View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Learner Engagement in the Tertiary EFL Classroom: Trajectories and Contributing Factors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Learner Engagement in the Tertiary EFL Classroom: Trajectories and Contributing Factors
Language: English
Authors: Yan Guo, Jinfen Xu (ORCID 0000-0001-6280-6817), Cong Chen
Source: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2025 34(5):1737-1749.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 13
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Postsecondary Education
Higher Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Learner Engagement, Postsecondary Education, Second Language Learning, English (Second Language), College Students, Student Attitudes, Student Journals, Content Analysis, Psychological Needs
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-025-00988-w
ISSN: 0119-5646
2243-7908
Abstract: Interest in learner engagement in foreign language education has increased, yet research on its development across various timescales remains limited. Using a classroom-based longitudinal research design, this study sought to investigate the dynamism of classroom engagement over a 15-week semester and identify, from students' perspective, the factors contributing to this dynamism. Questionnaires and written reflective journals were used to collect data from an intact first-year College English class at a key university in central China. Conducted over five time points, each time of data collection corresponded with the completion of one learning unit. A trend of continuous growth in all the three engagement dimensions (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, emotional) emerged from the quantitative data via questionnaire. Content analyses of students' reflective journals indicated that the developmental trajectories were shaped through the co-influence of multiple learner-internal and learner-external factors. Students' perceptions of improved language competence and their attitudes toward the English class / English learning in general comprised key learner-internal influences, while externally the increased familiarity with the teacher and among the students stood out as the most prominent factor. All these factors pertained to students' basic psychological needs satisfaction in the College English class and kindled profound pedagogical implications.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1484441
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwER2dd_JF7BK4IrblxpkdQ2AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJWppUtO8qPbDkFQIwIBEICBmtO4_1PNWVJZVQJ4_ZBZOFwZpYBt7eBOtoBtKoiny4V1-WI9xENGSqBLZZG5Dkfzu2k3ChJuOUwAw6ns-qnFGTd1Yjxayip4wXWaIFFEwCsOpp-ScqBQAj-TAM9VYwf3sV4fu47GN4EcEvzw8HxoEg1W9xziq-dIjECy2Jw2r0SMc2xj_jJ-j6j9zQQd8XYemQASHOiOLe9qG_U=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188150153;[gchw]01oct.25;2025Sep25.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188150153-1">Learner Engagement in the Tertiary EFL Classroom: Trajectories and Contributing Factors </title> <p>Interest in learner engagement in foreign language education has increased, yet research on its development across various timescales remains limited. Using a classroom-based longitudinal research design, this study sought to investigate the dynamism of classroom engagement over a 15-week semester and identify, from students' perspective, the factors contributing to this dynamism. Questionnaires and written reflective journals were used to collect data from an intact first-year College English class at a key university in central China. Conducted over five time points, each time of data collection corresponded with the completion of one learning unit. A trend of continuous growth in all the three engagement dimensions (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, emotional) emerged from the quantitative data via questionnaire. Content analyses of students' reflective journals indicated that the developmental trajectories were shaped through the co-influence of multiple learner-internal and learner-external factors. Students' perceptions of improved language competence and their attitudes toward the English class / English learning in general comprised key learner-internal influences, while externally the increased familiarity with the teacher and among the students stood out as the most prominent factor. All these factors pertained to students' basic psychological needs satisfaction in the College English class and kindled profound pedagogical implications.</p> <p>Keywords: Learner engagement; EFL classroom learning; Trajectory; Learner-internal factors; Learner-external factors; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Learner engagement, conceived of as a "meta construct" (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref1">11</reflink>], p. 60), has gained increasing scholarly attention in the SLA/foreign language education (FLE) domain in recent years. Researchers have conceptualized it either in terms of engagement with language adopting a language awareness perspective (e.g., Svalberg, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]), engagement with corrective feedback pertaining specifically to the uptake and revision process in writing (e.g., Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref4">10</reflink>]; Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref5">39</reflink>]; Zhang & Gao, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]), or engagement with learning following the mainstream of educational psychology (e.g., Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref7">13</reflink>]; Philp & Duchesne, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref8">25</reflink>]). Each line of inquiry has delved into both theoretical elaborations about the construct and empirical explorations in various contexts. For the strand of research with respect to learner engagement with learning, diverse themes ranging from influencing factors to engagement's effect on learning outcomes have been covered (e.g., Dewaele & Li, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref10">13</reflink>]). However, the dynamic nature of the construct remains under-explored, with most studies relying on cross-sectional designs and single time-point data collection (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref11">17</reflink>]). A couple of studies did incorporate temporal considerations and examine learners' engagement dynamics (e.g., Vo et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]), but when unpacking factors driving the temporal changes, they often worked on predetermined variables selected from researchers' perspectives rather than explore potential underlying factors from student perspectives. To fill these gaps, the present study aims to track the trajectories of EFL classroom engagement among a group of Chinese non-English-major college students over a semester and identify the factors influencing this development as perceived by the students themselves. Such an attempt not only responds to calls for a dynamic exploration of engagement (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]) but also aligns with the need to take learners' own perceptions of classroom ecology as a starting point in language learning research (Boye et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-4">Learner Engagement and its Multi-dimensions</hd> <p>The engagement construct in educational psychology is recognized as a multi-faceted phenomenon, typically encompassing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional dimensions (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]). Behavioral engagement refers to learners' effortful actions like careful listening and active participation; cognitive engagement involves students' mental effort invested (e.g., active thinking) and the use of strategies to enhance learning (e.g., metacognitive strategies); emotional engagement pertains to affective responses like enjoyment and satisfaction with learning activities (Fredricks et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]; Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]). In L2 research, social engagement, emphasizing peer interaction and collaboration, has been highlighted as an additional dimension (e.g., Philp & Duchesne, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]; Svalberg, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref20">35</reflink>]). Moreover, learners' agency, reflecting their proactive and intentional contribution to learning, is also considered crucial (Oga-Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>]; Reeve, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Integrating all the aforementioned five facets into their classroom engagement construct, Guo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]) developed and validated the Foreign Language Classroom Engagement Scale (FLCES). Highlighting the commonly existent individual- and interaction-based learning contexts/modes in L2/FL classrooms (i.e., teacher-directed versus pair/group work; Fredricks & MaColskey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref24">12</reflink>]), the researchers conceptualized each of the behavioral-cognitive-emotional trio as subsuming individual- and interaction-based engagement. Thus, the newly proposed social engagement was manifested in the three types of interaction-based engagement, reflecting that social engagement also includes behavior, affect, and cognition (Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]; Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]). The interaction-based behavioral engagement further consisted of conventional and agentic sub-dimensions, with the latter emphasizing learners' proactive and constructive actions in interactions with teachers (Oga-Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]; Reeve et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]). Overall, this conceptualization with cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement as second-order factors was empirically validated (Guo et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-5">The Dynamic Nature of Learner Engagement</hd> <p>While learner engagement is inherently dynamic, few studies in the language learning domain have focused on understanding the processes and mechanisms of its development (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]). Among the limited research adopting a temporal perspective, most studies have been conducted at the task level, exploring both large (e.g., across tasks) and small (e.g., within tasks) timescales. For instance, across a series of oral tasks in a 10-week EFL course, Aubrey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]) explored engagement trajectories by examining factors like desire to speak, anxiety, focus, and confidence. Within tasks, both in traditional face-to-face (Hiromori, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]) and in computer-mediated (Aubrey et al., 2022) contexts, learners' engagement was found to evolve over time, demonstrating its dynamism even within brief interactions.</p> <p>Engagement at the classroom level, especially its dynamics over varied timescales, remains relatively under-explored (Reinders & Nakamura, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]). Among recent studies, Oga-Baldwin and Fryer ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref34">23</reflink>]) found that, over two years, only the cognitive dimension of Japanese primary school students' engagement in English classes showed significant growth. In contrast, two studies in China observed a decrease-increase pattern in college students' engagement during a semester, with engagement dipping mid-semester and peaking at the end (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]). Noels et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]) found a significant decline in engagement across a semester in Canadian French courses. Vo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref38">37</reflink>]) revealed a growing trend of L2 classroom engagement over a 15-week semester among 389 English-major undergraduates in Vietnam. These studies have all confirmed that classroom engagement is an ongoing dynamic process unfolding over time. However, it is worth noting that their data were all collected at three typical time points: the beginning, middle, and end of the semester. This time-centered approach is decontextualized, providing only a vague and general rather than a specific learning context for students to locate their engagement at the different time points. Given that engagement is considered highly context-dependent (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]), a more nuanced approach incorporating specific learning contexts is needed. As suggested by Aubrey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]), tracking engagement across specific learning units can be an effective way to offer a clearly contextualized view of students' developmental trajectories.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-6">Factors Affecting Learner Engagement</hd> <p>As engagement is considered a malleable state, many studies have explored factors that promote or hinder it. In L2/FL learning contexts, at the task level, individual difference variables such as task preferences (Phung, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref41">26</reflink>]) and interaction strategies (Dao, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]) are found to play significant roles. Contextual elements with respect to task design and implementation, including task content (Lambert & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]) and interlocutor familiarity (Dao et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>]) are also important contributors. At the classroom level, research has shown that behavioral engagement is shaped by motivational variables like academic self-efficacy, task importance, and interest (Bai et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]). Additionally, teacher enthusiasm exerts a considerable impact on students' social-behavioral engagement (Dewaele & Li, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>While many studies have used cross-sectional designs, a few have employed longitudinal designs to explore factors influencing engagement dynamics. For instance, changes in student attitudes across collaborative writing tasks were found to affect their ongoing task engagement, with positive attitude shifts leading to more active participation and negative shifts having the opposite effect (Chen & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref47">4</reflink>]). Another study identified various factors at different levels—learner (e.g., perceptions of language skills), lesson (e.g., lesson preparation), task (e.g., social factors), and post-task (e.g., performance evaluation)—that shaped engagement trajectories from task to task (Aubrey et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>]). At the classroom level, changes in students' satisfaction of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) were linked to shifts in classroom engagement over a 17-week semester (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref49">42</reflink>]). Further, student perceptions of teacher motivational practice predicted their psychological need satisfaction, which in turn influenced their later engagement (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref50">41</reflink>]). Aside from these two personal and contextual variables, in terms of subjective task value beliefs as a personal factor, only the dimension of interest value positively predicted students' rate of engagement growth over a 15-week semester, while for the contextual factor of teacher emotional support, only teacher sensitivity helped shape students' semester-long engagement trajectories (Vo et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref51">37</reflink>]). Notably, all these studies at the classroom level have primarily focused on predetermined factors selected by researchers using structured, quantitative approaches, often overlooking learners' own perceptions of their engagement dynamics. Understanding how students themselves perceive and make sense of engagement could offer valuable insights, complementing researchers' perspectives by including the voices of these key stakeholders (Boye et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref52">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taken together, prior studies on language learner engagement mostly used cross-sectional designs, viewing it as a stable trait rather than a dynamic state. Given the changing nature of the engagement construct, more research that considers temporal factors is needed to understand how engagement develops over time (Hiver, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]). This temporal approach is essential for capturing the malleability of engagement in the classroom and improving teaching practices. In particular, examining factors from learners' own perspectives in a non-predetermined way (Boye et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>]) could offer deeper insights into learner engagement in L2/FL classrooms.</p> <p>Thus, situated in a specific natural classroom context, the current study attempted to address the aforementioned gaps by tracking 31 students' College English classroom engagement over a semester and explore the factors contributing to engagement changes (or stability) from the learners' perspectives. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How does the non-English-major college students' engagement in the College English class change throughout a semester?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the factors that may have contributed to the change(s)?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-7">Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-8">Participants and Context</hd> <p>One intact College English class of first-year undergraduates majoring in telecommunications from a key university in central China (<emph>n</emph> = 31; 27 males and 4 females) participated in the study. They were aged 18–20, with formal English learning experiences of about 6–10 years. No precise measure was conducted to assess their English proficiency; however, because this university is acknowledged as a university promoted by the government initiative known as "Double World-class Project" (MOE, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]), their overall proficiency levels are likely to range from lower intermediate to upper intermediate. The students were assured that participation was voluntary, their (non)participation would not affect their course assessment, and all data would be used only for course improvement and research purposes. All the students volunteered to participate, but due to the study's extension of a whole semester, a couple of them missed turning in some data. One student did not turn in the engagement scales for Units 3 and 4, while another did not submit the reflective journals for Units 2 and 3.</p> <p>The College English course the class took mainly consisted of two parts: weekly 90-min face-to-face class sessions and mandatory out-of-class listening practice via an online platform in an independent manner. The independent listening practice was intended to help hone students' listening by giving them access to listening materials and feedback anytime and anywhere via the Internet. Five percent of the final course grade depended on students' completion of and performance in the listening practice. As for the weekly class sessions, an integrated English textbook published by the Shanghai Foreign Languages Press was adopted as the main course material, which served as the basis to carry out class activities and foster students' language skills for effective communication in both oral and written modes. Specifically, each unit usually began with various listening and speaking activities to familiarize the students with the theme, which was followed by the close study of the reading text's structure, main idea, and useful expressions. Then further oral activities would be provided in the form of group/pair work to consolidate students' understanding of the unit and use of the language acquired. Finally, collaborative group projects or theme-related individual writing tasks would be assigned as homework to wrap up the whole unit. During the semester, altogether five units were covered, pertaining to such themes as Chinese culture and tradition, business, smart technology, great minds, and studying abroad.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-9">Instruments</hd> <p>Data were collected through questionnaires and written reflective journals. To minimize potential feelings of intrusion and aversion from repeated data collection, we followed Yoshimura et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref56">38</reflink>]) by incorporating data collection into two reflective activities in the course, namely filling in questionnaires to quantitatively reflect on classroom engagement and writing reflective journals for deeper and more detailed insights.</p> <p>The engagement measure developed by Guo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref57">13</reflink>]) was adopted to assess students' classroom engagement levels, and the three-factor (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, emotional) second-order model was used to facilitate comparison across studies. As in Guo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref58">13</reflink>]), behavioral engagement denoted students' involvement in teacher-directed instructional activities and interactional activities (i.e., pair/group work) as well as their proactive actions to help contribute to the quality of classroom instruction and learning. Cognitive engagement comprised students' intentional mental effort directed toward mastering language skills and content-related knowledge as well as their strategic use of teacher–student and student–student interaction for enhancing performance/acquisition. Emotional engagement included students' affective reactions to the College English class as a whole and when undergoing interactional activities in class in particular. The instrument (see Appendix A) adopted the 6-point Likert scale (1 = never or almost never true of me; 6 = always or almost always true of me). The students' native language (Chinese) was used to ensure accurate comprehension, and multiple items were inverse coded for balance.</p> <p>For the reflective journals, the students answered pre-planned questions about their experiences of learning each unit. Prior to the questions, they were reminded not to talk about English learning in general terms, but to use specific activities or tasks they did in the classroom and beyond as the basis for their reflections. The questions were designed progressively to highlight changes (or the lack thereof). For instance, Journals 1 and 2 focused on questions specific to each unit, while later journals included questions that required comparisons between the current and previous units. Hence, when we analyzed change(s) and their underlying reasons, data from Journals 1 and 2 were excluded. All questions were in Chinese, but students could write their journals in either Chinese or English. See Appendix B for the journal questions for Unit 3 as an example.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-10">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>Data were collected on a unit-to-unit basis every two to three weeks, aligned with the instruction and learning of each unit. Right after each unit was finished, the engagement questionnaires were administered. This timing was chosen to closely link each data collection point with the actual activities and efforts of the learners, providing a meaningful context for them to reflect on their actions, thoughts, and emotions. The study covered five units over the semester, resulting in five rounds of questionnaire completion. Students also completed four reflective journals corresponding to the first four units. Due to the heavy academic load during the final exam period, the fifth journal was canceled.</p> <p>Analyses of the questionnaire data included reliability tests for assessing the internal consistency of the scale, the calculation of means for descriptive statistics, and one-way repeated measures ANOVAs to examine changes over time. For the reflective journals (Units 3 and 4), the first and third authors read them multiple times to detect mentions of engagement change(s) and identify themes representing factors contributing to these changes. A top-down approach was used for analyzing engagement changes, based on the three-factor model and relevant literature. For the underlying factors perceived by the students, we utilized a bottom-up approach and identified emerging themes by means of descriptive coding in the first cycle and categorizing them in the second cycle (Saldana, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]). The two authors independently coded the data for both engagement changes and underlying factors. The Cohen's Kappa was calculated, yielding coefficients of 0.714 (Unit 3) and 0.767 (Unit 4) for engagement changes, and 0.744 (Unit 3) and 0.729 (Unit 4) for underlying factors. These high Kappa statistics reflect substantial agreement between the coders, indicating reliability in the coding process. The coders then conducted discussions to resolve the coding disagreements until consensus was reached.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-12">Trajectories of the Students' Classroom Engagement</hd> <p>Reliability analyses were first run and the scale showed generally good internal reliability across the five time points. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients range from 0.943 to 0.965 for the overall scale, 0.877 to 0.918 for cognitive engagement, 0.740 to 0.899 for behavioral engagement, and 0.926 to 0.959 for emotional engagement, all demonstrating acceptable to high values. To address RQ 1, the descriptive statistics were conducted at the class level across the five units, as shown in Table 1. For each unit, among the three dimensions, the students displayed the lowest level of behavioral engagement. Further analyses of the three components in behavioral engagement revealed that interaction-based agentic behavioral engagement was the lowest (<emph>M</emph> = 3.226–3.880) and significantly lower than the other two, let alone the cognitive and emotional dimensions.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics for engagement scales (<emph>N</emph> = 30)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Mean</p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Deviation</p></th><th align="left"><p>Skewness</p></th><th align="left"><p>Kurtosis</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.346</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.717</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.077</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.843</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.377</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.600</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.509</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.810</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.528</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.642</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.129</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.050</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.587</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.642</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.689</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.314</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.692</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.640</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.044</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.713</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.485</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.668</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.281</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.045</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.597</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.688</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.137</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.249</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.805</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.656</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.359</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.609</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.877</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.720</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.707</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.887</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.678</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.082</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.962</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.147</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.693</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.490</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.762</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.117</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.525</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.275</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.727</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.291</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.692</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.996</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.551</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.425</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.640</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.535</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.217</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.461</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.685</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.520</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.279</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.331</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.629</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.731</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.522</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.370</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.541</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.002</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.492</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.548</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.615</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.695</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.327</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.635</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.616</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.619</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.048</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall5</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.686</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.615</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.227</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.517</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 = Time point 1, 2 = Time point 2, 3 = Time point 3, 4 = Time point 4, and 5 = Time point 5</p> <p>Figure 1 presents the trajectories of overall engagement and the three facets. As depicted, all the aggregated trajectories demonstrated steady and substantial increases.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Trajectories of overall engagement and the three dimensions across units at the class level</p> <p>A series of one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were then conducted to assess whether statistical significance was achieved and on which dimensions. Results showed that there was a statistically significant effect of time on overall engagement (<emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref60">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref61">116</reflink>)</subs> = 12.788, <emph>p<0.001</emph>) with a large effect size (<emph>ηp</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.306 > 0.14) (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]). For each sub-dimension, a statistically significant effect of time with a large effect size was also revealed (cognitive engagement: <emph>F</emph><subs>(3.094,89.737)</subs> = 6.193, <emph>p<</emph><emph>0.001</emph>, <emph>ηp</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.176; emotional engagement: <emph>F</emph><subs>(3.029,87.853)</subs> = 11.270, <emph>p<0.001</emph>, <emph>ηp</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.280; behavioral engagement: <emph>F</emph><subs>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref64">116</reflink>)</subs> = 6.806, <emph>p<0.001</emph>, <emph>ηp</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.190). Post Hoc comparisons between time points indicated that when studying later units (e.g., Units 3, 4, and 5), the students demonstrated significantly higher levels of engagement than when learning Units 1 and 2. See Appendix C for the significant differences in Post Hoc comparisons.</p> <p>The students' positive changes in classroom engagement were also reported in their unit-by-unit reflective journals. We first calculated the number of students who mentioned changes at the two time points (i.e., Units 3 and 4). For Unit 3, out of the 30 students who submitted the reflective journals, 21 of them noted down their perceived changes, while for Unit 4, 23 out of 31 students did so. Then we specifically calculated the times that the students mentioned their change(s) in each of the three engagement dimensions (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Engagement changes at the time points of Unit 3 and Unit 4</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Engagement sub-dimensions</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>Time point: Unit 3</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>More courageous to answer questions in class; more willingness for group interactions; more enthusiasm toward the class; feeling more connected and involved in class</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>More active thinking; thinking from multiple perspectives; greater awareness of using colloquial expressions</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>Participating more actively in group discussions; more frequent interactions within and among groups; studying harder in class; listening more carefully</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="3"><p><italic>Time point: Unit 4</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>More willingness for discussion and communication in the group; more enthusiasm about pair/group work</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>More active thinking; more attention to the use of grammar and useful expressions; beginning to pick up proactive thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>More active discussions with group members; listening more carefully; beginning to review grammar and vocabulary as a routine; beginning to take notes of newly-met unfamiliar words and expressions</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As shown in Table 2, the students reported in their reflective journals better quality and greater quantity of engagement in all the three facets while learning Units 3 and 4. For instance, behaviorally, they expended more effort in accomplishing classroom activities. Cognitively, they attempted to think more deeply and probe from multiple perspectives. Emotionally, they had more energized emotional states and more positive appraisals about class participation. Moreover, a closer look at the three facets indicated that for each facet, the students perceived engagement in both individual- and interaction-based activities. However, no mention of agentic engagement was detected in the behavioral dimension. What is also notable is that not all students denoted their perceptions of engagement change(s). Although they did not report any changes, they tended to use words like "still," "just as in learning the previous units," and "actively" to express their sustained high levels of engagement. A couple of students further elaborated that once or twice they became absent-minded in class or ignored the preview before class but made quick adjustment on their own, thus generally maintaining a positive and stable state of engagement in the English class.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-13">Factors Underlying the Engagement Changes</hd> <p>Regarding RQ 2 about the reasons underlying the changes, we calculated the times the different themes were mentioned in the reflective journals at the time points of Units 3 and 4 (see Tables 3 and 4). The contributing factors could be categorized as either learner-internal or learner-external. Learner-internally, the students highlighted their perceptions of improved competence in English and positive attitudinal changes toward the English class/English learning in general. Learner-externally, both the immediate (directly associated with classroom language learning of each unit, e.g., the topic of smart technology being novel and trendy, Unit 3) and broader (more distantly related, such as the school and the society, e.g., exams approaching) learning environment/context came into play, initiating changes in students' engagement levels. But more importantly, it was the increasing familiarity with their classmates and the teacher that was repeatedly underscored by the students and emerged as the most prominent contextual factor contributing to their engagement development.</p> <p>Table 3 The students' perceived underlying reasons for engagement changes at Time point Unit 3</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> (percentage)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Learner-internal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Attitudes toward English learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Realization of the importance of English learning, of oral English, of communication in English</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 (14.81%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Perception of improved competence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Improved listening ability</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>6 (22.22%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Being able to understand more and better in class</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Being able to express in English better</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Vision</p></td><td align="left"><p>Desire to improve English, to learn more and acquire more knowledge</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>4 (14.81%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Desire to accomplish the tasks with more meaningful output</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Total: 14 (60.87%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Learner-external</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Familiarity and community-building</p></td><td align="left"><p>More familiarity and ease among the classmates/with the teacher</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>6 (22.22%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The whole class paying more attention to communication</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Group collaborations to accomplish tasks</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Insights and inspirations gained from other students' answers and presentations</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Immediate environment</p></td><td align="left"><p>Opportunities for English use and communication in class</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>3 (11.11%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Topic relating to our lives and the times (e.g. smart technology)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Total: 9 (39.13%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 4 The students' perceived underlying reasons for engagement changes at Time point Unit 4</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sub-themes</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic> (percentage)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="5"><p>Learner-internal</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Attitudes toward English learning</p></td><td align="left"><p>Realizing the importance of getting things done in class</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>6 (31.58%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Valuing the English course more</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Perception of improved competence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Listening ability being improved thanks to the continuous listening practice in and outside of class</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>4 (21.05%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Being able to understand better in English in class</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Total: 10 (58.82%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Learner-external</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Familiarity and community-building</p></td><td align="left"><p>More familiarity with group members</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>4 (21.05%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Better classroom atmosphere for communication</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Guidance from the teacher</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Broader environment</p></td><td align="left"><p>End-of-term exam approaching</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>3 (15.79%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>More pressure from exams</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Total: 7 (41.18%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Specifically, as illustrated in the translated excerpts below, the students' perceived greater competence in terms of improved listening ability was attributed to the integral online listening practice as well as the accumulative practice of listening, speaking, reading, and writing in and outside of class, which helped them to achieve better comprehension in the English instruction environment and in turn inspired them to listen more attentively and put more efforts into classroom participation."Since <bold>my listening has improved</bold>, I found that <bold>I could understand better and more clearly what the teacher was saying</bold>. In the meantime, it helped me to <uline>pick up more enthusiasm</uline> for English learning. I think this is due to the effectiveness of listening training." (S26M; emotional engagement) (The underlying reasons were in bold; engagement development was underlined.)</p> <p>The students' positive attitudinal change was manifested in their realization of English as a communication tool instead of as a subject and greater awareness of the value of the English class for language development. This upgraded understanding guided them to make the best use of classroom resources and affordances, thus heightening their engagement in the classroom."For the first and second units, I still put more emphasis on memorizing. But for the third unit, I <uline>began to participate more in communications</uline>. <bold>I think it is by means of communicating with others that we can really use English</bold>." (S10M; behavioral engagement)</p> <p>The familiarity and ease between the teacher and students and among the students themselves grew along the semester and the atmosphere that all of them work together as community members toward a same goal (i.e., developing the language skills and improving themselves) was fostered through their participation in classroom activities. This growing familiarity and sense of community triggered heightened levels of classroom engagement."I found myself<uline> participating more actively in class.</uline> I now feel it's natural to speak English in class. I'm not that shy or timid any more. <bold>I think it's because we are getting more familiar with each other, not only the classmates, but also the teacher</bold>. We just feel quite at ease when talking with each other and with the teacher." (S19M; behavioral engagement)</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-14">Discussion</hd> <p>Results of this study first support the three-factor second-order model of the FLCAS instrument developed by Guo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref65">13</reflink>]), confirming the classification of behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement dimensions in both individual- and interaction-based activities. Tested across five time points in a new sample group, the model showed stability in the foreign language education context. However, one sub-dimension, agentic engagement, was not only significantly lower than all the other engagement components in the quantitative data but notably absent in the qualitative data from students' reflective journals. The quantitatively lowest level of agentic engagement corroborated with the finding of Guo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref66">13</reflink>]), while the absence of this sub-dimension in students' own perceptions of classroom engagement demonstrated the discrepancy between learners' perceptions and the theoretical conceptualizations in the second/foreign language field. It might indicate that the concept of agentic engagement is less relevant to Chinese college EFL students' classroom experiences, possibly due to a cultural emphasis that does not strongly promote students' agency and initiative (Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]). Nonetheless, since agentic engagement is considered crucial for 21st-century learners (Reeve & Jang, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]), it is important to foster a learning culture where students' agency and initiative are more valued, encouraging them to view themselves as active agents in their education rather than passive recipients.</p> <p>In terms of engagement trajectories, tracking them using the unit-to-unit approach, our study found significant upward changes in overall engagement and all three dimensions over the 15-week semester. The reflective journals also supported this positive trend. This aligns with the findings of Oga-Baldwin and Fryer ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]) on Japanese primary students and Vo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref70">37</reflink>]) on Vietnamese English-major undergraduates but contrasts with studies on mainly non-language-major university students, which showed a decrease-increase pattern (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref71">42</reflink>]) or a continuous decline (Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]). As our study and theirs all had non-language-major university students as participants, we tend to posit that one possible explanation for the different findings (despite the variations among their studies) may lie in the time metric used. In our study, engagement was measured in relation to the specific units learned throughout the semester, providing a meaningful context for students to reflect on their classroom engagement. In contrast, their studies assessed engagement at just three time points—beginning, middle, and end of the semester—without reference to specific course content, instructional practices, concrete learning activities, or teacher and peer interactions. This decontextualized approach might have limited students' reflections, leading them to focus more on abstract time progression rather than on important tangible and intangible factors such as the cumulative gains they perceived unit by unit. This lack of contextualization may also explain why both studies speculated that the students' mid-semester decline in engagement could be attributed to boredom, which may set in as the students gradually became familiar with the course content, their classmates, and the teacher (Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref74">42</reflink>]). However, this speculation may appear to be in sharp contrast with Vo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref75">37</reflink>]), where participants were believed to well adapt themselves to the course routine as the semester proceeded, and with students' own perceptions as illustrated in our study. In fact, increasing familiarity—especially with peers and the teacher—was precisely what helped to enhance the students' engagement in the classroom, which is to be explained in more detail in the next section.</p> <p>In the current study, although learning contexts, including both the immediate and broader ones, did have some impact on students' engagement development, it was other learner-internal and -external variables that exerted more crucial influences. Perceptions of competence improvement and more positive attitudes toward English learning were found to be the most prominent learner-internal factors, while greater familiarity with the teacher and classmates played a key role as a learner-external factor. Unlike in Vo et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref76">37</reflink>]) study, interest did not emerge as a prominent factor in our findings. What spurred our participants to behaviorally, cognitively, and/or emotionally expend much effort learning English stemmed from their perceived gains in language competence. Through the activities conducted and atmosphere cultivated unit by unit, students' cumulative confidence built upon improved language competence, combined with greater understanding of the importance of English learning and with increased familiarity in the classroom, may have outweighed (initial) interest in triggering and sustaining their persistent effort. All these elements also echo findings from task-based learning contexts, such as perceptions about language skills, social collective factors, and general attitude (Aubrey et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>]), as well as positive attitudinal changes toward collaborative writing tasks (Chen & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref78">4</reflink>]). More importantly, they correspond with the three basic psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) proposed within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref79">33</reflink>]). As students increasingly recognized the value and importance of (classroom) English learning, they experienced greater autonomy; with a stronger sense of competence to meet the listening demands of the class, they felt more capable; and with a greater sense of belonging and connection to the classroom community, they felt more related to others in the social dynamics of the class. With their basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfied, learners tend to regulate their actions toward a more autonomous orientation and become more autonomously motivated, which in turn may lead to greater engagement (Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref80">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students' attributing their increase in engagement to the improved levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness indicated that students themselves could clearly perceive the associations between the feeling of psychological need fulfillment and their actually expended physical, mental, and emotional effort in the language classroom. It might be the case that as the semester proceeds, although boredom may set in, the students' perceived fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs helps make them feel a greater sense of "person-environment fit" (Reschly & Christenson, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref81">31</reflink>], p. 13), attenuate the negative implications of boredom, and energize them to persist and even to strive for greater involvement in classroom learning and hence greater achievements. Such a finding adds a layer of qualitative evidence to the positive impact of need satisfaction elicited through quantitative approaches (e.g., Noels et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref83">42</reflink>]). It also reinforces the importance of exploring influencing factors from the perspective of learners' own perceptions in a non-predetermined way (Boye et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>]), thus overcoming the limitations of seeing the issue merely from the researchers' perspective or focusing simply on several predetermined factors. Methodologically, open reflective journals may well be employed to serve as a valuable supplement to the investigation of preconceived variables (Yoshimura et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref85">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-15">Conclusions, Pedagogical Implications, and Limitations</hd> <p>This longitudinal classroom study revealed that during the learning of five units in a natural College English class spanning a whole semester, the learners' classroom engagement exhibited considerably significant positive changes and according to the students themselves, both learner-internal and learner-external factors played a critical role. The former mainly included the students' perceptions of improved competence in class and their increasingly positive attitudes toward English learning, while the latter pertained particularly to the increased familiarity among the students and with the teacher.</p> <p>Some pedagogical implications can be drawn from the study. To begin with, given that in natural classrooms students' self-motivated engagement is in large part contingent on how their basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are satisfied, teachers need to raise awareness of these three elements and aim for an alignment between students' needs and the design and implementation of classroom activities. Satisfaction of these three needs means making students feel they can, they want to, and they belong (Reschly & Christenson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>]). Practices that are supportive of the arousal of such feelings may include creating challenging but achievable tasks while offering scaffolding guidance on an ongoing basis (so they can), providing students with content that they see value in and that are relevant to their experiences and align with their purposes of language learning (so they want to), and finally nurturing quality relationships among all members of the classroom community with warmth, caring, and support (so they belong). It is also desirable that in doing the above, teachers adopt an outcome-oriented approach and prioritize tangible and intangible gains that can be perceived on the part of students. Secondly, given the significance of agentic engagement and students' lack of consciousness in this respect, empowering them with a sense of agency and training them in relevant skills to take the initiative may become tasks that should be integrated into the day-to-day classroom motivational practice for teachers (Reeve & Jang, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref87">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study is not without limitations. Due to the limited sample size, generalizations should be made with caution. Larger and more diverse samples could be employed in future research to enhance generalizability in different contexts. Additionally, although we have utilized both quantitative and qualitative means in data collection, both were self-reported data from students themselves, where social desirability may have been a potential problem. Future studies may deploy both subjective and objective assessment to achieve triangulation. Finally, we only analyzed the data at the class level without probing deeper into each individual student's trajectory of classroom engagement. With differential perceptions and manipulations of classroom environment, disparities among individual students' engagement are likely and analysis of them would be valuable complement to investigations of group patterns (Pawlak et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-16">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We are grateful to all the students who participated in the study. We would also like to express sincere thanks to the editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript. Special thanks also go to Jiaqi Yang and Xiaoli Feng, who provided tremendous support during the revisions.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-17">Authors' contribution</hd> <p>Yan Guo contributed to conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, data curation, investigation, writing—original draft, and writing—review & editing. Jinfen Xu contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing—review & editing, and supervision. Cong Chen contributed to methodology, investigation, formal analysis, data curation, and writing—review & editing.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-18">Funding</hd> <p>This study was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, Grant number: 20BYY112.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-19">Data Availability</hd> <p>Data in this study are not publicly available in order to protect participants' privacy. Data can be made available upon reasonable written request to the corresponding author.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-21">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-22">Appendix A: The Complete Classroom Engagement Scale</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-23">Behavioral Engagement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-24">Individual-Based Behavioral Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In the College English class, I listen very carefully.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I easily get distracted.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, once my mind wanders, I make myself pay attention.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I work hard to understand it when there is something I don't understand.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-25">Interaction-Based Conventional Behavioral Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In the College English class, I actively work with my partners to complete the assigned tasks.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I work hard to come up with new ideas during group work.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I do just enough to get by during group work.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-26">Interaction-Based Agentic Behavioral Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> I offer the teacher suggestions about how to make the College English class better.</item> <p></p> <item> I let the teacher know what I need and want in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I let the teacher know what I'm interested in.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, when I need some help, I ask the teacher for it.</item> <p></p> <item> I give the teacher feedback about our learning in the College English class.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-27">Cognitive Engagement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-28">Individual-Based Cognitive Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In the College English class, I relate what I'm learning to what I already know.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I memorize the newly learned words, phrases and sentence patterns by associating them with my own experiences.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, when there are new ideas and information, I try putting them in my own words for practice.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I pay attention to the expressions used by the teacher and try using them in my own practice.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I pay attention to the useful expressions used by my classmates and try using them in my own practice.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-29">Teacher–Student Interaction-Based Cognitive Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In the College English class, I actively ask the teacher questions so as to get more information during discussion activities.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I talk with the teacher to help plan how to improve my English.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I ask the teacher questions when I don't understand something clearly.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I actively think and answer the teacher's questions.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-30">Peer–Peer Interaction-Based Cognitive Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In the College English class, I actively ask my classmates questions so as to get more information during discussion activities.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I carefully listen to the teacher's feedback on our group work and think about how to improve.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I briefly summarize and take notes of the different useful ideas put forward by my classmates during discussion activities.</item> <p></p> <item> In the College English class, I actively ask my classmates for help when I don't understand some points.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-31">Emotional Engagement</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188150153-32">Individual-Based Emotional Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> I think the College English class is interesting.</item> <p></p> <item> I like the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> The College English class stimulates my curiosity.</item> <p></p> <item> The College English class facilitates my imagination.</item> <p></p> <item> I am satisfied with the College English classroom climate.</item> <p></p> <item> I think the College English class provides a lot of learning opportunities.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-33">Interaction-Based Emotional Engagement</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> I am willing to communicate with my classmates in English in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> There is a good atmosphere for communication in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> I like the interactions in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> The interactive activities in the College English class are helpful to my language development.</item> <p></p> <item> I get deeply involved in the interactive activities in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> I feel happy communicating and interacting with the teacher in the College English class.</item> <p></p> <item> I feel happy communicating and interacting with my classmates in the College English class.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188150153-34">Appendix B: The Journal Questions for Unit 3</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> During the learning of Unit 3, how did I engage in the classroom learning? What did I do? Comparing the learning of this unit with Units 1 and 2, is there any change in terms of my engagement? If yes, what kind of change? What has caused the change?</item> <p></p> <item> In the learning of this unit, what new knowledge did I acquire? How have I contributed to the class as a member?</item> <p></p> <item> In the learning of this unit, what new difficulties did I encounter in class? Why did they emerge? How did I cope with them? Did the difficulties encountered when learning Units 1 and 2 still exist when learning this unit?</item> <p></p> <item> In the learning of this unit, what preparations did I make before class and after class did I review the lesson? Regarding the problems found in the reflections of Units 1 and 2, did I adopt new strategies to address them in the before-class preparations and after-class reviewing for this unit? If yes, how well did they work?</item> <p></p> <item> In the learning of the next unit, what would I do to better cope with the difficulties encountered in Units 1, 2, and 3 (if they still exist)?</item> </ulist> <p>(Translated from Chinese into English by the first author.)</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-35">Appendix C: Pairwise Comparisons Between Time Points that Showed Significant Differences</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Mean Difference</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Std. Error</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sig.<sup>a</sup></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>95% Confidence Interval for Difference<sup>a</sup></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Lower Bound</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper Bound</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall3</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.218*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.404</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.031</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall4</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.304*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.070</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.517</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.091</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.355*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.575</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.136</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall4</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.265*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.068</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.470</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.060</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Overall2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Overall5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.316*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.062</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.504</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.128</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cognitive5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.346*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.096</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.639</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.054</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Cognitive2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cognitive5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.315*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.090</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.589</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.042</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional3</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.321*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.069</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.530</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.111</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional4</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.392*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.079</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.632</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.152</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.403*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.624</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.181</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotional2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Emotional5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.290*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.078</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.528</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.052</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Behavioral5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.314*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.018</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.592</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.036</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Behavioral4</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.308*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.525</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.091</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Behavioral2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Behavioral5</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.344*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.088</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.611</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.078</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Based on estimated marginal means</p> <p>*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level</p> <p> <sups>a</sups>Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni</p> <p>1 = Time point 1, 2 = Time point 2, 3 = Time point 3, 4 = Time point 4, and 5 = Time point 5</p> <hd id="AN0188150153-36">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188150153-37"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aubrey, S, King, J, & Almukhaild, H. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref45" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, B, Nie, Y, & Lee, A. N. (2020). Academic self-efficacy, task importance and interest: relations with English language learning in an Asian context. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref15" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boye, S, Gardiner, I. A, & Littlejohn, A. (2021). 'Makes head hurt': School-aged learners' perceptions in the language classroom. System, 102560.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref47" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chen W, Yu S. A longitudinal case study of changes in students' attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System. 2019; 82: 83-96. 10.1016/j.system.2019.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 19882; Lawrence Erlbaum</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref42" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dao, P. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref44" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dao P, Nguyen M, Duong P, Tran-Thanh V. Learners' engagement in L2 computer–mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. The Modern Language Journal. 2021; 105; 4: 767-791. 10.1111/modl.12737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dewaele, J.-M, & Li, C. (2021). Teacher enthusiasm and students' social-behavioral learning engagement: The mediating role of student enjoyment and boredom in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching Research. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Eccles JS. Engagement: Where to next?. Learning and Instruction. 2016; 43: 71-75. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis R. A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2010; 32: 335-349. 10.1017/S0272263109990544</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks J, Blumenfeld P, Paris A. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74: 59-109. 10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks J, McColskey WChristenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. Handbook of research on student engagement. 2012; Springer: 763-782. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, Y, Xu, J, & Chen, C. (2022). Measurement of engagement in the foreign language classroom and its effect on language achievement: The case of Chinese college EFL students. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL). Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiromori T. Anatomizing students' task engagement in pair work in the language classroom. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning. 2021; 3; 1: 88-106. 10.52598/jpll/3/1/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiver PAl-Hoorie AH, Szabo F. Engaging the learner: Linking teaching practice to learners' engagement and development. Researching language learning motivation: A concise guide. 2022; Bloomsbury Academic: 51-59</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiver P, Al-Hoorie AH, Mercer S. Student engagement in the language classroom. 2021; Multilingual Matters</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiver, P, Al-Hoorie, A. H, Vitta, J. P, & Wu, J. (2021b). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert C, Zhang G. Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as foreign languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional task design. The Modern Language Journal. 2019; 103: 391-411. 10.1111/modl.12560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu H, Liu Y, Hu Z, Xiao D. Cultivation of "student agency": An important focus of academy education in colleges and universities. Jiangsu Higher Education. 2022; 11: 91-98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MOE (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China). (2017). The list of "Double World-class Project" universities. <ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe%5f843/201709/t20170921%5f314942.html">http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/moe%5f843/201709/t20170921%5f314942.html</ulink>. Accessed 28 October 2024.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noels K, Lascano DIV, Saumure K. The development of self-determination across the language course: Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay of psychological needs, orientations, and engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2019; 41: 821-851. 10.1017/S0272263118000189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oga-Baldwin WLQ. Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System. 2019; 86: 1-10. 10.1016/j.system.2019.102128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oga-Baldwin WLQ, Fryer LKHiver P, Al-Hoorie AH, Mercer S. Engagement growth in language learning classrooms: A latent growth analysis of engagement in Japanese elementary schools. Student engagement in the language classroom. 2021; Multilingual Matters: 224-240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pawlak, M, Kruk, M, & Zawodniak, J. (2020). Investigating individual trajectories in experiencing boredom in the language classroom: The case of 11 Polish students of English. Language Teaching Research. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Philp J, Duchesne S. Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2016; 36: 50-72. 10.1017/S0267190515000094</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phung L. Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research. 2017; 21: 751-766. 10.1177/1362168816683561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve JChristenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. Handbook of research on student engagement. 2012; Springer: 149-172. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J, Cheon SH, Yu TH. An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students' resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2020; 44; 4: 325-338. 10.1177/0165025420911103</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeve J, Jang HReschly AL, Christenson SL. Agentic engagement. Handbook of research on student engagement. 20222; Springer: 95-107. 10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinders H, Nakamura SGregersen T, Mercer S. Engagement. The Routledge handbook of the psychology of language learning and teaching. 2022; Routledge: 137-148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly AL, Christenson SLChristenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C. Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. Handbook of research on student engagement. 2012; Springer: 3-19. 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reschly AL, Christenson SLReschly AL, Christenson SL. Jingle-jangle revisited: History and further evolution of the student engagement construct. Handbook of research on student engagement. 20222; Springer: 3-24. 10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. 2017; Guilford. 10.1521/978.14625/28806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2009; Sage</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svalberg AM-L. Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness. 2009; 18: 242-258. 10.1080/09658410903197264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svalberg AM-L. Researching language engagement: Current trends and future directions. Language Awareness. 2018; 27: 21-39. 10.1080/09658416.2017.1406490</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vo H, Hoang TTH, Hu G. Developmental trajectories of second language learner classroom engagement: Do students' task value beliefs and teacher emotional support matter?. System. 2024; 123. 10.1016/j.system.2024.103325103325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshimura, M, Hiromori, T, & Kirimura, R. (2021). Dynamic changes and individual differences in learners' perceptions of cooperative learning during a project activity. RELC Journal. Advance Online Access.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu S, Zhang Y, Zheng Y, Yuan K, Zhang L. Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master's theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019; 44; 1: 50-65. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467879</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang Y, Gao Y. Exploring the dynamics of student engagement with receiving peer feedback in L2 writing. Assessing Writing. 2024; 60. 10.1016/j.asw.2024.100842100842</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, S. A, Hiver, P, & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2023). Dynamic engagement: A longitudinal dual-process, reciprocal effects model of teacher motivational practice and L2 student engagement. Language Teaching Research, 1–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, S. A, Hiver, P, & Zheng, Y. (2022). Modeling Intra- and Inter-individual Changes in L2 Classroom Engagement. Applied Linguistics, 1–31.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yan Guo; Jinfen Xu and Cong Chen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref88"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1484441
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Learner Engagement in the Tertiary EFL Classroom: Trajectories and Contributing Factors
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yan+Guo%22">Yan Guo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jinfen+Xu%22">Jinfen Xu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6280-6817">0000-0001-6280-6817</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cong+Chen%22">Cong Chen</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Asia-Pacific+Education+Researcher%22"><i>Asia-Pacific Education Researcher</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(5):1737-1749.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 13
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Journals%22">Student Journals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Needs%22">Psychological Needs</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s40299-025-00988-w
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0119-5646<br />2243-7908
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Interest in learner engagement in foreign language education has increased, yet research on its development across various timescales remains limited. Using a classroom-based longitudinal research design, this study sought to investigate the dynamism of classroom engagement over a 15-week semester and identify, from students' perspective, the factors contributing to this dynamism. Questionnaires and written reflective journals were used to collect data from an intact first-year College English class at a key university in central China. Conducted over five time points, each time of data collection corresponded with the completion of one learning unit. A trend of continuous growth in all the three engagement dimensions (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, emotional) emerged from the quantitative data via questionnaire. Content analyses of students' reflective journals indicated that the developmental trajectories were shaped through the co-influence of multiple learner-internal and learner-external factors. Students' perceptions of improved language competence and their attitudes toward the English class / English learning in general comprised key learner-internal influences, while externally the increased familiarity with the teacher and among the students stood out as the most prominent factor. All these factors pertained to students' basic psychological needs satisfaction in the College English class and kindled profound pedagogical implications.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1484441
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1484441
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s40299-025-00988-w
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1737
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postsecondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Journals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Learner Engagement in the Tertiary EFL Classroom: Trajectories and Contributing Factors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yan Guo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jinfen Xu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cong Chen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0119-5646
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2243-7908
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
              Type: main
ResultId 1