The Perceived Mindset of The BSED Students

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

Andrews Campus, Tuguegarao City
THE PERCEIVED MINDSET OF THE BACHELOR OF

SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDENTS
______________________________
A Research
Presented to the
Faculty of the College of Teacher Education
Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus
Tuguegarao City
______________________________
In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Secondary Education
Major in English
By
JOEZER B. HIDALGO
JACKELYN R. ACIDO
MARY JOY V. CAJAN
ARSENIO A. BACCAY
ANGELICA C. CORDOVA
MARGARITA M. DECENA
ADRIAN XYRUS S. EBAS
May 2019
ii
APPROVAL SHEET
This research entitled “THE PERCEIVED MINDSET OF THE BACHELOR

OF SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDENTS”, prepared and submitted by Joezer B.
Hidalgo, Jackelyn R. Acido, Mary Joy V. Cajan, Arsenio A. Baccay, Angelica C.
Cordova, Margarita M. Decena, and Adrian Xyrus S. Ebas in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English, is hereby
recommended for oral examination.
May 10, 2019 ARVEE P. BUCARILE

Date Adviser
Approved by the Tribunal on Oral Examination with a grade of ____________.
LOIDA C. CALONIA, MAEd

Chair
BEATRIZ G. CLEMENTE, PhD LAUREANA M. LINGAN, PhD

Member Member
RIA A. TAMAYO, PhD

Member
Accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of

Secondary Education Major in English.
MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA, PhD

Dean, College of Teacher Education
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researchers wish to express their debt of gratitude and sincerest appreciation
to the following persons who have extended their valuable assistance, unceasing
encouragement, and needed inspiration in the pursuit of this academic undertaking:
Dr. Laureana M. Lingan, their Language Research professor, for giving them
the opportunity to traverse the storehouse of knowledge and for giving them motherly
advice and scholarly guidance towards the completion of this study;
Dr. Marie Claudette M. Calanoga, College Dean, and Dr. Theresa B.
Dimalanta, Campus Executive Officer, for giving them the permission to conduct the
study in the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus;
Prof. Loida C. Calonia, Dr. Beatriz G. Clemente, Dr. Laureana M. Lingan,
and Dr. Ria A. Tamayo, their esteemed panelists, for their invaluable comments and
suggestions which contributed to the enrichment of this study;
Mr. Arvee P. Bucarile, their research adviser, for lending them his time and
extending his indefatigable guidance leading to the accomplishment of this humble work;
Dr. Magda L. Frutas, their statistician, for sharing their statistical acumen in
treating the data gathered for the study;
The teachers of the College of Teacher Education who wholeheartedly allowed
them to float their questionnaire during their classes;

iv
The Bachelor of Secondary Education student-respondents for their utmost
cooperation in answering the two-part questionnaire patiently;
Their parents, siblings, and significant others who incessantly guided,
supported, and motivated them in pursuing this study; and
Above all, the Omnipotent Father who is the source of all wisdom and strength
needed in the completion of this work.
The Researchers
DEDICATION
It is with genuine gratefulness and warmest regard
that we dedicate this humble work to our family
who taught us that even the most daunting task
can be accomplished if it is done one step at a time,
to the faculty members and learners
of Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus
for their good-natured support, and
most of all, to our Good Lord,
our source of inspiration, wisdom, and knowledge,
for His neverending blessings and untiring love.
The Researchers
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
DEDICATION v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT ix
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction 1
Conceptual Framework 3
Research Paradigm 4
Statement of the Problem 5
Research Hypothesis 6
Significance of the Study 6
Scope and Delimitation 7
Definition of Terms 8
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Mindset: Fixed, Growth, and Mixed 10
Mindset and Gender 16
Mindset and Field of Specialization 17
Mindset and Family Structure 18
Mindset and Parenting Style 20
vii
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design 25
Locale of the Study 25
Respondents and Sampling Method 25
Research Instrument 26
Data Gathering Procedure 27
Tools for Data Analysis 27
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Profile of the Respondents 30
Perceived Mindset of the Respondents 32
Comparison of the Respondents’ Perceived Mindset When Grouped 33
According to the Profile Variables
5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 38
Conclusions 39
Recommendations 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 40
APPENDICES
Letter to the Campus Executive Officer 45
Letter to the College Dean 47
Letter to the Respondents 49
Research Questionnaire 50
CURRICULUM VITAE 52
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Distribution of respondents according to gender 30

2 Distribution of respondents according to field of specialization 31
3 Distribution of respondents according to family structure 31
4 Distribution of respondents according to parenting style 32
5 Distribution of respondents according to their perceived mindset score 33
6 Comparison of the respondents’ perceived mindset when grouped
34
according to gender
35
according to field of specialization
36
according to family structure
37
according to parenting style
ix
ABSTRACT
Title: The Perceived Mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary Education Students
Researchers: Joezer B. Hidalgo
Jackelyn R. Acido
Mary Joy V. Cajan
Arsenio A. Baccay
Angelica C. Cordova
Margarita M. Decena
Adrian Xyrus S. Ebas
Degree: Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English
Institution: College of Teacher Education
Adviser: Arvee P. Bucarile
This study generally sought to determine the mindset of the Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) students of the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan
State University, Andrews Campus. Specifically, it sought to determine the profile of the
respondents in term of gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting
style. Moreover, it sought to determine the perceived mindset of the respondents and
compared their perceived mindset when grouped according to the profile variables.
Findings indicate that of the 239 respondents, 142 (59.4%) are female, 66 (27.6%)
are BSED English major students, 189 (79.1%) belong to intact families, and 114
(47.7%) are raised by permissive parents. Findings also show that 179 (74.9%) of the
respondents have mixed mindset. With a mean mindset score of 29.84, the respondents
have mixed mindset.
Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test revealed
that there is no significant difference between the respondents' perceived mindset when
grouped according to gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting style.
Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.
In the light of the findings of the study, it can be concluded that the Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) students have mixed mindset, that they have not really
decided for sure whether they can change their intelligence, that they care about their
grades and want to learn but they really do not want to work too hard for it. Furthermore,
it can be concluded that BSED students have essentially the same perceived mindset
irrespective of their gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting style.
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
The way people understand intelligence and abilities deeply impacts their success.
Some people think that the key to achieve their goals and success is hard work, focus, and
persistence, but researches show that these are all by-products of one’s mindset, a
powerful tool that all people can develop. Although the role of students’ attitudes and
beliefs in education has been studied for many years, interest has recently increased in the
role of student mindset, i.e. students’ attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions.
According to Dweck (2006), mindset is the belief about oneself and one’s basic
qualities. She identified two mindsets that people have about their talents and abilities:
fixed and growth mindsets.
People with growth mindset think of talents and abilities as things they can
develop – as potentials that come to fruition through effort, practice, and instruction.
They do not believe that everyone has the same potential, but they understand that to be
great at something entails years of passionate and dedicated practice. For people with
growth mindset, talent is something they build on and develop, not something they
simply display to the world and try to ride on to success. In sum, growth mindset is the
belief that academic ability or intelligence is not fixed but can be changed and enhanced
over time through one’s own effort (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Dweck, et al., 2011).
On the other hand, people with fixed mindset believe that their talents and
abilities are simply fixed. They have a certain amount and that’s that (Blackwell,
Trzesmewski, & Dweck, 2007).
In addition to fixed and growth mindsets, Roberts (2018) suggested that in truth
many people have mixed mindset. People with mixed mindset sometimes feel that they
have the ability to develop skills and talents and that at other times they may not. This
means that their mindset depends on the situation, circumstances, and how they feel
about the tasks assigned to them.
A large body of emerging evidence, including multiple randomized controlled
trials, shows that interventions which target the mindset of students improved academic
outcomes through changes in student disposition towards academic work and increased
academic effort (Farrington, et al., 2012; Snipes, et al., 2012; Yeagan & Walton, 2011).
Academic behaviors are the primary mechanism through which mindsets are
hypothesized to affect academic outcomes. Without changes in academic behaviors, it is
difficult to imagine how and why changes in academic mindset would result in
meaningful changes in academic outcomes. School norms and peer beliefs regarding the
nature of academic ability and the value of effort may shape academic mindsets and
through them, students’ academic behaviors and outcomes.
In the face of recent findings on the impact of students’ mindset to academic
behavior and success, the researchers observed that many students in the College of
Teacher Education of Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus often complain about
academic tasks assigned to them, saying that the tasks are difficult and beyond their
ability to do. In group activities, for instance, students would relegate the task to those
they perceive as intelligent and better than them. In cases that they really have no choice
but to do the assigned tasks, they would often settle for outputs that are for compliance
sake, the kind of outputs that are “pwede na”.
It is this recurring observation that gave the researchers the impetus to conduct
this study which aimed to determine the perceived mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) students in the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan State
University, Andrews Campus.
Conceptual Framework
The study is anchored on the theory of growth and fixed mindsets espoused by
Dr. Carol S. Dweck, a Stanford University professor and Mindset Works co-founder, and
described at length in her book Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (2006).
Dweck coined the terms fixed mindset and growth mindset based on her research
on factors that make students succeed in school. She and her colleagues found that
students who have a growth mindset focus on deep learning instead of just looking smart.
They are able to bounce back after each failure, willing to “walk the extra mile” to
become better learners, and more mentally healthy. Furthermore, Dweck discovered that
some people believe that intelligence, abilities, and personality traits are “set in stone” –
how God made them is basically who they are. More importantly, Dweck (2006)
discovered that these two different mindsets lead to very different behaviors and results.
In addition to fixed and growth mindsets, the study also banked on what Roberts
(2018) called mixed mindset, the belief that intelligence and skills can be developed
depending on the situation or circumstance. Students with mixed mindset care about their
grades and they also want to learn, but they do not really want to work too hard for it.
Research Paradigm
The paradigm shows the interplay of the variables involved in this study. The
independent variable is the profile of the respondents, specifically gender, field of
specialization, family structure, and parenting style. The dependent variable, on the other
hand, is the mindset of the respondents.
The researchers believe that mindset, the dependent variable, is influenced by a
set of independent variables such as gender, field of specialization, family structure, and
parenting style. Thus, the researchers assumed that these profile variables have an impact
on the mindset of the respondents.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Profile of the Bachelor of

Secondary Education Students
Perceived Mindset of the
 gender
Bachelor of Secondary Education
 field of specialization
Students
 family structure
 parenting style
Figure 1. The paradigm showing the interplay of the independent and dependent variables
in the study
Statement of the Problem
This study generally aimed to determine the mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) students of the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan State
University, Andrews Campus.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:
1.1 gender
1.2 field of specialization
1.3 family structure
1.4 parenting style
2. What is the perceived mindset of the respondents?

3. Is there a significant difference between the perceived mindset of the respondents
when grouped according to the profile variables?
Research Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the perceived mindset of the
respondents when grouped according to the profile variables.
Significance of the Study
Understanding the mindset of students would benefit directly or indirectly the
people involved in the educational system. Thus, this study is deemed to have the
following benefits:
University administrators will become aware of the mindset of students through
the results of this study. This awareness may inspire them to implement programs and
activities that shall help develop growth mindset among students and to adapt
compensatory or remedial measures if needed.
Teachers can use the results of this study to better understand the attitudes and
dispositions of students towards intelligence, skills, and academic tasks. This study would
also prompt them to develop classroom strategies and activities that will encourage
students to foster growth mindset.
This study can also give students a clear picture of their beliefs and attitudes
towards their abilities and intelligence. Students, especially the respondents, may utilize
the results of the study to evaluate their outlook towards academic tasks and academic
success.
Parents may also find inspiration in this study to provide much needed support in
the development of growth mindset among their children.
The researchers found this study crucial in their formation as future teachers. It
helped them broaden their horizon as regards students’ outlook towards intelligence,
abilities, and academic undertaking.
Lastly, future researchers who plan to embark on parallel and related studies
may use the findings of this study as reference.
In sum, the result of the study shall contribute to the improvement of the teaching
and learning process which in turn will significantly impact students’ academic success.
Scope and Delimitation
This study focused on determining the mindset of the respondents using Dweck’s
(2006) theory on growth and fixed mindsets and what Roberts (2018) called mixed
mindset.
The respondents were confined to 239 first year and fourth year Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) students enrolled in the College of Teacher Education,
Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus in the first semester of School Year 2018-
2019. There were no second year and third year respondents since the University was in
the K-12 transition period when the study was conducted.
Lastly, the profile of the respondents was confined to gender, field of
specialization, family structure, and parenting styles. All other profile variables were
excluded in the study
Definition of Terms
For a clearer understanding of the study, the key variables and terminologies used
herein are operationally defined:
Family structure refers to the type of family to which a child belongs. In this
study, family structure is either intact, i.e. the child is living with either biological or
adoptive parents, or non-intact, i.e. the child is living with one of his/her separated
parents or his/her relatives.
Field of specialization refers to the sub-disciplines of the Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) program in which students major in. The fields of specialization
referred to in this study are English, Filipino, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies –
those identified in CHED Memorandum Order No. 75, s. 2017 or the Policies, Standards
and Guidelines for Bachelor of Secondary Education.
Fixed mindset refers to the strong belief that their intelligence is fixed, that it
does not change much. People with fixed mindset would rather not do something if they
cannot perform perfectly. They think smart people do not have to work hard.
Gender refers to the sexual identity with which a person identifies
himself/herself. In this study, it is male, female, or LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, or queer).
Growth mindset refers to the firm belief that intelligence can be increased by
learning. People with growth mindset like challenges and believe that the best way to
learn is to work hard. They do not mind making mistakes while they do it.
Mindset refers to students’ attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions towards
intelligence, abilities, effort, and academic tasks.
Mixed mindset refers to the undecidedness whether one’s intelligence can be
changed or not. People with mixed mindset care about their grades and want to learn, but
they do not really want to work too hard for it.
Parenting style refers to how the parent/s of the respondents exercise control and
show affection to them. In this study, parenting style may be permissive (low control and
high affection), uninvolved (low control and low affection), authoritarian (high control
and low affection), or authoritative (high control and high affection).

10
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents the reviewed related literature and studies which provided
support and direction to the study. It contains texts culled from books, references,
researches, and the Internet.
Mindset: Fixed, Growth, and Mixed
People vary in the degree to which they attribute the causes of intelligence and
other traits. Carol S. Dweck (2000), a psychologist of Stanford University,
proposed mindset theory as a way to understand the effects of the beliefs that individuals
hold for the nature of intelligence. This in turn has implications for learning and
education.
Dweck (2000) proposed that the implicit theories that people hold for the nature
and causes of intelligence have a number of implications, particularly for motivation to
practice and learn. In her earlier research, Dweck identified “entity" and “incremental"
theorists, based on whether individuals attributed success in tasks that required intelligent
behavior to having sufficient native aptitude (entity) versus having practiced a skill and
improving performance over time (incremental). Eventually, Dweck (2006) proposed a
theory of “mindset" to integrate a number of related ideas that she had developed over the
years.
11
Mindset refers to implicit theories that individuals hold regarding the nature of
intelligent behavior; to the degree that individuals attribute intelligence to fixed traits,
they hold a “fixed" theory of intelligence, that is a fixed mindset, and to the degree that
they attribute intelligence to learning, effort, training, and practice, they hold a “growth"
theory of intelligence, that is a growth mindset. The terms fixed and growth mindset
replaced the earlier terms for entity and incremental theories of intelligence.
Individuals with fixed mindset believe that their qualities, such as intelligence and
other personality traits, are “set in stone” – how God made them is basically who they
are. They believe that one’s traits are fixed – not something that can be practiced or
developed. On the other hand, individuals with growth mindset believe that effort or
training can change one’s qualities and traits.
Moreover, people with fixed mindset tend to be interested only in feedback on
their success in activities to the degree that it serves to evaluate their underlying ability.
They are not using the feedback to learn, since they do not believe that their success
depends on their effort to learn. Rather, they believe that success depends on the level of
innate ability that they have. Therefore, they dread failure, because it suggests constraints
or limits that they will not be able to overcome.
People with growth mindset, on the other hand, attribute success to learning.
Therefore, they are not terrified of failure, because it only signals the need to pay
attention, invest effort, apply time to practice, and master the new learning opportunity.
12
They are confident that after such effort they will be able to learn the skill or knowledge,
and then to improve their performance.
Dweck (1995) found that 40% had a fixed mindset, 40% had a growth mindset,
and 20% were undecided.
In addition to fixed and growth mindsets, Roberts (2018) posited that people can
also have mixed mindset. She said that “in truth many people have mixed mindset – part
fixed, part growth.” People may veer more towards a growth or a fixed mindset
naturally, but actually a lot of people are somewhere in between and have a mixed
mindset. This means that their mindset is part fixed, part growth depending on the
situation, circumstances, and how they feel about assigned tasks. This means that
sometimes they may feel that they have the ability to develop skills and talents and other
times they may not.
Roberts (2018), however, said that ideally people may want to develop and
cultivate a growth mindset since this will dramatically improve their
performance, productivity, goal achievement, and happiness. She concluded that it is all
about changing one’s thought process to view challenges and disappointments as
opportunities to learn and develop. A person’s mindset has the power to change his/her
game at work and in personal life. The key is learning how to make the shift towards a
growth mindset and learning how to maintain this way of looking at the world even when
facing challenges.
13
In sum, fixed mindset assumes that people’s character, intelligence, and creative
ability are static givens which cannot change in any meaningful way, and success is the
affirmation of the inherent intelligence. Striving for success and avoiding failure at all
cost become a way of maintaining the sense of being smart or skilled for them. Fixed
mindset students perceive academic challenges as a sign of lack of intelligence, which
diminishes the resilience of students in academic areas, even for high-achieving students
(Dweck, et al., 1995; Dweck, 2006). Notably, even when students were taught skills to be
resilient in school, they may not apply these skills adequately because of their fixed
mindset (Blackwell, et al., 2007).
Growth mindset, on the other hand, thrives on challenge and sees failure not as
evidence of unintelligence but as a heartening springboard for growth and for stretching
one’s existing abilities. Growth mindset students interpret academic challenges as a
chance to improve their ability and sharpen their learning skill, which contributes to their
resilience in academic areas (Hong, et al., 1999; Blackwell, et al., 2007; Nussbaum and
Dweck, 2008). Additionally, growth mindset students were more resilient and earned
higher grades when they confronted challenging school transitions.
Messages to children can influence the development of mindset. If parents or
teachers constantly seem to attribute success to inborn or innate abilities, children will
come to develop fixed mindset. Praise of a child’s performance can be particularly likely
to produce a fixed mindset when it attributes the success to the child’s intelligence,
implying aptitude or fixed traits. However, if parents or teachers attribute success to

14
effort and practice, children will more likely develop growth mindset. Praise of a child’s
efforts to practice, or attributions of success that reference the prior practice in which the
child engaged, can spur the child to develop a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006).
According to Zhao (2014), differences in mindset may affect broader issues as
well, including how employers focus on hiring staff and in how politicians fund public
education. Employers that hold a fixed mindset may focus more on investment in high
ability employees and correspondingly invest less in professional development and
ongoing training. Politicians who believe that the learning of which children are capable
is limited by fixed traits may resist calls to improve funding for public education, perhaps
considering such additional funding an unnecessary investment to try to improve fixed
abilities. However, those same politicians might be willing to support spending on
programs for the gifted when entrance to such programs is filtered by intelligence tests. It
is also possible that there may exist international differences in mindset; for example,
Americans and Western Europeans, given the history of the prevalence of the use of
intelligence tests for the past century, may be more likely to attribute success to innate
ability (fixed mindset) than to effort and practice; the reverse may be the case in many
Asian nations where the culture of education emphasizes learning and rigorous practice.
Furthermore, research shows that growth mindset can lead to school achievement.
There are many intervention experiments that demonstrate that changing students’
theories of intelligence from mixed mindset to growth mindset exerts impact on their
academic behaviors in the long run (Aroson, et al., 2002; Good, et al., 2003; Blackwell, et
15
al., 2007). Fixed mindset students “see intellectual ability as something of which people
have a fixed, unchangeable amount,” while growth mindset students “see intellectual
ability as something that can be grown or developed over time’’ (Yeager & Dweck,
2012). The mindsets of the students make them perceive their academic world differently.
Growth mindset promotes resilience while the fixed one does not. Students with fixed
mindset tend to conceive everything, such as academic performance, challenges, and
troubles, as a measurement of their ability and intellect. However, students with growth
mindset tend to think of their academic lives in terms of learning, growing, and
developing. Growth mindset students interpret setbacks, challenges, and effort as
effective approaches to improve their ability, intelligence and experience.
Yeager and Dweck (2012) contend that the underlying mechanism of growth
mindset that leads to academic achievements seems to rely on the goals of students, their
beliefs about the effort and their attributions about their setbacks, and learning strategies
in the face of academic difficulties, which are effective ways to promote resilience.
Brooks and Goldstein (2001) defined resilience as the capacity to cope effectively with
past and present adversity.
A study conducted by Zenger and Folkman (2009) answered the question “Why
do some people react so defensively to critical feedback, while others take it on the
chin?” They gathered data on how people react to feedback for a year. They called the
defensive tendency “proving” (as in, having something good to prove) and the accepting
tendency “improving” (as in, being willing to admit improvement was needed). These
16
definitions are close to, though not exactly the same as, fixed and growth mindsets. They
designed a self-assessment tool for personal development in an effort to minimize the
motivation to “look good to others” that is usually found in a proving mentality. They
found that 8.3% of respondents had a strong “proving” orientation, 8.4% were divided in
their orientation, and 83% had an “improving” orientation. The result may have been
somewhat lopsided. After all, the respondents were by definition people interested in
their personal development. Therefore it’s not surprising that the majority had an
“improving” orientation.
Mindset and Gender
In our society today, men and women perform distinctly different roles which are
based on nothing more than their biological sex. Although these roles do not hold true for
each individual, majority of people live out their lives in accordance with these extremely
pervasive roles. According the interactionist approach, roles are not fixed but are
constantly negotiated between individuals.
Gender and mindset have an effect on academic performance as well as
motivation which leads to the development of stereotypes. For instance, boys are thought
to be good performers in mathematics and sciences while girls are said to be good in
languages. It is not clearly known whether the differences in these different subjects
based on gender differences is affected by gender or the mindset among the parents,
students, and teachers. Therefore, there is a need to determine whether these differences
are affected by gender based on the stereotypes which exist in the society.
17
Tuwor and Sossou (2008) posited that it is not actually the gender which affects
academic performance, but rather the level of masculinity and femininity among the
students. The desire for achievements and self-motivation is a mindset in the feminine
gender while the mindset of succeeding is in the masculine gender.
However, there is a need for all stakeholders in education to make sure that they
do away with the existing mindset on students and themselves too. Moreover, these
stakeholders need to make students develop both the feminine and masculine mindsets in
all subjects so that they can perform relatively well. As a matter of fact, there are no
subjects which are hard or easy for a certain gender, but mindset and stereotypes make all
the notable and existing differences.
Mindset and Field of Specialization
Selection of a particular area of specialization is not only important in one’s
academic life but also in the one’s future personal life because it has an influence on
academics continuity, student’s satisfaction, career and employment opportunities,
financial compensation, and social status.
Regarding student choice of specialization, there is a growing research interest on
how students, as consumers, make their choices in higher education (Naidoo, et al.,
2011). Extensive research has been conducted on students’ decision making regarding
their programs and universities (Moogan & Baron, 2003; Vrontis, et al., 2007). These
kinds of choices are usually made by students before starting their careers in education.
18
Other research papers focus on student’s choices made during their studies (Hugstad,
1997; Newell, et al., 1996; Petruzzellis & Romanazzi, 2010).
Mindset and Family Structure
The type of family a child belongs to is one of the most important influences that
may affect students’ mindset on learning and success.
Family structure has proved to be an influential component to the well-being and
academic achievement of a child, especially during his/her adolescent years. The
adolescence years are the most significant time in child’s development because it is a
time that has the most impact on a child’s development (Astone & McLanahan, 1991;
Heck & Parker, 2001). During these formative years, they learn essential skills that have
a direct impact on their future goals.
Children residing in married-biological parent households are more likely to
complete high school and attend college than children that do not (McLahanan &
Sandafur, 1994). In addition, children in this family structure have much fewer
behavioral problems than children in other types. The parents have consistently been
found to be able to contribute more time and financial support to the child. The structured
dually headed family provides adequate parental involvement, guidance, expectation,
support, time, and direction. Each of these components serves to be important to a child’s
educational attainment.
19
On the other hand, children in non-intact families have lower levels of academic
achievement and health outcomes than children of married couples (McLahanan, 1985:
Heck & Parker, 2002). There are several different classifications of single parent headed
households such as female-headed (never married), male-headed (never married), female-
headed (post-divorce/separation/widow), male-headed (post-divorce/separation/widower)
(Vanier, 2006)
Single parent households can impact the child in other aspects as well. According
to Carlson and Corcoran (2001), children within single female-headed households tend to
have more behavioral problems and educational issues than other family structures.
Previous research has also shown that students from single parent households do
not perform as well in school as children from two-parent households. Some researches
have also shown that single-parents are less involved with their children and therefore
gives less encouragement and have lower expectations of their children than two-parent
households (Majoribanks, 1996).
Divorce has also been found to negatively affect academic achievement. Jeynes
(2002) found that students whose parents had divorced were among those who scored
lowest on standardized test. Possible explanations for this relationship are that divorce
can cause a family’s socioeconomic status level to decrease and parental connections are
harmed (Jeynes 2002, Majoribanks, 1996).

20
Research also shows that supportive and attentive parenting practices positively
affect academic achievement (Eamon, 2005). In addition, high parent aspirations have
been associated with increasing students’ interest in education (Majoribanks, 2005). The
effect of parental involvement in their children’s school has been linked to both positive
and negative influences on academic achievement. Explanations for this discrepancy are
not inclusive. It is thought that the type of involvement may make a difference and that in
some cases parents become involved after their child has already had academic
difficulties (Domina 2005, Mcneal 2001). Other recent research has found more
conclusively that while parental involvement may not help academic scores, it does help
prevent behavioral problems (Domina, 2005).
Mindset and Parenting Style
The family is one of the most important agents in an individual’s process of
socialization. It is within the family environment that individuals first acquire values,
beliefs, attitudes, standards and behaviors considered to be culturally appropriate (Bern,
2009). Regardless of culture, social group, or family structure, parents usually reinforce
the behaviors of their children, including whether they are appropriate or not (Darling &
Steinberg, 1993). Nancy and Laurance (1993) described parenting style as “a
constellation of attitudes toward the child that are communicated to the child and that,
taken together, create an emotional climate in which the parents’ behaviors are
expressed”.
21
Parenting styles have been investigated for many decades and are considered
important predictors of child development (Weber, et al., 2006). The variability of
parents’ behaviors in relation to the socialization of their children has been satisfactorily
explained by two basic dimensions which despite other terms used by researchers can be
called parental control (demandingness) and affection (responsiveness) (Musifu, et al.,
2008). Control implies making demands, supervision, and requirements imposed by
parents, while affection involves sensitivity, acknowledgement, and commitment of
parents to their children (Baumrind, et al., 2005).
These dimensions can be put into operation by a continuum whose intersection
originates four styles of progressive-regressive influence, defining four styles of parental
socialization that are a consensus in the literature (Costa, et al., 2000). Specifically,
scores in the dimensions control and affection allow us to define authoritative (high
control and high affection), authoritarian (high control and low affection), uninvolved
(low control and low affection), and permissive (low control and high affection)
parenting styles (Rothrauff, et al., 2009).
To Karavasilis, et al. (2003), the authoritative style describes parents who
maintain a balance between high levels of demandingness and affection, consistently
supervising their children’s behavior in order to discipline them through inductive rather
than punitive methods. They reinforce socially responsible and mature behavior through
praise and manifestations of affection, offering support, encouraging communication and
valuing their children’s points of view. Authoritarian parents, on the other hand, are
22
highly demanding but unresponsive (low affection), emphasizing obedience, respect for
authority, and the maintenance of order through discipline based on power and severe
(usually physical) punishment, expecting that rules will be complied with without
offering their children a chance to negotiate (Baumrind,1997).
Parents considered to be permissive are characterized by little or non-existent
control, infrequent exercise of any type of authority in order to ensure compliance from
their children. They tend to talk and ask their children about family decisions,
encouraging them to be independent. Uninvolved parents, in turn, are characterized by a
lack of involvement and little time dedicated to interact with their children. These parents
are generally concerned with their own problems and neglect their parental
responsibilities. They do not supervise their children and do not provide any type of
affective support (Macoby & Martin, 1983). Columna (2017) concluded that parenting
styles vary depending on the way of living and education though the authoritative style is
considered as the best style.
According to Anne, et al. (2008), permissive and authoritarian parenting styles are
correlated with negative psychological and behavioral outcomes. Also Pong, et al. (2005)
found that there is no strong correlation between academic achievement and authoritative
as compared to authoritarian and permissive parenting styles.
Steinberge, et al. (1994) cited by Masud, et al. (2014), tested whether parenting
style is affected by ethnic differences. They concluded that parenting style was less
23
advantageous for Asian-American adolescents as compared to that of European-
American adolescents. Adolescents of both Asian-American and European-American
cultures felt it was more important to discuss and share problems with their parents. The
reason is that adolescent of both cultures have qualities of closeness with their parents
(Fugilni, 1998 cited by Masud, et al., 2014).
Masud, et al. (2014) highlighted that parenting styles affect the academic
achievement of adolescents. He reviewed the findings of 39 articles from seven databases
(Google Scholar, Science Direct, Taylor and Francis Journals, Web of Science, JSTOR,
Springer link, and SAGE Journals) that analyzed the relationship between parenting
styles and the academic performance of students using descriptive studies. Parenting style
also has correlations with children’s social behavior and development. The research also
suggested that parenting style has direct correlation with how children will grow up, how
they live, and whether they will abide by the rules in the society. Parents must consider
those practices which can make their children ethically, socially, and academically more
successful.
Researchers have conducted other studies that led to a number of conclusions
about the impact of parenting styles on child development. Authoritarian parenting styles
generally lead to children who are obedient and proficient, but they have lower
happiness, social competence, and self-esteem. Authoritative parenting styles tend to
result in children who are happy, capable, and successful. Permissive parenting often
results in children who rank low happiness and self-regulation. These children are more
24
likely to experience problems with authority and tend to perform poorly in school.
Uninvolved parenting style is rank lowest across all life domains. These children tend to
lack self-control, have low esteem, and are less competent than their peers (Baumrind, et
al., 2005).
25
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methodology adopted in the conduct of the study. It is
composed of the research design, locale, respondents and sampling method, research
instrument, data gathering procedure, and tools for data analysis.
Research Design
This study utilized the descriptive-comparative research design. The descriptive
method is concerned with the description of data and characteristics about a population. It
was employed to describe the profile and perceived mindset of the respondents.
Moreover, the comparative method aims to make comparisons to groups of variables.
This method was used to test the difference in the mindset of the respondents when
grouped according to the profile variables.
Locale of the Study
This study was conducted in Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus,
Tuguegarao City. Of the four undergraduate colleges in the campus, the College of
Teacher Education was chosen as the site of the study for reason of accessibility.
Respondents and Sampling Method
The respondents were 239 first year and fourth year Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSED) students of the College of Teacher Education who were chosen from
26
among the five fields of specialization, namely English, Filipino, Mathematics, Science
and Social Studies. Stratified random sampling was employed.
Out of the 647 BSED students during the first semester of SY 2018-2019, a
scientific sample of 239 respondents was determined using the Slovin’s formula. The
distribution of the respondents is as follows:
Field of Specialization First Year Fourth Year Total

English 31 35 66
Filipino 15 15 30
Mathematics 14 33 47
Science 16 34 50
Social Studies 28 18 46
Total 104 135 239
Research Instrument
A two-part questionnaire was used to gather the needed data. Part I was used to
obtain the profile of the respondents, specifically gender, field of specialization, family
structure, and parenting style.
Part II is composed of the Student Mindset Survey adapted from Brainology:
Building Students’ Confidence, Fulfillment, and Achievement Through the Understanding
of Expandable Intelligence by Mindset Works (2002-2011). The survey is composed of
eight statements which probes the “opinion [of the respondents] about things that have to
do with school and being a student.” It asks for the respondents’ extent of agreement to
the given statements using a six-point Likert scale.

27
Data Gathering Procedure
To gather the necessary data, the researchers first sought the permission of the
College Dean of the College of Teacher Education and the Campus Executive Officer of
CSU Andrews Campus through a letter. When permission was secured, the two-part
questionnaire was personally floated to the respondents by the researchers. After the
questionnaires were retrieved, the responses of the respondents and their score in the
Student Mindset Survey were tallied, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.
Tools for Data Analysis
The data gathered through the questionnaire were collated, tabulated, and
analyzed. For the profile of the respondents, along gender, field of specialization, family
structure, and parenting style, frequency count and percentage distribution were used.
To determine the perceived mindset score of the respondents in the Student
Mindset Survey, these steps were followed: First, their responses to the odd-numbered
statements (Statements 1, 3, 5, and 7) were added together. Second, their responses to the
even-numbered statements (Statement 2, 4, 6, and 8) were transmuted in this respect and
were then added together: disagree a lot is equal to 6, disagree to 5, disagree a little to 4,
agree a little to 3, agree to 2, and agree a lot to 1. This was done because the odd-
numbered statements are positive statements, while the even-numbered statements are
negative ones. Third, their responses to both the odd-numbered and even-numbered
statements were totaled to determine their perceived mindset score.

28
To describe and interpret the perceived mindset score of the respondents, the
following chart adapted from Brainology: Building Students’ Confidence, Fulfillment,
and Achievement Through the Understanding of Expandable Intelligence by Mindset
Works (2002-2011) was utilized:
If the respondents’
Then the respondents People in this group usually believe
mindset score falls
have: the following things:
into this range:
They strongly believe that their
intelligence is fixed – it does not
change much. If they cannot perform
8-16 fixed mindset
perfectly, they would rather not do
something. They think smart people do
not have to work hard.
They lean towards thinking that their
intelligence does not change much.
somewhat fixed They prefer not to make mistakes if
17-24
mindset they can help it, and they also do not
really like to put in a lot of work. They
may think that learning should be easy.
They have not really decided for sure
whether they can change their
intelligence. They care about their
25-32 mixed mindset
grades and they also want to learn, but
they do not really want to work too
hard for it.
They believe that their intelligence is
something that they can increase. They
care about learning, and they are
somewhat growth
33-40 willing to work hard. They do not want
mindset
to do well, but they think it is more
important to learn than to always score
well.
They really feel sure that they can
increase their intelligence by learning,
and they like challenges. They believe
41-48 growth mindset
that the best way to learn is to work
hard, and they do not mind making
mistakes while they do it.
29
Lastly, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if there is a
significant difference between the respondents’ perceived mindset when grouped
according to gender, field of specialization, and parenting style. Independent sample t-test
was employed, on the other hand, to determine if there is a significant difference between
the respondents’ perceived mindset when grouped according to family structure.

30
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter contains the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the data
collected. The first section presents the profile of the respondents. The next section
describes the perceived mindset of the respondents. This is followed by the discussion of
the comparison of the respondents’ mindset when grouped according to the profile
variables.
Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 presents the gender of the respondents. Majority of the respondents, that
is 142 or 59.4%, are female. Seventy one (71) or 29.7% of the respondents are male.
Lastly, twenty six (26) or 10.9% identify themselves as LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, or queer).
This finding indicates that most students taking up Bachelor of Secondary
Education are female. This also implies that teaching remains a female-dominated
profession.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to gender

Gender Frequency Percentage
Female 142 59.4%
Male 71 29.7%
LGBTQ 26 10.9%
Total 239 100%
31
Table 2 presents the field of specialization of the respondents. Most of the
respondents, that is 66 or 27.6%, are specializing in English, 50 or 20.9% in Science, 47
or 19.7% in Mathematics, 46 or 19.2% in Social Studies, and 30 or 12.6% in Filipino.
This implies that most of the Bachelor of Secondary Education students are
interested in the study of language and literature, the fields of study explored by BSED
English major students.
Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to field of specialization

Field of Specialization Frequency Percentage
English 66 27.6%
Science 50 20.9%
Mathematics 47 19.7%
Social Studies 46 19.2%
Filipino 30 12.6%
Total 239 100%
Table 3 presents the structure of the family to which the respondents belong.
Majority of the respondents, that is 189 or 79.1%, belong to intact families, while 50 or
20.9% belong to non-intact families.
This means that most of the respondents are living with both of their biological or
adoptive parents and that only a few are living with one parent or with their relatives.
Table 3. Distribution of respondents according to family structure

Family Structure Frequency Percentage
Intact 189 79.1%
Non-intact 50 20.9%
Total 239 100%
32
Table 4 presents parenting style in which the respondents were raised. Most of the
respondents, that is 114 or 47.7%, are raised by permissive parents, 88 or 36.8% by
authoritative parents, 32 or 13.4% by authoritarian parents, and five (5) or 2.1% by
uninvolved parents.
This implies that parents nowadays exercise low control over what their children
want to do with their lives and give them freedom to discover and learn things on their
own while showing high affection to their children at the same time.
Table 4. Distribution of respondents according to parenting style

Parenting Style Frequency Percentage
Permissive 114 47.7%
Authoritative 88 36.8%
Authoritarian 32 13.4%
Uninvolved 5 2.1%
Total 239 100%
Perceived Mindset of the Respondents
Table 5 illustrates the perceived mindset score of the respondents. As revealed in
the table, 179 (74.9%) of the respondents have a mindset score of 25-32 which means
that they have mixed mindset. Moreover, 45 (18.83%) of the respondents have a mindset
score of 33-40 which means that they have somewhat growth mindset, 12 (5.02%) have
a mindset score of 17-24 which means that they have somewhat fixed mindset, and three
(1.25%) have a mindset score of 41-48 which means that they have growth mindset.
None of the respondents have fixed mindset.

33
With a mean mindset score of 29.84, the finding suggests that Bachelor of
Secondary Education students have mixed mindset. This implies that students have not
really decided for sure whether they can change their intelligence, that they care about
their grades and want to learn but they really do not want to work too hard for it.
This finding differs with Dweck (1995) who found that 40% of young children
had fixed mindset, 40% had growth mindset, and 20% were undecided. However, this
supports Roberts (2018) who opined that in truth many people have mixed mindset, that
they are undecided whether they can change their intelligence or not.
Table 5. Distribution of respondents according to their perceived mindset score

Mindset Score Frequency Percentage Descriptive Value
8-16 0 0.0% Fixed Mindset
17-24 12 5.02% Somewhat Fixed
25-32 179 74.9% Mixed Mindset
33-40 45 18.83% Somewhat Growth
41-48 3 1.25% Growth Mindset
Mean: 29.84, mixed mindset
Comparison of the Respondents’ Perceived Mindset When Grouped
According to the Profile Variables
The study hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the
perceived mindset of the respondents when grouped according to gender.
Table 6 presents the comparison of the comparison of the respondents’ perceived
mindset when grouped according to gender. It shows that the mean of the female
34
respondents is 29.98 with a standard deviation of 3.18 is higher than the mean of male
respondents (29.58, 4.21) and LGBTQ respondents (29.81, 3.85).
In addition to this, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 6 reveals that the
perceived mindset of the respondents has a computed p-value of .743 which is higher
than the level of significance (0.05). Thus, null hypothesis is accepted.
This means that there is no significant difference between the perceived mindset
of the respondents when grouped according to gender. This suggests that students who
belong to different genders have essentially the same mindset.
Table 6. Comparison of the respondents’ perceived mindset when grouped according to

gender
Std.
Gender N Mean P-value* Decision
Deviation
Female 142 29.98 3.18 .743 Accept Ho
Male 71 29.58 4.21
LGBTQ 26 29.81 3.85
*At 0.05 level of significance
perceived mindset of the respondents when grouped according to field of specialization.
Table 7 presents the comparison of the respondents’ perceived mindset when
grouped according to field of specialization. It shows that the mean of the Filipino major
students is 30.57 with a standard deviation of 4.55 is higher than the mean of the Social
Studies major students (30.24, 3.98), Science major students (30.02, 3.26), English major
students (29.71, 3.33), and Mathematics major students (28.98, 3.06).

35
of the respondents when grouped according to field of specialization. This implies that
students have the same mindset regardless of their field of specialization.

field of specialization
Field of Std.
N Mean P-value* Decision
Specialization Deviation
English 66 29.71 3.33 .316 Accept Ho
Science 50 30.02 3.26
Mathematics 47 28.98 3.06
Social Studies 46 30.24 3.98
Filipino 30 30.57 4.55
perceived mindset of the respondents when grouped according to family structure.
grouped according to family structure. It shows that the mean of the respondents who
belong to intact families is 29.94 with a standard deviation of 3.64 is higher than the
mean of the respondents who belong to non-intact families (29.48, 3.58).

36
In addition to this, the independent sample t-test in Table 8 reveals that the
of the respondents when grouped according to family structure. This suggests that the
respondents irrespective of the type of family structure they belong to have the same
mindset.

family structure
Std.
Family Structure N Mean P-value* Decision
Deviation
Intact 189 29.94 3.64 .884 Accept Ho
Non-intact 50 29.48 3.58
perceived mindset of the respondents when grouped according to their parenting style.
grouped according to the parenting style in which they were raised. It shows that the
mean of the respondents who were raised by uninvolved parents is 31.40 with a standard
deviation of 4.04 is higher than the mean of the respondents who were raised by
permissive parents (29.97, 3.45), authoritative parents (29.80, 3.78), and authoritarian
parents (29.25, 3.43).

37
perceived mindset of the respondents have a computed p-value of .576 which is higher
This means that there is no significant difference between the respondents’
perceived mindset when grouped according to their parenting style. This implies that the
respondents have fundamentally the same mindset regardless of the parenting style in
which they were raised.

parenting style
Std.
Parenting Style N Mean P-value* Decision
Deviation
Permissive 114 29.97 3.45 .576 Accept Ho
Authoritative 88 29.80 3.78
Authoritarian 32 29.25 3.43
Uninvolved 5 31.40 4.04
38
Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings of the study, the conclusions
derived from the findings, and the recommendations based on the findings.
Summary of Findings
This study generally sought to determine the mindset of the Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) students of the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan
State University, Andrews Campus. Specifically, it sought to determine the profile of the
respondents in term of gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting
style. Moreover, it sought to determine the perceived mindset of the respondents and
compared their perceived mindset when grouped according to the profile variables.
Findings indicate that of the 239 respondents, 142 (59.4%) are female, 66 (27.6%)
are BSED English major students, 189 (79.1%) belong to intact families, and 114
(47.7%) are raised by permissive parents.
Findings show that 179 (74.9%) of the respondents have mixed mindset. With a
mean mindset score of 29.84, the respondents have mixed mindset.
Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test revealed
that there is no significant difference between the respondents' perceived mindset when
grouped according to gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting style.
Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.

39
Conclusions
In the light of the findings of the study, it can be concluded that the Bachelor of
Secondary Education (BSED) students have mixed mindset which implies that they have
not really decided whether they can change their intelligence, that they care about their
grades and want to learn but they really do not want to work too hard for it.
Furthermore, it can be concluded that BSED students have essentially the same
mindset irrespective of their gender, field of specialization, family structure, and
parenting style.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study and the conclusions drawn from the analyzed
data, the following are recommended:
1. School administrators and teachers may consider implementing programs and
activities that will develop mixed and growth mindset among students.
2. Other research studies should be conducted correlating student mindset to
academic achievement and using other variables and factors that may affect the
mindset of students.
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anne, et al. (2008). It feels like yesterday: Self-esteem, valence of personal past
experiences, and judgments of subjective distance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82(5), 792-803. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.792
Aroson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threats on
African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125.
Baumrind, et al., (2005). Parenting styles and adolescents' achievement strategies.
Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 205-222. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0308.
Blackwell, L. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. (2006). A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale
for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 33-47.
Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. E. (2004). The relationship between classroom
motivation and academic achievement in elementary aged children. Family
Consumer Science Research Journal, 133(2), 106-120.
Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M.E. (2001). Family structure and children’s behavioral and
cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 779-792.
Columna, J. P. (2017). Parenting styles and mothers’ roles as perceived by adolescent

sons (Master’s Thesis). Graduate School, Cagayan State University, Cagayan,
Philippines.
Costa. (2006). Personality traits change in adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 29-
32. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.29
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental
involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education. 233-249.
Dornbusch, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.
Child Development.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). The impact of an online intervention (brainology) on the mindset
and resiliency of secondary school pupils: a preliminary mixed methods study.
41
Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/

10.1080/01443410.2012.675646
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random
House. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://www.brainpickings.org/
2014/01/29/carol-dweck-mindset/
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and human nature: Promoting change in the Middle East,
the schoolyard, the racial divide, and willpower. American Psychologist, 67(8),
614-622.
Eamon, M. K. (2005). Social-demographic, school, neighborhood, and parenting
influences on the academic achievement of Latino young adolescents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 163-174.
Goldstein, S., & Brooks. R. B. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of resilience in children. New
York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
Heck & Parker, (2001). Relevance of emotional intelligence for clinical psychology. In
International handbook of emotional intelligence. Retrieved October 10, 2018
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259753800_Relevance_of_
emotional_intelligence_for_clinical_psychology
Hochschild, J. L. (2003). Social class in public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4),
821-840.
Hong, et al. (1999). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an
adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Retrieved
October 10, 2018 from https://www.mtoliveboe.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/
blackwell-theories-of intelligence-child-dev-2007.pdf
Hugstad. (1997). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities:

Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. doi:10.1177/0273475305276641
Jeynes, W. (2002). Divorce, family structure, and the academic success of children. New
York, NY: Haworth Press.
Karavasilis, L. (2003). Associations between parenting style and attachment to mother.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(2), 153-164.
Macoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical

overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1006-1017.
42
Marjoribanks, K. (2005). Family background, academic achievement and educational

aspirations as predictors of Australian young adults’ educational attainment.
Psychological Reports, 96(3), 751-754.
Masud, et al. (2014). Relationship between parenting styles and academic performance of
adolescents: mediating role of self-efficacy. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 17(1). doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9413-6
McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American

Journal of Sociology, 90(4), 873-901.
McLanahan, S. S., & Astone, N. M. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high
school completion. American Sociological Review, 56(3), 309-320.
McLanahan, S., & Teitler, J. (1991). The consequences of father absence. In M. E. Lab
(Ed.), Parenting and child development in “nontraditional” families. (pp. 83-
102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Mcneal, R. (2001). Differential effects of parental involvement on cognitive and

behavioral outcomes by socioeconomic status. Journal of Socio-Economics,
30(2), 171-179.
Mindset Works. (2002-2011). Brainology: Building Students’ Confidence, Fulfillment,
and Achievement Through the Understanding of Expandable Intelligence. Author.
Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://www.mindsetworks.com/
websitemedia/brainology_introduction.pdf
Moogan & Baron. (2003). University choice: What influences the decisions of
academically successful post-16 students? Higher Education Quarterly, 60(1), 4-
26. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2006.00305.x
Naidoo, et al. (2011). Perceived racism and mental health among black American adults:
A metaanalytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 1–9. Retrieved
October 10, 2018 from https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/cou-59-1-1.pdf
Newell, et al. (1996). Parenting skills and social-communicative competence in

childhood. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/232539569_Parenting_skills_and_social-communicative_competence
_in_childhood
Nussbaum, A. D., & Dweck, C. S. (2008). Defensiveness versus remediation: Self

theories and modes of self-esteem maintenance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 599-612.
43
Petruzzellis & Romanazzi. (2010). Perceived service quality and students’ satisfaction in
higher education: the influence of teaching methods. International Journal for
Quality Research. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322832735_Perceived_service_quality_
and_students'_satisfaction_in_Higher_education_the_influence_of_teaching_met
hods
Ramsay, S. G., (1990). Self-concept and peer status among gifted program youth. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 456-463.
Roberts. (2018). Cultivating a growth mindset. Retrieved October 10, 2018 from
https://www.lynda.com/Business-tutorials/Fixed-mixed-growth-mindsets/718628/
784483-4.html
Rothrauff, T. C., Cooney, T. M., & An, J. S. (2009). Remembered parenting styles and
adjustments in middle and late adulthood. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(1), 137-146.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of

students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 583-625.
Seyfried, E. (1998). Psychology in program evaluation. European Psychologist, 3(2),

143-154.
Tuwor & Sossou. (2008). The effects of parental involvement on academic performance
of Ghanaian youth: Testing measurement and relationships using structural
equation modeling. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2020–2030. doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.009
Vanier. (2006). Separation and divorce: Death and its implications. Retrieved October
10, 2018 from https://www.womansdivorce.com/divorce-death.html
Vrontis, et al. (2007). Adaptation vs. standardisation in international marketing: The

country-of-origin effect. Journal of Innovative Marketing, 3(4), 7-21.
Weber, et al. (2006). Psychology's contributions to understanding and addressing global

climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241-250.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023220
Yeager, D. S. (2012). The role of future work goal motives in adolescent identity
development: A longitudinal mixed-methods investigations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 37(3), 206-217.
44
Zenger, J. H., & Folkman, J. (2009). The inspiring leader: Unlocking the secrets of how
extraordinary leaders motivate. New York: McGraw Hill. Retrieved October 10,
2018 from https://hbr.org/2016/01/how-age-and-gender-affect-self-improvement
Zhao, J. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: The role of core self
evaluations. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 165-169.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.002
45
Appendix A
LETTER TO THE CAMPUS EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Republic of the Philippines

College of Teacher Education
December 11, 2018
DR. THERESA B. DIMALANTA

Campus Executive Officer
Madam:
We, the undersigned, are Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English students of
Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus and we are in the process of writing our language
research titled “The Perceived Mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary Education Students”.
In view hereof, we respectfully request the permission of your good office to allow us to
conduct the said research in the Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus particularly in the
College of Teacher Education (CTE) and to float our questionnaire among first year and fourth
year Bachelor of Secondary Education students.
Cognizant of your sterling support to the holistic development of CTE students, we

anticipate your favorable action to this humble request. Thank you very much!
Very respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) JACKELYN R. ACIDO (Sgd.) MARGARITA M. DECENA
(Sgd.) ARSENIO A. BACCAY (Sgd.) ADRIAN XYRUS S. EBAS
(Sgd.) MARY JOY V. CAJAN (Sgd.) JOEZER B. HIDALGO
(Sgd.) ANGELIA C. CORDOVA

Researchers
46
Noted:
(Sgd.) ARVEE P. BUCARILE

Research Adviser
Recommending Approval:
(Sgd.) MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA, PhD

College Dean
Approved:
(Sgd.) THERESA B. DIMALANTA, PhD

Campus Executive Officer
47
Appendix B
LETTER TO THE COLLEGE DEAN

December 11, 2018
DR. MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA

College Dean
Madam:
We, the undersigned, are Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English students of
Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus and we are in the process of writing our language
research. The study is entitled “The Perceived Mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary Education
Students”.
It is in this regard that we request the permission of your good office to allow us to
conduct the said research in the College of Teacher Education (CTE) and to float our
questionnaire among first year and fourth year Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSED)
students.
May we further request that the BSED Program Chair furnish us the (1) list of BSED first
year and fourth students per section and (2) class schedule of each section for us to be able to
determine a viable sample size for the aforementioned research.
Cognizant of your interminable support to the holistic development of CTE students, we

anticipate your assent to this humble request. Thank you very much!

48

Researchers
Noted:
(Sgd.) ARVEE P. BUCARILE

Research Adviser
Approved:
(Sgd.) MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA, PhD

College Dean
49
Appendix C
LETTER TO THE RESPONDENTS

December 11, 2018
Dear respondents,
We, the undersigned students, are currently conducting a research titled “The Perceived
Mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary Education Students” in partial fulfilment of the course
ENG 73N – Language Research.
Your valued participation in the study by way of accomplishing our two-part

questionnaire and your utmost cooperation and honesty in answering the questions are vital in the
success of this study. We would like to have your contact number as well for a follow-up
interview at your most convenient schedule.
Rest assured that your identity and responses shall be kept with strict confidentiality.
Thank you very much!

Researchers
Noted: Further Noted:
(Sgd.) ARVEE P. BUCARILE (Sgd.) MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA, PhD

Research Adviser College Dean
50
Appendix D
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I – Respondent’s Profile
Name (optional): _________________________________________________________

Year & Section: _________________________________________________________
Directions: Put a check mark (√) on the box that corresponds with your answer.
1. Gender (Please check one with which you identify yourself.)

Male
Female
LGBTQ
2. Family Structure (Please check one between intact and non-intact.)

Intact
o Two Parents (Biological-Married)
o Two Parents (Adoptive Parents)
Non-intact
o Separated Parents
o One Parent Deceased
o Both Parents Deceased
o Solo Parent with Father
o Solo Parent with Mother
o Living with Relatives, etc.
3. Parenting Style (Please check one only.)

Permissive (low control and high affection)
Uninvolved (low control and low affection)
Authoritarian (high control and low affection)
Authoritative (high control and high affection)
__________________________
Respondent’s Signature
51
Part II – Student Mindset Survey
This is NOT a test! It is an opinion survey. It asks your opinion about things to do with
school and being a student. It is very important that you give your own opinion, NOT
what someone else thinks. Read each statement. Decide how much you agree or disagree
with the statement and circle your answer.
Do you agree or Disagree Disagree Agree Agree

Disagree Agree
disagree? a Lot a Little a Little a Lot
1. No matter how much
intelligence you
have, you can always 1 2 3 4 5 6
change it a good
amount.
2. You can learn new
things, but you
cannot really change 1 2 3 4 5 6
your basic amount of
intelligence.
3. I like school work
best when it makes 1 2 3 4 5 6
me think hard.
best when I can do it
1 2 3 4 5 6
really well without
too much trouble.
that I’ll learn from
1 2 3 4 5 6
even if I make a lot
of mistakes.
best when I can do it
1 2 3 4 5 6
perfectly without any
mistakes.
7. When something is
hard, it just makes
1 2 3 4 5 6
me want to work
more on it, not less.
8. To tell the truth,
when I work hard at
my schoolwork, it 1 2 3 4 5 6
makes me feel like
I’m not very smart.
Adapted from Brainology: Building Students’ Confidence, Fulfillment, and Achievement Through the
Understanding of Expandable Intelligence by Mindset Works (2002-2011)
__________________________
Respondent’s Signature
52
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Joezer B. Hidalgo
Age: 32
Sex: Male
Civil Status: Single
Date of Birth: January 17, 1987
Place of Birth: San Vicente, Buguey, Cagayan
Address: San Vicente, Buguey, Cagayan
Father: Larry I. Hidalgo
Mother: Pacita B. Hidalgo
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Pattao Elementary School
Pattao, Buguey, Cagayan
1994-2000
Secondary Education: Pattao National High School

Pattao, Buguey, Cagayan
2000-2004
Tertiary Education: Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English

Caritan Sur, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
2016-Present
53
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Jackelyn R. Acido
Age: 32
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: November 30, 1986
Place of Birth: Isabela
Address: Camasi, Tumauini, Isabela
Father: Teodoro Acido
Mother: Erlinda Acido
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Amulung East Central School
Amulung, Cagayan
1993-1999
Secondary Education: Amulung National High School

Amulung, Cagayan
1999-2013

2017-Present
54
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Mary Joy V. Cajan
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: August 26, 1996
Place of Birth: Pasig, City
Address: Baculod, Alcala, Cagayan
Father: Manolo P. Cajan
Mother: Angela C. Verga
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Capt. Jose Cardones Memorial Elem School
Taguig City, NCR
2003-2009
Secondary Education: Saint Philomene of Alcala, Inc.

Alcala, Cagayan
2009-2013

2016-Present
55
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Arsenio A. Baccay
Age: 24
Sex: Male
Date of Birth: August 26, 1994
Place of Birth: Centro, Enrile, Cagayan
Address: #47 Palattao Street, Centro, Enrile, Cagayan
Father: Arsenio T. Anog
Mother: Erlinda B. Luna
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Enrile North Central School
Enrile, Cagayan
Secondary Education: Enrile Vocational High school

Enrile, Cagayan

2011-Present
56
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Angelia C. Cordova
Age: 24
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: May 16, 1994
Place of Birth: Centro, Enrile, Cagayan
Address: San Jose, Centro Enrile, Cagayan
Father: Arnel V. Cordova
Mother: Glory I. Casauay
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Sabino Acorda Central School
Dasmarinas, Cavite
Secondary Education: Holy Redeemer of Dasmarinas, Cavite

Dasmarinas, Cavite

Cagayan State University,Andrews Campus
2011-Present
57
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Margarita M. Decena
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Date of Birth: May 10, 1996
Place of Birth: Roma Norte, Enrile, Cagayan
Address: Roma Norte, Enrile, Cagayan
Father: Richard C. Decena
Mother: Marivic M. Decena
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Roma Norte Elementary School
Roma Norte, Enrile, Cagayan
2003-2008
Secondary Education: Enrile Vocational High School

Enrile, Cagayan
2009-2012

2016-Present
58
CURRICULUM VITAE
PERSONAL DATA:
Name: Adrian Xyrus S. Ebas
Age: 23
Sex: Male
Date of Birth: September 8, 1995
Place of Birth: Dagara, Kabugao, Apayao
Address: Poblacion, Kabugao, Apayao
Father: Lloyd A. Abcede
Mother: Sharon T. Saboy
EDUCATIONAL DATA:
Elementary Education: Dagara Elementary School
Dagara, Kabugao, Apayao
1999-2007
Secondary Education: Our Lady of Lourdes High School

Poblacion, Kabugao, Apayao
2007-2011

2017-Present

The Perceived Mindset of The BSED Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Perceived Mindset of The BSED Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAGAYAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

THE PERCEIVED MINDSET OF THE BACHELOR OF

In Partial Fulfilment of the

This research entitled “THE PERCEIVED MINDSET OF THE BACHELOR

May 10, 2019 ARVEE P. BUCARILE

Approved by the Tribunal on Oral Examination with a grade of ____________.

LOIDA C. CALONIA, MAEd

BEATRIZ G. CLEMENTE, PhD LAUREANA M. LINGAN, PhD

RIA A. TAMAYO, PhD

Accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of

MARIE CLAUDETTE M. CALANOGA, PhD

encouragement, and needed inspiration in the pursuit of this academic undertaking:

advice and scholarly guidance towards the completion of this study;

Dr. Marie Claudette M. Calanoga, College Dean, and Dr. Theresa B.

Prof. Loida C. Calonia, Dr. Beatriz G. Clemente, Dr. Laureana M. Lingan,

suggestions which contributed to the enrichment of this study;

treating the data gathered for the study;

The teachers of the College of Teacher Education who wholeheartedly allowed

them to float their questionnaire during their classes;

The Bachelor of Secondary Education student-respondents for their utmost

cooperation in answering the two-part questionnaire patiently;

Their parents, siblings, and significant others who incessantly guided,

supported, and motivated them in pursuing this study; and

needed in the completion of this work.

It is with genuine gratefulness and warmest regard

that we dedicate this humble work to our family

who taught us that even the most daunting task

can be accomplished if it is done one step at a time,

to the faculty members and learners

of Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus

for their good-natured support, and

most of all, to our Good Lord,

our source of inspiration, wisdom, and knowledge,

for His neverending blessings and untiring love.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Table Title Page

1 Distribution of respondents according to gender 30

Title: The Perceived Mindset of the Bachelor of Secondary Education Students

Researchers: Joezer B. Hidalgo

Mary Joy V. Cajan

Adrian Xyrus S. Ebas

Degree: Bachelor of Secondary Education Major in English

Institution: College of Teacher Education

Cagayan State University, Andrews Campus

Adviser: Arvee P. Bucarile

This study generally sought to determine the mindset of the Bachelor of

Secondary Education (BSED) students of the College of Teacher Education, Cagayan

respondents in term of gender, field of specialization, family structure, and parenting

have mixed mindset.

Finally, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-test revealed

Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

role of student mindset, i.e. students’ attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions.

fixed and growth mindsets.

Trzesmewski, & Dweck, 2007).

about the tasks assigned to them.

A large body of emerging evidence, including multiple randomized controlled

hypothesized to affect academic outcomes. Without changes in academic behaviors, it is

through them, students’ academic behaviors and outcomes.