View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Vocabulary Learning Strategies for the Relationship between Self-Regulation and Vocabulary Proficiency

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Vocabulary Learning Strategies for the Relationship between Self-Regulation and Vocabulary Proficiency
Language: English
Authors: Jiajing Li (ORCID 0000-0002-3810-9277), Chuang Wang (ORCID 0000-0003-3372-2053)
Source: European Journal of Education. 2024 59(4).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Motivation, Vocabulary Development, Learning Strategies, Self Management, Language Proficiency, High School Seniors, Gender Differences, Correlation
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12706
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Successful vocabulary acquisition hinges on the harmonious interplay of various factors. Despite some studies that have been conducted to examine the direct effect of self-regulation on vocabulary learning, few of them tapped into the relationship among self-regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. This study extended previous research by examining whether motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies mediate the relationship between self-regulation and vocabulary proficiency and investigating whether the relationship varied by gender. Data were extracted from 399 senior secondary school students. Results from structural equation modelling revealed that motivation and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between self-regulated learning capacity and vocabulary learning strategies. Vocabulary learning strategies further mediated the relationships between self-efficacy, motivation and vocabulary proficiency. Meanwhile, the relationship between self-regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency held equivalent across genders. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1450320
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFOkdxQrnWRU3m7_muud5WrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD9EXaALeVRqQX58oAIBEICBmyfTbeqGvgHC0da8CfQSofd8K31DxcVx8T_RUFe4N4GBXGmqGXdpyn-rWVpOxgTfmYnwQdEq5fxDYjKN_tXF9YPNVGzP6mwCUA5XN0Uy7-Q7ZDoqejxqrDOx9QEzPtwf1-sXoUKTiBNY6x2PvfFQmCnLsE7UFAvFp27vLEHbZsRWW7XxwKAKzJeuq6k_P8WRhDQdSwXwiy3TkZLJ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181057310;eje01dec.24;2024Nov26.04:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181057310-1">Mediating roles of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies for the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency </title> <p>Successful vocabulary acquisition hinges on the harmonious interplay of various factors. Despite some studies that have been conducted to examine the direct effect of self‐regulation on vocabulary learning, few of them tapped into the relationship among self‐regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. This study extended previous research by examining whether motivation, self‐efficacy and learning strategies mediate the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency and investigating whether the relationship varied by gender. Data were extracted from 399 senior secondary school students. Results from structural equation modelling revealed that motivation and self‐efficacy mediated the relationship between self‐regulated learning capacity and vocabulary learning strategies. Vocabulary learning strategies further mediated the relationships between self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary proficiency. Meanwhile, the relationship between self‐regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency held equivalent across genders. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: motivation; self‐efficacy; self‐regulation; vocabulary learning strategies; vocabulary proficiency</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Vocabulary is the foundation of language learning, which is regarded as the premise for listening, speaking, reading and writing (Nation, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]; Webb & Nation, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref2">66</reflink>]; Zhang & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref3">69</reflink>]). Vocabulary learning, however, is a demanding task, especially for English as a foreign language (EFL) learners who have insufficient exposure to the target language outside the classroom and are required to master a very large amount of vocabulary by the curriculum (e.g., Jordan & Gray, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]; Sun & Dang, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref5">51</reflink>]). Research has suggested that around 8000‐to‐9000‐word families need to be mastered for text comprehension (Nation, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]). Moreover, researchers have noted that a word cannot be fully mastered without repeated encounters (Hulstijn & Laufer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]; Laufer & Rozovski‐Roitblat, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]). This time‐ and energy‐consuming process has drawn researchers' attention to students' psychological factors (e.g., self‐regulation and motivational beliefs) and their use of vocabulary learning strategies.</p> <p>In exploring students' vocabulary learning, one body of work has focused on students' self‐regulation, which plays a decisive role in determining their vocabulary proficiency (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref9">13</reflink>]; Mizumoto, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]; Seker, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref11">49</reflink>]; Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref12">73</reflink>]). Another pertinent body of research has looked at the roles of motivational factors and vocabulary learning strategies (e.g., Fan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]; Hu & McGeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref16">70</reflink>]). However, these studies have often proceeded in parallel with limited cross‐over of ideas, especially in the realm of vocabulary learning. Specifically, few studies have stepped further to study the mechanism of the 'black box' of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies in association with self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency (Tseng & Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref17">63</reflink>]). The social cognitive theory postulates that effective language acquisition is contingent on the interplay of personal (e.g., self‐regulation, motivation, self‐efficacy) and behavioural factors (e.g., effective use of strategies; Schunk & DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref18">48</reflink>]). Nonetheless, there is a need to obtain an in‐depth understanding of the vocabulary learning process by modelling these key factors. In addition, gender differences in EFL learning remain an enduring topic. Some studies have documented that female students report a higher level of self‐regulation in EFL learning (Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref19">58</reflink>]), while other studies have found minimal or no gender differences (Fan, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]). Whether the model applies to both genders deserves further investigation.</p> <p>To fill these research gaps, this study aimed to investigate the potential mediating role of motivational beliefs (such as self‐efficacy and motivation) and vocabulary learning strategies in the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency among Chinese EFL learners. Moreover, gender difference in their relationship was examined. This study sheds light on the psychological mechanisms underlying successful vocabulary learning and informs effective educational interventions and instructional strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-3">LITERATURE REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057310-4">Self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency</hd> <p>Self‐regulation is defined as 'self‐generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals' (Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref22">74</reflink>], p. 14). Self‐regulated learning is a cyclic process wherein motivational factors are combined with strategic behaviours (Zimmerman & Schunk, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref23">75</reflink>]). In response to the call for lifelong or sustained learning, self‐regulated learning has garnered significant attention over the past few decades across various domains of EFL learning (Rose et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]; Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]). These domains include reading (Taherkhani & Moradi, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref26">53</reflink>]; Tse et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref27">61</reflink>]), listening (Xu & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref28">68</reflink>]), speaking (Sun, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref29">50</reflink>]) and writing (Bai et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]; Zhou & Hiver, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref31">72</reflink>]). Researchers have concluded that EFL learners with higher levels of self‐regulation are more likely to set challenging goals, devote more efforts and sustain their efforts when encountering setbacks, thereby achieving better academic outcomes. In contrast, students with low levels of self‐regulation are more easily distracted, which undermines their efforts, interests and academic performance (Seker, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref32">49</reflink>]; Taherkhani & Moradi, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]). Compared to other EFL learning activities such as reading and writing, vocabulary learning is an arduous activity that requires extensive self‐studying time and higher levels of self‐regulation (Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]). However, self‐regulation in vocabulary learning is a relatively new area of study and has not received as much attention as self‐regulation in other domains (Ping et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref35">43</reflink>]; Teng et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref36">59</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-5">Relating self‐regulation to vocabulary learning strategies and motivational beliefs</hd> <p>Some scholars have explored the associations between self‐regulation, vocabulary learning strategies (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]; Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref39">57</reflink>]) and motivational beliefs (i.e., self‐efficacy and motivation). Vocabulary learning strategies pertain to 'purposeful analysis of the vocabulary learning task, the planning, deployment, monitoring and evaluation of learning behaviors' to acquire vocabulary (Gu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref40">14</reflink>], p. 1). There is a long empirical history of connecting vocabulary learning strategies to self‐regulated learning (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]; Tseng & Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref42">63</reflink>]). For example, Tseng and Schmitt ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>]) noted that learners' use of vocabulary learning strategies could be influenced by their self‐regulation in vocabulary learning. In the same vein, Gorgoz and Tican ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]) elucidated that middle school students' self‐regulation was positively related to their vocabulary learning strategies. Overall, students with higher self‐regulation in vocabulary learning could use more strategies in learning vocabulary.</p> <p>In addition to vocabulary learning strategies, motivational beliefs such as self‐efficacy and motivation were also found to be positively associated with self‐regulation in EFL learning (e.g., Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]; Zheng et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref46">71</reflink>]). Self‐efficacy refers to individuals' self‐assessment of their capabilities in performing a certain task (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>]), while motivation pertains to the desire or incentive to do something (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]). Researchers found that self‐regulators were more likely to exhibit high self‐efficacy (Bai & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; Sardegna et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]; Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref51">57</reflink>]) and motivation (Bai & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>]; Guo & Bai, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]) in EFL learning. Despite a dearth of studies in the domain of vocabulary learning, such positive relationships were partially reflected (e.g., Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]; Mizumoto, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]; Teng, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref56">56</reflink>]; Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref57">73</reflink>]). For example, Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]) found that students' self‐regulation could enhance their motivation and proficiency in vocabulary learning in an experimental study. Teng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref59">59</reflink>]) disclosed that students' self‐regulated vocabulary learning mediated the relationship between the growth mindset and vocabulary learning proficiency. Taken together, self‐regulated learners may be inclined to implement effective learning strategies and maintain higher motivational beliefs (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref60">22</reflink>]; Zimmerman & Schunk, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref61">75</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-6">Relating motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies to vocabulary proficiency</hd> <p>A myriad of studies has documented the interconnections among motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. Research consistently shows that learners with higher levels of motivational beliefs adopt more strategies for learning vocabulary (e.g., Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref63">70</reflink>]) and achieve better academic outcomes compared to their less motivated counterparts (e.g., Alamer, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]; Ardasheva et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]; Hu & McGeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]). For instance, Fan ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]) found that the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge were contingent on students' strategy use during vocabulary learning. Similarly, Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]) reported that motivated learners obtained higher vocabulary proficiency.</p> <p>Despite the extensive research on the connections between motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency, most studies focused on the respective effects of motivational beliefs or vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary learning proficiency. There is little knowledge about how motivational beliefs coupled with vocabulary learning strategies relate to vocabulary proficiency. In other words, the possible mediating roles of vocabulary learning strategies on the relationship between motivational beliefs and vocabulary proficiency have been overlooked. An empirical study by Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref69">70</reflink>]) investigated the relationship between motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary knowledge of 107 Chinese EFL learners. They uncovered that students' motivation affected their vocabulary proficiency only through the mediating role of vocabulary learning strategies. However, almost no study has examined the possible mediating roles of self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary learning strategies in the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency. This prevents us from gaining a holistic understanding of the complexity of the EFL learners' vocabulary learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-7">Relationships among self‐regulation, motivation, self‐efficacy, vocabulary learning strategie...</hd> <p>To date, the knowledge regarding how self‐regulation works together with motivational factors and vocabulary learning strategies in relation to vocabulary proficiency remains fragmented. Previous studies have snapshotted certain aspects of vocabulary learning. For example, some studies exclusively focused on the correlation between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency (Rose et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref70">44</reflink>]; Teng & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref71">58</reflink>]); Others investigated the role self‐regulation plays in vocabulary learning strategies and motivational beliefs (Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref72">73</reflink>]); Still others centred on the associations among motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency (Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref74">70</reflink>]). Despite these efforts, scarce studies have provided a comprehensive understanding of vocabulary learning and delved into the way multiple factors intertwine. As elucidated by Tseng and Schmitt ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref75">63</reflink>]), vocabulary learning is a dynamic process, which involves self‐regulatory and self‐motivated learning. Moreover, motivational factors and vocabulary learning strategies are frequently examined as predictors of vocabulary proficiency in the literature. Hence, we speculated that students' motivational factors and vocabulary learning strategies bridge the connection between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-8">Gender as a moderator</hd> <p>Ample studies have already delved into gender differences in self‐regulation, language learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency among EFL learners (e.g., Hu & McGeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref76">17</reflink>]; Lee & Pulido, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref78">65</reflink>]). Researchers noted that females tend to have higher levels of self‐regulation (e.g., Lee, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref79">27</reflink>]; Lee & Pulido, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref80">28</reflink>]; Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]), motivational beliefs (e.g., Hu & McGeown, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]; Oga‐Baldwin & Nakata, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref83">41</reflink>]) and use more vocabulary learning strategies than males (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref84">13</reflink>]; Gu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref85">14</reflink>]). Conversely, other researchers have reported a reverse pattern (e.g., Sylvén & Sundqvist, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref86">52</reflink>]) or found no gender differences (e.g., Truong & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref87">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nonetheless, studies examining the gender effect on the interrelationships between psychological factors in vocabulary learning are limited. Fan ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]) is one of the few studies on the gender impact on vocabulary learning and demonstrated that gender moderated the relationship between vocabulary learning strategies use and vocabulary knowledge. In contrast, Lee ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref89">27</reflink>]) found that gender did not have a significant effect on the relationships between aptitude, motivation, strategies used for vocabulary learning and language processing experience. The lack of research on how gender influences the nexus of self‐regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency precludes us from gaining a comprehensive insight into the robustness of our findings. Therefore, we considered gender as a potential moderating factor in the current study.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-9">The Chinese EFL context</hd> <p>Affected by the National College Entrance Examination, Chinese senior secondary school students who are immersed in a teacher‐directed, exam‐oriented and utilitarian learning environment, experience tremendous pressure (Huang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref90">18</reflink>]; Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref91">36</reflink>]). As one of the major compulsory courses, English accounts for a large proportion of the total score. However, the class size in Chinese secondary schools is relatively large. This means that one English language teacher often has to manage 50 or more students in a class, with even larger class sizes in some rural areas (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref92">34</reflink>]; Tang, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref93">55</reflink>]). Moreover, teachers normally use Chinese as a medium of instruction, so it is not surprising that students have to memorize endless words (Lo & Murphy, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref94">35</reflink>]). In this context, students' self‐regulated learning becomes particularly critical, especially for vocabulary learning, as teachers can allocate little instructional time to it (Ping et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref95">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Most English language teachers in China underline the salient role of vocabulary learning strategies. They believe that strategic vocabulary learning could fortify language learning and make students' language learning more efficient (Gu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref96">14</reflink>]). In terms of motivational beliefs, Chinese learners are known to be less intrinsically motivated and are driven more by external factors such as the expectations of parents, avoiding losing face in front of others and pursuing good grades (King & McInerney, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref98">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref99">33</reflink>]). Meanwhile, they exhibited lower efficacy beliefs compared with their Western counterparts, despite better academic performance (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref100">65</reflink>]). Interestingly, their lack of intrinsic motivation and low self‐efficacy did not lead to maladaptive outcomes, given the uniqueness of Chinese culture (King, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref101">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Though some fragmented knowledge has been obtained from past works, the mediating effects of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies on self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency among Chinese EFL learners remain underexplored. Indeed, revealing the internal complexity of Chinese EFL learners' vocabulary learning process is imperative in directing avenues for pedagogical intervention and extending the social cognitive theory in the realm of vocabulary learning.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-10">The current study</hd> <p>The literature suggests the direct effect of self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary proficiency; however, a dearth of studies examined the possible mediating roles of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies on the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency. Whether their relationships hold equivalent across genders also remains underinvestigated. In light of the above‐mentioned gaps, this study aimed to answer the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and self‐efficacy mediate the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency (Figure 1)?</item> <p></p> <item> Does the relationship between students' vocabulary self‐efficacy, motivation, self‐regulation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency hold equivalent across genders?</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01dec24/ejed12706-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12706-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Hypothesized model "+" means a statistically significant relationship." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057310-12">METHODOLOGY</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057310-13">Participants and procedures</hd> <p>Convenience sampling was utilized in data collection. To enhance the representativeness of the sample, we contacted teachers from three cities in northwestern China. A total of 399 participants were recruited from public senior secondary schools, of whom 206 were females and 193 were males. Their age ranged from 15 to 18 (<emph>M</emph> = 16.05, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.64). On average, participants had learned English for almost a decade (<emph>M</emph> = 9.91, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.13) at the time of the study. In addition, most students (61.70%) spent less than 1 h per week outside the class on vocabulary learning, indicating their limited time devoted to it.</p> <p>All ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Review Board of the University of Macau before conducting the study. The aims and procedures of this study were announced to the participants. Then, their guardians were invited to sign the consent forms. Teachers informed participants that all responses would be kept confidential and would be used only for research purposes. The teachers also reminded students to take it seriously and answer all the questions. The vocabulary proficiency test took 25 min. Following this, the Chinese version of the questionnaires was distributed to students during class time. On average, it took them about 10 min to complete the questionnaires.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-14">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057310-15">Self‐regulation</hd> <p>To measure students' self‐regulation in vocabulary learning, the brief version of the <emph>Self‐Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire</emph> was used (Tseng et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref102">62</reflink>]). It contains three parts: metacognitive control (5 items; e.g., 'When learning vocabulary, I have special techniques to keep my concentration focused'), emotion control (4 items; e.g., 'When I feel stressed about vocabulary learning, I know how to reduce this stress') and environmental control (3 items; e.g., 'When I am studying vocabulary and the learning environment becomes unsuitable, I try to sort out the problem'). The self‐regulation scale was measured on a 6‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 6 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). The Cronbach's alpha of this scale was.89.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-16">Self‐efficacy</hd> <p>To assess students' self‐efficacy in vocabulary learning, a self‐designed <emph>Self‐Efficacy in Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire</emph> was adopted (Li & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref103">32</reflink>]). Nineteen items were developed, including self‐efficacy in word form (6 items; e.g., 'I can recognize the form of an English word when I hear its pronunciation'), self‐efficacy in word meaning (7 items; e.g., 'I can guess the meaning of an English word from the context while reading') and self‐efficacy in word use (6 items; e.g., 'I can add an English word into a sentence in the correct position') based upon the Nation's ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref104">40</reflink>]) taxonomy of word knowledge. Students were asked to rate on a 7‐point Likert scale with 1 representing 'I am totally unable to do this' and 7 representing 'I am able to do this well'. The internal consistency of students' responses to the scale was.94.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-17">Vocabulary learning motivation</hd> <p>Five items were derived from Tanaka's ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref105">54</reflink>]) <emph>Vocabulary Learning Motivation Questionnaire</emph> to measure students' intrinsic motivation for learning vocabulary (e.g., 'Learning English vocabulary is interesting'). Participants were required to reflect on the reason why they learned English vocabulary. This scale was rated on a 6‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha for the scale was.86.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-18">Vocabulary learning strategies</hd> <p>Mizumoto and Takeuchi's ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref106">39</reflink>]) <emph>Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire</emph> was adopted to capture students' use of strategies in the process of vocabulary learning. It contains six types of vocabulary learning strategies: self‐management (7 items; e.g., 'I regularly review the vocabulary I learned to check if I remember it'), input‐seeking (4 items; e.g., 'I study vocabulary with the intention of using it'), imagery (5 items; e.g., 'When I try to remember vocabulary, I link my personal experiences to it'), writing rehearsal (3 items; e.g., 'When I try to remember vocabulary, I write it repeatedly'), oral rehearsal (3 items; e.g., 'When I try to remember vocabulary, I say it aloud repeatedly') and association (3 items; e.g., 'When I try to remember vocabulary, I also memorize the synonyms or antonyms of the word'). A 7‐point Likert scale was used (1 = <emph>strongly disagree</emph>, 7 = <emph>strongly agree</emph>). The Cronbach's alpha of this scale was.95.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-19">Vocabulary proficiency</hd> <p>Students' vocabulary proficiency was measured by a practice version of the <emph>TOEFL Junior Standard test</emph> (see the Supplementary Material). This test was developed by the English Testing Service (ETS), aiming specifically at EFL learners aged 11–15 years old. Since the focus of this study is vocabulary proficiency, only the 'language form and meaning knowledge' part was used. Students were asked to complete five passages with 42 items by choosing the most appropriate expressions among the four choices. Each correct answer scores 1 point with no penalty for an incorrect answer, so the maximum score is 42. This test lasts about 25 min.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-20">Data analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057310-21">Preliminary analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics were reported. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were employed to check the internal consistency of the student's responses to the items. Pearson correlation coefficients were adopted to measure the extent to which variables of interest were correlated. Then, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were used to check the factor structure of the instruments. To test the tenability of the measurement model, a series of goodness‐of‐fit indices were computed, including comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) values, which were recommended to be greater than.09. Meanwhile, root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual value (SRMR) were suggested to be lower than.08 (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref107">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-22">Main analysis</hd> <p>Structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses were used to test the relationships among self‐regulating capacity, motivation, self‐efficacy and vocabulary learning strategies, as well as their possible impact on vocabulary proficiency. The bias‐corrected bootstrapping (2000 bootstrapping sample) procedures were adopted to examine the direct effects and indirect effects of the model (Hayes, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref108">16</reflink>]). Single‐directional arrows were used to illustrate the direct effects (Table 2). Following this, multigroup SEM was performed to examine whether the relationships among students' self‐regulation, vocabulary self‐efficacy, motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency hold equivalent across genders. The unconstrained model and constrained model (invariance of the path coefficients) were tested. The model is deemed as different across genders when the change of <emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> value (△<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>) is statistically significant.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-23">RESULTS</hd> <p>Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients. Students reported a high level of vocabulary learning motivation and vocabulary learning strategies, together with a moderate level of SRL capacity and self‐efficacy. Concerning their performance in the TOEFL Junior Standard test, the participants achieved a relatively high score (<emph>M</emph> = 31.47, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.80).</p> <p>1 TABLE Descriptive statistics and correlations among key measures (n  = 399).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Self‐Regulation (1–6)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">3.69 (0.86)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Motivation (1–6)</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">4.33 (1.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Self‐Efficacy (1–7)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">4.31 (0.81)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Vocabulary Learning Strategies (1–5)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char=".">.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn1" /></td><td align="char" char="(">4.24 (0.79)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Vocabulary Proficiency (1–42)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="char" char="(">31.47 (4.80)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</p> <p>As expected, the relationships among SRL capacity, self‐efficacy, motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency were statistically significant, ranging from.31 to.55. Among them, vocabulary learning strategies and test scores had the highest correlation, whereas self‐regulation and motivation had the lowest correlation coefficient.</p> <p>The data fitted the questionnaires well. Specifically, self‐regulation (<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 3.52, RMESA = 0.08 [0.07, 0.09], SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93), self‐efficacy (<emph>χ</emph>2/<emph>df</emph> = 2.16, RMESA = 0.05 [0.05, 0.06], SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95), motivation (<emph>χ</emph>2/<emph>df</emph> = 1.96, RMESA = 0.09 [0.00, 0.10], SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99) and vocabulary learning strategies (<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 2.88, RMESA = 0.07 [0.06, 0.07], SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.89). A correlated four‐factor model entailing self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary learning strategies also showed acceptable model fit (<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 1.77, RMESA = 0.04 [0.03, 0.05], SRMR = 0.04, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97). Numbers in brackets represent the 90% confidence interval of RMSEA.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-24">Mediating roles of self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary learning strategies</hd> <p>As presented in Figure 2, the proposed model was confirmed (<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 1.75, RMESA = 0.043 [0.034, 0.053], SRMR = 0.053, CFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.970). Table 2 presents the path coefficients of the SEM model; all paths were statistically significantly different from zero. Specifically, the mediating roles of self‐efficacy and motivation for the relationships between self‐regulating capacity and vocabulary learning strategies were confirmed. The direct effect of self‐regulation on the vocabulary learning strategies was significant (<emph>B</emph> = .63, <emph>p</emph> < .01), with bias‐corrected 90% confidence intervals ranging from.32 to.98. The indirect effect of self‐regulation on vocabulary learning strategies through self‐efficacy and motivation was.63 (<emph>p</emph> < .001).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/EJE/01dec24/ejed12706-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ejed12706-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Mediating roles of motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and self‐efficacy for the relationship between SRL capacity and vocabulary proficiency. (1) SEM model shows the correlations among self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. The figure represents the standardized regression coefficients; (2) Items were omitted for the sake of parsimony; (3) ***p < .001." /> </p> <p></p> <p>2 TABLE Path coefficients of the SEM model.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Paths</th><th align="left">Unstandardized</th><th align="left">Standardized</th><th align="left">Unstandardized bias‐corrected bootstrap 90% CI</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>Β</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>β</italic></th><th align="left">Lower</th><th align="left">Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Self‐regulation → Motivation</td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.39</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐regulation → VLS</td><td align="char" char=".">.63<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="char" char=".">.32</td><td align="char" char=".">.98</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐regulation → Self‐efficacy</td><td align="char" char=".">.96<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.46</td><td align="char" char=".">.71</td><td align="char" char=".">1.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motivation → VLS</td><td align="char" char=".">2.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.35</td><td align="char" char=".">1.39</td><td align="char" char=".">3.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Motivation → Vocabulary proficiency</td><td align="char" char=".">1.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="char" char=".">.70</td><td align="char" char=".">2.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy → VLS</td><td align="char" char=".">.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="char" char=".">.16</td><td align="char" char=".">.45</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy → Vocabulary proficiency</td><td align="char" char=".">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.19</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.34</td></tr><tr><td align="left">VLS → Vocabulary proficiency</td><td align="char" char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.36</td><td align="char" char=".">.21</td><td align="char" char=".">.44</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Abbreviation: VLS, vocabulary learning strategies.</item> <item>3 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001;</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> </ulist> <p>Meanwhile, the mediating effects of vocabulary learning strategies on the relationships between motivational beliefs (i.e., self‐efficacy, motivation) and vocabulary proficiency were found. The direct effect of vocabulary learning strategies on vocabulary proficiency was significant (<emph>B</emph> = .32, <emph>p</emph> < .001), with bias‐corrected 90% confidence intervals ranging from.21 to.44. The indirect effects of self‐efficacy and motivation on vocabulary proficiency through vocabulary learning strategies were.10 (<emph>p</emph> < .01) and.69 (<emph>p</emph> < .001), respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-26">Moderation effect of gender</hd> <p>The unconstrained model produced a satisfactory fit: <emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups><emph>/df</emph> = 1.43, RMESA = 0.03 [0.03, 0.04], SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97. Then, the constrained model also demonstrated an acceptable fit of the data, with <emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups>/<emph>df</emph> = 1.44, RMESA = 0.03 [0.03, 0.04], SRMR = 0.07, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97. In comparing the results of the constrained model with the unconstrained model, we found the difference was not statistically significant (△<emph>χ</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 30.48, <emph>p</emph> = .08), evidencing that the model was invariant across genders.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study aimed to investigate the mediating effects of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies on the relationship between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency. Whether the relationships of the aforementioned factors hold across gender was also tested.</p> <p>Students in this study appeared to maintain a high level of vocabulary learning motivation and vocabulary learning strategies and a medium level of self‐regulation and self‐efficacy. Their high motivation and vocabulary learning strategies corroborate the previous literature which reported that Chinese EFL learners were highly motivated to learn vocabulary and relied heavily on vocabulary learning strategies (Gu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]). This might result from the test‐oriented atmosphere in China. To perform better in the college entrance examination, students have to devote a great effort to English learning. Mastering a large size of vocabulary is viewed as an essential path for English learning (Zhang & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref110">69</reflink>]). Thus, they are motivated to learn vocabulary and are frequent users of vocabulary learning strategies. In terms of self‐efficacy in vocabulary learning, the modesty characteristic that is valued in Confucius cultures may account for their moderate level of self‐efficacy (Li, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref111">29</reflink>]). Moreover, the results of correlational analyses echoed previous studies that students' self‐regulation, motivation, self‐efficacy, vocabulary learning strategies and students' vocabulary proficiency were positively related to each other (Ardasheva et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>]; Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref113">10</reflink>]; Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref114">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-28">Mediating roles of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies</hd> <p>The first research question was to investigate the mediating effects of motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies between self‐regulation and vocabulary proficiency. We found that students' self‐regulation in vocabulary learning affected their use of strategies through motivational beliefs (i.e., motivation and self‐efficacy). Vocabulary learning strategies further mediated the relationships between self‐efficacy, motivation and vocabulary proficiency. This finding depicts a comprehensive picture of contributors for vocabulary proficiency and echoed previous studies by detecting the interplay among vocabulary learning‐related factors (Teng et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref115">59</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref116">70</reflink>]). Corroborating the past findings, the study denotes that self‐regulation is of paramount importance in leading a favourable vocabulary learning journey (Rose et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref117">44</reflink>]; Tseng & Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref118">63</reflink>]). In addition, with higher self‐efficacy beliefs and motivation, self‐regulated students used more vocabulary learning strategies and consequently, performed better in the vocabulary proficiency test. This mediation model indicates the complex process of vocabulary acquisition. More importantly, the study indicates that self‐regulation orchestrates motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies in influencing vocabulary proficiency. This adds evidence to the robustness of the social cognitive theory in the domain of vocabulary learning by demonstrating the nexus of personal and behavioural factors (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref119">48</reflink>]). The findings also expand the previous studies that solely focused on specific aspects of the vocabulary learning process. By linking self‐regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency, the study highlights that attention should not only be paid to students' self‐regulation but also to motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies in learning vocabulary (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref120">13</reflink>]; Tseng et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref121">62</reflink>]). Specifically, effective vocabulary learning intervention should foster cognitive self‐regulation skills, nurture learners' beliefs in their abilities and sustain their motivation throughout the learning process.</p> <p>Interestingly, motivation accounted for a larger proportion of variance in vocabulary proficiency compared with self‐efficacy. This seems to contradict previous findings which indicated that self‐efficacy was the most powerful predictor in the general academic domain (Lee & Stankov, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref122">26</reflink>]) and EFL learning (Wang & Sun, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref123">64</reflink>] for a meta‐analysis). The significance of 'humility' within Chinese collectivistic culture may explain this phenomenon. Perhaps, influenced by cultural norms, Chinese students may strive to avoid appearing overly confident and therefore underestimate their own learning proficiency (Fong & Yuen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref124">12</reflink>]; Inoue et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref125">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The mediation model signals the intricate system of the vocabulary learning process among senior high school students in which multiple factors interact to influence vocabulary learning proficiency. Hence, the focus on the capacity to regulate the learning process alone may not be sufficient, as students' motivation and self‐efficacy also play crucial roles in their utilization of vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. The study provides valuable insights into the concurrent enhancement of self‐regulation, motivational factors and vocabulary strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-29">Moderation effect of gender</hd> <p>The second research question was to see whether the relationships among self‐regulation, self‐efficacy, motivation, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency hold across genders. As expected, gender did not moderate the relationships among vocabulary learning‐related factors. The same vocabulary learning pattern revealed in this study enhanced our findings' robustness. Taken together, this finding contributes to creating inclusive and equitable approaches to vocabulary instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-30">IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>Our study not only provided theoretical implications but also shed light on pedagogical implications for vocabulary teaching. Theoretically, we extended the social cognitive theory to the vocabulary learning domain, demonstrating its robustness in explaining the intricate mechanisms of vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, by investigating how motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies mediate the impact of self‐regulation on vocabulary proficiency, this study provides empirical support to the application of social cognitive theory within the Chinese EFL learning context.</p> <p>Pedagogically, the results of this study can assist teachers in understanding the pivotal role of self‐regulation in vocabulary proficiency (e.g., Gorgoz & Tican, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref126">13</reflink>]; Ziegler, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref127">73</reflink>]). To foster students' self‐regulating capacity, teachers are recommended to use various techniques such as providing instructional scaffolding (Mežek et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref128">37</reflink>]) and offering formative assessment (Xiao & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref129">67</reflink>]). Furthermore, teachers are suggested to frequently and intentionally teach more vocabulary learning strategies to facilitate students' vocabulary proficiency, as vocabulary learning strategies are essential in mediating the effects of self‐efficacy and motivation on vocabulary proficiency (Gu, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref130">14</reflink>]). Frequent consolidation for vocabulary learning strategies is also critical (Chiang et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref131">9</reflink>]). Additionally, self‐efficacy and motivation can also serve as facilitators in improving Chinese EFL learners' vocabulary learning. Therefore, teaching practitioners are encouraged to cultivate students' vocabulary learning motivation and self‐efficacy in their teaching practices (Tanaka, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref132">54</reflink>]). For example, more engaging vocabulary learning activities can be organized and frequent encouragement can be provided. Finally, gender did not affect the interrelationships between psychological factors in the vocabulary learning domain, suggesting that female students had the same vocabulary learning pattern as their male counterparts. Consequently, there is no need to prioritize gender differences during the process of vocabulary learning for Chinese EFL learners.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-31">LIMITATIONS</hd> <p>Several limitations have to be acknowledged. First, students' vocabulary proficiency was measured by the TOEFL Junior Standard test due to the limited time available for secondary school students in China. Further studies are suggested to examine students' vocabulary proficiency by combining this kind of standardized test with the vocabulary size test or vocabulary level test. Second, data in the current study were collected at a one‐time point, longitudinal studies are recommended to get a more comprehensive view of the vocabulary learning process. Third, the generalizability of the results of the current research may be subject to the sample's limited background, since the participants in the current study were all from northwestern cities in China. Future studies are suggested to invite participants from diverse backgrounds. Fourth, we only used quantitative approaches. Combing them with qualitative approaches such as interviews and classroom observations would be promising ways to triangulate the findings and to understand individual differences in vocabulary learning.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-32">CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>This study, framed within the social cognitive theory, concurrently investigated the effects of multiple vocabulary learning‐related constructs (i.e., self‐regulation, motivation, self‐efficacy and learning strategies) on vocabulary proficiency and examined the gender effect on the vocabulary acquisition process. The findings of this study contribute to the literature by extending the studies on social cognitive theory in the vocabulary learning domain. To our knowledge, this study is one of the few attempts to explore the associations between self‐regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency with a serial mediation model. The study highlighted the prominence of self‐regulation on vocabulary proficiency, which was mediated by motivational beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies. This provides empirical evidence for the complex nature of the vocabulary learning process. Moreover, the study confirmed the invariance of the proposed model across genders, adding evidence for the robustness of our findings.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-33">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p>Jiajing Li: conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing, editing, and methodology—formal analysis. Chuang Wang: conceptualization, writing—reviewing, editing, and supervision.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-34">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0181057310-35">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data are available upon request from the corresponding author.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0181057310-36"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref64" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alamer, A. (2022). Basic psychological needs, motivational orientations, effort, and vocabulary knowledge: A comprehensive model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44 (1), 164 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312100005X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ardasheva, Y., Carbonneau, K. J., Roo, A. K., & Wang, Z. (2018). Relationships among prior learning, anxiety, self‐efficacy, and science vocabulary learning of middle school students with varied English language proficiency. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 21 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref49" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2019). Motivation and self‐regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary school students' English writing in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 25, 378 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819859921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref52" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2020). The role of growth mindset, self‐efficacy and intrinsic value in self‐regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching Research, 27, 207 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, B., Wang, J., & Zhou, H. (2022). An intervention study to improve primary school students' self‐regulated strategy use in English writing through e‐learning in Hong Kong. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35 (9), 2265 – 2290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref47" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (2), 164 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐6916.2006.00011.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref107" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Taylor and Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, C. M., Chen, L. C., & Yang, S. M. (2019). An English vocabulary learning app with self‐regulated learning mechanism to improve learning performance and motivation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32 (3), 237 – 260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1485708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref131" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chiang, K. M., Chang, C. H., & Lee, I. (2023). Vocabulary learning strategy instruction in the EFL secondary classroom: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 32, 94 – 113. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20">www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, Y., Zhang, D., Lin, C. H., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Self‐regulated learning of vocabulary in English as a Foreign Language. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 20 (1), 52 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan, N. (2020). Strategy use in second language vocabulary learning and its relationships with the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: A structural equation modeling study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fong, R. W., & Yuen, M. T. (2016). The role of self‐efficacy and connectedness in the academic success of Chinese learners. In The psychology of Asian learners (pp. 157 – 169). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorgoz, S., & Tican, C. (2020). Investigation of middle school students' self‐regulation skills and vocabulary learning strategies in foreign language. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6 (1), 25 – 42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1246885.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gu, Y. (2018). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies for ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching., 8 (2), 325 – 350. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, W., & Bai, B. (2022). Effects of self‐regulated learning strategy use on motivation in EFL writing: A comparison between high and low achievers in Hong Kong primary schools. Applied Linguistics Review, 13 (1), 117 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, X., & McGeown, S. (2020). Exploring the relationship between foreign language motivation and achievement among primary school students learning English in China. System, 89, Article 102199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, T.‐M. (2015). The studying and striving of secondary students. In H. Shihkuan, & Y. Y. Wu (Eds.), Education as culitvation in Chinese culture. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51 (3), 539 – 558. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023‐8333.00164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inoue, T., Georgiou, G. K., Maekawa, H., & Parrila, R. (2021). Cultural influences on the relationship between self‐concept, interest, task‐focused behavior, and reading skills. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 5 (2), 311 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809‐020‐00071‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan, G., & Gray, H. (2019). We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal, 73 (4), 438 – 446. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, D. H., Wang, C., Ahn, H. S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners' self‐efficacy profiles and relationship with self‐regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 136 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R. B. (2021). Sociocultural and ecological perspectives on achievement motivation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 433 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). Culture's consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross‐cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist, 49 (3), 175 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laufer, B., & Rozovski‐Roitblat, B. (2015). Retention of new words: Quantity of encounters, quality of task, and degree of knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 19 (6), 687 – 711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814559797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, J., & Stankov, L. (2018). Non‐cognitive predictors of academic achievement: Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 50 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.05.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S. (2020). Examining the roles of aptitude, motivation, strategy use, language processing experience, and gender in the development of the breadth and depth of EFL learners' vocabulary knowledge. SAGE Open, 10 (4), 215824402097788. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020977883</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, S., & Pulido, D. (2017). The impact of topic interest, L2 proficiency, and gender on EFL incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research, 21 (1), 118 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816637381</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J. (2006). Self in learning: Chinese adolescents' goals and sense of agency. Child Development, 77, 482 – 501.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., King, R. B., & Wang, C. (2022). Adaptation and validation of the vocabulary learning motivation questionnaire for Chinese learners: A construct validation approach. System, 108, 102853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102853</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., King, R. B., & Wang, C. (2023). Motivational profiles of EFL learners: A person‐centered approach to uncovering gender differences. Language Teaching Research, 13621688231213030. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231213030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., & Wang, C. (2024). Measuring Chinese English as a foreign language learners' self‐efficacy in vocabulary learning: Instrument development and validation. Education Sciences, 14 (6), 671. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., Wang, C., & King, R. B. (2024). Which comes first? Modeling longitudinal associations among self‐efficacy, motivation, and academic achievement. System, 103268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What are the effects of self‐regulation phases and strategies for Chinese students? A meta‐analysis of two decades research of the association between self‐regulation and academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02434</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo, Y. Y., & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language‐learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24 (3), 215 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903576125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, L., Xiao, L., & Liu, J. (2021). Motivational beliefs of urban and rural students in English as a foreign language learning: The case of China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mežek, Š., McGrath, L., Negretti, R., & Berggren, J. (2022). Scaffolding L2 academic reading and self‐regulation through task and feedback. TESOL Quarterly, 56 (1), 41 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self‐regulated vocabulary learning process on self‐efficacy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 253 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2013.836206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13 (4), 425 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809341511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, I. S. (2022). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge university press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oga‐Baldwin, W. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self‐efficacy in self‐regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41 (2), 116 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ping, A. M., Baranovich, D. L., Manueli, M. K., & Siraj, S. (2015). Promoting self‐regulation in vocabulary learning among Chinese EFL learners: A needs analysis. The Asia‐Pacific Education Researcher, 24 (1), 137 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299‐013‐0166‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova‐Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self‐regulation. System, 72, 151 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self‐determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sardegna, V. G., Lee, J., & Kusey, C. (2018). Self‐efficacy, attitudes, and choice of strategies for English pronunciation learning. Language Learning, 68 (1), 83 – 114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies, 64 (4), 913 – 951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seker, M. (2015). The use of self‐regulation strategies by foreign language learners and its role in language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20 (5), 600 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815578550</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, P. P. (2022). Strategic self‐regulation for speaking English as a Foreign Language: Scale development and validation. TESOL Quarterly, 56 (4), 1369 – 1383. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun, Y., & Dang, T. N. Y. (2020). Vocabulary in high‐school EFL textbooks: Texts and learner knowledge. System, 93, Article 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302 – 321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200016X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taherkhani, R., & Moradi, R. (2022). The relationships among self‐regulation, emotional intelligence, willingness to communicate, and reading comprehension of Persian foreign language learners: Structural equation modeling. Foreign Language Annals, 55 (3), 742 – 768. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanaka, M. (2017). Examining EFL vocabulary learning motivation in a demotivating learning environment. System, 65, 130 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tang, Y. (2018). What makes rural teachers happy? An investigation on the subjective well‐being (SWB) of Chinese rural teachers. International Journal of Educational Development, 62, 192 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng, L. S. (2024). Individual differences in self‐regulated learning: Exploring the nexus of motivational beliefs, self‐efficacy, and SRL strategies in EFL writing. Language Teaching Research, 28 (2), 366 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211006881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self‐regulated learning strategies‐based writing instruction make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, Article 100701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Can self‐regulation be transferred to second/foreign language learning and teaching? Current status, controversies, and future directions. Applied Linguistics, 43 (3), 587 – 595. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng, M. F., Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2024). Understanding growth mindset, self‐regulated vocabulary learning, and vocabulary knowledge. System, 122, 103255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truong, T. N. N., & Wang, C. (2019). Understanding Vietnamese college students' self‐efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language. System, 84, 123 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tse, S. K., Lin, L., & Ng, R. H. W. (2022). Self‐regulated learning strategies and reading comprehension among bilingual primary school students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 3258 – 3273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2049686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self‐regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), 78 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 58 (2), 357 – 400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9922.2008.00444.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, C., & Sun, T. (2020). Relationship between self‐efficacy and language proficiency: A meta‐analysis. System, 95, 102366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, C., Schwab, G., Fenn, P., & Chang, M. (2013). Self‐efficacy andself‐regulated learning strategies for English language learners: Comparisonbetween Chinese and German college students. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3 (1), 173 – 191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: How formative assessment supports students' self‐regulation in English language learning. System, 81, 39 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.01.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, J., & Luo, K. (2024). Immersing learners in English listening classroom: Does self‐regulated learning instruction make a difference? Applied Linguistics Review, 15 (1), 219 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev‐2021‐0171</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, S., & Zhang, X. (2022). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta‐analysis. Language Teaching Research, 26 (4), 696 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., Lin, C. H., Zhang, D., & Choi, Y. (2017). Motivation, strategy, and English as a foreign language vocabulary learning: A structural equation modelling study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (1), 57 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Li, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The relationship between English language learners' motivation and online self‐regulation: A structural equation modelling approach. System, 76, 144 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, S. A., & Hiver, P. (2022). The effect of self‐regulated writing strategies on students' L2 writing engagement and disengagement behaviors. System, 106, Article 102768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, N. (2015). The predictive value of the self‐regulating capacity in vocabulary learning scale. Applied Linguistics, 36 (5), 641 – 647. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self‐regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In B. Monique, R. P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self‐regulation. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self‐regulation of learning and performance. Taylor and Francis.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jiajing Li and Chuang Wang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref129"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1450320
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Vocabulary Learning Strategies for the Relationship between Self-Regulation and Vocabulary Proficiency
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jiajing+Li%22">Jiajing Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3810-9277">0000-0002-3810-9277</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chuang+Wang%22">Chuang Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3372-2053">0000-0003-3372-2053</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 59(4).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Motivation%22">Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Strategies%22">Learning Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Management%22">Self Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Seniors%22">High School Seniors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12706
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Successful vocabulary acquisition hinges on the harmonious interplay of various factors. Despite some studies that have been conducted to examine the direct effect of self-regulation on vocabulary learning, few of them tapped into the relationship among self-regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency. This study extended previous research by examining whether motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies mediate the relationship between self-regulation and vocabulary proficiency and investigating whether the relationship varied by gender. Data were extracted from 399 senior secondary school students. Results from structural equation modelling revealed that motivation and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between self-regulated learning capacity and vocabulary learning strategies. Vocabulary learning strategies further mediated the relationships between self-efficacy, motivation and vocabulary proficiency. Meanwhile, the relationship between self-regulation, motivational beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency held equivalent across genders. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1450320
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1450320
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12706
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Seniors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Vocabulary Learning Strategies for the Relationship between Self-Regulation and Vocabulary Proficiency
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jiajing Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chuang Wang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1