International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Mindset, stereotype threat and the academic achievement gap

between Chinese and Latinx English Learners (ELs)
Amado M. Padilla a, Xinjie Chen a, *, David Song a, b, Elizabeth Swanson a,
Margaret Peterson a
a
Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, 520 Galvez Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, United States
b
Colorado College, Race, Ethnicity, and Migration Studies, 14 East Cache la Poudre St. Colorado Springs, CO, 80903, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This longitudinal study examined the role of teacher and student mindset and stereotype threat in
Academic achievement the achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx English Learners. Our analytic sample consisted
Latinx English learners of 858 students ranging from 4th through 8th grade and their teachers (N = 66). This study made
Chinese English learners
use of psychological survey data from students and teachers, as well as state-mandated stan­
Teacher mindset
dardized assessment outcomes for Math and English Language Arts (2017–18 and 2018–19). With
Student mindset
Stereotype threat hierarchical linear modeling analysis, results showed that student growth mindset was signifi­
cantly associated with higher school performance and stereotype threat was significantly asso­
ciated with lower school performance. Teacher growth mindset was also significantly associated
with school performance, but differentially by ethnicity and grade. Practical and research im­
plications are discussed.

1. Introduction

A significant achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx English Learners (ELs) has been identified in a major urban school
district and is of concern to educators, but what drives this achievement gap is underexplored. Chinese ELs are more likely to be
reclassified earlier than Latinx students and to have higher achievement outcomes, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors
(Reyes & Domina, 2019). A growing number of studies have suggested that teacher mindsets are a possible factor contributing to
differences in academic achievement between diverse ethnic groups (Rubie-Davies, Hattie & Hamilton, 2006; Wigfield, Galper, Denton
& Seefeldt, 1999). However, studies that compare students of color from differing backgrounds (e.g., Chinese and Latinx ELs) are
sparse. Little is known about whether and how teacher and student mindset, as well as student stereotype threat, affect achievement
differences between Chinese and Latinx ELs in math and English language arts. This study investigated the roles of student mindset,
teacher mindset, and stereotype threat for Chinese and Latinx ELs. The goal was to identify possible psychological factors that
contribute to the academic achievement gap and to offer teaching practices that can aid in minimizing the gap. Specifically, we sought
to better understand whether teacher mindsets regarding students have an effect on students’ academic achievement. We also
examined how students’ own mindset and stereotype threat could be differentially related to academic achievement for Latinx and
Chinese ELs.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xjchen96@stanford.edu (X. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101916
Received 20 June 2021; Received in revised form 10 December 2021; Accepted 15 December 2021
Available online 30 December 2021
0883-0355/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

2. Literature review

Much evidence has supported the beneficial effects of bilingualism in various domains, such as higher cognitive functioning and
metalinguistic awareness as well as better social bonding and psychological development (e.g., Adesope, Lavin, Thompson &
Ungerleider, 2010; Chen and Padilla, 2019; Little, 2012; Thomas-Sunesson, Hakuta & Bialystok, 2018). Also, as argued by Yosso
(2005), from a linguistic capital and theory of community cultural wealth perspective, children of color who speak multiple languages
can take advantage of the linguistic capital of heritage-speaking communities. While speaking multiple languages can have many
advantages, the differential effects of various languages and cultures on students’ academic outcomes remain unclear. Specifically,
while the achievement gap between Chinese ELs and Hispanic/Latinx ELs in the U.S. has received some attention recently (Umansky,
Callahan & Lee, 2020;Valentino & Reardon, 2015), the factors related to the achievement gap merit further exploration.

2.1. Student mindset

Student mindset about intelligence is often identified as one of the key psychological factors linked to achievement. According to
Dweck (1999), some students have a higher level of growth mindset (also called incremental theory), meaning they tend to think of
intelligence as malleable and something that can be improved upon through effort. This contrasts with other students who have a
mindset that is more fixed (an entity theory), which involves viewing intelligence as mostly innate and unchangeable. Numerous
studies have found that possessing a growth mindset is associated with higher student achievement (e.g., Blackwell, Trześniewski &
Dweck, 2007; Henderson & Dweck, 1990). Evidence of a causal relationship between growth mindset and achievement has been found
in studies that provide students with a “growth mindset intervention,” leading to an increase in student achievement compared to a
control group (Paunesku et al., 2015; Yeager et al., 2016).
Little research has investigated the relationship between student mindset and student ethnicity, even though this may be a fruitful
area that could help explain the racial achievement gap. Studies have shown that Asian American students often strongly value ac­
ademic effort and do not believe intelligence is innate (Hsin & Xie, 2014; Mercer & Ryan, 2009). This suggests that Asian American
students may have a higher average growth mindset than other students, which could contribute to their higher achievement.
However, another study found that the combination of fixed mindset and favorable stereotypes boosted the test performance of Asian
American undergraduates (Mendoza-Denton, Kahn & Chan, 2008). This casts doubt on the hypothesis that growth mindset helps
account for Asian American students’ achievement – in fact, holding a fixed mindset may be beneficial for Asian American students.
However, holding a growth mindset may play a role in reducing the achievement gap for other groups of students. In Claro, Paunesku
and Dweck (2016), growth mindset was found to temper the effects of poverty on low-income Chilean students’ achievement. It is
possible that student growth mindset could be key to the success of Latinx American students, another historically marginalized and
underachieving population. The present study will examine the ways in which student mindset may contribute to the achievement gap
between Latinx and Chinese heritage students and how mindset could be an avenue to address these disparities.

2.2. Stereotype threat

Another psychological factor thought to contribute to racial disparities in achievement is stereotype threat. Stereotype threat arises
when members of a group that is subject to negative stereotypes are exposed to a situation where they may confirm the stereotypes if
they perform poorly (Steele, 1992). This threat imposes an additional cognitive burden. For example, African Americans experience
stereotype threat on a daily basis, which impairs their test performance (Osborne, 2007; Schmader & Johns, 2003; Steele & Aronson,
1995). Stereotype threat is situational, and its negative effects can be eliminated if a test is portrayed as non-diagnostic of student
ability (Aronson et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). However, it is not enough to reduce stereotype threat in individual assessment
situations. Chronic stereotype threat has also been linked to longer-term academic consequences for students of color. For example,
repeated exposure to stereotype threat can cause these students to abandon their interest in pursuing education and eventually drop
out of school (Osborne & Walker, 2006) or abandon a career in a STEM field (Woodcock, Hernandez, Estrada & Schultz, 2012).
Although the consequences of stereotype threat for Latinx students have received less attention (Appel, Weber & Kronberger,
2015), several studies have focused on these students. Like African American students, Latinx students face negative stereotypes about
their academic abilities (Erba, 2018), and they tend to underperform compared to White and Asian students. For example, Nadler and
Clark’s (2011) meta-analysis found a significant effect of stereotype threat for Latinx students, similar to that for African American
students. Experimentally inducing stereotype threat led to lower performance for Mexican American students, but not White students
(Aronson & Salinas, 1999). Gonzales, Blanton and Williams (2002) reported a stereotype threat effect among Latinx undergraduates
when a test was portrayed as diagnostic of their abilities. Similarly, in a longitudinal study of students’ interest in science, Woodcock
et al. (2012) did not find a disidentification effect of stereotype threat for African Americans, but Latinx students demonstrated a
disidentification effect and were more likely to give up on a career in science.
Asian American students, on the other hand, do not usually face negative stereotypes about their academic abilities. Suzuki (1977)
describes the stereotype of Asian Americans as a “model minority” that is “phenomenally successful, ‘problem-free,’ and high-­
achieving.” Among teachers specifically, Chang and Demyan (2007) found that teachers tend to view Asians as being “more typically
cooperative, self-controlled, eager to please, perfectionistic, academically successful, and having fewer overall behavior problems
when compared to their White peers.” Such stereotypes persist in society and in classrooms, leading some to claim that Asian
Americans are a “model minority” (Lee, 1994). As a result, Asian American students appear to experience a “stereotype boost” or
“stereotype lift” rather than stereotype threat (Appel et al., 2015; McGee, 2018). For instance, activating female students’ Asian

2
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

American identity increased their math test performance (Shih, Pittinsky & Ambady, 1999). Similarly, when students encountered a
cue about their ethnicity on a test, Asian American students performed better, while Latinx students performed worse on the same test
(Armenta, 2010). Thus, activating ethnic identity tends to induce stereotype threat for Latinx students, but provides Asian students
with a boost in performance. This may be one factor that helps explain why Asian Americans tend to achieve at the same levels or
higher than their White peers, whereas Hispanic students experience stereotype threat and tend to underachieve academically.

2.3. Teacher mindset and expectations

A growing number of studies have suggested that teacher mindset is a significant factor in the academic performance of students of
color (Rubie-Davies et al., 2006; Wigfield et al., 1999). Teacher mindset refers to the assumptions, beliefs and expectations that
teachers have for themselves and others, which guide their teaching practices and interactions with students (Goldstein & Brooks,
2007) and in turn affect students’ academic outcomes. For example, teachers with higher levels of growth mindset are more likely to
use mastery-oriented pedagogical practices, such as using mistakes as learning opportunities and allowing students to resubmit work
for a higher grade (Park, Gunderson, Tsukayama, Levine & Beilock, 2016). In contrast, teachers with fixed mindsets more often use
performance-oriented pedagogical practices, such as separating students by ability or grading students in comparison to each other
(Park et al., 2016). Rheinberg (1980) found that when teachers had fixed mindsets about their students’ abilities, students with low
achievement at the beginning of the year tended to remain underachievers. However, when teachers possessed a higher growth
mindset regarding students’ abilities and emphasized the role of effort in learning, originally low-achieving students were able to end
the year as moderate to high-achievers. Therefore, teacher mindsets can be explicitly or implicitly communicated to students in
classrooms, which can then influence students’ mindsets and, in turn, student achievement.
Teacher mindsets may impact students from different ethnic/racial groups in different ways. Dweck (2010) explored the way
teacher mindset interacts with stereotype threat. She found that teachers with stronger growth mindsets reduced the effects of ste­
reotype threat on students of color, resulting in increased achievement, since stereotypes themselves rely on fixed views of the abilities
of different ethnic groups. Also, teachers with stronger fixed mindsets may unintentionally demotivate students by providing feedback
about their ability, rather than effort devoted to learning, or by suggesting that their abilities are not likely to improve (Mueller &
Dweck, 1998; Rattan, Good & Dweck, 2012). As a result of these teacher behaviors, students with prior low achievement–and students
of color in particular–may be more likely to be trapped in cycles of low teacher expectations and underachievement. It is therefore
important to consider how teachers’ mindsets can be changed, for example, through sustained interventions that lead teachers to adopt
more of a growth mindset (Seaton, 2018).
Thus, having a teacher with a growth mindset appears to be beneficial for students’ academic outcomes, and this may be especially
true for low-achievers and/or students of color. An important question is the differential effect that teachers’ mindsets have on students
when teachers have varying mindsets for students based on race or ethnicity. Previous research has shown that teachers often hold
lower expectations about students of color than White students (e.g., Chang & Demyan, 2007; Jussim & Fleming, 1996; Rubovits &
Maehr, 1973; Terrill & Mark, 2000). One study found that teachers held the highest expectations for Asian American students and
lower expectations for Latinx and African American students (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). Similarly, Umansky et al. (2020) pointed to
teacher bias as a possible cause contributing to ethnic disparities in the reclassification of Latinx EL students; one explanation for this is
attributable to the “model minority” stereotype about Asian Americans (Suzuki, 1977; Lee, 2015). If teachers hold different expec­
tations for different ethnic groups, it is not unreasonable to propose that teachers might have differential mindsets toward these groups
as well. We therefore examined the relationship between student achievement and teachers’ views about the reclassification process
and their views on the involvement of Latinx and Chinese students’ parents in their schooling. These variables parallel the key factors
of teacher attitudes and bias that are reported in Umansky et al. (2020).
Teachers’ mindsets about different groups of students can have real consequences on students’ academic outcomes. Under
Rosenthal’s (1973) “Pygmalion” theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy, teachers’ expectations of students can influence how they treat
students in the classroom and how students react in the learning process, leading to actual differences in student achievement. When
teachers were told that some students will “bloom” academically, they engaged in behaviors that encouraged achievement, such as
extra attention and rewarding learning, thus creating the academic growth they had expected (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968a).

2.4. Academic, linguistic and social factors

Research has also revealed that other factors may be related to an academic achievement gap between students of different ethnic/
racial backgrounds. For instance, academic self-concept (i.e., one’s identification with and self-views related to academics) has been
suggested as a vehicle for improving academic achievement. Higher academic self-concept is usually associated with higher
achievement (Guay, Marsh & Boivin, 2003; Hamachek, 1995; Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller & Baumert, 2005). Marsh, Smith and
Barnes (1983) found that perception of academic self leads to different behaviors during the learning process, affecting achievement.
For example, Lau and Chan (2001) showed that adolescents with lower academic self-concepts perceived lower attainment value in
learning and less often used effective learning strategies. Based on this research, we might expect Chinese students’ higher achieve­
ment outcomes to be associated with higher academic self-concept. However, academic self-concept does not always appear to be
related to higher achievement, especially for students of color (Cokley, 2000, 2002; Niehaus & Adelson, 2013). It is therefore possible
that Latinx students may not have significantly lower academic self-concepts than Chinese students and that academic self-concept
may not predict Latinx students’ achievement.
A supportive social environment is also considered to be an important factor in student achievement. Students of color are at a

3
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

higher risk of feeling like they do not belong in an academic environment (Walton & Cohen, 2007). Latinx students may exhibit a lower
sense of social belonging, although Asian American students are also students of color and may face similar concerns about belonging
(Hsin & Xie, 2014). Students’ sense of school belonging is positively correlated with academic motivation and interest (Chun &
Dickson, 2011; Goodenow & Grady, 1993) and negatively related to withdrawal from school and dropping out (e.g., Voelkl, 1996).
Sánchez, Colón and Esparza (2005) showed that social belonging is a significant predictor of achievement in Latinx adolescents. Based
on this, we anticipate seeing associations between school belonging and achievement for both Latinx and Chinese students. Due to the
negative stereotypes Latinx students often face in school, possessing a high level of school belonging may be especially helpful for
Latinx students to enable them to persist and achieve at a high level.
Another consideration is gender, and research consistently shows that girls outperform their male peers on achievement test scores
and grades (Matthews, Ponitz & Morrison, 2009). However, in a longitudinal study of math ability in elementary school, Lachance and
Mazzocco (2006) found gender differences to be minimal or nonexistent across grades and population groups.

3. Research aims

This study aims to explore the role of teacher and student mindset in the achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx English
Learners in the U.S. Based on several theoretical frameworks discussed above that are prominent in educational psychology, including
the Asian American “Model Minority” stereotype (Suzuki, 1977), Dweck’s mindset theory (Dweck, 1999), and theory of stereotype
threat (Steele, 1992), several hypotheses were proposed:

(1) Students’ growth mindset is positively associated with academic achievement.

(2) Students’ experience of stereotype threat is negatively associated with academic achievement.
(3) There are differences in teacher perceptions between Chinese and Latinx ELs and this accounts for differences in student
achievement.
(4) Teachers’ mindset variables are significantly associated with student academic achievement.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants and procedures

We collected data from a broad range of students and teachers. All students from fourth to eighth grade, and all teachers of grades
kindergarten to eighth grade, at 12 participating schools in a large urban school district, were invited to participate in the study. Our
final sample consisted of 858 students (441 Chinese and 417 Latinx). Of these students, 732 were classified as ELs and 126 as English-
Only students; 429 were female and 429 were male. Among ELs, 375 identified as Chinese and 357 as Latinx. Among EOs, 66 identified
as Chinese and 60 as Latinx.
The total participating sample of teachers consisted of 196 teachers: 46 males and 150 females. 50 teachers identified as Chinese,
45 as Latinx, 65 as White, 14 as other Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicities, 1 as African American, and 21 declined to state their eth­
nicities. Teachers were between the ages of 23 years and 78 years, with a mean age of 41.43 years (SD =11.46).
The current cross-sectional research project went through a rigorous IRB review prior to approval. All data was collected using
Qualtrics, an online survey tool. Before the data collection took place, informed consent from student participants and their parents,
and teacher participants, were received. All participants were informed that their responses would be kept confidential, and that only
members of the research team would be able to access their data. Completion of the questionnaire took about 20 min for both students
and teachers.

5. Instruments

Two sets of online surveys, one for teachers and one for students, were used to measure the research constructs. Since the student
participants were all English language learners, survey instruments used with students were translated by native speakers from English
into Mandarin and Spanish. Accordingly, student participants could elect to complete the survey in Mandarin, Spanish or English.

5.1. Instruments used in the teacher survey

The General Mindset of Self-intelligence Scale (Dweck, 1999) was used to measure mindset. Four items on growth mindset (e.g.,
“No matter who you are, you can significantly change your intelligence level”) and four items on fixed mindset (e.g., “You have a certain
amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it.”). Respondents rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (=
Strongly disagree) to 5 (= Strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for growth mindset was 0.94); for fixed mindset the alpha was 0.93.
A second instrument, Mindset of Changing Students’ Abilities Scale (DeCastella & Byrne 2015), included four items, two for
measuring. growth mindset for changing students’ abilities (e.g.,”With enough time and effort I think I could significantly improve my
students’ abilities”), and two for measuring a fixed mindset of students’ abilities (e.g. “I don’t think I personally can do much to increase my
students’ abilities”). Teachers rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (= Strongly disagree) to 5 (= Strongly agree). The
Cronbach’s alpha for growth mindset was 0.95 and for fixed mindset the alpha was 0.90.
A third instrument given to teachers was the Racial Stereotype Assessment Scale developed by Rattan et al. (2011) that included

4
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

two questions based on the scenario given (e.g., “In your opinion, her grade on the test = ____% lack of hard work + _______% lack of academic
intelligence (sum = 100%)”). Respondents rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (= Not at all) to 5 (= Extremely). A fourth
scale that teachers completed was the Perceived Pedagogical Approach towards Students Scale (Midgley et al., 2000). This scale
included three items for measuring a teachers’ Performance-oriented approach (e.g., “I display the work of the highest achieving students
as an example to other students.”), and three items for measuring their Mastery-oriented approach (e.g., “I make a special effort to
recognize students’ individual progress, even if they are below grade level.”). Teachers rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale 1 (=
Never) to 5 (= Always). The Cronbach’s alpha for the Performance-oriented approach subscale was 0.71, and the alpha for a
Mastery-oriented approach was 0.65.
Teachers also completed the Perceptions of Students’ Parental Involvement Scale (Bernard, 2004; Ho & Cherng, 2018). This in­
strument was modified so that two items asked teachers to rate Chinese parents’ involvement (e.g., “In general, how involved are Chinese
parents’ participation in school activities?”), and two items for measuring Latino parents’ involvement (e.g., “In general, how involved are
Latino parents’ participation in school activities?”). Teachers rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very
involved). The Cronbach’s alpha for Chinese parents’ involvement subscale was 0.81 and for Latino parents’ involvement the alpha
was 0.72.
Our research team also created additional items for this study. This included two items for measuring teacher mindset towards
underperforming students (e.g., “I think if I talk to low achieving students with low English fluency exclusively in their primary or home
language, I am meeting their academic needs”.); and four items for measuring teachers’ views toward time needed for English learners to
acquire sufficient proficiency to be reclassified as fluent English proficient and ready for English only instruction across different ethnic
groups. (e.g., “Reclassification of EL students is an important process” and “I understand the criteria and process for reclassification”).
Respondents rate themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (= Strongly disagree) to 5 (=Strongly agree). As each question did not
measure the same construct, therefore, we did not compute a Cronbach alpha for these additional questions.

5.2. Instruments used in the student survey

Another set of survey items was used to measure students’ mindset, including constructs such as growth mindset toward school
(Anderson, Boaler & Dieckmann, 2018), academic self-concept toward school subjects (Marsh et al., 1983), perception of stereotype
threat (Aronson, Fried & Good, 2002), and perceived sense of belonging (Osborn & Walker, 2006). Prior research with these in­
struments have shown them to possess high validity and reliability. Some slight adjustments of item wordings and item numbers were
made in order to better fit our study purpose and participating population.
The Growth Mindset Toward School Scale (Anderson et al., 2018) included three items (e.g., “I believe that I can do well in school.”).
Students rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (= Strongly disagree) to 5 (=Strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for
this scale was=0.76. A second instrument was the Academic Self-concept Toward School Subjects Scale (Marsh et al., 1983) that
consisted of 4 items (e.g., “I like all school subjects.”). Students rated themselves on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (= Strongly disagree)
to 5 (=Strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.76.
Students also completed the Perception of Stereotype Threat Scale (Aronson et al., 2002) that included 2 items (e.g., “I feel teachers
make judgements about my academic abilities based on my family cultural background.”). Students rated themselves on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (= Rarely) to 5 (=Always). The Cronbach alpha for this scale was 0.78. Students were also asked to answer the Perceived
Sense of Belonging Scale that consisted of a single item (Osborn & Walker, 2006) (e.g., “I feel like I belong when I am in school.”).
In addition to the survey questionnaires, a set of administrative data was requested from the school district. For students, this
dataset included several academic achievement scores, including the Smarter Balanced Assessments (SBAC) for the 2017–18 and
2018–19 school years, the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC), and the Integrated Writing Assessment
(IWA), as well as relevant demographic information for students and teachers.

6. Data analysis

We consider two outcomes for our analysis: SBAC Math and SBAC English Language Assessment scores, which were standardized
within grades, for both the 2017–18 and 2018–19 academic years. This data affords us a longitudinal analysis. We used hierarchical
linear modeling (HLM) to conduct our analysis. We also conducted linear regression without teacher variables, but there is not enough
space in this paper to include their results. The results of these analyses generally align with those of the HLM analyses presented here.
Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is used to analyze the effects of variables at nested levels, and therefore can be used to syn­
thesize student-time-level (i.e., first-level) outcome data with student-level (i.e., second-level) survey and demographic data, which in
turn is synthesized with teacher-level (i.e., second-level) survey data. In this way, we are able to find associations between students’
psychological variables and their achievement as well as between their teachers’ psychological variables, as well as identify teacher-
level effects.
For both outcomes, we applied a general three-level model, with student-time nested within students, nested within teachers.
Because our data includes both elementary schoolers, who have one teacher, and middle schoolers, who have multiple teachers, we
match a teacher of the appropriate subject to each middle schooler in our hierarchical linear models, assuming that math teachers have
the greatest impact on middle schoolers’ SBAC Math scores, and that language arts teachers have the greatest impact on middle
schoolers’ SBAC ELA scores. For SBAC Math, the third level as elementary school teachers and middle-school math teachers could be
justified with a likelihood-ratio test (p<0.0001), and for SBAC ELA, the same could be justified with elementary school teachers and
middle-school English language teachers (p<0.0001). Our analytic sample consists of 858 students, each observed twice over two

5
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

academic years; we exclude any students who were missing either SBAC Math or ELA data. The models observe a limited number of
teacher levels (N = 49 for SBAC Math, N = 50 for SBAC ELA). This limits the number of teacher-level variables that we can reasonably
apply without negating teacher-level effects. That is, by introducing numerous teacher-level variables, we are able to uniquely identify
every teacher and negate teacher-level effects, whereas introducing fewer teacher-level variables allows for teacher-level effects and
teacher-level variables’ coefficients to be measured.
We also introduce the first-level variable of time, as well as cross-level interaction variables of time and ethnicity, and time and
English language learner status. This allows us patterns of growth among our sample.
For each outcome, we therefore consider two main models: (A) With student demographic and survey variables, as well as teacher
survey variables involving growth and fixed mindset; and (B) As model 1, but also including teachers’ performance-oriented pedagogy,
teachers’ views on reclassification of Chinese and Latinx students, and teachers’ views on Chinese and Latinx parents’ involvement in
their children’s schooling. The second model is used to test Umansky et al. (2020) findings about teachers’ views about reclassifying
English learner students, as they are differentiated by students’ ethnicities. We include in the appendix, in Tables 4 and 5, a third
model, without any teacher covariates, which allows us to show the “raw”teacher-level random effects as well as the extent to which
teacher covariates explain the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap. Finally, we tested random slopes for ethnicity for both outcomes, using
a likelihood-ratio test to probe for the validity of random slopes. In a random-slopes model, the Chinese-Latinx gap is allowed to vary
among teachers. However, random slopes could not be supported (p = 0.0608 for SBAC Math, p = 0.1458 for SBAC ELA) in either case.

7. Results

7.1. Descriptive results

Table 1 summarizes the results of standardized SBAC scores and key psychological variables for Chinese and Latinx ELs and EOs.
Psychological variables were measured using a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest levels of the construct. We report
adjusted p-values for t-tests between (a) Chinese and Latinx ELs and (b) Chinese and Latinx EOs.
Chinese students had significantly higher SBAC scores than Latinx students among both ELs and EOs. For psychological variables,
Latinx ELs had significantly higher levels of growth mindset, academic self-concept, and school belonging than Chinese ELs; there was
no significant difference in levels of stereotype threat. Among EOs, this pattern was inverted: There were no significant differences on
psychological measures except that Latinx students reported higher levels of stereotype threat than Chinese students.
We also report descriptive results for elementary school teachers and middle school math and English teachers in Table 2. This
includes mindset variables, performance-oriented pedagogical approach, and the proportion of Chinese and Latinx students in class.

7.2. Hierarchical linear modeling results

As shown in Table 3 below, our three-level Model A for SBAC Math, which includes teacher variables for teacher growth and fixed
mindset, including interaction variables for growth mindset, finds modest teacher-level (i.e., first-level) effects (SD=0.166); the same
model for SBAC ELA, shown in Table 4, shows teacher-level effects that are similar in magnitude (SD=0.165). Model B, which adds
teacher-level variables for pedagogy, views on reclassification, and views on parental involvement shows a more limited but still

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of analytic sample (N = 858).
English Learners (ELs) English Only (EOs)

Chinese Latinx Chinese Latinx

Number 375 357 66 60

VARIABLES Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p-value Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p-value
SBAC Scores
SBAC ELA 2017–18 (std.) 0.298 − 0.577 <0.01** 0.562 − 0.048 <0.01**
(0.80) (0.97) (0.74) (1.02)
SBAC ELA 2018–19 (std.) 0.292 − 0.506 <0.01** 0.455 0.047 0.045*
(0.84) (0.94) (0.85) (0.98)
SBAC Math 2017–18 (std.) 0.520 − 0.611 <0.01** 0.527 − 0.342 <0.01**
(0.75) (0.96) (0.66) (0.98)
SBAC Math 2018–19 (std.) 0.531 − 0.573 <0.01** 0.531 − 0.267 <0.01**
(0.79) (0.93) (0.78) (0.98)
Psychological Variables
Growth mindset 3.793 3.973 <0.01** 3.778 3.986 0.521
(0.82) (0.85) (1.06) (0.8)
Stereotype threat 1.811 1.926 0.299 2.686 3.188 <0.01**
(0.96) (1.18) (0.8) (0.78)
Academic self-concept 2.903 3.324 <0.01** 3.394 3.167 0.521
(0.79) (0.88) (0.9) (0.81)
School belonging 3.341 3.613 <0.01** 1.538 1.475 1.0
(0.93) (1.09) (0.91) (1.17)

Note: p-values are adjusted to account for the number of post-hoc tests. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

6
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of teacher sample (N = 66).
Elementary School Teachers Middle School English Teachers Middle School Math Teachers

Number 33 17 16
VARIABLES Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Teacher growth mindset (std.) 0.34 − 0.048 − 0.134
(0.813) (1.023) (1.037)
Teacher fixed mindset (std.) − 0.134 0.008 0.136
(0.894) (1.147) (0.881)
Performance-based pedagogical orientation − 0.028 0.287 0.14
(std.) (0.995) (0.828) (0.79)
Percent of Chinese students in class 0.286 0.266 0.365
(0.381) (0.318) (0.369)
Percent of Latinx students in class 0.519 0.46 0.379
(0.376) (0.378) (0.365)

modest range of teacher-level effects (SD=0.164 for SBAC Math, SD=0.149 for SBAC ELA). Concerning the new covariates that Model
B introduces, we find that for both outcomes they are not jointly statistically significant and do not explain variation in SBAC outcomes
(likelihood-ratio test’s p-value=0.2386 for SBAC Math, =0.1496). In other words, Model B does not add explanatory value over Model
A. We also present, in the Appendix, a third model for both outcomes that eschews teacher-level variables (See Tables A1 and A2).
Teacher-level effects in the model are, expectedly, larger in magnitude (SD=0.217 for SBAC Math, SD=0.191 for SBAC ELA).
Moreover, in this model, the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap, as expressed by the covariate for ethnicity, is larger than it is in Model A
(SBAC Math: β=0.999***, compared to β=0.913***; SBAC ELA: β=0.719***, compared to β=0.708***; see Tables 2 and 3, respec­
tively). This suggests that for SBAC Math, teacher-level constructs of growth mindset and fixed mindset explain a small but significant
portion of the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap.
Moreover, teacher growth mindset has a differential association with SBAC Math and ELA achievement, depending on their stu­
dent’s ethnicity, and whether the students and teacher are in middle school versus elementary school. For SBAC Math, using Model A,
we find that although Latinx elementary and middle schoolers have a null association with their teacher’s growth mindset (elementary:
β=0.159, p = 0.097; middle: β=− 0.089, joint hypothesis test p = 0.369), Chinese elementary schoolers have a positive association
(β=0.410, joint hypothesis test p<0.000). Chinese middle schoolers have a null association (β=0.162, joint hypothesis test p = 0.067).
For SBAC ELA, using Model A, we find that although Latinx elementary schoolers have a null association with their teacher’s growth
mindset (β=0.033,p = 0.722), Chinese elementary schoolers and Latinx middle schoolers have a positive association (respectively:
β=0.215, joint hypothesis test p = 0.045; β=0.218, joint hypothesis test p = 0.035). Chinese middle schoolers have a null association
(β=0.092, joint hypothesis test p = 0.425).
Our longitudinal analysis affords us an analysis of student growth in both outcomes, and we find that newcomer ELL students show
high amounts of growth in SBAC ELA from the first academic year to the next. Other growth outcomes are not statistically significant.
Finally, we find that growth mindset has a positive and modest association with both academic outcomes, and stereotype threat a
negative and modest association. Additional models show that these relationships do not differ between Chinese and Latinx students.

8. Discussion

8.1. Student-level effects

Aligned with our first hypothesis, in general, the HLM models demonstrated that a higher growth mindset score was associated with
higher SBAC Math and English scores. Importantly, Latinx students had significantly higher levels of growth mindset than Chinese
students. This is unexpected for two reasons: (a) because growth mindset tends to be correlated with higher achievement, which would
explain why Chinese students tend to have higher achievement outcomes than Latinx students, and (b) because several studies have
shown that Chinese students strongly emphasize the role of effort in achievement, which is positively associated with growth mindset
(Hsin & Xie, 2014; Mercer & Ryan, 2009). It is not entirely unexpected, however, that Latinx students’ growth mindset is higher on
average. Aronson et al. (2002) found a similar pattern of results: African-American college students scored higher on growth mindset
than White students, despite lower achievement. They proposed that their sample of Black college students may have endorsed the
incremental theory of intelligence because it offered a self-protective shield against the intelligence stereotype as well as the tendency
to underperform. Similarly, Latinx students may have higher levels of growth mindset (incremental theory) because it helps protect
their self-concept. If intelligence can increase, then underachieving now does not mean that Latinx students will continue to under­
achieve later. In addition, the combination of underachieving and having a fixed mindset risks confirming negative stereotypes about
Latinx students’ inherent academic abilities. Taking this into account, it makes sense that Latinx students may adopt a growth mindset
as a self-protective strategy, especially when students at many schools (including schools in the district involved in this study) have
already been exposed to the concept of growth mindset in their classrooms.
Supporting our second hypothesis, our HLM results suggested that students’ experience of stereotype threat is negatively associated
with academic achievement. These results are consistent with previous research on stereotype threat, indicating that students who
perceived higher stereotype threat from teachers tended to have lower academic scores. This pattern remained similar for both Chinese

7
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table 3
Three-level HLM results for SBAC Math.
Model A (Teacher mindset variables only) Model B (All teacher variables)

VARIABLES ß (SE) ß (SE)

Student is Chinese 0.913*** 0.870***
(0.13) (0.14)
Time point (Year 2 compared to Year 1) 0.039 0.039
(0.05) (0.05)
Language Status (Default English-Only)
Newcomer ELL − 0.597 − 0.618
(0.38) (0.38)
Long-term ELL − 0.452*** − 0.451***
(0.11) (0.11)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP 0.112 0.11
(0.11) (0.11)
Language Status x Ethnicity Interaction
Chinese x Newcomer ELL 1.257 1.249
(0.76) (0.76)
Chinese x Long-term ELL − 0.18 − 0.199
(0.15) (0.16)
Chinese x Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP − 0.11 − 0.113
(0.14) (0.14)
Psychological Variables
Growth mindset 0.137*** 0.134***
(0.03) (0.03)
Stereotype threat − 0.161*** − 0.160***
(0.02) (0.02)
Academic self-concept 0.038 0.041
(0.03) (0.03)
School belonging − 0.005 − 0.003
(0.02) (0.02)
Demographic Variables
Female − 0.115* − 0.112*
(0.05) (0.05)
Home language is Mandarin 0.313* 0.3
(0.15) (0.15)
Home language is Taishanese 0.129 0.125
(0.12) (0.12)
Grade Level (Default 4th grade)
Grade 5 − 0.084 − 0.141
(0.08) (0.09)
Grade 6 − 0.590*** − 0.587***
(0.11) (0.11)
Grade 7 − 0.532*** − 0.519***
(0.11) (0.11)
Grade 8 − 0.500*** − 0.499***
(0.11) (0.12)
Interactions with Time Point
Student is Chinese x Time point − 0.049 − 0.049
(0.04) (0.04)
Newcomer ELL x Time point − 0.012 − 0.012
(0.26) (0.26)
Long-term ELL x Time point − 0.04 − 0.04
(0.06) (0.06)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP x Time point 0.004 0.004
(0.06) (0.06)
Teacher Mindset Variables
Teacher growth mindset 0.159 0.201*
(0.1) (0.1)
Teacher growth mindset x Student is Chinese 0.251** 0.233**
(0.08) (0.08)
Teacher growth mindset x Student is in middle school − 0.248** − 0.284**
(0.08) (0.09)

Teacher fixed mindset 0.292*** 0.335***

(0.08) (0.09)
Additional Teacher Variables
Teacher performance-based pedagogy − 0.067
(0.05)
Teacher views on reclassification 0.043
(0.06)
(continued on next page)

8
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table 3 (continued )
Model A (Teacher mindset variables only) Model B (All teacher variables)

Teacher views on parental involvement of Chinese families (vs. Latinx) 0.035

(0.04)

Constant 0.391*** 0.399***

(0.09) (0.09)
N 1716 1716

1st-level pseudo R2 0.56 0.56

2nd-level pseudo R2 0.316 0.32
3rd-level pseudo R2 0.830 0.833
ICC (2nd level) 0.704 0.702
ICC (3rd level) 0.051 0.05

and Latinx EL students. Steele (1992) theorized that stereotype threat mostly affects students whose identity is strongly tied to an
academic domain, since negative stereotypes about their group therefore jeopardize their identity. Over time, repeated exposure to
stereotype threat can cause these students to disidentify with the domain (Woodcock et al., (2012). This might explain why stereotype
threat is associated with lower achievement for both Chinese and Latinx students: If they feel judged on the basis of their ethnicity in
school, they may come to place less value on academics. It is also possible that students who tend to underperform in the first place
come to experience higher stereotype threat. Latinx students who perform poorly are at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about
their group; Chinese students who perform poorly contradict the positive stereotypes about their group in academic domains, and thus
may feel more harshly judged (Ho, Driscoll & Loosbrock, 1998).
The “model minority” image generally views Chinese students as competent, diligent and hardworking, and successful in their
education. These positive stereotypes fit into the claim that Asian Americans are a “model minority” and do not experience the same
level of underachievement that other students of color do (Chang & Demyan, 2007; Lee, 1994). As a result, Asian and Asian American
students have been found to experience a “stereotype boost” rather than stereotype threat (Appel et al., 2015). However, in our study,
we found that Latinx and Chinese EL students experienced similar levels of stereotype threat, and this stereotype threat is still asso­
ciated with lower achievement. This may be due to the phrasing of our method of measuring stereotype threat, which was based on
students’ agreement with the statement, “I feel judged on the basis of my ethnicity.” Latinx students may feel judged due to the
negative stereotypes about their ethnicity, but Chinese students may also feel harshly judged if they contradict the positive stereotypes
about their ethnicity. This helps explain why both groups may suffer from similar levels of stereotype threat and why it is generally
associated with poor achievement in our study.

8.2. Teacher-level outcomes

HLM allows for teachers’ survey constructs to be synthesized with student-level outcome data. In response to our third hypothesis,
we find that there are substantial ethnicity- and grade-based differences in how teacher growth mindset about intelligence is associated
with both SBAC Math and ELA outcomes. Where math and math teachers are concerned, Chinese elementary schoolers benefit from
their teachers’ growth mindset whereas their Latinx counterparts do not; however, the relationship between math outcomes and
growth mindset is null for both Chinese and Latinx middle schoolers. Where ELA and English language teachers are concerned, both
Chinese elementary and Latinx middle schoolers benefit from their teachers’ growth mindset. These differentials are based on the
application of cross-level interaction effects between teacher-level survey data and student-level demographic data.
Aligned with our fourth hypothesis regarding the significant relationship between teacher mindset and student academic
achievement. We also find, somewhat paradoxically, a positive relationship between teachers’ fixed mindset and math outcomes,
though it does not vary by race or grade. On the other hand, we find that teachers’ performance-based pedagogy, which is associated
with holding a fixed mindset (Park et al., 2016), is negatively and modestly associated with SBAC Math outcomes. Other teacher survey
variables – views on reclassification, and views on Chinese vs. Latinx parental involvement – are not statistically significant for either
outcome.
The moderation, by ethnicity and grade level, of the relationship between teacher growth mindset and outcome explains a small
portion of the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap, particularly for math outcomes. Importantly, in our data, teachers’ with a higher
growth mindset teach in classrooms with a greater proportion of Latinx students, and vice versa for teachers with a fixed mindset, as
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Hence our findings reflect the significant extent of teacher-based (and school-based) separation of Chinese and
Latinx students. The patterns indicate inter-teacher variation across growth mindset along with their students’ SBAC scores – not intra-
teacher variation of student ethnicity and achievement. When HLM analysis is applied to data of more ethnically mixed classrooms, our
findings may change. However, our findings suggest that while individual-teacher effects on SBAC Math and ELA can be modest in size,
they are partially explained by teachers’ growth and fixed mindsets.
Overall, analyses demonstrated a large and persistent achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx students. The gap tends to
widen, not narrow, upon accounting for student-level psychological factors, suggesting that individual students’ growth mindsets and
stereotype threat do not explain the Chinese-Latinx academic disparity. Teacher effects, including teachers’ psychological constructs,
explain some of it, but more research of Chinese and Latinx students is needed, particularly in conditions where they are more likely to

9
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table 4
Three-level HLM results for SBAC ELA.
Model A (Student variables and teacher Model B (Student variables and all teacher
mindset variables) variables)

VARIABLES ß (SE) ß (SE)

Student is Chinese 0.708*** 0.719***
(0.14) (0.14)
Time point (Year 2 compared to Year 1) − 0.008 − 0.008
(0.05) (0.05)
Language Status (Default English-Only)
Newcomer ELL − 2.001*** − 2.011***
(0.39) (0.39)
Long-term ELL − 0.722*** − 0.724***
(0.11) (0.11)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP − 0.131 − 0.147
(0.11) (0.11)
Language Status x Ethnicity Interaction
Chinese x Newcomer ELL 0.294 0.346
(0.79) (0.79)
Chinese x Long-term ELL − 0.196 − 0.18
(0.16) (0.16)
Chinese x Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP 0.011 0.036
(0.15) (0.15)
Psychological Variables
Growth mindset 0.125*** 0.128***
(0.03) (0.03)
Stereotype threat − 0.226*** − 0.228***
(0.02) (0.02)
Academic self-concept 0.016 0.014
(0.03) (0.03)
School belonging − 0.022 − 0.021
(0.03) (0.03)
Demographic Variables
Female 0.121* 0.123*
(0.05) (0.05)
Home language is Mandarin 0.193 0.193
(0.16) (0.16)
Home language is Taishanese 0.114 0.115
(0.13) (0.13)
Grade Level (Default 4th grade)
Grade 5 − 0.089 − 0.064
(0.08) (0.09)
Grade 6 − 0.468*** − 0.375**
(0.11) (0.12)
Grade 7 − 0.572*** − 0.569***
(0.11) (0.11)
Grade 8 − 0.574*** − 0.503***
(0.11) (0.12)
Interactions with Time Point
Student is Chinese x Time point − 0.075 − 0.075
(0.04) (0.04)
Newcomer ELL x Time point 0.803** 0.803**
(0.26) (0.26)
Long-term ELL x Time point 0.062 0.062
(0.06) (0.06)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP x Time point 0.019 0.019
(0.06) (0.06)
Teacher Mindset Variables
Teacher growth mindset 0.033 0.004
(0.09) (0.09)
Teacher growth mindset x Student is Chinese 0.182 0.186
(0.1) (0.1)
Teacher growth mindset x Student is in middle school 0.185 0.227*
(0.11) (0.11)

Teacher growth mindset x Student is Chinese x Student is in − 0.309* − 0.300*

middle school (0.15) (0.14)

Teacher fixed mindset 0.091 0.079

(0.07) (0.08)
Additional Teacher Variables
(continued on next page)

10
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table 4 (continued )
Model A (Student variables and teacher Model B (Student variables and all teacher
mindset variables) variables)

Teacher performance-based pedagogy − 0.029

(0.04)
Teacher views on reclassification − 0.088*
(0.04)
Teacher views on parental involvement of − 0.013
Chinese families (vs. Latinx) (0.04)

Constant 0.427*** 0.400***

(0.09) (0.09)
N 1716 1716

1st-level pseudo R2 0.019 0.019

2nd-level pseudo R2 0.348 0.349
3rd-level pseudo R2 0.891 0.911
ICC (2nd level) 0.726 0.723
ICC (3rd level) 0.047 0.039

share the same teachers.

8.3. Limitations and future directions

There were several limitations of this study. First, we had no measures of students’ socioeconomic background or social class,
making it impossible for us to control for these factors in our analyses. The school district that partnered with us in this research study
has a policy of not sharing information on whether students receive free or reduced school lunch which is the best proxy of a family’s
socioeconomic status in school based research. Thus, we were unable to include SES in our analysis. We understand that had we been
given access to information on student SES status and using appropriate statistical methods we would have been able to strengthen our
findings (Reyes & Domina, 2019).
Second, this was a relatively small sample of teachers. It would be desirable to obtain a much larger sample to test these hypotheses
more fully, particularly from several diverse schools or areas to gain a sample that is more representative of the population of public
school teachers.
Third, as the research method employed in this study relied exclusively on student and teacher surveys, we cannot capture what is
actually happening in the classroom. Teacher mindsets and students’ achievement may be affected by other factors, such as peda­
gogical practices, teaching strategies, and classroom environment during teaching and learning. Future studies that combine both
quantitative survey methods and qualitative classroom observation methods are required, in order to have a more in-depth and
complex picture of how teachers’ mindsets affect student achievement through real classroom practices.
These results pave the way for further exploration of the factors related to the achievement for Chinese and Latinx students,
including students’ mindset towards school, teachers’ mindset towards parents and reclassification, and teachers’ pedagogical
approach. Researchers should consider programs that allow for in-depth observations of elementary-school teachers and middle-school
math teachers whose survey results indicate high growth mindset toward intelligence, or of teachers whose students showed signif­
icant individual effects (positive or negative) on SBAC math and ELA scores. In particular, such observations could be oriented to how
Chinese and Latinx students differentially respond, particularly in the domain of math, to their teachers’ growth mindset and related
teaching practices. Because of the nature of ethnically diverse schools today, observations should, importantly, distinguish between
mixed-ethnicity classrooms and classrooms where there are few Chinese or Latinx students.

Conclusion

We examined how student- and teacher-level psychological factors relate to the persistent achievement gap between Latinx and
Chinese English Learners. Our results suggest that:

(1) Growth mindset is positively associated with academic achievement, and stereotype threat is negatively associated with
achievement, for both Chinese and Latinx students. However, these patterns do not explain the substantial achievement gap
between the two groups.
(2) Teachers’ mindset variables explain some, but not all of this achievement gap. These variables include teacher growth and fixed
mindset, and performance-oriented pedagogy. Teacher growth mindset is associated with academic achievement, but differ­
entially based on ethnicity (Chinese vs. Latinx) and grade (elementary vs. middle school). Generally, Chinese students have a
greater association between their achievement and their teachers’ growth mindset, compared to Latinx students. This suggests
that teacher growth mindset is important, and particularly important for certain groups of students. Teachers’ performance-
oriented pedagogies are also negatively associated with math outcomes, for both Chinese and Latinx students. However,

11
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table A1
Three-level HLM results for SBAC Math, without teacher-level variables.
Model C (Student variables only)

VARIABLES ß (SE)
Student is Chinese 0.999***
(0.13)
Time point (Year 2 compared to Year 1) 0.039 (0.05)
Language Status (Default English-Only)
Newcomer ELL − 0.638
(0.38)
Long-term ELL − 0.501***
(0.11)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP 0.078
(0.11)
Language Status x Ethnicity Interaction
Chinese x Newcomer ELL 1.276
(0.77)
Chinese x Long-term ELL − 0.156
(0.16)
Chinese x Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP − 0.077
(0.14)
Psychological Variables
Growth mindset 0.139***
(0.03)
Stereotype threat − 0.158***
(0.02)
Academic self-concept 0.038
(0.03)
School belonging 0.000
(0.03)
Demographic Variables
Female − 0.114*
(0.05)
Home language is Mandarin 0.336*
(0.16)
Home language is Taishanese 0.114
(0.13)
Grade Level (Default 4th grade)
Grade 5 − 0.075
(0.09)
Grade 6 − 0.611***
(0.13)
Grade 7 − 0.593***
(0.12)
Grade 8 − 0.592***
(0.12)
Interactions with Time Point
Student is Chinese x Time point − 0.049
(0.04)
Newcomer ELL x Time point − 0.012**
(0.26)
Long-term ELL x Time point − 0.040
(0.06)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP x Time point − 0.004
(0.06)
Constant 0.432***
(0.10)
N 1716

1st-level pseudo R2 0.002

2nd-level pseudo R2 0.307
3rd-level pseudo R2 0.872
ICC (2nd level) 0.716
ICC (3rd level) 0.083

teachers’ views on English learner reclassification and Chinese vs. Latinx parents’ involvement in schooling were not significant
predictors of achievement or the achievement gap.

This research extends prior research on the relationship between achievement and mindset in several ways. First, our study sought
to identify predictors of the achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx students, two groups of ethnic-minority students who tend to

12
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Table A2
Three-level HLM results for SBAC ELA, without teacher-level variables.
Model C (Student variables only)

VARIABLES ß (SE)
Student is Chinese 0.719***
(0.13)
Time point (Year 2 compared to Year 1) 0.008 (0.05)
Language Status (Default English-Only)
Newcomer ELL − 2.003
(0.39)
Long-term ELL − 0.726***
(0.11)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP − 0.119
(0.11)
Language Status x Ethnicity Interaction
Chinese x Newcomer ELL 0.291
(0.79)
Chinese x Long-term ELL − 0.184
(0.16)
Chinese x Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP 0.009
(0.15)
Psychological Variables
Growth mindset 0.128***
(0.03)
Stereotype threat − 0.223***
(0.02)
Academic self-concept 0.016
(0.03)
School belonging − 0.020
(0.03)
Demographic Variables
Female 0.120*
(0.05)
Home language is Mandarin 0.212*
(0.16)
Home language is Taishanese 0.117
(0.13)
Grade Level (Default 4th grade)
Grade 5 − 0.091
(0.09)
Grade 6 − 0.486***
(0.12)
Grade 7 − 0.612***
(0.12)
Grade 8 − 0.543***
(0.12)
Interactions with Time Point
Student is Chinese x Time point − 0.075
(0.04)
Newcomer ELL x Time point 0.803**
(0.26)
Long-term ELL x Time point 0.062
(0.06)
Other ELL, RFEP, IFEP x Time point 0.019
(0.06)
Constant 0.421***
(0.10)
N 1716

1st-level pseudo R2 0.019

2nd-level pseudo R2 0.348
3rd-level pseudo R2 0.853
ICC (2nd level) 0.730
ICC (3rd level) 0.062

have a high rate of classification as English learners. Rather than focus solely on student-level differences between the two groups, we
investigate teacher-level differences, which is afforded by an HLM analysis. Second, our study suggests that teacher mindset plays a
modest but significant role in determining the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap, though more research is needed for Chinese-Latinx
schools where the two groups of students are less segregated from each other. Third, this study shows how student-level constructs
such as student growth mindset and stereotype threat are not satisfactory in explaining the Chinese-Latinx achievement gap, though

13
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Fig. 1. Teacher growth mindset and proportion of Latinx and Chinese students.

Fig. 2. Teacher fixed mindset and proportion of Latinx and Chinese students.

they do positively and negatively predict achievement in general.

These findings provide support for the theory that student and teacher mindsets are associated with students’ academic
achievement. In terms of practical implications, school districts should continue to provide the necessary support for teachers and
students to develop positive mindsets around learning. For teachers, it is key to create a more positive, inclusive, equitable, mastery-

14
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

goal oriented pedagogical approach, as well as a student-centered learning climate. In particular, the focus should be on strategies for
enhancing students’ growth mindset and decreasing students’ feeling of stereotype threat. For example, in order to provide a sup­
portive school environment, growth mindset intervention and assets-based approach programs are likely to be an effective tool for
policy makers to focus on (Appel et al., 2015).
This study is an initial step toward determining the factors that contribute to the achievement gap between Chinese and Latinx
students. Our results suggest that teacher and student mindset is a promising area to explore in order to determine paths toward a more
equitable education for all students.

References

Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta- analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of
Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245.
Anderson, R., Boaler, J., & Dieckmann, J. (2018). Achieving elusive teacher change through challenging myths about learning: A blended approach. Education
Sciences, 8(3), 98.
Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants: Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(900), 1–15.
Armenta, B. E. (2010). Stereotype boost and stereotype threat effects: The moderating role of ethnic identification. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16
(1), 94–98.
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype
Threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29–46.
Aronson, J., & Salinas, M. (1999). Stereotype threat: The role of effort withdrawal and apprehension on the intellectual underperformance of Mexican-Americans.
Unpublished manuscript.
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and youth services review, 26(1), 39–62.
Blackwell, L. S., Trześniewski, 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.
Chen, X., & Padilla, A. M, (2019). Role of bilingualism and biculturalism as assets in positive psychology: Conceptual dynamic gear model. Frontiers in psychology,
2122.
Chang, D. F., & Demyan, A. L. (2007). Teachers’ stereotypes of Asian, Black, and White students. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 91–114.
Chun, H., & Dickson, G. (2011). A psychoecological model of academic performance among hispanic adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(12),
1581–1594.
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. In . 113 pp. 8664–8668).
Cokley, K. (2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black
Psychology, 26(2), 148–164.
Cokley, K. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and academic self-concept: A preliminary examination of academic disidentification and implications for psychologists. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(4), 378–388.
De Castella, K., & Byrne, D. (2015). My intelligence may be more malleable than yours: The revised implicit theories of intelligence (self-theory) scale is a better
predictor of achievement, motivation, and student disengagement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(3), 245–267.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2010). Mind-sets and equitable education. Principal Leadership, 10(5), 26–29.
Erba, J. (2018). Media Representations of Latina/os and Latino Students’ Stereotype Threat Behavior. Howard Journal of Communications, 29(1), 83–102.
Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. (2007). Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior: creating sustainable, resilient school. Understanding and Managing
Children’s Behavior: Creating Classroom Sustainable, Resilient Schools, 2(1), 21–39.
Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., & Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double minority status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 659–670.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of
Experimental Education, 62(1), 60–71.
Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal ordering. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 124–136.
Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and school achievement: Interaction dynamics and a tool for assessing the self-concept component. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 73(4), 419–425.
Henderson, V. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1990). Achievement and motivation in adolescence: A new model and data. In S. Feldman, & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The
developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ho, C. P., Driscoll, D. M., & Loosbrock, D. L. (1998). Great expectations: The negative consequences of falling short. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(19),
1743–1759.
Ho, P., & Cherng, H. Y. S. (2018). How far can the apple fall? Differences in teacher perceptions of minority and immigrant parents and their impact on academic
outcomes. Social Science Research, 74, 132–145.
Hsin, A., & Xie, Y. (2014). Explaining Asian Americans’ advantage over whites. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8416–8421.
Jussim, L., & Fleming, C. (1996). Self-fulfilling prophecies and the maintenance of social stereotypes: The role of dyadic interactions and social forces. Stereotypes and
stereotyping (pp. 161–192). New York: Guilford Press.
Lachance, J. A., & Mazzocco, M. (2006). A longitudinal analysis of sex differences in math and spatial skills in primary school age children. Learning and Individual
Differences, 16(3), 195–216.
Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2001). Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 21(4), 417–430.
Lee, S. J. (1994). Behind the model-minority stereotype: Voices of high- and low-achieving Asian American students. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 25(4),
413–429.
Lee, S. J. (2015). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. Teachers College Press.
Little, D. (2012). The European Language Portfolio in whole-school use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 275–285.
Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. D., & Barnes, J. (1983). Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Self-Description Questionnaire: Student-teacher agreement on
multidimensional ratings of student self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 333–357.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects
models of causal ordering. Child Development, 36(2), 397–416.
Matthews, J. S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Early gender differences in self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101
(3), 689–704.
McGee, E. (2018). Black Genius, Asian Fail”: The detriment of stereotype lift and stereotype threat in high-achieving asian and black STEM students. AERA Open, 4(4).
Mendoza-Denton, R., Kahn, K., & Chan, W. (2008). Can fixed views of ability boost performance in the context of favorable stereotypes? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44(4), 1187–1193.

15
A.M. Padilla et al. International Journal of Educational Research 112 (2022) 101916

Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2009). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64(4), 436–444.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., et al. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1),
33–52.
Nadler, J. T., & Clark, M. H. (2011). Stereotype threat: A meta-analysis comparing African Americans to Hispanic Americans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41
(4), 872–890.
Niehaus, K., & Adelson, J. L. (2013). Self-concept and native language background: A study of measurement invariance and cross-group comparisons in third grade.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 226–240.
Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of colour might
be most likely to withdraw. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 563–577.
Osborne, J. W. (2007). Linking stereotype threat and anxiety. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 135–154.
Park, D., Gunderson, E. A., Tsukayama, E., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2016). Young children’s motivational frameworks and math achievement: Relation to
teacher-reported instructional practices, but not teacher theory of intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 300–313.
Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Romero, C., Smith, E. N., Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic
underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793.
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). It’s ok — Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737.
Rattan, A., Good, C., Dweck, C.S. (2011). “It’s okNot everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737.
Reyes, M., & Domina, T. (2019). A mixed-methods study: Districts’ implementation of language classification policies and the implications for male, Hispanic, and
low-income middle school students. Education Policy Analysis Archives, (30), 27.
Rheinberg, F. (1980). Leistungsbewertung und lernmotivation. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Rosenthal, R. (1973). On the social psychology of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Further evidence for pygmalion effects and their mediating mechanisms (p. 53). New York: MSS
Modular Publications. Module.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(3), 429–444.
Rubovits, P. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1973). Pygmalion black and white. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 210–218.
Sánchez, B., Colón, Y., & Esparza, P. J. (2005). The role of sense of school belonging and gender in the academic adjustment of Latino adolescents. Youth Adolescence,
34(6), 619–628.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3),
440–452.
Seaton, F. S. (2018). Empowering teachers to implement a growth mindset. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(1), 41–57.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.
Steele, C. (1992). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629.
Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5),
797–811.
Suzuki, B. H. (1977). Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A revisionist analysis of the ‘Model Minority’ Thesis. Amerasia Journal, 4(2), 23–51.
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253–273.
Terrill, M. M., & Mark, D. L. H. (2000). Preservice teachers’ expectations for schools with children of color and second-language learners. Journal of Teacher Education,
51(2), 149–155.
Thomas-Sunesson, D., Hakuta, K., & Bialystok, E. (2018). Degree of bilingualism modifies executive control in Hispanic children in the USA. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 197–206.
Umansky, I. M., Callahan, R. M., & Lee, J. C. (2020). Making the invisible visible: Identifying and interrogating ethnic differences in English Learner reclassification.
American Journal of Education, 126(3), 335–388.
Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English
proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 612–637.
Voelkl, K. E. (1996). Measuring students’ identification with school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 760–770.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96.
Wigfield, A., Galper, A., Denton, K., & Seefeldt, C. (1999). Teachers’ beliefs about former Head Start and non-Head Start first-grade children’s motivation,
performance, and future educational prospects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 98.
Woodcock, A., Hernandez, P. R., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2012). The consequences of chronic stereotype threat: Domain disidentification and abandonment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 635–646.
Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C., et al. (2016). Using design thinking to make psychological interventions ready for
scaling: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 374–391.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

16