Control-value appraisals,academic emotions,and student engagement: A case of Chinese EFL undergraduates

Abstract

Student engagement has long been recognized as a vital predictor of academic success, but how it associates with control-value appraisals and academic emotions of Chinese undergraduates of English as a foreign language (EFL) is underexplored. This article hence invoked the control-value theory and investigated the general profile of Chinese undergraduates’ control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement in English learning, and the interrelationships between the three constructs. Descriptive statistics of the questionnaire data revealed that the 323 undergraduate participants generally showed a moderate level of control-value appraisals and engagement in English learning; furthermore, they experienced a variety of academic emotions, with positive emotions as more frequently experienced than negative ones. Correlation and regression analyses uncovered the significant predictive effect of control-value appraisals on academic emotions, and their profound impact on student engagement. Additionally, the influence of English control-value appraisals on student engagement was found to be mediated by academic emotions, with positive ones positively mediating and negative ones negatively mediating between the two. This study fills the research gap on related topics, and provides relevant pedagogical implications for EFL teaching at the tertiary level.

Keywords

academic emotions Chinese EFL undergraduates control-value theory mediating effect student engagement

I Introduction

Student engagement describes learners’ interest, participation and cognitive resources employed in learning activities (Newmann et al., 1992). To date, researchers have widely investigated the construct in the research of educational psychology, and found student engagement a pivotal factor in influencing students’ academic outcomes (Kuh et al., 2008; Sulis & Philp, 2021; Yuan & Lo Bianco, 2022). Various factors have also been identified to be influencing student engagement, including structural and psychological factors. For example, structural influences from family environment, classroom environment, peer relationship, learner-teacher relationship and the whole learning community can impact student engagement (Ren, 2018; Steele & Fullagar, 2009). In terms of psychological factors, motivation, self-regulation, a sense of belonging to the learning environment, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with their majors are all found to be important in impacting student engagement. Among all these psychological factors, a wide range of academic emotions, especially those apart from anxiety and enjoyment, have only begun to attract researchers’ attention (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014).

Another array of research that has rested within educational psychology is control-value appraisals (Pekrun, 2006). The theoretical assumptions of Pekrun’s (2006) control-value theory (CVT) and related empirical findings have suggested that students’ self-perceived controllability over their academic competence and subjective value towards academic activities are important antecedents of academic emotions and hence student engagement (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012). The ‘affective trend’ in second language acquisition (SLA) research also reveals that CVT is valuable in explaining the facilitators of various emotions in learning a foreign language (FL) (Dewaele & Li, 2020; Li, 2021). However, in the Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) context, attention to this topic has been very limited.

English learning has always been an irreplaceable constitute of higher education in China. Nevertheless, exclusive attention is paid to the direct English learning outcomes of college students, with a lack of focus on the inner side of the learning process, especially the emotional aspects (Xu & He, 2021). Therefore, learning about their psychological situation and how this situation affects their engagement in various English learning activities can provide significant implications for optimizing college English teaching. In light of this background, the present study attempts to investigate whether academic emotions play a vital role in adjusting students’ engagement in English learning activities and whether control-value appraisals perform as important antecedents of these academic emotions.

II Literature review

1 Academic emotions

Originally studied in the domain of educational psychology, the concept of academic emotion was established by Pekrun (2000) to describe any emotion tied directly to achievement activities (e.g. enjoyment of learning or boredom) or achievement outcomes (e.g. hope for success, anxiety of failure). As recommended by Pekrun et al. (2002), academic emotions should be better construed along the axes of valence (positive or negative) and activation (activating or deactivating), and thus can be grouped into four categories, namely:

• positive activating emotions: e.g. enjoyment, hope, and pride;

• positive deactivating emotions: e.g. relief, contentment and relaxation;

• negative activating emotions: e.g. anger, anxiety and shame; and

• negative deactivating emotions: e.g. boredom and hopelessness.

Lately the construct has been assimilated into emotion investigations in SLA, and has proven inspiring as a lens to examine the complexities of the language learning process (Dewaele & Li, 2020; Piniel & Albert, 2018). One line of inquiry about this topic focuses on the effect of academic emotions on language learning, such as the threat posed by anxiety to learners’ FL performance (Xu & Kou, 2015) and learning motivation (Dewaele & Proietti Ergün, 2020). With positive psychology widely introduced into SLA research, scholars began gravitating towards the role of positive emotions represented by enjoyment in enhancing second language (L2) learners’ motivation and performance (e.g. Li et al., 2018). Compared with the explorations into individual emotions, the studies taking a holistic view to examine a package of academic emotions are limited (Dewaele & Li, 2020). Lee (2014) is a rare case, which, employing the Academic Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) developed by Pekrun et al. (2002), found that academic emotions mediated the relationships between achievement goals and language performance.

Another line of inquiry in this regard concerns the antecedents of academic emotions, among which the environmental factors have attracted a large proportion of the scholarly attention. For instance, it was found that teachers’ punitive behaviors tend to trigger students’ negative academic emotions (NAE) (Assor et al., 2005); teachers with more positive emotions could uplift students’ experience of positive emotions (Becker et al., 2014); teacher-and-peer support positively predict positive academic emotions (PAE) (Xie & Guo, 2022). In respect of the personal factors influencing academic emotions, achievement goals (Pekrun et al., 2006), personality traits (Sander & de la Fuente, 2022), emotional intelligence (Raccanello & Hall, 2021), and self-efficacy (Wang et al., 2021) have all been adequately investigated. Worthy of particular attention, however, are self-perceived control and value appraisals which represent an under-researched territory in SLA but have the potential of influencing students’ academic emotions (Putwain et al., 2018).

2 Control-value appraisals

The CVT is an integrative theory proposed by Pekrun (2006) to analyse academic emotions, and it postulates that individuals’ control and value appraisals are highly accountable for the instigation of emotions (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). In specific, appraisal of control is self-perceived controllability over achievement-related activities or the possibility of achieving certain outcomes, so English control appraisals can be viewed as an individual’s personal agency beliefs over his/her actions in English learning activities. Higher levels of perceived control are presumed to engender positive emotional experiences such as hope and pride, whereas lower levels of control are assumed to elicit negative emotions such as hopelessness or shame. Moreover, appraisal of value relating to perceived importance, relevance, and meaning of actions and outcomes can be categorized into two classifications: appraisal of intrinsic value which pertains to perceiving the value per se and appraisal of extrinsic value which emphasizes the instrumental utility or achievement value of academic activities or outcomes. Therefore, in the EFL context, individuals’ interest in English learning activities is accentuated for intrinsic appraisal, while achievement value of learning outcomes in English activities is considered extrinsic appraisal. It is believed that high levels of perceived value, regardless of its subjectivity or exterior instrumentality, tend to amplify both positive and negative emotions, except for boredom, which is mainly aroused by low levels of value appraisal (Li, 2021).

From the view of CVT, control and value appraisals are proximal antecedents of academic emotions (Pekrun, 2006), while environmental factors are distal antecedents which influence academic emotions primarily through their effect on control and value appraisals. The basic mechanism of CVT is featured by the cycle formed between control-value appraisals, academic emotions, and academic achievement, as shown in Figure 1. However, different combinations of control and value appraisals exert varied impact on academic emotions (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). Positive academic emotions are posited to be caused interactively by high perceived control and high positive value. For example, if a student values certain language learning material (high value appraisal) and believes he/she will be able to master it (high controllability), he/she will experience enjoyment in learning the material. Negative academic emotions, except for boredom, are assumed to be a joint function of perceived uncontrollability and high negative value. For instance, if a student perceives failure at an upcoming exam to be likely and uncontrollable, and judges the failure as obtrusive to his/her achievement goal, he/she will fear the exam. For most emotions, emotional intensity (activating vs. deactivating) increases with increasing control for positive emotions, with lack of control for negative emotions, and with increasing value appraisal. By implication, it follows that value moderates the effects of control on academic emotions: the higher the perceived value of achievement activities or outcomes, the stronger the influence of control on emotions (Pekrun & Perry, 2014).

Figure 1.

Basic mechanism of control-value theory (CVT).

3 Student engagement

Student engagement, defined as the amount of time and energy that students freely and enthusiastically allocate towards learning or other academic activities (Kuh, 2003), has been extensively examined in the SLA realm because of its decisive link to academic performance (Nayir, 2017). Students engaged in learning were reported to be more successful academically and less likely to drop out of school (Finn, 1989); high degrees of engagement usually indicate that students are intrinsically motivated to learning activities (Bakker et al., 2015). Concerning the construct of the notion, Fredricks et al.’s (2004) framework consisting of the behavioral, cognitive and emotional dimensions is the most widely recognized and adopted. Specifically, behavioral engagement refers to involvement in academic and extracurricular activities and includes indicators such as school attendance and participation in class activities. Cognitive engagement is defined as students’ level of investment in how they employ various self-regulation and learning strategies and how they adjust their willingness to exert necessary effort to master difficult learning tasks. Emotional engagement addresses students’ perceived positive connection to the learning subject, environment, their classmates and teachers. Noteworthily, various subsequent schemes have been proposed by different scholars to further construe the multidimensionality of student engagement, such as Philp and Duchesne’s (2016) inclusion of social engagement and Reeve and Tseng’s (2011) addition of agentic engagement, but they all centered around Fredricks et al.’s (2004) three-dimension framework.

Decades of theoretical and empirical explorations have demonstrated that student engagement is malleable as a function of various structural and psychological factors. Sulis and Philp (2021) investigated how classroom environment connects to engagement in the FL classroom and found that not only can positive relationships between peers and between teachers and students influence one’s decision to take part in the learning activity at hand, but the outcome of such engagement rise also reciprocates with ameliorating language learning environment. Angelovska et al. (2021) explored how personality traits predict language learner engagement. Their study revealed that trait neuroticism and age predicted overall engagement. Under the theoretical construct of L2 self-system, Lv and Yang (2013) investigated how Chinese college students’ integrative and instrumental motivation contributed to their engagement in English learning, and detected a significant correlation between the two. In sum, student engagement can interact with a variety of personal and environmental factors, and yet a more nuanced understanding of such correlations is needed in the context of EFL, with the purposes of ameliorating students’ psychological aspects of English learning, enhancing their engagement, and ultimately improving their English proficiency.

4 Correlates of control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement

A limited but rising number of researchers have delved into the relationship between students’ control-value appraisals and academic emotions. Shao et al. (2020) explored how students’ control-value appraisals relate to their academic emotions and foreign language performance, revealing that perceived control and value related positively to positive emotions and FL performance, and negatively to negative emotions. Yang et al. (2021) explored important antecedents of Chinese EFL learners’ academic emotions in an online English learning environment and found control-value appraisals highly influential. Li (2021) examined the effects of control-value appraisals on boredom in learning English via questionnaire, and found different control-value appraisals predicted boredom uniquely or interactively.

Regarding the link between academic emotions and student engagement, SLA scholars have garnered supporting evidence that academic emotions can influence student engagement which in turn impacts FL learning and achievement. For example, Sadoughi and Hejazi (2021) examined the mediating role of positive academic emotions in the relationship between teacher support and academic engagement, and found the importance of enjoyment, hope and pride in improving English learning engagement. More recently, S. Liu (2022) reviewed the role of L2 enjoyment in EFL students’ academic engagement and motivation, and pointed out that enjoyment can cast positive influence on English learning engagement. Nevertheless, there lacks fine-grained investigations into the three subcategories of student engagement concerning the effect of academic emotions in this realm.

When it comes to the association between control-value appraisals and student engagement, direct relevant studies are severely scarce, and most scholars have centered around similar constructs such as self-efficacy and self-concept instead of pivoting on control-value appraisals (e.g. Kim et al., 2015; Tsao, 2021). In general, these findings provide promising support for the effects of beliefs of academic competence and value on student engagement, since control-value appraisals reflect important assumptions of self-efficacy theory and expectancy-value theory. However, more studies are still needed to acquire a further understanding of these constructs’ influence on student engagement in English learning.

In a nutshell, as Dewaele and Li (2020) highlighted, it is latently practical and productive to coalesce Pekrun’s comprehensive construct of academic emotions into the current flowering emotional research in SLA. However, despite the substantive link between academic emotions and student engagement established by educational psychology researchers, the above review revealed that researchers in SLA rarely consider the emotions collectively to delve into this topic, with even fewer of them situated in China’s EFL tertiary education. Moreover, since control-value appraisals are theoretically believed to be proximal antecedents of academic emotions, it suggests that a latent mediating effect of academic emotions might exist between control-value appraisals and student engagement. King and Gaerlan (2014) is among the few studies providing empirical evidence for a possible psychological mechanism through which control-related appraisals impact academic emotions, which in turn predict engagement. Nevertheless, in spite of its call for exploring these relationships among culturally diverse groups beyond the Philippines, this crucial topic has received limited attention, with Bakır-Yalçın and Usluel’s (2023) recent study involving Turkish students enrolled in degree programs of Faculties of Education serving as a mere notable exception to this trend.

III The present study

The present study aimed to arrive at a clear picture of Chinese EFL undergraduates’ control-value appraisals, academic emotions and engagement in English learning, and to investigate the latent relationships among the three variables, with additional attention paid to the mediating role of academic emotions. To this end, the following questions were put forward:

• Research question 1: What are Chinese EFL undergraduates’ levels of control-value appraisals, academic emotions and engagement in English learning?

• Research question 2: What are the relationships between Chinese EFL undergraduates’ control-value appraisals, academic emotions and engagement in English learning?

• Research question 3: Do Chinese EFL undergraduates’ academic emotions mediate the relationship between their control-value appraisals and engagement in English learning? If yes, to what extent?

1 Participants

This study undertook a quantitative research design, with non-English-major undergraduates from several colleges in two Chinese provinces as research participants. Undergraduate students from Year 1 to Year 4 were included, allowing for a comprehensive investigation of their English learning experience that considers both in-class and out-of-class learning. The data of English control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement were collected via questionnaires on a secure online platform. A total of 353 responses were collected during 3 weeks, of which 30 were invalid (questionnaires with identical answers for all items or with a repetition rate of 90% in answers). Eventually, responses from 323 students (225 females, 98 males) were retained, resulting in an effective recovery of 91.5%.

2 Measures

a Control-value appraisals

Li’s (2021) composite questionnaire was employed to survey participants’ English control-value appraisals (Appendix A), as it is a well-established instrument in this regard that aligns well with the specific EFL academic context in the present study. The questionnaire contains two sub-scales: control appraisal scale (3 items) which assesses students’ self-perceptions or beliefs of their competence in learning English, and value appraisal scale comprising five intrinsic value items and five extrinsic value items which investigates students’ subjective attitudes to the importance of learning English. An example for control appraisals is ‘English is one of my best subjects.’ Examples for intrinsic value and extrinsic value appraisals include ‘English is my favorite subject’ and ‘Terrible English test grades influence me a lot.’ To stay aligned with other employed questionnaires of the current study, Li’s 7-point scale was converted into a 5-point style (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The composite questionnaire showed high reliability for both the control appraisal measure (Cronbach’s α = 0.88) and value appraisal measure (Cronbach’s α = 0.80 and 0.86, respectively, for intrinsic and extrinsic value) in the present sample, as well as acceptable construct validity (CMIN/DF = 3.98, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94) (Byrne, 2010).

b Academic emotions

The questionnaire (Appendix B) used to investigate participants’ academic emotions was adopted from Dong and Yu (2007), which is a mature tool that has been tested repeatedly in the Chinese context. The original 72-item scale of teenagers’ academic emotions was reworded (e.g. ‘I feel bored when learning English’) to fit in the English learning context for undergraduates. The questionnaire comprises four subcategories of academic emotions, namely:

• positive activating academic emotions (PAAE): pride, enjoyment and hope;

• positive deactivating academic emotions (PDAE): contentment, calmness and relaxation;

• negative activating academic emotions (NAAE): anxiety, shame and anger; and

• negative deactivating academic emotions (NDAE): boredom, frustration, hopelessness and upset-tiredness.

In the present study, the 5-point Likert scale demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.785, 0.815, 0.833 and 0.915, respectively, for the four sub-scales) and reasonable construct validity (CMIN/DF = 2.29, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.10, CFI = 0.85, TLI = 0.85).

c Student engagement

For investigating participants’ engagement in English learning, S. Zhang’s (2016) College English Curriculum Student Engagement Questionnaire was adopted (Appendix C). The original questionnaire follows a 7-point Likert style, and consists of 22 items in three dimensions, namely, cognitive engagement (8 items), behavior engagement (6 items), and emotional engagement (8 items). Likewise, it was also converted into a 5-point scale. The measure showed high reliability in the present sample (Cronbach’s α = 0.836, 0.899 and 0.89, respectively, for cognitive, emotional and behavioral engagement) and high construct validity (CMIN/DF = 2.92, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93).

3 Data collection and analysis

All questionnaire items were in Chinese to ensure the respondents’ full understanding. Anonymous consent had been gained and the purpose of the survey explained before students filled out the questionnaires. After data collection, a series of descriptive analyses, correlation analyses, regression analyses and mediation analyses were conducted via SPSS 26.0. The choice of regression analysis was driven by this study’s quantitative nature, as well as its aim to explore the complex interplay among control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement; it is a suitable statistical technique to quantify the strength and direction of these constructs’ relationships. Mediation analysis was selected to delve into the mechanisms through which academic emotions mediate the link between control-value appraisals and student engagement; this aligns with our theoretical framework, aiding in the exploration of these underlying processes.

IV Results

1 Levels of control-value appraisals, academic emotions and engagement of Chinese EFL undergraduates

Tables 1 –3 present the descriptive statistics of the aggregated and specific dimensions of English control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement, from which a general picture of these variables among Chinese EFL undergraduates could be obtained.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of English control-value appraisals (n = 323).

Variable	M	SD
Total appraisals	3.276	0.792
Control appraisals	2.835	1.200
Value appraisals	3.408	0.788
Extrinsic value	3.446	0.875
Intrinsic value	3.370	0.947

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of academic emotions (n = 323).

Variable	M	SD
PAAE	3.516	0.739
Enjoyment	3.608	0.790
Pride	3.314	0.853
Hope	3.627	0.773
PDAE	3.207	0.800
Satisfaction	2.988	0.915
Calmness	3.450	0.774
Relaxation	3.183	0.890
NAAE	2.882	0.755
Anxiety	2.923	0.925
Anger	3.088	0.756
Shame	2.633	0.894
NDAE	2.765	0.869
Boredom	2.591	0.979
Hopelessness	2.799	1.016
Frustration	3.048	0.930
Upset-tiredness	2.622	0.941

Notes. PAAE = positive activating academic emotions. PDAE = positive deactivating academic emotions. NAAE = negative activating academic emotions. NDAE = negative deactivating academic emotions.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of student engagement in English learning (n = 323).

Variable	M	SD
Overall engagement	2.986	0.833
Behavioral engagement	3.245	0.920
Cognitive engagement	2.935	0.928
Emotional engagement	2.842	0.865

a Control-value appraisals

As specified in Table 1, the participants generally had a moderate-to-high level of English control-value appraisals, meaning that they tended to perceive English learning as subjectively important and largely controllable within their competence. More specifically, compared with control appraisals, participants scored higher in value appraisals especially the extrinsic ones. This is in agreement with previous findings such as those made by J. Zhang (2020), Li (2021) and Shao et al. (2020). This all leads to the assumption that Chinese college students in general tend to have high extrinsic value in English learning, and relatively lower levels of intrinsic value and beliefs about their controllability in English learning. It might be attributable to the reason that Chinese college students are more likely to learn English as a compulsory subject, since it matters a lot in their academic achievement, rather than to learn English as a self-driven process out of passion and interest.

b Academic emotions

It could be seen from Table 2 that during English learning, Chinese EFL undergraduates experienced both positive and negative academic emotions. Furthermore, they tended to experience more positive emotions than negative ones, and more activating academic emotions than deactivating ones. This suggests that students generally had positive and high-arousal emotions in the process of English learning. In terms of specific emotions, hope, enjoyment and calmness enjoyed the highest frequency, indicating that EFL undergraduates tended to have high expectations towards positive English learning outcomes, experience joyous feelings while learning English, and feel sedated when confronted with English learning tasks. Within negative academic emotions, anger, frustration and anxiety were the three with highest scores, corroborating previous discoveries of Yang et al. (2021) whose investigation was conducted in an online English learning context. It is hence evident that students’ academic emotions are fairly consistent across different learning environment. In general, the results elucidate the fact that both positive and negative academic emotions constitute an important part in Chinese undergraduates’ English learning activities.

c Student engagement

Table 3 reveals an averagely low-to-medium level of the overall student engagement and its three sub-dimensions. More specifically, participants tended to have higher behavioral engagement in English learning compared to other dimensions, which means that Chinese undergraduates in general show great effort, attention and persistence in English learning activities including attentively finishing English homework, reviewing English words, taking notes in class and actively participating in classroom interaction for problem-solving (as reflected from the behavioral engagement items in Appendix C). In contrast, their emotional engagement was at a lower level, suggesting low interest, confidence and passion regarding English learning and language-related cultures. For cognitive engagement, the data showed a lower middle level in students’ use of self-regulation and learning strategies in English learning. This finding corroborates previous research of Lv and Yang (2013) which detected a similar middle-level overall engagement in English learning among college students, and a higher behavioral engagement than cognitive and emotional engagement.

2 Relationships between control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement

a Control-value appraisals and academic emotions

As shown in Table 4, Pearson correlation analyses revealed that significant correlations existed between EFL undergraduates’ control-value appraisals and various academic emotions. To further confirm the predictive effect of control-value appraisals on academic emotions, a series of regression analyses were conducted, with the four categories of academic emotions as dependent variables and two dimensions of control-value appraisals as independent variables. The results are presented in Table 5, and the variance inflation factors (VIF) show no clear sign of multicollinearity.

Table 4.

Correlations between control-value appraisals and academic emotions.

	Control appraisals	Value appraisals	Intrinsic value	Extrinsic value
PAAE	0.599**	0.715**	0.753**	0.472**
PDAE	0.779**	0.594**	0.729**	0.280**
NAAE	−0.450**	−0.019	−0.235**	0.219**
NDAE	−0.627**	−0.419**	−0.579**	−0.128*

Notes. PAAE = positive activating academic emotions. PDAE = positive deactivating academic emotions. NAAE = negative activating academic emotions. NDAE = negative deactivating academic emotions. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Table 5.

Predictive effects of control-value appraisals on academic emotions.

Outcome	Predictor	B	t	VIF	R ²	Adj R²	F
PAAE	Constant	1.234	10.295	–	0.573	0.57	F(2,320) = 214.444**
	Control appraisals	0.183	6.824	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.517	12.642	1.426
PDAE	Constant	1.153	9.781	–	0.647	0.645	F(2,320) = 293.712**
	Control appraisals	0.432	16.348	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.243	6.046	1.426
NAAE	Constant	2.944	18.455	–	0.275	0.271	F(2,320) = 60.784**
	Control appraisals	−0.394	−11.015	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.309	5.679	1.426
NDAE	Constant	4.34	26.003	–	0.402	0.398	F(2,320) = 107.419**
	Control appraisals	−0.411	−10.995	1.426
	Value appraisals	−0.12	−2.106	1.426

It is evident that both control and value appraisals had a significantly positive impact on positive activating and deactivating emotions, thereby validating the assumption embedded in CVT that pleasant emotions are caused by high perceived control and high value. However, regarding negative emotions, the predictability of the two arrays of appraisals exhibited discrepancy: while control appraisals consistently had a negative predictive effect on all negative emotions, value appraisals were found to positively predict NAAE, indicating students who value their English learning outcome are likely to experience a higher level of anxiety, shame and anger.

b Academic emotions and student engagement

As illustrated in Table 6, all dimensions of student engagement were significantly related to academic emotions (p < 0.01). To obtain a detailed picture of the link between these variables, a series of regression analyses were conducted with the four categories of academic emotions as predictors and overall student engagement plus its three dimensions as outcomes. The results are listed in Table 7, and no clear sign of multicollinearity existed according to the VIF values.

Table 6.

Correlations between academic emotions and student engagement.

	Overall engagement	Behavioral engagement	Emotional engagement	Cognitive engagement
PAAE	0.721**	0.699**	0.658**	0.647**
PDAE	0.782**	0.718**	0.749**	0.698**
NAAE	−0.281**	−0.237**	−0.310**	−0.228**
NDAE	−0.586**	−0.538**	−0.566**	−0.519**

Table 7.

Predictive effects of academic emotions on student engagement.

Outcome	Predictor	B	t	p	VIF	R ²	Adj R²	F
Overall engagement	Constant	0.069	0.558	0.815	–	0.653	0.649	F(4,318) = 149.776**
	PAAE	0.123	2.935	0.095	3.903
	PDAE	0.691	6.052	0.000	5.227
	NAAE	0.3	3.859	0.000	3.294
	NDAE	−0.216	−2.793	0.002	4.837
Behavioral engagement	Constant	0.201	0.558	0.577	–	0.573	0.567	F(4,318) = 106.625**
	PAAE	0.265	2.935	0.004	3.903
	PDAE	0.583	6.052	0.000	5.227
	NAAE	0.313	3.859	0.000	3.294
	NDAE	−0.238	−2.793	0.006	4.837
Emotional engagement	Constant	0.059	0.175	0.861	–	0.578	0.573	F(4,318) = 109.071**
	PAAE	0.042	0.503	0.615	3.903
	PDAE	0.758	8.425	0.000	5.227
	NAAE	0.22	2.912	0.004	3.294
	NDAE	−0.156	−1.961	0.05	4.837
Cognitive engagement	Constant	−0.02	−0.053	0.958	–	0.531	0.525	F(4,318) = 89.977**
	PAAE	0.098	1.024	0.307	3.903
	PDAE	0.705	6.921	0.000	5.227
	NAAE	0.369	4.305	0.000	3.294
	NDAE	−0.258	−2.86	0.005	4.837

Results in Table 7 show that there existed a significant predictive effect of academic emotions on overall student engagement (F = 149.776, p < 0.01). More specifically, PDAE and NAAE were found to positively predict Chinese undergraduates’ engagement of all dimensions with English learning; by comparison, NDAE exerted unanimously negative predictive effect on these engagement dimensions. Regarding PAAE, despite its strong correlation with student engagement, its predictive power was only significant for the behavioral dimension of engagement.

c Control-value appraisals and student engagement

As illustrated in Table 8, student engagement variables were all significantly associated with English control-value appraisals (p < 0.01). To further verify the role of control-value appraisals in predicting student engagement, a series of regression analyses were conducted. The results are listed in Table 9, and no clear sign of multicollinearity existed according to the VIF values.

Table 8.

Correlations between control-value appraisals and student engagement.

	Overall engagement	Cognitive engagement	Emotional engagement	Behavioral engagement
Control appraisals	0.702**	0.622**	0.697**	0.618**
Value appraisals	0.694**	0.628**	0.633**	0.665**
Intrinsic value	0.774**	0.710**	0.736**	0.693**
Extrinsic value	0.412**	0.362**	0.344**	0.448**

Note. ** p < 0.01.

Table 9.

Predictive effects of English control-value appraisals on student engagement.

Outcome	Predictor	B	t	p	VIF	R ²	Adj R²	F
Overall engagement	Constant	0.487	3.87	0.000	–	0.63	0.628	F(2,320) = 272.386**
	Control appraisals	0.319	11.325	0.000	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.468	10.898	0.000	1.426
Behavioral engagement	Constant	0.597	3.836	0.000	–	0.535	0.532	F(2,320) = 184.273**
	Control appraisals	0.278	7.979	0.000	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.545	10.259	0.000	1.426
Emotional engagement	Constant	0.475	3.401	0.001	–	0.577	0.574	F(2,320) = 218.229**
	Control appraisals	0.361	11.536	0.000	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.395	8.279	0.000	1.426
Cognitive engagement	Constant	0.415	2.565	0.011	–	0.505	0.502	F(2,320) = 163.412**
	Control appraisals	0.308	8.481	0.000	1.426
	Value appraisals	0.483	8.732	0.000	1.426

Note. ** p < 0.01.

Table 9 presents the significant predictive effects of English control and value appraisals on student engagement (F = 272.386, p < 0.01). To go into details, the predictive power of control appraisals on overall engagement was significant (t = 11.325, p < 0.001), meaning that control appraisals in English learning exerted a positive impact on overall student engagement. As regards value appraisals, the predictive power was also significantly positive (t = 10.898, p < 0.001), thus they could effectively facilitate student engagement in general. For the sub-dimensions of student engagement, regression results reveal that the undergraduates’ control and value appraisals could significantly and positively predict all the three dimensions of engagement in English learning.

3 Mediating effect of academic emotions on the link between control-value appraisals and student engagement

Mediating effect refers to the latent effect of other variables mediating in a causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable. To answer the question regarding whether and to what extent academic emotions (mediator) leverage a mediating effect on the link between overall control-value appraisals (independent variable) and student engagement (dependent variable) in English learning, mediation analyses were carried out in this section.

a Mediating effect of positive academic emotions

The results of multiple regression analyses among English control-value appraisals, PAE and student engagement are presented in Table 10, and the corresponding mediation path is depicted in Figure 2. As Table 10 demonstrates, the predictive power of English control-value appraisals on overall student engagement was 0.776 (p < 0.01) without the introduction of mediator PAE. After introducing PAE, the path coefficient between PAE and overall student engagement was 0.469 (p < 0.01), and that between control-value appraisals and student engagement was 0.412 (p < 0.01). Lastly, the path coefficient between control-value appraisals and PAE was 0.777 (p < 0.01). As a result, with PAE serving as the mediator, the direct effect of control-value appraisals on student engagement was 0.412, the mediating effect was 0.364, and thus the indirect effect accounted for around 47% of the total effect (0.776). All coefficients were significant (p < 0.01), suggesting that a partial mediation of positive academic emotions existed.

Table 10.

Mediating effect of PAE (positive academic emotions) (standardized coefficient β).

	Student engagement	PAE	Student engagement
Constant	–	–	–
Control-value appraisals	0.776** (t = 22.068)	0.777** (t = 22.089)	0.412** (t = 8.343)
PAE			0.469** (t = 9.487)
R²	0.603	0.603	0.690
Adj R²	0.601	0.602	0.688
F	F = 486.997***	F = 487.924***	F = 356.007***

Notes. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Figure 2.

Path coefficients of English control-value appraisals, positive academic emotions (PAE) and student engagement.

b Mediating effect of negative academic emotions

The results of multiple regression analyses among English control-value appraisals, NAE and student engagement are presented in Table 11, and Figure 3 illustrates the corresponding mediation path. Table 11 shows that before introducing the mediator NAE, the predictive power of English control-value appraisals on student engagement was 0.776 (p < 0.01). After the introduction of NAE, the coefficient between NAE and student engagement was −0.204 (p < 0.01), while that between control-value appraisals and student engagement was 0.691 (p < 0.01). Moreover, the path coefficient between control-value appraisals and NAE was −0.418 (p < 0.01). Consequently, with NAE functioning as the mediator, the direct effect of control-value appraisals on student engagement was 0.691, the mediating effect was 0.085, so the indirect effect accounted approximately for 11% of the total effect. Likewise, all coefficients were significant (p < 0.01), indicating the presence of a partial mediation of negative academic emotions.

Table 11.

Mediating effect of NAE (negative academic emotions) (standardized coefficient β).

	Student engagement	NAE	Student engagement
Constant	–	–	–
Control-value appraisals	0.776** (t = 22.068)	−0.418** (t = –8.232)	0.691** (t = 18.650)
NAE			−0.204** (t = –5.493)
R ²	323	323	323
Adj R²	0.603	0.174	0.637
F	0.601	0.172	0.635

Note. ** p < 0.01.

Figure 3.

Path coefficients of English control-value appraisals, negative academic emotions (NAE) and student engagement.

V Discussion

This study examined the links between control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement by a sample of Chinese EFL undergraduates on the basis of first probing into their levels of these three constructs. Additionally, the mediating effect of academic emotions was validated.

As predicted, the results lend credence to the theoretical assumption of CVT that students’ self-perceived beliefs about their control and value in learning activities are proximal antecedents of their academic emotions. The regression analyses revealed that compared to the validated positive predictability of control and value appraisals for positive emotions in English learning (Putwain et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2020), their predictive mechanism was more intricate concerning negative emotions. Consistent with prior research (e.g. King & Gaerlan, 2014; Shao et al., 2020), strong control appraisals led to reduced negative emotions, whereas it was discovered that value appraisals positively predicted NAAE. The finding, although somewhat unexpected, highlights the peculiarity of negative activating emotions and might be attributed to the Chinese educational context. China’s exam-oriented culture of learning and intense emphasis on academic achievement (Jiang & Dewaele, 2019) generate a substantial amount of pressure on students to excel academically. Such pressure, together with the emphasis of keeping face in Chinese culture (M. Liu, 2006), might make students with high expectations become less patient or easily agitated when challenges or difficulties arise. This confirms the multiplicative power of undergraduates’ control and value appraisals on their negative activating emotions, corroborating the claims embedded in CVT in the EFL context that unpleasant academic emotions are caused by a joint function of perceived uncontrollability and high value of the task outcome. However, future research should elicit more in-depth qualitative data concerning this extrapolation to gain a fuller verification.

Regression analyses also verified that academic emotions, as a whole, played a significant role in predicting learner engagement, which echoes the findings of previous studies (Bakır-Yalçın & Usluel, 2023; Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021; Wu et al., 2023). However, what distinguishes the present research is its more comprehensive investigation into how four distinct types of academic emotions individually influence various facets of engagement. On the one hand, it was found that students with high positive deactivating emotions (satisfaction, calmness and relaxation) and high negative activating emotions (anxiety, shame and anger) were behaviorally, emotionally as well as cognitively more engaged in English learning than those experiencing high levels of negative deactivating emotions (boredom, frustration, hopelessness and upset-tiredness). On the other hand, positive activating emotions (pride, enjoyment and hope) could only significantly predict behavioral engagement. This, to some extent, underscores the ‘reverse trend’ noted in Xu and Zhang (2023), which challenges the notion that positive emotions invariably lead to positive outcomes while negative emotions inevitably result in the opposite. In the Chinese educational landscape, where English proficiency is highly valued and often associated with future academic and career success, students may experience heightened emotional responses, both positive and negative. Consequently, it is possible that students’ negative activating emotions arising from fear of falling behind, concerns about facing challenging exams, or apprehension about making mistakes in English conversations may fuel a sense of urgency and determination to overcome difficulties, thus contributing to increased engagement in English learning. Conversely, positive activating emotions might fail to prompt students to delve deeply into English learning as a result of lack of challenges. This insight, however, warrants more in-depth understanding and verification.

As regards the link between control-value appraisals and student engagement, it was discovered that students who showed better self-beliefs and value in English learning inclined to invest more efforts, persistence and attention, to showcase interest, zest and passion towards related learning activities and cultural topics, and to utilize a variety of strategies and self-regulation actions during English learning. This finding is in line with previous research (Kim et al., 2015; Tsao, 2021). The fact that individuals’ self appraisals can impact their agency in English learning activities also reiterates the importance of fostering positive self-appraisals and beliefs in students. Equally highlighted from this finding is the relatedness of CVT in China’s EFL context, connecting control-value appraisals with the psychological aspects of college students’ English learning. Together with the emerging scholars in the domain of SLA that have adopted this construct to investigate the affective terrain of foreign language learning (Li, 2021; Shao et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021), this finding further enriches our understanding of how emotional aspects of learners impact their FL learning, not least in terms of engagement. This provides basis for future studies that are tentatively touching upon CVT in the EFL context.

Furthermore, concerning the mediating effect of academic emotions, mediation analyses disclosed that English control-value appraisals affected student engagement directly and indirectly. The indirect effect was predominantly channeled through PAE (47%), with a smaller portion achieved via NAE (11%). This finding, supporting the assumptions of CVT, resonates with that of Bakır-Yalçın and Usluel (2023) and King and Gaerlan (2014). It demonstrates that students’ control-value appraisals were the antecedent of their academic emotions, which in turn impacted their engagement with English learning. This reaffirms the role of academic emotions as a partial mediator between English control-value appraisals and student engagement. Noteworthily, the positivity of the mediation hinges on the valence of English academic emotions. As King and Gaerlan (2014) posited, self-control positively predicts positive emotions, which subsequently positively contribute to engagement; conversely, self-control negatively predicts negative emotions, which then negatively correlate with engagement. This elucidates that control-value appraisals can contribute to student engagement through the amelioration of academic emotions. When students possess high control and value appraisals, they tend to experience more positive emotions, thereby elevating their engagement in English learning as well. By contrast, when more negative emotions are activated, the positive impact of control-value appraisals on engagement will be compromised accordingly.

Taken together, the above findings constitute a complement to previous investigations which focused exclusively on relationships between control-value appraisals and sole positive or negative academic emotion, and between positive emotions and student engagement. By presenting the mediating effect of academic emotions on control-value appraisals and students’ engagement in language learning, this study extended previous work (e.g. Li, 2021; Shao et al., 2020) and further underscored the pivotal importance and relatedness of CVT and academic emotions in SLA engagement research in China.

VI Limitations and pedagogical implications

It should be acknowledged that certain limitations existed in this exploratory study. Firstly, our study involved participants selected from only several universities in two Chinese provinces. Consequently, caution is warranted when considering the generalizability of its findings. Secondly, in terms of research methodology, the study employed a quantitative research design and relied on self-report data collected at a single point in time. This resulted in a lack of qualitative data and longitudinal tracking of the participants to offer fine-grained underpinnings for the results obtained. It must be noted that control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement are dynamic constructs constantly influenced by complex interactions between individual and socio-cultural factors. Thirdly, in the mediation analysis, the interaction among the subdimensions of control-value appraisals and student engagement were not included, which caused limited theoretical extrapolations concerning the intricate interrelations between these subdimensions. Fourthly, the study focused on more general context of college English learning, and therefore distinct facets of English learning such as speaking, listening, reading and writing were not emphasized, thus lacking specified suggestions for these specific areas. Hence, we invite more in-depth inquiries integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection tools to investigate the complexities of these constructs from the dynamic systems perspective and focusing on specific language learning areas.

Despite the limitations, the present study has significant pedagogical implications. Its findings emphasize the critical importance of practitioners in college-level English education focusing on students’ self-perceived control and value. This emphasis is underscored by extensive research across various academic disciplines, where control-value appraisals have been consistently shown to have a direct impact on students’ emotional experiences (Pekrun et al., 2010; Putwain et al., 2018). Motivational research also reinforces the pivotal role of ideal L2 self in predicting L2 learning (Cho, 2020), which is closely related to the intrinsic value in English learning (Xu & Lei, 2017). Moreover, it is widely recognized that the convergence of high value and control appraisals can instigate more positive emotions during learning activities (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). To harness these insights, it is advisable that educators prioritize creating a balanced instructional environment which emphasizes the relevance and significance of what students are learning while empowering them with a sense of control over the learning process. This involves designing tasks and activities that tap into students’ perceived intrinsic and extrinsic value, granting students control over aspects of their English learning process to enhance motivation, and empowering students by promoting their self-evaluation and goal-setting.

Findings of the present study also reflect an ample room left for Chinese EFL undergraduates to improve their English learning engagement. Given that emotions function as prime drivers of students’ engagement (Pekrun, 2019), it would be beneficial for EFL teachers to be acutely aware of student’s emotional state and provide efficient interventions to enhance their positive emotions during learning. While for students’ negative activating emotions, a slightly competitive and yet non-judgmental classroom climate, as well as teachers’ positive reinforcement and praise for students exhibiting determination and persistence in face of challenges, might effectively convert them into effort to learn English, making anxiety, shame and anger conducive to learning motivation and engagement. Apart from academic emotions, control-value appraisals were also proved to be positive predictors of student engagement. One effective strategy to capitalize on this discovery is to cultivate students’ beliefs about their future selves as transcultural, multiliterate and competent bilinguals. This approach can serve as a means to bolster their intrinsic value for learning English, facilitated by the process of constructing a future language-related identity (Peirce, 1995).

Considering the mediating effect of academic emotions on the relationships between control-value appraisals and student engagement, equipping students with self-control skills during English learning can be particularly advantageous. This is because these skills have the potential of eliciting positive emotions and reducing negative ones, which, in turn, can pave the way for increased behavioral, emotional and cognitive engagement. Additionally, addressing and mitigating negatively impacting emotions through emotional regulation strategies can prevent them from negatively influencing engagement. Therefore, fostering a positive emotional climate, encouraging self-regulation and providing emotional support for students are essential instructional strategies to optimize their engagement with English learning.

VII Conclusions

The present study investigated Chinese EFL undergraduates’ levels of control-value appraisals, academic emotions and engagement in English learning, resolved the associations between these constructs, and ultimately uncovered the mediating mechanism of academic emotions, thus shedding certain light for future researchers attempting to theorize and empirically test the relationships between the three. Given that foreign language learners abound in China, it would be vital for researchers and practitioners in related areas to take heed of these variables impacting students’ foreign language learning, with the purpose of achieving better teaching effects and outcomes. Theoretically, this study gave further credence to the applicability of CVT in SLA research, expanding previous findings by synthesizing control-value appraisals with academic emotions and student engagement. Additionally, the study empirically verified that the effects of negative emotions are not always detrimental, at least in the case of NAAE. This aligns with previous theoretical assumption that even negative emotions can function adaptively, that is, to bring about growing awareness of the ongoing activities, to result in more cautious and less risky behavior, and to incline the individual to face and overcome difficulties (Komorowska, 2016). This points to the possible intricacy in theorizing how negative activating emotions interact with English language learning outcomes.

To conclude, this article is an exploratory endeavor attempting to explore control-value appraisals, academic emotions and student engagement in the context of SLA. We look forward to further discussions on this line of inquiry.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation (Key Project) of China [grant number 20AYY015].

ORCID iDs

Jinfen Xu

Jiaqi Yang

References

Angelovska

Mercer

Talbot

(2021). Personality traits as predictors of language learner engagement. Language Learning in Higher Education, 11, 285–310.

Assor

Kaplan

Kanat-Maymon

Roth

(2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397–413.

Bakır-Yalçın

Usluel

Y.K.

(2023). Investigating the antecedents of engagement in online learning: Do achievement emotions matter? Education and Information Technologies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11995-z

Bakker

A.B.

Sanz Vergel

A.I.

Kuntze

(2015). Student engagement and performance: A weekly diary study on the role of openness. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 49–62.

Becker

E.S.

Goetz

Morger

Ranellucci

. (2014). The importance of teachers’ emotions and instructional behavior for their students’ emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 15–26.

Byrne

B.M.

(2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. 2nd edition. Routledge.

Cho

(2020). An investigation into learners’ ideal L2 self and its motivational capacity. Reading and Writing, 33, 2029–2048.

Dewaele

J.-M.

(2020). Emotions in second language acquisition: A critical review and research agenda. Foreign Language World, 1, 34–49.

Dewaele

J.-M.

MacIntyre

P.D.

(2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274.

10.

Dewaele

J.-M.

Proietti Ergün

A.L.

(2020). How different are the relations between enjoyment, anxiety, attitudes/motivation and course marks in pupils’ Italian and English as foreign languages? Journal of the European Second Language Association, 4, 45–57.

11.

Dong

(2007). The development and application of an academic emotions questionnaire. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 5, 852–860.

12.

Finn

J.D.

(1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.

13.

Fredricks

J.A.

Blumenfeld

P.C.

Paris

A.H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

14.

Jiang

Dewaele

J.-M.

(2019). How unique is the foreign language classroom enjoyment and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners? System, 59, 13–25.

15.

Kim

D.H.

Wang

Ahn

H.S.

Bong

(2015). English language learners’ self-efficacy profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 136–142.

16.

King

R.B.

Gaerlan

M.J.

(2014). High self-control predicts more positive emotions, better engagement, and higher achievement in school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29, 81–100.

17.

Komorowska

(2016). Difficulty and coping strategies in language education: Is positive psychology misrepresented in SLA/FLT? In Gabryś-Barker

Gałajda

(Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 39–56). Springer.

18.

Kuh

G.D.

(2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change the Magazine of Higher Learning, 35, 24–32.

19.

Kuh

G.D.

Cruce

T.M.

Shoup

Kinzie

Gonyea

R.M.

(2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563.

20.

Lee

(2014). Achievement goals, emotions, and foreign language performance in German and Korean students. University of Munich.

21.

(2021). A control-value theory approach to boredom in English classes among university students in China. Modern Language Journal, 105, 317–334.

22.

Jiang

Dewaele

J.-M.

(2018). Understanding Chinese high school students’ foreign language enjoyment: Validation of the Chinese version of the foreign language enjoyment scale. System, 76, 183–196.

23.

Liu

(2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34, 301–316.

24.

Liu

(2022). Toward the role of L2 enjoyment in EFL students’ academic motivation and engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–6.

25.

Yang

(2013). Relationship between motivation and devotion: A case study of Tsinghua University non-English major freshmen. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 3, 118–124.

26.

Nayir

(2017). The relationship between student motivation and class engagement levels. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 17, 59–78.

27.

Newmann

F.M.

Wehlage

G.G.

Lamborn

S.D.

(1992). The significance and sources of student engagement. In Newmann

F.M.

(Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary school (pp. 11–39). Teachers College Press.

28.

Peirce

B.N.

(1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31.

29.

Pekrun

(2000). A social cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In Heckhausen

(Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 143–164). Elsevier.

30.

Pekrun

(2006). The control–value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.

31.

Pekrun

(2019). Inquiry on emotions in higher education: Progress and open problems. Studies in Higher Education, 44, 1806–1811.

32.

Pekrun

Elliot

A.J.

Maier

M.A.

(2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597.

33.

Pekrun

Goetz

Daniels

Stupnisky

Perry

(2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 531–549.

34.

Pekrun

Goetz

Titz

Perry

(2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105.

35.

Pekrun

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In Christenson

Reschly

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer.

36.

Pekrun

Perry

(2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In Pekrun

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120–141). Routledge.

37.

Philp

Duchesne

(2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.

38.

Piniel

Albert

. (2018). Advanced learners’ foreign language-related emotions across the four skills. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 127–147.

39.

Putwain

D.W.

Pekrun

Nicholson

L.J.

, et al. (2018). Control–value appraisals, enjoyment, and boredom in mathematics: A longitudinal latent interaction analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 1339–1368.

40.

Raccanello

Hall

(2021). An intervention promoting understanding of achievement emotions with middle school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 759–780.

41.

Reeve

Tseng

(2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.

42.

Ren

(2018). The influencing mechanism of effective college English classroom environment construction and evaluation. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 50, 703–714.

43.

Sadoughi

Hejazi

(2021). Teacher support and academic engagement among EFL learners: The role of positive academic emotions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 1–8.

44.

Sander

de la Fuente

(2022). Modelling students’ academic confidence, personality and academic emotions. Current Psychology, 41, 4329–4340.

45.

Shao

Pekrun

Marsh

H.W.

Loderer

(2020). Control-value appraisals, achievement emotions, and foreign language performance: A latent interaction analysis. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101356.

46.

Steele

Fullagar

(2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 5–27.

47.

Sulis

Philp

(2021). Exploring connections between classroom environment and engagement in the foreign language classroom. In Hiver

Al-Hoorie

A.H.

Mercer

(Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 101–119). Multilingual Matters.

48.

Tsao

(2021). Effects of EFL learners’ L2 writing self-efficacy on engagement with written corrective feedback. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 575–584.

49.

Wang

Shen

(2021). A latent profile analysis of EFL learners’ self-efficacy: Associations with academic emotions and language proficiency. System, 103, 102633.

50.

Cheng

(2023). Influence of OTC on OLE for college students: mediating effect of academic emotion and moderating effect of gender. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04571-8

51.

Xie

Guo

(2022). Influence of teacher-and-peer support on positive academic emotions in EFL learning: The mediating role of mindfulness. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32, 439–447.

52.

(2021). An investigation into Chinese college students’ use of emotion regulation strategies in English learning. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 5, 1–9.

53.

Kou

(2015). A study on English learning anxiety self-regulation strategies of college students. Foreign Language Research, 2, 102–107.

54.

Lei

(2017). A study on classroom second language acquisition from dynamic system theory perspective: Theoretic framework and research approaches. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 1, 22–29.

55.

Zhang

(2023). The effect of the cognitive–emotional dialectic on L2 development: Enhancing our understanding of perezhivanie. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 161–178.

56.

Yang

Gao

Han

(2021). Exploring Chinese EFL learners’ achievement emotions and their antecedents in an online English learning environment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 722622.

57.

Yuan

Lo Bianco

(2022). L2 Chinese teachers’ beliefs about engagement strategies for students in Australia: Findings from Q methodology research. System, 106, 102792.

58.

Zhang

(2020). A longitudinal study of Pekrun’s control-value theory and the internal/external frame of reference model in predicting academic anxiety. Educational Psychology, 42, 479–500.

59.

Zhang

(2016). Development of student engagement questionnaire on college English curriculum. Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University.