Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
Learners’ behavioral engagement and performance on linguistically difficult L2 reading tasks: The effects of effort feedback,self-efficacy,and attributions
In many compulsory second language (L2) classrooms, learners routinely encounter linguistically difficult L2 reading tasks. However, it is unclear (1) how learners behaviorally engage and perform on such tasks, (2) what motivational characteristics predict their reactions, and (3) whether maladaptive learner reactions can be ameliorated. This study examined the role of two motivational constructs (attributions and self-efficacy) and a common teaching practice (effort feedback) in predicting and ameliorating learners’ behavioral engagement and performance on linguistically difficult L2 reading tasks. Japanese high school students (N = 238) studying English were recruited for an experimental study and randomly assigned to either the treatment group (n = 124) or the comparison group (n = 114). Both groups first performed a linguistically difficult L2 reading task. Time on task was measured as a direct indicator of behavioral task engagement. They then rated the success or failure attributions of their task performance. Next, the treatment group received brief positive feedback highlighting effort attributions (i.e. effort feedback), while the comparison group did not receive any attributional feedback. Both groups then rated their levels of self-efficacy to perform a similar task. Lastly, both groups performed a follow-up linguistically difficult L2 reading task, and their time on task was recorded. Results showed that participants generally displayed low behavioral engagement and performed poorly on the initial task. Both the treatment and comparison groups experienced a significant decline in their behavioral engagement in the subsequent task, but the treatment group showed a small improvement in their subsequent task performance. The external controllability dimension of attributions positively predicted learners’ behavioral engagement on the subsequent task. These findings shed light on an unexplored territory of task engagement research that warrants further attention.
AlzaaninE. (2023). EFL learners’ versus instructors’ attributions of success and failure factors: A complexity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231189777
3.
AraiY.TakizawaK. (2024). Text and reading task variables in incidental L2 vocabulary learning from reading: A methodological synthesis. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3, Article 100110.
4.
ArnauS.BrümmerT.LiegelN.WascherE. (2021). Inverse effects of time-on-task in task-related and task-unrelated theta activity. Psychophysiology, 58, Article e13805.
5.
AubreyS. (2022). Dynamic engagement in second language computer-mediated collaborative writing tasks: Does communication mode matter?Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 59–86.
6.
AubreyS.KingJ.AlmukhaildH. (2022). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal, 53, 519–533.
7.
BanduraA. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
8.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
9.
BanduraA. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.
10.
BjorkR.A. (2018). Being suspicious of the sense of ease and undeterred by the sense of difficulty: Looking back at Schmidt and Bjork (1992). Perspectives on cognitive psychology, 13, 146–148.
11.
BoersF.FaezF. (2023). Meta-analysis to estimate the relative effectiveness of TBLT programs: Are we there yet?Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231167573
12.
BrownJ.D.YamashitaS.O. (1995). English language entrance examinations at Japanese universities: What do we know about them?JALT Journal, 17, 7–30.
13.
BrunL.PansuP.DompnierB. (2021). The role of causal attributions in determining behavioral consequences: A meta-analysis from an intrapersonal attributional perspective in achievement contexts. Psychological Bulletin, 147, 701–718.
14.
BultéB.HousenA.PallottiG. (2024). Complexity and difficulty in second language acquisition: A theoretical and methodological overview. Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12669
15.
ChiangM.-H. (2016). Effects of varying text difficulty levels on second language (L2) reading attitudes and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39, 448–468.
16.
ChoiY.ZhangD. (2021). The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: A systematic review of literature. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59, 1–30.
17.
ChungY.RévészA. (2024). Investigating the effect of textual enhancement in post-reading tasks on grammatical development by child language learners. Language Teaching Research, 28, 632–653.
18.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS.G.AikenL.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
19.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Collins.
20.
CzimmermannÉ.PinielK. (2016). Advanced language learners’ experience of flow in the Hungarian EFL classroom. In MacIntyreP.D.GregersenT.MercerS. (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 193–214). Multilingual Matters.
21.
DaoP. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 91, Article 102244.
22.
DaoP.McDonoughK. (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 60–72.
23.
DaoP.SatoM. (2021). Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours. Language Teaching Research, 25, 972–994.
24.
DörnyeiZ.DewaeleJ.-M. (2022). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.
25.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
26.
DrydenR.P.PerryR.P.HammJ.M., et al. (2021). An attribution-based motivation treatment to assist first-generation college students reframe academic setbacks. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 64, Article 101938.
27.
DweckC.S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.
28.
EgbertJ. (2024). Introduction to task engagement across the disciplines. In EgbertJ.Panday-ShuklaP. (Eds.), Task engagement across disciplines: Research and practical strategies to increase student achievement (pp. 3–19). Routledge.
EllisR. (2024). Some thoughts on investigating individual differences in task-based language teaching. In LiS. (Ed.), Individual differences and task-based language teaching (pp. 344–362). John Benjamins.
32.
EllisR.ShintaniN. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
33.
EllisR.SkehanP.LiS.ShintaniN.LambertC. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
34.
ErlamR.EllisR. (2019). Input-based tasks for beginner-level learners: An approximate replication and extension of Erlam & Ellis (2018). Language Teaching, 52, 490–511.
35.
FaberG. (2019). Longitudinal effects of task performance and self-concept on preadolescent EFL learners’ causal attributions of grammar success and failure. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9, 633–656.
36.
FongC.J.SchallertD.L.WilliamsK.M., et al. (2021). Making feedback constructive: The interplay of undergraduates’ motivation with perceptions of feedback specificity and friendliness. Educational Psychology, 41, 1241–1259.
37.
GodwinK.E.SeltmanH.AlmedaM., et al. (2021). The elusive relationship between time on-task and learning: Not simply an issue of measurement. Educational Psychology, 41, 502–519.
38.
GoetzeJ.DriverM. (2022). Is learning really just believing? A meta-analysis of self-efficacy and achievement in SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 233–259.
39.
GrabeW.StollerF.L. (2019). Teaching and researching reading (3rd ed.). Routledge.
40.
GrabeW.YamashitaJ. (2022). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
41.
GrahamS. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101861.
42.
GrahamS.MacaroE. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747–783.
43.
GrahamS.TaylorA.Z. (2022). The power of asking why?: Attribution retraining programs for the classroom teacher. Theory Into Practice, 61, 5–22.
44.
GrahamS.WooreR.PorterA.CourtneyL.SavoryC. (2020). Navigating the challenges of L2 reading: Self-efficacy, self-regulatory reading strategies, and learner profiles. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 693–714.
45.
GuanY.ZhuX.XiaoL.ZhuS.YaoY. (2024). Investigating the relationships between language mindsets, attributions, and learning engagement of L2 writers. System, 124, Article 103431.
46.
GüneşӦ. (2021). Failure attributions and metacognitive awareness of EFL learners. Language Awareness, 31, 53–72.
47.
HanJ.HiverP. (2018). Genre L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59.
48.
HarrisJ. (2022). Measuring listening and speaking self-efficacy in EFL contexts: The development of the communicative SE questionnaire. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221091608
49.
HarrisJ.LeemingP. (2021). The impact of teaching approach on growth in L2 proficiency and self-efficacy: A longitudinal classroom-based study of TBLT and PPP. Journal of Second Language Studies, 5, 114–143.
50.
HattieJ. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
51.
HaynesT.L.PerryR.P.StupniskyR.H.DanielsL.M. (2009). A review of attributional retraining treatments: Fostering engagement and persistence in vulnerable college students. In SmartJ.C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 227–272). Springer.
52.
HiromoriT. (2021). Anatomizing students’ task engagement in pair work in the language classroom. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 3, 88–106.
53.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.). (2021). Student engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters.
54.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.VittaJ.P.WuJ. (2024). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research, 28, 201–230.
55.
HiverP.WuJ. (2023). Engagement in TBLT. In LambertC.AubreyS.BuiG. (Eds.), The role of the learner in task-based language teaching: Theory and research methods (pp. 74–90). Routledge.
56.
HiverP.YamazakiJ.S. (2025). Language learning engagement. In NesiH.MilinP. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of language and linguistics (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
57.
HonickeT.BroadbentJ. (2016). The influence of academic self-efficacy on academic performance: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 17, 63–84.
58.
HousenA.SimoensH. (2016). Introduction: Cognitive perspectives on difficulty and complexity in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 163–175.
59.
HsiehP.P.H.KangH.S. (2010). Attribution and self-efficacy and their interrelationship in the Korean EFL context. Language Learning, 60, 606–627.
60.
HsiehP.P.H.SchallertD.L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 513–532.
61.
In’namiY.KoizumiR. (2017). Using EIKEN, TOEFL, and TOEIC to award EFL course credits in Japanese universities. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14, 274–293.
62.
IrieK. (2021). Self-efficacy. In GregersenT.MercerS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching (pp. 100–111). Routledge.
63.
JeonE.H.YamashitaJ. (2021). Measuring L2 reading. In WinkeP.BrunfautT. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and language testing (pp. 265–274). Routledge.
64.
JeonE.H.YamashitaJ. (2022). Individual difference factors for second language reading. In LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 364–380). Routledge.
65.
JungJ. (2018). Effects of task complexity and working memory capacity on L2 reading comprehension. System, 74, 21–37.
66.
KhezrlouS. (2023). The role of task-supported language teaching in the development of explicit and automatized explicit knowledge and learners’ task engagement: Does practice meet perceptions?Language Awareness, 32, 387–420.
67.
KikuchiK. (2006). Revisiting English entrance examinations at Japanese universities after a decade. JALT Journal, 28, 77–96.
68.
KikuchiK.BrowneC. (2009). English educational policy for high schools in Japan: Ideals vs. reality. RELC Journal, 40, 172–191.
69.
KovanovicV.GaševićD.DawsonS.JoksimovicS.BakerR. (2015). Does time-on-task estimation matter? Implications on validity of learning analytics findings. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2, 81–110.
70.
LambertC.AubreyS.BuiG. (2023). The role of the learner in task-based language teaching. In LambertC.AubreyS.BuiG. (Eds.), The role of the learner in task-based language teaching: Theory and research methods (pp. 1–15). Routledge.
71.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
72.
LambertC.ZhangG. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as foreign languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional task design. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 391–411.
73.
LangJ.M. (2021). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
74.
Larson-HallJ.PlonskyL. (2015). Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 65, 127–159.
75.
LazowskiR.A.HullemanC.S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86, 602–640.
76.
LeBlancC. (2015). Investigating high school students’ self-efficacy in reading circles. The Language Teacher, 39, 15–21.
77.
LeeM.RévészA. (2020). Promoting grammatical development through captions and textual enhancement in multimodal input-based tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 625–651.
78.
LeemingP. (2021). The influence of small groups on leader stability and task engagement in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 28, 52–78.
79.
LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (2022). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Theory, research, and practice. In LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 3–33). Routledge.
80.
LinnenbrinkE.A.PintrichP.R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 119–137.
81.
MacIntyreP.D.SerroulA. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.D.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Multilingual Matters.
82.
McAuleyE.DuncanT.E.RussellD.W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSⅡ). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 566–573.
83.
McLeanS.PoulshockJ. (2018). Increasing reading self-efficacy and reading amount in EFL learners with word-targets. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30, 76–91.
84.
MercerS. (2019). Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In GaoX. (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 643–660). Springer.
85.
MercerS.DörnyeiZ. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
86.
MercerS.TalbotK.R.WangI.K.-H. (2021). Fake or real engagement: Looks can be deceiving. In HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 143–162). Multilingual Matters.
87.
MEXT. (2018). Kōtōgakkō gakushūshidōyōryō kaisetsu [Explanation of the course of study for high schools]. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology: MEXT. Available at: https://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/index_00005.htm (accessed November 2024).
88.
MillsN.PajaresF.HerronC. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self-efficacy, anxiety and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 276–295.
89.
MirlohiM.HermanD. (2024). The role of challenge-skills balance in task engagement. In EgbertJ.Panday-ShuklaP. (Eds.), Task engagement across disciplines: Research and practical strategies to increase student achievement (pp. 84–96). Routledge.
90.
MizumotoA.PlonskyL. (2016). R as a lingua franca: Advantages of using R for quantitative research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37, 284–291.
91.
MoriS.GobelP.ThepsiriK.PojanapunyaP. (2010). Attributions for performance: A comparative study of Japanese and Thai university students. JALT Journal, 32, 5–28.
92.
MozgalinaA. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132.
93.
NakamuraS.PhungL.ReindersH. (2021). The effect of learner choice on L2 task engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 428–441.
94.
Oga-BaldwinW.L.Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, Article 102128.
95.
Oga-BaldwinW.L.Q.NakataY. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163.
96.
PaekS.H.AlabbasiA.M.A.AcarS.RuncoM.A. (2021). Is more time better for divergent thinking? A meta-analysis of the time-on-task effect on divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, Article 100894.
97.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578.
98.
PallottiG. (2019). An approach to assessing the linguistic difficulty of tasks. Journal of the European Second Language Association, 3, 58–70.
99.
PerryR.P.HammJ.M. (2017). An attribution perspective on competence and motivation: Theory and treatment interventions. In ElliotA.J.DweckC.YeagerD. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 61–84). Guilford Press.
100.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
101.
PhungL. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21, 751–766.
102.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
103.
QiuX.LoY.Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.
104.
ReschlyA.L.ChristensonS.L. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed.). Springer.
105.
RiversD.J.RossA.S. (2020). L1/L2 communication self-efficacy beliefs and the contribution of personality. The Language Learning Journal, 48, 700–714.
106.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins.
107.
RussellD. (1982). The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137–1145.
108.
SangY.HiverP. (2021). Engagement and companion constructs in language learning: Conceptualizing learners’ involvement in the L2 classroom. In HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 17–37). Multilingual Matters.
109.
SatoM. (2022). Metacognition. In LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 95–109). Routledge.
110.
SatoM.CsizérK. (2021). Introduction: Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research, 25, 839–855.
111.
SchunkD.H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548–556.
112.
SchunkD.H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848–856.
113.
SchunkD.H.DiBenedettoM.K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, Article 101832.
114.
SchunkD.H.DiBenedettoM.K. (2022). Self-efficacy and engaged learners. In ReschlyA.L.ChristensonS.L. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (2nd ed.) (pp. 155–170). Springer.
115.
SchunkD.H.MeeceJ.R.PintrichP.R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (4th ed.). Pearson.
116.
ShehadehA. (2024). It is a task, not an exercise: What is the difference?System, 123, Article 103299.
117.
ShintaniN. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. John Benjamins.
118.
SkinnerE.A.RaineK.E. (2022). Unlocking the positive synergy between engagement and motivation. In ReschlyA.L.ChristensonS.L. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 25–56). Springer.
119.
Soriano-FerrerM.Alonso-BlancoE. (2020). Why have I failed? Why have I passed? A comparison of students’ causal attributions in second language acquisition (A1–B2 levels). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 648–662.
120.
StroudR. (2017). The impact of task performance scoring and tracking on second language engagement. System, 69, 121–132.
121.
StupniskyR.H.StewartT.L.DanielsL.M.PerryR.P. (2011). When do students ask why? Examining the precursors and outcomes of causal search among first-year college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 201–211.
122.
SuzukiY.NakataT.DeKeyserR. (2019). The desirable difficulty framework as a theoretical foundation for optimizing and researching second language practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 713–720.
123.
SvalbergA.M.-L. (2018). Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27, 21–39.
124.
SvalbergA.M.-L. (2021). Engagement with language in relation to form-focused versus meaning-focused teaching and learning. In HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 38–55). Multilingual Matters.
125.
TakahashiS. (2003). The role of ‘attribution for success and failure’ in second language reading by Japanese university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
126.
TalsmaK.SchüzB.SchwarzerR.NorrisK. (2018). I believe, therefore I achieve (and vice versa): A meta-analytic cross-lagged panel analysis of self-efficacy and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 136–150.
127.
TournatT. (2014). Attribution theory: Measurement foundations for an emerging research area within applied linguistics. JALT Journal, 36, 201–222.
128.
TseD.C.K.FungH.H.NakamuraJ.CsikszentmihalyiM. (2018). Teamwork and flow proneness mitigate the negative effect of excess challenge on flow state. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13, 284–289.
129.
TsoiS.C.AubreyS. (2024). Impact of student-selected pairing on collaborative task engagement. ELT Journal, 78, 42–53.
130.
VittaJ.P.LeemingP.McLeanS.NicklinC. (2023). Initial development of a second language discussion task-specific self-efficacy instrument: An illustration for frontline researchers. RELC Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231195102
131.
WangC.SunT. (2020). Relationship between self-efficacy and language proficiency: A meta-analysis. System, 95, Article 102366.
132.
WangY.ShenB.YuX. (2021). A latent profile analysis of EFL learners’ self-efficacy: Associations with academic emotions and language proficiency. System, 103, Article 102633.
133.
WeinerB. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
134.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
135.
WeinerB. (2018). The legacy of an attribution approach to motivation and emotion: A no-crisis zone. Motivation Science, 4, 4–14.
136.
WilliamsM.BurdenR.L. (1999). Students’ developing conceptions of themselves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 193–201.
137.
WyattM. (2022). Self-efficacy. In LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 207–219). Routledge.
138.
YamashitaJ. (2022). L2 reading comprehension: Theory and research. In JeonE.H.In’namiY. (Eds.), Understanding L2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations (pp. 5–28). John Benjamins.
139.
ZhangX.AustinB.W.ArdashevaY. (2023). New directions in L2 self-efficacy research: Comparing bifactor and second-order models in the English public speaking domain. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 52, 569–587.
140.
ZhangX.LouN.M.NoelsK.A.DanielsL.M. (2022). Attributions and mindsets. In GregersenT.MercerS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching (pp. 161–177). Routledge.
141.
ZhouS.A.HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2021). Measuring L2 engagement: A review of issues and applications. In HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 75–98). Multilingual Matters.
142.
ZhouS.A.HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2023). Dynamic engagement: A longitudinal dual-process, reciprocal-effects model of teacher motivational practice and L2 student engagement. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231158789
143.
ZunigaM. (2023). The correlates of flow in the L2 classroom: Linking basic L2 task features to learner flow experiences. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 650–668.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
