While teachers bear the responsibility for facilitating discourse in second language (L2) classrooms, this study examines a specific pathway linking pedagogy to student participation. We investigated the relationship between a representative dialogic teaching strategy, academically productive talk (APT), and students’ discursive engagement in class. Using a sample of 490 students from seven primary and secondary schools, we analyzed associations among students’ perceptions of their teachers’ APT, students’ willingness to communicate (WTC), L2 learning motivation, L2 communication confidence, and their discursive engagement in L2 English classrooms. Structural equation modeling revealed that student-perceived teacher APT was positively related to both students’ WTC and their discursive engagement with peers. WTC partially mediated the relationship between student-perceived teacher APT and students’ discursive engagement. WTC was also found to mediate the relationships of L2 motivation and communication confidence with engagement. Student learning motivation was indirectly linked to their discursive engagement, mediated by communication confidence and WTC. These findings highlight the role of teachers in fostering productive classroom talk and student engagement. This study also provides evidence on how students’ WTC may relate to their discussion behavior, and WTC’s partial mediating role between teacher APT and student discursive engagement with classmates. The cross-sectional, self-report data suggest relationships that warrant future multi-method, longitudinal, or experimental investigation.
AlrabaiF. (2022). Teacher communication and learner willingness to communicate in English as a foreign language: A structural equation modeling approach. Saudi Journal of Language Studies, 2, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/sjls-03-2022-0043
3.
AukermanM.JohnsonE.M.SchuldtL.C. (2017). Reciprocity of student and teacher discourse practices in monologically and dialogically organized text discussion. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 13, 1–52.
4.
BakhtinM. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
5.
BalouchiS.SamadA.A. (2021). The effect of perceived competence on second language communication frequency: The mediating roles of motivation, willingness to communicate, and international posture. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 5917–5937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10579-z
6.
BaronR.M.KennyD.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
7.
BöheimR.SchnitzlerK.GröschnerA.WeilM.KnoglerM.SchindlerA. K.AllesM.SeidelT. (2021). How changes in teachers’ dialogic discourse practice relate to changes in students’ activation, motivation and cognitive engagement. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100450
8.
BoydM.P. (2023). Teacher talk that supports student thinking and talking together: Three markers of a dialogic instructional stance. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39, Article 100695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100695
9.
BrodM.TeslerL.E.ChristensenT.L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18, 1263–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9
10.
BurnhamK.P.AndersonD.R. (2004). Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research, 33, 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644
11.
ByrneB.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Erlbaum.
12.
ByrneB.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1, 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0101_4
13.
ChenG.ZhangJ.ChanC.K.K.MichaelsS.ResnickL.B.HuangX. (2020). The link between student-perceived teacher talk and student enjoyment, anxiety and discursive engagement in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 46, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3600
14.
ClémentR.KruidenierB.G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Clément’s model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8500400102
15.
CuiR.TeoP. (2023). Thinking through talk: Using dialogue to develop students’ critical thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, Article 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104068
16.
CuiR.TeoP. (2024). Dialogic instruction in a Chinese EFL classroom: A practitioner perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 58, 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3215
17.
DeciE.L.RyanR.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.
18.
DörnyeiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Elahi ShirvanM.KhajavyG.H.MacIntyreP.D.TaherianT. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 willingness to communicate and its three high-evidence correlates. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1241–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09656-9
20.
EllisR. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
21.
FallahN. (2014). Willingness to communicate in English, communication self-confidence, motivation, shyness and teacher immediacy among Iranian English-major undergraduates: A structural equation modeling approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.006
22.
GardnerR.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold.
23.
GardnerR.C. (2019). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition. In HenryA.MercerS.RyanS. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 21–37). Springer International.
24.
GardnerR.C.LambertW.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Newbury House.
25.
GröschnerA.SeidelT.KiemerK.PehmerA.-K. K. (2015). Through the lens of teacher professional development components: the ‘Dialogic Video Cycle’ as an innovative program to foster classroom dialogue. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 729–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939692
26.
HairJ.F.BlackW.C.BabinB.J.AndersonR.E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.
27.
HamasaidH.H.SoleimaniH.HamamuradA.M. (2021). Reticence and willingness to communicate to predict daily class participation among Iranian and Iraqi-Kurdistan Kurdish EFL learners. Research in English Language Pedagogy, 9, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.30486/relp.2021.1912818.1234
28.
HashimotoY. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 29–70.
29.
HayesA.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
30.
HenselerJ.RingleC.M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
31.
HoweC.HennessyS.MercerN.VrikkiM.WheatleyL. (2019). Teacher–student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes?Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
32.
HuL.T.BentlerP.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
33.
HuL.T.WangY. (2023). The predicting role of EFL teachers’ immediacy behaviors in students’ willingness to communicate and academic engagement. BMC Psychology, 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01378-x
34.
JinS.LeeH. (2022). Willingness to communicate and its high-evidence factors: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41, 716–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221092098
35.
JoeH.K.HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005
KiemerK.GröschnerA.PehmerA. K., et al (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers ‘practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and instruction, 35, 94–103.
38.
LaoT.L. (2020). The relationship between ESL learners’ motivation, willingness to communicate, perceived competence, and frequency of L2 use. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 20, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.52214/salt.v20i2.7475
39.
LeeJ.S.HsiehJ.C. (2019). Affective variables and willingness to communicate of EFL learners in in-class, out-of-class, and digital contexts. System, 82, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.03.002
40.
LeeJ.S.YeungN.M.OsburnM.B. (2024). Foreign language enjoyment as a mediator between informal digital learning of English and willingness to communicate: A sample of Hong Kong EFL secondary students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45, 3613–3631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2112587
41.
LeemingP.VittaJ.P.HiverP., et al (2024). Willingness to communicate, speaking self-efficacy, and perceived communicative competence as predictors of second language spoken task production. Language Learning, 74, 917–949. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12640
42.
LeiP.WuQ. (2007). Introduction to structural equation modeling: Issues and practical considerations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x
43.
LiC.DewaeleJ.-M.PawlakM.KrukM. (2025). Classroom environment and willingness to communicate in English: The mediating role of emotions experienced by university students in China. Language Teaching Research, 29, 2140–2160. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221111623
44.
MacIntyreP.D.BakerS.C.ClémentR.ConrodS. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263101003035
45.
MacIntyreP.D.CharosC. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X960151001
46.
MacIntyreP.D.DornyeiZ.ClémentR.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x
MacIntyreP.D.WangL. (2021). Willingness to communicate in the L2 about meaningful photos: Application of the pyramid model of WTC. Language Teaching Research, 25, 878–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211004645
49.
MercerN.LittletonK. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
50.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC. (2015). Conceptualizing talk moves as tools: Professional development approaches for academically productive discussion. In ResnickL.B.AsterhanC.S.C.ClarkeS.N. (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue (pp. 347–362). American Educational Research Association.
51.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL.B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
52.
NystrandM.GamoranA.KachurR.PrendergastC. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Teachers College Press.
53.
PengJ.E. (2013). The challenge of measuring willingness to communicate in EFL contexts. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0053-x
54.
PengJ.E.MacIntyreP.D. (2025). Directional or reciprocal? A random intercept cross-lagged panel analysis of the relationships between emotions, motivation, willingness to communicate, and L2 achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 118, Article 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102638
PodsakoffP.M.MacKenzieS.B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
57.
PreacherK.J.HayesA.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
58.
ResnickL.B.MichaelsS.O’ConnorM. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In PreissD.D.SternbergR.J. (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). Springer.
59.
RyanS. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 Self (pp. 120–143). Multilingual Matters.
60.
SedovaK.SedlacekM.SalamounovaZ., et al (2025). Let them all talk: Equitable participation in classroom dialogue as a result of an intervention programme. Language and Education, 39, 1471–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2025.2454637
61.
SedovaK.SedlacekM.SvaricekR., et al (2019). Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 63, Article 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
SinclairJ.M.CoulthardR.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
64.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.
65.
TeoP. (2013). ‘Stretch your answers’: Opening the dialogic space in teaching and learning. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.02.002
66.
van der LindenJ.RenshawP. (2004). Dialogic learning: Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching. Kluwer Academic.
67.
VongsilaV.ReindersH. (2016). Making Asian learners talk: Encouraging willingness to communicate. RELC Journal, 47, 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216645641
68.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
69.
WegerifR. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the Internet age. Routledge.
70.
WelesilassieM.W.NikolovM. (2024). The relationship among EFL learners’ motivational self-system, willingness to communicate, and self-assessed proficiency at an Ethiopian preparatory high school. Heliyon, 10, e24171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24171
71.
WellsG.BallT. (2008). Exploratory talk and dialogic inquiry. In MercerN.HodgkinsonS. (Eds.), Exploring talk in schools (pp. 167–184). Sage.
72.
YashimaT. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136
73.
YashimaT.MacIntyreP.D.IkedaM. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22, 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816657851
74.
YashimaT.Zenuk-NishideL.ShimizuK. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00250.x
75.
ZhangQ.SongY.ZhaoC. (2024). Foreign language enjoyment and willingness to communicate: The mediating roles of communication confidence and motivation. System, 125, Article 103346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103346
