal consistency was α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.627, while for the demonstration-oriented goals subscale (3 items), it was α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.458. The notably low reliability for the demonstration-oriented subscale suggests potential measurement issues, such as item ambiguity or low relevance in the Iranian teaching context. It was retained for theoretical completeness, but results involving this subscale are interpreted with caution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3.3. Feedback-Seeking Behavior Measure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-seeking behavior was assessed using a 32-item multidimensional instrument grounded in Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking framework. The scale captured key psychological and behavioral dimensions of FSB relevant to teaching, including perceived value of feedback, perceived risks, uncertainty, negative beliefs about goal attainment, self-confidence, importance of performance goals, monitoring behaviors, and inquiry behaviors (including feedback seeking from students). Items were adapted linguistically and contextually for university EFL instruction (e.g., \"co-workers\" replaced with \"students\"). The overall scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.825); subscale reliability ranged from adequate to low across specific dimensions (e.g., negative beliefs α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.813; value of feedback α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.781; risks α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.578; uncertainty α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.401).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address concerns about the low reliability of some FSB subscales, several steps were taken. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure of the FSB measure. The EFA revealed a nine-factor solution accounting for 63.444% of the total variance, with eigenvalues greater than 1 and a clear scree plot inflection point. Second, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to validate the factor structure. The CFA results indicated acceptable fit indices (RFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.832, PNFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.725, NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.858, AGFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.903, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.923, RMI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.065), supporting the validity of the factor structure. Third, results for subscales with low reliability (α\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.60) were interpreted with caution, treating them as exploratory rather than definitive findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Data Collection Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected during the spring and summer of 2020 using an online questionnaire. Prospective participants received an invitation describing the study's purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature. Informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to accessing the survey. To preserve confidentiality, responses were collected anonymously, and participants were informed that submitted responses could not be withdrawn. The questionnaire required approximately 15 minutes to complete. Participants were explicitly informed that participation was entirely voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time before submission without penalty. However, due to the anonymous nature of data collection, responses could not be withdrawn from post-submission. Data was stored on encrypted, password-protected servers accessible only to the research team. Identifiable information (e.g., email addresses for recruitment) was stored separately from survey responses and deleted after data collection. The consent form specified that participation would take approximately 15 minutes and that no identifying data (e.g., IP addresses) would be collected. Participants received a copy of the consent form via email before proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalyses were conducted in a theory-driven, multistep sequence aligned with the research questions and hypotheses. First, descriptive statistics and bivariate associations were examined to assess distributions and initial relationships among variables. Second, regression analyses were used to address RQ1 and RQ2, examining associations between mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address RQ3, mediation models were estimated using path analysis, testing whether achievement goals transmitted the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior, both at an overall level and across distinct FSB dimensions. Indirect effects were evaluated using bootstrapping procedures (5,000 resamples) and Sobel tests, and standardized coefficients (β), standard errors, and significance values were reported. Both Sobel tests and bootstrapping procedures were employed to provide complementary evidence for indirect effects, with bootstrapping prioritized for inference due to its robustness to non-normality. Consistent with established practice, variance accounted for (VAF) was used to aid interpretation of mediation magnitude. All models were estimated in accordance with the a priori analytic plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address concerns about common method variance, several statistical checks were conducted. First, Harman's single-factor test was performed, which revealed that the first factor accounted for only 28.3% of the total variance, suggesting that common method variance was not a major concern. Second, a theoretically unrelated marker variable (general attitude toward professional development) was included in the analysis; its inclusion did not significantly alter the pattern of results, suggesting limited common method bias. Third, the possibility of common method variance was acknowledged in the interpretation of results, particularly for self-reported measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Preliminary Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and internal consistency estimate for all study variables are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Overall reliability was acceptable for the feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) scale (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.825), with subscale reliability ranging from adequate to low across specific dimensions (e.g., negative beliefs α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.813; value of feedback α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.781; risks α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.578; uncertainty α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.401). Achievement goals demonstrated high internal consistency at the scale level (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89). Mindset subscales showed acceptable reliability for fixed mindset (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.756) and adequate reliability for growth mindset (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.689). Given the theory-driven nature of the study and the multidimensional structure of FSB, all scales were retained for subsequent analyses, with results for low-reliability subscales interpreted with caution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Estimates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed mindset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.756\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth mindset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.73\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.689\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment-oriented\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.627\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.67\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstration-oriented\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.458\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-Seeking Behavior\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMonitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.825\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.25\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInquiry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.679\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative beliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.813\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue of feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.781\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfforts in seeking feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.650\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-confidence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.641\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.50\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.401\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;5.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisks in seeking feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.578\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportance of performance goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.583\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.33\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback from students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.622\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u0026ndash;6.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBivariate correlations among mindset, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking variables are reported in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Patterns of association were consistent with theoretical expectations, supporting the suitability of proceeding with regression and mediation analyses. Notably, growth mindset was positively correlated with development-oriented goals (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.42, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and negatively correlated with demonstration-oriented goals (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05). Fixed mindset was negatively correlated with development-oriented goals (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) but not significantly correlated with demonstration-oriented goals (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.508). These relationships provided initial support for the hypothesized connections between mindset and achievement goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelations Among Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"15\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c15\" colnum=\"15\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Fixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.538**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.322**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.082\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.336**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.145*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.138*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.302**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.399**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.245**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.137*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.196**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Growth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.301**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.116\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.172**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.068\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.070\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.181**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.161*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.183**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.160*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.208**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Development\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.259**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.058\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.149*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.357**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.373**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.147*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.417**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.261**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Demonstration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.043\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.154*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.175**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.164*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Monitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.566**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.062\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.201**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.134*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.102\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6. Inquiry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.129*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.280**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.089\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.039\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.254**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.083\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.229**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7. Negative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.303**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.170**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.314**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.448**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.407**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.085\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.417**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8. Value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.170**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.282**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.264**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.288**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.258**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9. Efforts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.110\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.273**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.296**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.062\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.156*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10. Confidence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.242**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.150*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.280**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.271**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11. Uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.298**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.233**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12. Risks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.487**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13. Importance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.174**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14. Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"15\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e *p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01.*\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Structural Relationships Among Mindset, Achievement Goals, and Feedback-Seeking Behavior\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address RQ1 and RQ2, regression analyses examined relationships among teachers' mindsets, achievement goals, and feedback-seeking behavior. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;3, mindset was significantly associated with both achievement goals and overall feedback-seeking behavior, and achievement goals were significantly associated with feedback-seeking behavior. These relationships satisfied the preconditions for mediation testing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e*Table\u0026nbsp;3: Regression Analyses Examining Relationships Among Mindset, Achievement Goals, and Feedback-Seeking Behavior*\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.158\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.202\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-seeking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.897\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.158\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.343\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback-seeking\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.813\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.209\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.243\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor RQ1, regression analyses revealed that development-oriented achievement goals were significantly positively associated with several dimensions of feedback-seeking behavior, including negative beliefs (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003), value of feedback (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), self-confidence (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), uncertainty (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011), importance of performance goals (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.41, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and feedback seeking from students (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.21, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Demonstration-oriented achievement goals were significantly positively associated with value of feedback (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.027), risks in seeking feedback (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.019), importance of performance goals (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.014), and feedback seeking from students (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.016).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor RQ2, regression analyses indicated that fixed mindset was significantly negatively associated with several dimensions of feedback-seeking behavior, including negative beliefs (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.32, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), value of feedback (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.035), efforts in seeking feedback (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.027), self-confidence (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.28, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), uncertainty (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.41, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), risks in seeking feedback (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), importance of performance goals (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.033), and feedback seeking from students (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003). Growth mindset was significantly negatively associated with inquiry (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029), negative beliefs (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.031), self-confidence (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.017), uncertainty (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003), risks in seeking feedback (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and feedback seeking from students (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.23, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Mediation Analysis: Achievement Goals as a Mediator\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address RQ3, mediation models were estimated using path analysis. The overall mediation model is described below with standardized coefficients. Mindset significantly predicted achievement goals (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.202, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001) and feedback-seeking behavior (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.306, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). Achievement goals, in turn, significantly predicted feedback-seeking behavior (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.181, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eOverall Mediation Model Paths\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset \u0026rarr; Achievement Goals: β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.202, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset \u0026rarr; Feedback-Seeking Behavior: β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.306, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchievement Goals \u0026rarr; Feedback-Seeking Behavior: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.181, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe indirect effect of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior via achievement goals was statistically significant (Sobel p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.028; bootstrap p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002). The variance accounted for (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.107) indicated a small but reliable mediation effect, consistent with a partial mediation pattern. The direct path from mindset to feedback-seeking behavior remained significant after inclusion of the mediator, indicating that achievement goals explained part, but not all, of the relationship between mindset and feedback seeking.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Dimension-Level Mediation Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo examine whether mediation effects varied across distinct feedback-seeking dimensions, separate path models were estimated. A summary of significant mediation pathways is presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSummary of Significant Mediation Effects Across FSB Dimensions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMediator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindset Type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFSB Dimension Mediated\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVAF\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValue of Feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.764\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportance of Performance Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.883\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Confidence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.386\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback from Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.272\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegative Beliefs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.339\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Confidence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.698\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplete Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback from Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.205\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePartial Mediation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstration Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisks in Seeking Feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.076\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegligible Practical Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstration Goals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFeedback from Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.069\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNegligible Practical Effect\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.1. Fixed Mindset \u0026rarr; Development Goals \u0026rarr; Feedback-Seeking Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFixed mindset significantly predicted development-oriented goals but not demonstration-oriented goals. Accordingly, development goals were examined as the sole mediator in models involving a fixed mindset. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, development goals fully mediated the relationships between fixed mindset and perceived value of feedback (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.764) and importance of performance goals (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.883). Partial mediation effects were observed for self-confidence (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.386) and feedback seeking from students (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.272). No significant mediation effects were observed for negative beliefs or uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.2. Growth Mindset \u0026rarr; Development Goals \u0026rarr; Feedback-Seeking Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGrowth mindset significantly predicted both development-oriented and demonstration-oriented goals. When development goals were specified as the mediator, significant indirect effects were observed for negative beliefs (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.339), self-confidence (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.698; complete mediation), and feedback seeking from students (VAF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.205). Indirect effects for uncertainty were not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.3. Growth Mindset \u0026rarr; Demonstration Goals \u0026rarr; Feedback-Seeking Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen demonstration goals were specified as the mediator, Sobel tests were non-significant for both perceived risks of seeking feedback and feedback seeking from students. Although bootstrap tests suggested statistically detectable indirect effects, VAF values were very small (\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.076), indicating no practically meaningful mediation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Summary of Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross models, achievement goals emerged as a statistically reliable but selective mediator linking teachers' mindsets to feedback-seeking behavior. Mediation effects were strongest and most consistent when development-oriented goals were specified as the mediator, particularly for feedback value, self-confidence, and goal importance. Mediation via demonstration-oriented goals was negligible, and effects varied across feedback-seeking dimensions rather than operating uniformly across all facets of feedback engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study examined whether university EFL teachers' achievement goals transmit the effects of mindset on feedback-seeking behavior (FSB), conceptualized as a multi-dimensional motivational process rather than a unitary likelihood judgment. By integrating mindset theory, achievement goal theory, and Ashford's (1986) cost\u0026ndash;value model of feedback seeking, the study offers a nuanced account of how teachers' beliefs and goals jointly shape engagement with evaluative information. Three key patterns emerge from the findings, each with important theoretical and practical implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, achievement goals were consistently and positively associated with feedback-seeking behavior, both at an overall level and across several core FSB dimensions. Teachers who prioritized development-oriented goals\u0026mdash;framed around improving instructional competence\u0026mdash;reported higher engagement with feedback, greater perceived value of feedback, and stronger self-confidence in feedback-related interactions. This pattern reinforces the view that achievement goals function as proximal motivational regulators, shaping how teachers interpret and act upon feedback opportunities (VandeWalle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Within Ashford's (1986) cost\u0026ndash;value framework, development goals appear to tilt the feedback calculus toward higher expected value and lower psychological cost, thereby facilitating inquiry, monitoring, and adaptive feedback engagement. Importantly, this association was more robust for development-oriented goals than for demonstration-oriented goals, suggesting that not all goal pursuits equally support adaptive feedback-seeking in teaching contexts, a finding consistent with Payne et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) meta-analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior proved to be more complex than a simple growth-versus-fixed dichotomy would suggest. While mindset was significantly related to FSB, its effects were neither uniformly positive nor direct across dimensions. Instead, mindset exerted influence selectively and indirectly, depending on the achievement goals teachers endorsed and the specific facet of feedback seeking under consideration. These finding challenges simplified assumptions that growth mindset alone is sufficient to promote feedback-seeking and instead highlights the importance of examining the motivational pathways through which beliefs about ability are translated into professional action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the present findings diverge from patterns commonly reported in learner-focused SLA research, where growth mindsets are typically associated with higher levels of active feedback-seeking (e.g., Sun \u0026amp; Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Demir \u0026amp; Al-Kadi, 2024). However, meta-analytic evidence from teacher samples aligns with our results, revealing small positive links between growth mindset and mastery goals but inconsistent or null relations with performance goals and other outcomes (Bardach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests that in teaching contexts, the mindset's influence on FSB is mediated selectively through development goals, rather than operating uniformly. In contrast, the current results suggest that among university teachers, growth-oriented beliefs do not automatically translate into higher feedback-seeking engagement and may, in some contexts, coexist with reduced feedback inquiry. This divergence highlights an important distinction between learning and teaching roles: while learners may experience feedback primarily as a resource for skill acquisition, teachers operate within evaluative environments where feedback carries implications for professional identity, authority, and accountability (Ashford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Papi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In hierarchical educational cultures, such as Iran's, feedback may be particularly laden with evaluative risk, potentially explaining why growth mindset did not uniformly predict proactive feedback inquiry. Consequently, the motivational dynamics underlying feedback-seeking appear to be more tightly constrained by perceived evaluative risk in teaching contexts, underscoring the need to theorize feedback-seeking behavior differently for teachers than for learners. The present findings diverge from patterns commonly reported in learner-focused SLA research, where growth mindsets are typically associated with higher levels of active feedback-seeking (e.g., Sun \u0026amp; Huang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Demir \u0026amp; Al-Kadi, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, mediation analyses demonstrated that achievement goals partially and selectively mediated the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior. Development-oriented goals emerged as the primary transmission mechanism, accounting for meaningful indirect effects on key dimensions such as perceived value of feedback, self-confidence, and the importance attached to performance goals. In contrast, mediation via demonstration-oriented goals was negligible, even when statistically detectable. This asymmetry suggests that demonstration goals\u0026mdash;centered on proving competence or avoiding negative judgment\u0026mdash;do not reliably convert beliefs about ability into adaptive feedback engagement. Rather than functioning as a general motivator for feedback seeking, demonstration goals may heighten sensitivity to evaluative threats without increasing the perceived utility of feedback, thereby limiting their role in the motivational ecology of FSB.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings advance feedback-seeking theory in two important ways. First, they reconceptualize FSB as a differentiated motivational system, in which beliefs, goals, and behavioral strategies interact unevenly across psychological dimensions. Second, they demonstrate that mindset influences feedback seeking primarily through goal adoption rather than through direct effects, underscoring the importance of achievement goals as the motivational bridge between belief systems and professional behavior (Dweck \u0026amp; Leggett, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). This perspective extends prior to work that has treated feedback seeking as a single outcome variable and helps explain why teachers operating in similar institutional environments may differ markedly in how they experience, value, and pursue feedback.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Implications","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.1. Implications for Teacher Development and Higher Education\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings carry several implications for the design of feedback systems and professional learning in higher education. First, feedback practices should be explicitly framed around development goals rather than performance display. When feedback is positioned as diagnostic, future-oriented information (\"feedforward\") linked to instructional improvement, teachers may be more likely to perceive it as valuable and less threatening, increasing engagement across multiple FSB dimensions (Gormally et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Concrete strategies include structuring feedback conversations around \"what can be tried next\" rather than \"what went wrong,\" and using reflective prompts that connect feedback to long-term professional growth plans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, professional development initiatives may benefit from integrating mindset reflection with goal-setting practices, helping teachers surface implicit beliefs about ability while simultaneously cultivating development-oriented goals that support adaptive feedback engagement. Previous research highlights the need for such interventions, as teachers' growth mindset shows promise in fostering motivational patterns but requires behavioral transmission mechanisms like goals (Bardach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Workshop activities could include identifying fixed-mindset \"triggers\" in teaching, reframing challenges as opportunities for growth, and collaboratively setting specific, improvement-focused goals for classroom practice. Importantly, the present findings suggest that mindset-focused interventions are unlikely to be effective in isolation unless they are paired with motivational structures that reduce ego threat and enhance the perceived utility of feedback (Richardson, Manning, \u0026amp; Bledsoe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt an institutional level, low-cost, low-risk feedback channels\u0026mdash;such as brief student pulse surveys, structured peer observation protocols with guided reflection, or anonymized digital feedback platforms\u0026mdash;may further support feedback seeking by reducing psychological and resource-related costs in Ashford's (1986) cost\u0026ndash;value calculus. Such designs acknowledge that feedback seeking is not merely a matter of individual willingness but is embedded within broader evaluative and cultural contexts that shape how feedback is experienced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e6.2. Theoretical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond practical implications, the study makes a clear theoretical contribution by demonstrating that achievement goals, rather than mindset alone, constitute the key motivational mechanism linking beliefs about ability to feedback-seeking behavior. By showing that mediation effects are dimension-specific rather than uniform, the study challenges linear models of feedback engagement and supports a more differentiated view of teacher motivation. This contribution is particularly salient in language education, where feedback carries heightened implications for identity, competence, and professional legitimacy (Lou \u0026amp; Noels, 2019). The study also extends the integrated mindset\u0026ndash;achievement goal\u0026ndash;FSB framework into a non-Western, hierarchical educational context, highlighting the contextual sensitivity of these motivational processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations warrant consideration. First, the study relied on self-reported measures of feedback-seeking behavior, which may not fully capture enacted practices in classroom settings and may be subject to social desirability bias. Second, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference regarding the temporal ordering of mindset, goals, and feedback seeking. While the mediation model is theoretically grounded, longitudinal data are needed to confirm the proposed directional relationships. Third, the selective and partial nature of the mediation effects suggests that additional factors\u0026mdash;such as institutional feedback cultures, perceived credibility of feedback sources, or teachers' prior feedback experiences\u0026mdash;may play important complementary roles. Fourth, the reliability of some subscales, particularly the demonstration-oriented goals subscale (α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.458) and several FSB dimensions (e.g., uncertainty α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.401), was lower than ideal, which may have attenuated observed relationships and limited the precision of dimension-level findings. Fifth, the sample consisted exclusively of EFL teachers in Iran, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other cultural or institutional contexts, particularly those with less hierarchical or more collaborative feedback traditions. Finally, the snowball sampling approach, while practical, may have introduced selection bias, potentially over-representing teachers who are more professionally engaged, digitally connected, or receptive to research participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hierarchical nature of Iranian academic culture may have influenced participants' willingness to report negative feedback-seeking behaviors due to perceived power dynamics with supervisors/peers. While anonymity mitigated this risk, cultural norms may still have affected response authenticity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSnowball sampling via LinkedIn may have excluded teachers lacking digital access or institutional support, raising equity concerns. Future studies should use stratified sampling to ensure representation across diverse institutional contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Suggestions for Future Research","content":"\u003cp\u003eFuture research could address these limitations in several ways. First, longitudinal or mixed-methods designs could explore how feedback-seeking behaviors evolve over time and how contextual affordances interact with motivational orientations. For example, diary studies or repeated measures could track teachers' feedback-seeking in relation to specific teaching events or professional milestones. Second, multi-source behavioral indicators of FSB (e.g., recorded feedback requests, peer observation logs, institutional feedback portal usage data) could reduce self-report bias and provide more objective measures of feedback engagement. Third, experimental interventions could test whether cultivating development-oriented goals enhances feedback-seeking among teachers with different mindset profiles, following the work of Dweck and colleagues on mindset interventions (e.g., Blackwell, Trzesniewski, \u0026amp; Dweck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, cross-cultural comparisons could examine how institutional and cultural factors (e.g., power distance, face concerns) shape the motivational dynamics of feedback seeking. Fifth, research could explore how specific feedback sources (e.g., students, peers, supervisors) differentially influence teachers' willingness to seek and utilize feedback, building on the work of Richardson, Manning, and Bledsoe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, studies could investigate how professional development programs designed to foster growth mindsets and development goals impact teachers' feedback-seeking practices and instructional improvement over time.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"9. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study provide clear answers to the research questions posed. Regarding RQ1, achievement goals were significantly related to feedback-seeking behavior, with development-oriented goals showing stronger and more consistently positive associations with adaptive FSB dimensions (e.g., value, self-confidence) than demonstration-oriented goals. For RQ2, teachers' mindsets were significantly related to their feedback-seeking behaviors, but these relationships were complex and dimension-specific rather than uniformly positive or negative. Fixed mindset was generally associated with lower engagement across multiple FSB dimensions, while growth mindset showed more selective and sometimes counterintuitive patterns, possibly reflecting the high evaluative stakes of feedback in teaching contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost importantly, in answer to RQ3, achievement goals were found to partially and selectively mediate the relationship between mindset and feedback-seeking behavior. This mediation was primarily carried by development-oriented goals rather than demonstration-oriented goals, and it varied significantly across different dimensions of feedback seeking. The study thus positions feedback-seeking behavior as a motivationally complex, goal-regulated practice rather than a simple disposition to seek input. By demonstrating that achievement goals selectively mediate the relationship between mindset and feedback engagement, the study advances theoretical understanding of teacher motivation and provides a refined framework for promoting reflective, feedback-informed teaching practices in higher education. The findings highlight the importance of considering both beliefs and goals when designing interventions to support teacher professional development, suggesting that efforts to enhance feedback-seeking should focus on cultivating development-oriented goals that frame feedback as diagnostic information for improvement rather than as evaluative judgment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e The study was reviewed and received ethical approval from Isfahan University of Technology ethical committee. In accordance with the ethical guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA), informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the voluntary nature of their participation, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAzadeh Moladoost: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing.Zohreh Kashkouli: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.Raziyeh Rabbani Yekta: Writing - review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData is available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., \u0026amp; Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(1), 318\u0026ndash;348.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 465\u0026ndash;487.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAshford, S. J., \u0026amp; Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(3), 370\u0026ndash;398.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBardach, L., Bostwick, K. C. P., F\u0026uuml;tterer, T., Kopatz, M., Hobbi, D. M., Klassen, R. M., \u0026amp; Pietschnig, J. (2024). A meta-analysis on teachers\u0026rsquo; growth mindset. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003eArticle 84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09925-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"Article 84. 10.1007/s10648-024-09925-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., \u0026amp; Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e78\u003c/em\u003e(1), 246\u0026ndash;263.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurgoyne, A. P., Hambrick, D. Z., \u0026amp; Macnamara, B. N. (2020). How firm are the foundations of mind-set theory? The claims appear stronger than the evidence. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1558\u0026ndash;1566.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., \u0026amp; Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e139\u003c/em\u003e(3), 655\u0026ndash;701.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(1), 18\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCook, D. A., Gas, B. L., \u0026amp; Artino, A. R. Jr. (2018). Measuring mindsets and achievement goal motivation: A validation study of three instruments. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e93\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1391\u0026ndash;1399.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDEMİR, Y., \u0026amp; AL-KADI, A. (2024). The Impact of Growth Language Mindsets on Feedback-Seeking Behavior: The Mediating Role of L2 Grit. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hasan Ali Y\u0026uuml;cel Faculty of Education/Hasan Ali Y\u0026uuml;cel Egitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi (HAYEF)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDweck, C. S. (2006). \u003cem\u003eMindset: The new psychology of success\u003c/em\u003e. Random House.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDweck, C. S. (2007). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In S. J. Ceci, \u0026amp; W. M. Williams (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eWhy aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 47\u0026ndash;55). American Psychological Association.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDweck, C. (2012). \u003cem\u003eMindset: Changing the way you think to fulfil your potential\u003c/em\u003e. Hachette UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDweck, C. S. (2013). \u003cem\u003eSelf-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development\u003c/em\u003e. Psychology.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDweck, C. S., \u0026amp; Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(2), 256\u0026ndash;273.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGormally, C., Evans, M., \u0026amp; Brickman, P. (2014). Feedback about teaching in higher ed: Neglected opportunities to promote change. \u003cem\u003eCBE Life Sciences Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 187\u0026ndash;199.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHattie, J., \u0026amp; Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. \u003cem\u003eReview of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81\u0026ndash;112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKluger, A. N., \u0026amp; DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e(2), 254\u0026ndash;284.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKorn, R. M., \u0026amp; Elliot, A. J. (2016). The 2\u0026times; 2 standpoints model of achievement goals. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 742.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeal, M. T., Boixad\u0026oacute;s-Porquet, A., Castro-Diez, J., Garc\u0026iacute;a Bernardos, \u0026Aacute;., Maga\u0026ntilde;a Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, C. R., \u0026amp; Montull, A. (2025). M. Integrating VUCA and agile frameworks in work-integrated learning: a higher education case study. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. \u003cem\u003eThe TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLocke, E. A., \u0026amp; Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. \u003cem\u003eMotivation Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(2), 93\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLondon, M., Smither, J. W., Lyster, R., \u0026amp; Saito, K. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81\u0026ndash;100. Lou, N. M., \u0026amp; Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and teaching. \u003cem\u003eSystem, 86\u003c/em\u003e, 102126. Lyster, R., \u0026amp; Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Second Language Acquisition, 32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 265\u0026ndash;302.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePapi, M., Rios, A., Pelt, H., \u0026amp; Ozdemir, E. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. \u003cem\u003eThe Modern Language Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e(1), 205\u0026ndash;226.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePayne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., \u0026amp; Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological network. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(1), 128\u0026ndash;150.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson, D. S., Bledsoe, R. S., \u0026amp; Cortez, Z. (2020). Mindset, motivation, and teaching practice: Psychology applied to understanding teaching and learning in STEM disciplines. \u003cem\u003eCBE\u0026mdash;Life Sciences Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), ar46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichardson, D. S., Manning, K. Q., \u0026amp; Bledsoe, R. S. (2024). Faculty mindset, goal orientation, and likelihood of seeking feedback about teaching. \u003cem\u003eCollege Teaching\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2024.2392268\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/87567555.2024.2392268\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoss, J. A., \u0026amp; Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for facilitating professional growth. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 146\u0026ndash;159.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStronge, J. H. (2018). \u003cem\u003eQualities of effective teachers\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). ASCD.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun, Y., \u0026amp; Huang, Y. (2023). The relationships among Chinese university EFL learners\u0026rsquo; feedback-seeking behavior, achievement goals, and mindsets. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 190.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., \u0026amp; SlocumJr, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. \u003cem\u003eJournal of applied psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(4), 629.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVandewalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 581\u0026ndash;604.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVandewalle, D., Nerstad, C. G., \u0026amp; Dysvik, A. (2019). Goal orientation: A review of the miles traveled and the miles to go. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 115\u0026ndash;144.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Feedback-seeking behavior, Teacher motivation, Mindset, Achievement goals, EFL teachers, Professional development, Higher education, Applied linguistics, Teacher psychology","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers' mindsets and achievement goals influence their feedback-seeking behavior (FSB). Integrating Ashford's (1986) feedback-seeking theory, Dweck's (2013, 2006) mindset theory, and Korn and Elliot's (2016) achievement goal model, an investigation was conducted into whether achievement goals mediate the relationship between mindset and FSB. A sample of 248 university EFL teachers in Iran completed measures of mindset (growth and fixed), achievement goals (development-oriented and demonstration-oriented), and multi-dimensional FSB. Results indicated that achievement goals partially mediated the relationship between mindset and FSB, with development-oriented goals serving as the primary transmission mechanism. Specifically, growth mindset was positively associated with development-oriented goals, which in turn predicted higher levels of adaptive feedback-seeking behaviors. In contrast, fixed mindset was negatively associated with development-oriented goals. Mediation effects varied across different dimensions of FSB rather than operating uniformly. These findings advance the understanding of teacher motivation by demonstrating that mindset influences feedback-seeking primarily through goal adoption rather than through direct effects alone. The study provides a refined framework for promoting reflective, feedback-informed teaching practices in higher education.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"From Belief to Behavior: The Mediating Role of Mindset and Achievement Goals in EFL Teachers' Feedback-Seeking Behaviour","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-01-19 16:42:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8555505/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6ad27717-b1c8-4a00-a43b-835411fadcdd","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T01:53:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-01-19 16:42:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8555505","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8555505","identity":"rs-8555505","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}