Growth mindset–based educational supervision and pedagogical competence among urban senior high school teachers

Abstract

Purpose This study explores how growth mindset–based educational supervision is enacted in urban senior high schools and examines how supervisory feedback practices shape teachers’ pedagogical development and instructional improvement. Design/methodology/approach The study employed a qualitative multiple-case study across four urban senior high schools. Data were generated through in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers and four academic supervisors who had participated in formal supervisory cycles during the academic year. The data were analyzed thematically following Braun and Clarke’s procedures, with cross-case comparison and trustworthiness strategies informed by Lincoln and Guba. Findings We identified three interrelated mechanisms underlying pedagogical development. First, developmental framing repositioned supervision from compliance-oriented evaluation towards reflective professional learning and cognitive reframing. Second, autonomy-supportive feedback created a dialogic structure through which teachers interpreted feedback, negotiated improvement goals and translated supervisory dialogue into instructional adjustments. Third, relational trust sustained reflective engagement and enabled teachers to continue experimenting with and refining their instructional practices beyond individual supervisory events. Together, these mechanisms show that growth mindset–based supervision operates through belief-oriented discourse, structured feedback practices and supportive relational conditions. Originality/value The study extends understanding of growth mindset in educational leadership by conceptualizing it not simply as an individual teacher disposition but as a supervisory approach embedded in institutional feedback and relational practices. It also highlights how developmental supervision can support pedagogical refinement within urban school contexts characterised by accountability pressures and diverse student populations.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Qualitative Research Journal, 2026 · DOI ↗