View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gender Stereotypes as Related to Language Learning Engagement: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gender Stereotypes as Related to Language Learning Engagement: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors
Language: English
Authors: Jiajing Li (ORCID 0000-0002-3810-9277), Chuang Wang (ORCID 0000-0003-3372-2053), Ziyou Shen (ORCID 0000-0003-4214-9113)
Source: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2025 34(3):909-920.
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: 12
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Sex Stereotypes, Second Language Learning, English (Second Language), Learner Engagement, Student Attitudes, Gender Differences, Student Motivation, Psychological Patterns, Emotional Response, College Students, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: China
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-024-00907-5
ISSN: 0119-5646
2243-7908
Abstract: Most people view language learning as a feminine domain and take it for granted that females have better performance in foreign language learning. Despite researchers' efforts in uncovering the phenomenon of gender stereotypes in language learning, it remains unclear: (1) whether there were differences in language learning stereotypes and their correlates across genders; (2) whether gender stereotypes impinge on Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' engagement through the mediating role of motivational beliefs and emotional factors. This study examined the gender differences in and the relationships among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs (i.e., task values and competence beliefs), emotional factors (i.e., enjoyment and anxiety), and language learning engagement with 473 university EFL learners in China. Results of multivariate analyses of variance failed to see differences in gender stereotypes between females and males, both viewing foreign language learning as a feminine domain. Females exhibited significantly higher levels of motivational beliefs and enjoyment in learning English. Using structural equation modeling, we found that gender stereotypes indirectly predicted learners' engagement via motivational beliefs and emotional factors. Future directions and pedagogical implications are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1488448
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHDZBNLqhvmkE8LiPBkp8yIAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBEEgAdwh5Zi6LgXmwIBEICBm9r-21a-HnA_HG3kKkkdY6cv74xZaWnCPejF33k7KY_FjT8JeOa0T_yL14vz5bUMDpd2x0rCkIM1fcxrSP0bgHyBIggKVkaSKadNWaDz2IKLaFUjdr5Rljmy2ry32SOBg3MsJHypcPFoMA3yQ2gMom7Dg0j5RgIRWvosTfBCR7s0nkxlltQPHuHrm3kF31pp82FS3nTBFq5Q31yl
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184992681;[gchw]01jun.25;2025May09.01:30;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184992681-1">Gender Stereotypes as Related to Language Learning Engagement: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors </title> <p>Most people view language learning as a feminine domain and take it for granted that females have better performance in foreign language learning. Despite researchers' efforts in uncovering the phenomenon of gender stereotypes in language learning, it remains unclear: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) whether there were differences in language learning stereotypes and their correlates across genders; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) whether gender stereotypes impinge on Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' engagement through the mediating role of motivational beliefs and emotional factors. This study examined the gender differences in and the relationships among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs (i.e., task values and competence beliefs), emotional factors (i.e., enjoyment and anxiety), and language learning engagement with 473 university EFL learners in China. Results of multivariate analyses of variance failed to see differences in gender stereotypes between females and males, both viewing foreign language learning as a feminine domain. Females exhibited significantly higher levels of motivational beliefs and enjoyment in learning English. Using structural equation modeling, we found that gender stereotypes indirectly predicted learners' engagement via motivational beliefs and emotional factors. Future directions and pedagogical implications are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: EFL; Gender stereotypes; Engagement; Motivational beliefs; Emotional factors; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00907-5.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Language learning is stereotyped as a feminine domain where females are depicted as having more gifts, engaging more, and obtaining higher academic performance than their counterparts (Espinoza & Strasser, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]). Such shared beliefs concerning gender differences are gender stereotypes in language learning (Master & Meltzoff, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]; Plante et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]). In particular, gender stereotypic beliefs prevail in collectivistic settings such as China (Yao, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]), where traditional gender roles are deeply ingrained. Upon entering university, societal expectations for males and females to conform to different roles become more pronounced than they were in secondary school, exacerbating the prejudice against males in learning English. Male students studying languages at the undergraduate level are constantly scorned as lacking masculinity (Chaffee et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>]). Those stereotypes shape students' beliefs and influence their perceptions of themselves as well as their learning outcomes (Master & Meltzoff, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, the pervasive influence of gender stereotypes on language learning has garnered considerable attention (Chaffee et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]). Researchers observed that gender stereotypes determine students' attitudes toward language learning (e.g., self-efficacy[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>] and anxiety) and language proficiency (Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]). Nonetheless, there are still gaps that need to be addressed. On the one hand, previous studies have yielded inconclusive results regarding gender variations in EFL learning. A camp of researchers argued the females' advantages in EFL learning (Bai & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>]) while others revealed non-significant gender differences (Truong & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref14">46</reflink>]). There is a need to address the contradictory findings regarding gender effect (Voyer & Voyer, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref15">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, little attention has been devoted to the underlying mechanisms of female-advantage-in-language stereotypes. Gender stereotypes may translate into explicit beliefs and learning outcomes. Motivational beliefs and emotional factors, among the most essential personal factors, are likely to mirror students' gender stereotypes and ultimately shape their engagement in language learning (Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]). Hence, we surmised that the emotional factors and motivational beliefs of EFL learners may work synergistically in mediating the effect of gender stereotypes on engagement.</p> <p>In light of the research gaps mentioned above, this study aimed to scrutinize the gender differences in EFL learners' stereotypic beliefs, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement in foreign language learning; and to identify the mediating effects of motivational and emotional factors on the relationship between gender stereotypes and learning engagement. The study could provide an in-depth understanding of gender differences in stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement, as well as their nexus. Theoretically, the study attests to the propositions of the social cognitive theory with data from Chinese EFL learners. Pedagogically, this study could be informative for tailoring intervention targets for eliminating or at least mitigating students' gender differences in EFL learning and directing avenues for promoting an equitable learning environment.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184992681-4">Social Cognitive Theory</hd> <p>Social cognitive theory provides a useful lens to understand the dynamic relationships among personal, environmental, and behavioral processes (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]). It posits triadic reciprocal relations among these processes (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref18">40</reflink>]). The personal process encompasses cognitions, beliefs, perceptions, and emotions while the behavioral process includes activity choice, effort, persistence, and academic achievement (Schunk & Usher, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]). The environmental process incorporates social norms, instruction, and feedback (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref20">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given its robustness, social cognitive theory has been extensively utilized to explore language learning processes (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]; Teng, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref22">45</reflink>]). Researchers who concentrated on gender stereotypes in language learning have also drawn on the social cognitive theory (Kutuk, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]; Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]). However, few studies have examined intricated relationships among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement. In the current study, we sought to offer a nuanced insight into the influences of gender stereotypes through the lens of the social cognitive theory. Specifically, we delved into the potential roles of motivational beliefs and emotional factors in connecting gender stereotypes and EFL learning engagement. In our model, gender stereotypes, along with motivational beliefs and emotional factors, are considered personal processes, while engagement belongs to the behavioral process.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-5">Gender Differences in Language Learning</hd> <p>Gender differences in language learning have garnered significant attention from students, teachers, and policymakers alike. A large body of research has underscored the language learning advantages of females (Denies et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]). As reported by the OECD ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]), males lag behind females in various literacy skills involving reading, vocabulary learning, and writing. A meta-analysis by Voyer and Voyer ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]) declared that females reported better academic performance in language learning than males all over the world from 1950 to 2011. Wucherer and Reiterer ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref28">51</reflink>]), for example, noted that male and female learners appeared to possess varying strengths in different areas of language learning (i.e., grammar and pronunciation learning).</p> <p>Apart from differences in academic achievement across genders, differences in motivational beliefs and emotional factors have been also reported. A great deal of literature has highlighted the gender differences in motivational beliefs encompassing task values and competence beliefs in foreign language learning (Durik et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]). Researchers noted that females attached greater personal importance to foreign language learning and showed higher competence beliefs than males (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]; Truong & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>]; Chaffee et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Mixed results were obtained regarding gender differences in foreign language learners' emotional factors (i.e., enjoyment and anxiety). Some researchers reported that females were more likely to hold positive emotions such as enjoyment and interest, whereas males tended to show greater anxiety, apathy, and boredom in foreign language learning (Carr & Pauwels, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]). Other researchers reported otherwise (Dewaele et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]). For example, Dewaele et al ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]) indicated that females reported higher levels of anxiety although they experienced more enjoyment in foreign language learning.</p> <p>Furthermore, a substantial volume of research has also been conducted to understand gender differences in foreign language learning engagement (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref36">34</reflink>]). For example, Oga-Baldwin and Nakata ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref37">34</reflink>]) noted that males tended to be disengaged while females showed high engagement in language learning activities. Overall, prior research reported females and males differed in diverse aspects of language learning. Following the previous studies, we hypothesized:<bold>Hypothesis 1</bold>: Females and males would differ in gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement in EFL learning.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-6">Gender Stereotypes and Engagement in Language Learning</hd> <p>Gender stereotypes pertain to conventions that certain personality traits, skills, characters, and preferences are assigned to an individual based on their biological sex (Lips, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]). Gender stereotypes in language learning typically refer to beliefs that females are more gifted, persevering, and high-achieving than males (Kollmayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref39">18</reflink>]). These female-advantage-in-language stereotypes are prevalent in many countries such as Australia (Carr & Pauwels, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>]), Canada (Plante et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>]), Chile (Espinoza & Strasser, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]), Germany (Steffens & Jelenec, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref43">44</reflink>]), and China (Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]). As noted by Carr and Pauwels ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]), many learners believed that language learning did not align with the masculine ideal and viewed it as 'uncool' for males.</p> <p>The stereotypical notion has a considerable impact on language learners' academic achievement (Carr & Pauwels, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>]; Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref47">20</reflink>]; Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]). Highlighting the negative influence of gender stereotypes, the stereotype threat effect suggests that members of a particular group may experience apprehensions about confirming unfavorable stereotypes. Consequently, some efforts are inevitably devoted to inhibiting negative emotions, causing performance decrements (Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]). According to the stereotype threat effect, males, as members of a stigmatized group in language learning, may experience undermined motivation, engagement, and academic performance due to the negative stereotypes (Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref50">23</reflink>]). They are more likely to suffer from higher anxiety caused by internal pressure to resist or disprove stereotypes (Steele et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref51">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>To date, some attempts have been made to explore whether the belief that "language learning is a feminine domain" would affect foreign language learners' efforts, motivational beliefs, as well as academic performance (Kutuk, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]; Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]; Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref54">23</reflink>]). For example, Li and McLellan ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]) inquired into the gender stereotype of EFL learners in Chinese secondary schools. They reported both males and females tended to stereotypically believe that females excel in aptitude, affect, and achievement. Males' performance was adversely affected by gender stereotypes, and the females showed the opposite result (Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref56">20</reflink>]; Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]). In another study, Kutuk ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]) found that gender stereotypes had spectrum effects on EFL learning. Despite the great contribution of their studies, the underlying mechanism of how gender stereotypes influenc EFL learning is still underinvestigated.</p> <p>Engagement refers to the amount and type of effort to participate in learning tasks (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]). It is one of the pivotal steps in language learning (Oga-Baldwin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]). Consequently, the engagement of EFL learners deserves special attention. However, scant research has probed into to what extent the variance in engagement could be explained by students' gender stereotypes.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-7">Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors as Mediators</hd> <p>Motivational beliefs such as task values and competence beliefs were identified as pivotal correlates to EFL achievement (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref61">21</reflink>]; Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]; Wang & Sun, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]). Task values refer to the quality of a task and contribute to the probability that an individual will select the task (Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref64">11</reflink>]). Competence beliefs concern an individual's beliefs about their competence in doing a particular task (Durik et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref65">10</reflink>]). They are two major components of expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref66">50</reflink>]) and operate synergistically. Task values and competence beliefs determine goal-setting, task persistence, and self-regulation in goal-pursuing (Schunk & Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref67">41</reflink>]). When language learners value a task or obtain higher competence beliefs, they become more engaged in the language learning task, persist longer, and achieve higher academic performance (Eccles & Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref68">12</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref69">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Students' emotional factors such as enjoyment and anxiety were also empirically connected to language learning (Zhong et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref70">55</reflink>]). Enjoyment has been recognized as a positive predictor of engagement (Zeng, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref71">53</reflink>]), while anxiety has been consistently associated with lower levels of engagement (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref72">54</reflink>]).</p> <p>Both motivational and emotional factors have been found as vital precursors of students' learning outcomes (Denies et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref73">8</reflink>]), however, in much of the literature examining the effects of gender stereotypes on language learning, motivational and emotional factors were overlooked (Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref74">23</reflink>]). To the best of our knowledge, Kutuk et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref75">20</reflink>]) study is the only one that unraveled the "black box" by considering competence beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy) and anxiety in examining the effects of gender stereotypes on Turkish EFL language learners' attainment. They demonstrated that gender stereotypes shaped EFL learners' language proficiency through self-efficacy but not through anxiety. Given past literature, we postulated that:<bold>Hypothesis 2</bold>: Gender stereotypes would be related to learners' engagement indirectly through the mediation of motivational beliefs and emotional factors in EFL learning.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-8">The Current Study</hd> <p>The study aimed to examine (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) differences in gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement in EFL learning across genders; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) the relationships among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement in EFL learning. The following hypotheses were put forward:</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 1</bold>: Females and males would differ in gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement in EFL learning.</p> <p> <bold>Hypothesis 2</bold>: Gender stereotypes would be related to learners' engagement indirectly through the mediation of motivational beliefs and emotional factors in EFL learning.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184992681-10">Participants</hd> <p>After receiving ethical approval from the University of Macau, a total of 521 students were recruited from mainland China by using the convenience sampling method. Invalid cases (<emph>n</emph> = 48) were deleted due to incomplete responses. The final sample size was 473 students, among them, 261 were females and 212 were males. Most students were registered in their second and third years of university. Their age ranged from 18 to 24 (<emph>M</emph> = 20.22; SD = 1.64). Students from different majors were included, with 105 (22.20%) enrolled in literature, 84 (17.75%) in science, 91 (19.24%) in management, 92 (19.45%) in engineering, 76 (16.07%) in education, and 25 (5.29%) in other disciplines. At the time of data collection, students' average experience in English language learning was 12.60 (SD = 2.60) years. There were 325 students (68.7%) who disclosed that English was the medium of instruction in their English language course.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-11">Measures</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Gender Stereotypes.</emph> </bold> Students' gender stereotypes were measured with 12 items from two subscales (female domain and male domain), each subscale comprises 6 items (Plante et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref78">37</reflink>]). The female domain subscale and male domain subscale assess the degree to which students agree with the notion that language learning favors females or males. Students were asked to circle from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 7 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). An example item for the female domain subscale is "<emph>Females are more gifted than males in learning English</emph>", and an example item for the male domain subscale is "<emph>Males like English more than females</emph>". Both females' and males' gender stereotypes were represented by subtracting the total scores endorsed on the male domain from the total scores endorsed on the female domain. A positive score indicates that respondents hold the females' advantage-in-language stereotypes, whereas a negative score indicates the opposite. Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the female domain and male domain subscales were acceptable (<emph>a</emph> = 0.83 and <emph>a</emph> = 0.83, respectively).</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Task Values</emph> </bold> <emph>.</emph> Six items were derived from the subscale of the <emph>Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire</emph> by Pintrich et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref79">36</reflink>]). Students reflected on their beliefs and indicated how much they value English learning by using a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 representing "<emph>strongly disagree</emph>" and 6 representing "<emph>strongly agree</emph>". An example of items measuring task values is "I think I will be able to use what I've learned in the English course in other courses.". The internal consistency of students' responses to this scale was 0.84.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Competence Beliefs.</emph> </bold> As the conceptually analogous nature of self-efficacy and competence beliefs, we employed self-efficacy to represent competence beliefs (Eccles & Wigfield, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref80">12</reflink>]). Twelve items were adopted to measure students' competence beliefs in learning English (Wang & Bai [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref81">48</reflink>]). It contains four subscales: listening (e.g., "I can understand stories told in English"), speaking (e.g., "I can introduce myself in English"), reading (e.g., "I can understand English news on the Internet"), and writing (e.g., "I can send emails in English"). Each subscale has 3 items. Students were invited to evaluate their competence in performing certain English language learning tasks by using a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating "<emph>I cannot do it at all</emph>" and 7 indicating "<emph>I can do it</emph>". The internal consistency of students' responses to this scale was 0.91.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Enjoyment.</emph> </bold> Students' enjoyment in language learning was measured with the <emph>Short Form of the Foreign Language Enjoyment Scale</emph> which was developed by Botes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]). It consists of 9 items from 3 dimensions: personal enjoyment (e.g., "I enjoy learning English"), teacher appreciation (e.g., "My English teacher is encouraging"), and social enjoyment (e.g., "We form a tight group in English class"). Students scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing "<emph>strongly disagree</emph>" and 5 representing "<emph>strongly agree</emph>". The internal consistency of students' responses to this scale was 0.82.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Anxiety.</emph> </bold> Five items were employed to measure students' anxiety in learning English (Botes et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>])<sups>2</sups>. An example of items measuring language learning anxiety is "Even if I am well prepared for English class, I feel anxious about it". Students responded on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 representing "<emph>strongly disagree</emph>" and 6 representing "<emph>strongly agree</emph>". The internal consistency of students' responses to this scale was 0.89.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Engagement in Language Learning.</emph> </bold> Students' engagement in language learning was assessed with 12 items from 3 aspects, including behavioral engagement (e.g., "I listen very carefully in English class"), emotional engagement (e.g., "I enjoy English classroom activities"), and cognitive engagement (e.g., "I try to understand the foreign language"). These 12 items were from <emph>Engagement Scale Items for Language Classrooms</emph> by Oga-Baldwin ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref84">33</reflink>]). Items were rated from 1 <emph>(strongly disagree) to</emph> 6 <emph>(strongly agree).</emph> The internal consistency of students' responses was 0.91.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-12">Data Analysis</hd> <p> <bold> <emph>Preliminary analysis.</emph> </bold> Data analyses were conducted using Amos. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were performed for items measuring task values, competence beliefs, enjoyment, anxiety, and engagement separately. A series of goodness-of-fit indices were used to represent the fit of models to data, involving standardized root mean square residual value (SRMR), root means square of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). To indicate a satisfactory fit of models to data, SRMR and RMSEA should not exceed 0.08, and CFI and TLI should be higher than 0.90 (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]). After the psychometric properties of instruments were confirmed, means (<emph>M</emph>), standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>), and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were calculated and reported. Pearson correlation analyses were used to reveal correlations among gender stereotypes, task values, competence beliefs, enjoyment, anxiety, and engagement. Furthermore, measurement invariance tests which evaluate whether the scales functioned similarly in different groups were carried out to ensure meaningful comparisons between females and males. By imposing additional constraints in sequence, we tested the configural (i.e., factor structure), metric (i.e., factor loading), and scalar (i.e., factor mean) invariance of the scales. When △CFI ≤ 0.01, △RMSEA ≤ 0.015, and △SRMR ≤ 0.03, the metric invariance was established. When △CFI ≤ 0.01, △RMSEA ≤ 0.015, and △SRMR ≤ 0.01, the scalar invariance was established.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Main analysis.</emph> </bold> Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were used to reveal mean differences in females' and males' gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement. We used Tukey's pairwise testing method to perform Post hoc analyses. Guiding by the thresholds set forth for research in second language learning by Plonsky and Oswald ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref86">39</reflink>]), partial eta squared equal to 0.06, 0.16, and 0.36 corresponds to small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively.</p> <p>Structural equation modeling (SEM) were carried out to detect the mediating effect of motivational beliefs and emotional factors. The bias-corrected bootstrapping (2000 bootstrapping sample) with 95% confidence intervals was adopted to examine the direct effects and indirect effects in the model. Furthermore, to test whether the mediation model varies across genders, we employed multi-group SEM with two steps. First, the "unconstrained" model, or the freely estimated model with no equality constraints across genders was tested. Second, we further performed the "constrained" model by adding the constraint that the path coefficients be equal.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-13">Result</hd> <p>Results of CFA indicated that the structure of all questionnaires fit the data well (Table S1). Table 1 displays descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, internal consistencies of students' responses to the questionnaires, and correlations among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement for males and females separately. Results of Pearson correlation analysis showed that most variables were statistically significantly correlated, with <emph>r</emph> ranging from − 0.22 to 0.34 for females and − 0.49 to 0.44 for males. As shown in Table 2, configural, metric, and scalar invariance across genders were achieved for all variables, ensuring the comparability of the females' and males' responses to the scales (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>a</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Females</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1. Gender stereotypes</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52 (0.52)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.20**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.15*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.13*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.34**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2. Task value</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.53 (0.70)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.81</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>.20**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.15*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.34**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3. Competence belief</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.43 (0.75)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.88</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.34**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 4. Enjoyment</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.82 (0.52)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.80</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>.14*</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 5. Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.03 (1.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.90</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.22**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 6. Engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.23 (0.73)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.92</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Males</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1. Gender stereotypes</p></td><td align="left"><p>.55 (0.59)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.20**</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.26**</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.34**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.27**</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.49**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2. Task value</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.11 (0.84)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.85</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.31**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.18**</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.36**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3. Competence belief</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.19 (1.03)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.93</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>.22**</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.15*</p></td><td align="left"><p>.43**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 4. Enjoyment</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.57 (0.59)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.81</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.44**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 5. Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.13 (0.97)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.88</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.33**</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 6. Engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.98 (0.77)</p></td><td align="left"><p>.89</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>a</emph> = Cronabach's alpha coefficient *<emph>p</emph> <.05, **<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>Table 2 Measurement invariance across genders</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Models</p></th><th align="left"><p>χ<sup>2</sup>/df</p></th><th align="left"><p>CFI</p></th><th align="left"><p>TLI</p></th><th align="left"><p>RMSEA</p></th><th align="left"><p>SRMR</p></th><th align="left"><p>∆CFI</p></th><th align="left"><p>∆RMSEA</p></th><th align="left"><p>∆SRMR</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>233.013/106</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.930</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.913</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.071 [0.059, 0.084]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>249.542/116</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.927</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.917</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.070 [0.058, 0.082]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>287.080/126</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.912</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.907</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.074 [0.062, 0.085]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.064</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task values</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24.50/12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.988</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.970</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.066 [0.027, 0.104]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.025</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.98/17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.986</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.975</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.061 [0.026, 0.093]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.053</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.028</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>36.72/22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.986</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.981</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.053 [0.019, 0.083]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.055</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Competence beliefs</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>169.02/96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.973</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.962</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.057 [0.042, 0.071]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>179.37/104</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.972</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.964</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.055 [0.041, 0.069]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.044</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>188.146/112</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.972</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.966</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.054 [0.040, 0.067]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.047</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enjoyment</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.16/48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.969</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.954</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.068 [0.049, 0.086]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>110.31/54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.967</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.956</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.066 [0.049, 0.084]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.056</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.015</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>120.47/60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.965</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.958</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.065 [0.048, 0.082]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.059</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27.14/10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.987</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.974</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.085 [0.047, 0.124]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.021</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37.82/14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.982</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.974</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.085 [0.053, 0.118]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>55.42/18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.971</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.968</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.094 [0.066, 0.122]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Engagement</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Configural</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>255.73/102</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.945</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.928</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.080 [0.068, 0.092]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.050</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Metric</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>268.199/111</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.943</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.933</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.077 [0.066, 0.089]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Scalar</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>280.59/120</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.942</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.936</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.075 [0.064, 0.087]</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.062</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Item 1 and Item 5, Item 3 and Item 5, and Item 4 and Item 6 were correlated in the task value scale</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Mediating roles of motivational beliefs and emotional factors for the relationship between gender stereotypes and engagement. ***p <.001, **p <.01, *p <.05; Coefficients for females before the dash and males after</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-14">Differences in Gender Stereotypes, Motivational Beliefs, Emotional Factors, and Engagement</hd> <p>Results of MANOVAs indicated differences in engagement, task values, competence beliefs, and enjoyment between females and males, except for gender stereotypes and anxiety. First, both males and females conceived foreign language learning as a domain that is more suited for females. No statistically significant differences were noted between their stereotypic beliefs, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref87">1</reflink>, 471) = 0.26, <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.001. Second, the gender difference in English learning engagement was prominent, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>, 471) = 13.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.03. Females were more engaged in learning English compared to males. Third, significant gender differences in students' perception of task values, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>, 471) = 35.26, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.07, and self-perceived competence, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>, 471) = 8.64, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.02 were found. Precisely, females valued learning English more and obtained higher competence beliefs compared with males. Finally, females showed more enjoyment in English, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 471) = 24.17, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.05, but gender differences related to EFL learning anxiety were not statistically significant <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 471) = 1.20, <emph>p</emph> > 0.05, partial <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.003. In conclusion, compared with females, males valued less on language learning, obtained lower competence beliefs, enjoyed less in foreign language learning, and had a lower engagement. Nevertheless, females and males did not differ in their gender stereotypes and anxiety in foreign language learning.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-15">Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors</hd> <p>Table 3 displays the path coefficients of the models. As expected, most paths were statistically significantly different from zero, indicating that the mediating roles of task values, competence beliefs, and anxiety between gender stereotypes and engagement in language learning were confirmed. For females, the direct effect of gender stereotypes on students' language learning engagement was statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> = 0.20, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The total indirect effect of gender stereotypes on students' language learning engagement through task values, competence beliefs, enjoyment, and anxiety was also statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> = 0.13, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Table 3 also depicts the mediating effects of task values (<emph>β</emph> = 0.06, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), competence beliefs (<emph>β</emph> = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), and anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), on the relationship between gender stereotypes and engagement.</p> <p>Table 3 Path coefficients of the SEM model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Paths</p></th><th align="left"><p>Standardized</p></th><th align="left"><p>Unstandardized</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Unstandardized bias-corrected Bootstrap 95% CI</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Β</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Lower</p></th><th align="left"><p>Upper</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → task values</p></td><td align="left"><p>.22/−.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02***/−.02**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/−.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>.04/−.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → competence beliefs</p></td><td align="left"><p>.18/−.27</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02**/−.12***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/−.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>.03/−.06</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → enjoyment</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/−.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.03***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.01/−.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/−.02</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.14/.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.02*/.03***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.04/.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.00/.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.20/−.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>.03***/−.02***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/−.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.04/−.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Task values → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.26/.22</p></td><td align="left"><p>.33***/.31***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.18/.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>.49/.53</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Competence beliefs → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.26/.25</p></td><td align="left"><p>.31***/.06***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.15/.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>.50/.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enjoyment → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.13/.37</p></td><td align="left"><p>.19*/.58***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>.41/.93</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.18/−.23</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.16***/−.20***</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.26/−.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>−.06/−.09</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → task values → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.06/−.04</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01***/.00**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02/.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → competence beliefs → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02/−.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01**/−.01***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/.00</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → enjoyment → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.16</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.02***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.03</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Gender stereotypes → anxiety → engagement</p></td><td align="left"><p>.02/−.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00*/−.01***</p></td><td align="left"><p>.00/−.01</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01/.00</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>***p</emph> <.001, <emph>**p</emph> <.01, <emph>*p</emph> <.05 Coefficients for females before the dash and males after</p> <p>In terms of males, the direct effect of gender stereotypes on students' language learning engagement was statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.21, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). The indirect effect of gender stereotypes on students' language learning engagement through task values, competence beliefs, enjoyment, and anxiety was statistically significant (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.33, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). More specifically, males' gender stereotypes affected their engagement through task values (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.04, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01), competence beliefs (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.07, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), enjoyment (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.16, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and anxiety (<emph>β</emph> = − 0.07, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001).</p> <p>Furthermore, results of multi-group SEM indicated that both the unconstrained model and the constrained model had an acceptable fit to the data (Unconstrained model: RMESA = 0.02 [0.01, 0.03], SRMR = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98; Constrained Model: RMESA = 0.03 [0.03, 0.04], SRMR = 0.08, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95). In comparing the constrained model to the unconstrained model, △χ<sups>2</sups> = 154.47, △<emph>df</emph> = 25, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, evidencing that the model differs by gender.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-16">Discussion</hd> <p>The study aimed to delve into differences in language learning stereotypes, and other related learning outcomes across genders. We also investigated the mediating roles of motivational beliefs and emotional factors in the relationship between gender stereotypes and engagement in EFL learning. We did not find evidence for differences in language learning stereotypes but identified significant differences in engagement, task values, competence beliefs, and enjoyment across genders. Additionally, we confirmed the impacts of gender stereotypes on engagement through motivational and emotional factors in both genders.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-17">Differences in Gender Stereotypes, Motivational Beliefs, Emotional Factors, and Engagement</hd> <p>Group-mean differences in engagement (small effect size), task values (small to moderate effect size), competence beliefs (small effect size), and enjoyment (small effect size) were all statistically significant across genders, with females reporting higher values (supporting H1). These echo previous findings and add empirical evidence to the scarce literature on gender differences in EFL learning (Dewaele et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref93">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Surprisingly, differences in gender stereotypes were not statistically significant, which means that females and males uniformly regarded English as a feminine domain. The endorsement of the gender stereotypes is possibly due to the females' superiority in foreign language learning, which reinforced students' gender stereotypes in learning English. Another explanation might be the pervasive influence of cultural norms emphasizing gender roles, making female-advantage language learning stereotypes widely acknowledged and internalized regardless of gender (Master & Meltzoff, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, their anxiety did not differ significantly either, denoting that both females and males worried about making mistakes and experienced a similar level of anxiety in the foreign language classroom (Jiang & Dewaele, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref95">17</reflink>]). Perhaps, this can be attributed to the utilitarian atmosphere in the collectivistic settings, wherein both female and male students are under great pressure and are expected to succeed in learning English (Hiver et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-18">Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors</hd> <p>Gender stereotypes were indirectly associated with students' engagement through the mediation of task values, competence beliefs, and anxiety in language learning (supporting H2). Such parallel mediating effects indicate that EFL learners' engagement is contingent on the internalization of gender stereotypes reflected by their task values, competence beliefs, and anxiety. Notably, the mediation effects of task values were most potent for females, while enjoyment had the strongest mediation effect for males. This demonstrates the importance of cultivating task values for females and fostering enjoyment for males in the influences of gender stereotypes on students' engagement in learning English.</p> <p>An intriguing finding is that females' gender stereotypes were positively associated with their task values, competence beliefs, enjoyment, and engagement, and negatively related to their anxiety, yet this pattern was reversed in the males' group. This suggests that males tend to hold low motivation, show negative feelings, and make less effort in language learning when they regard themselves as members of the disadvantaged group. Instead, when females believe that foreign language learning is a feminine domain, they are more likely to demonstrate high motivation, positive feelings, and engagement. In other words, males' engagement in learning English was indirectly hampered by socially negative stereotypes towards them through motivational beliefs and emotional factors, whereas females exhibited the opposite result (Kutuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref97">20</reflink>]; Li & McLellan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref98">23</reflink>]; Steele et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref99">43</reflink>]). These findings confirm the stereotype threat effect, which emphasizes that the members of negatively stereotyped groups' performance could be impaired (Pansu et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref100">35</reflink>]). Considering the significant influences of gender stereotypes, it is necessary to let both instructors and students be aware of the impact of gender stereotypes on language learning. Indeed, motivational beliefs and emotional factors should be taken into account in boosting students' engagement in foreign language learning, especially for males whose enjoyment and motivational beliefs were undermined. For example, strategies that enhance students' beliefs in their competence, improve their values on tasks, increase their enjoyment of foreign language learning, and ease anxiety should be integrated into classroom instructions (Truong & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref101">46</reflink>]; Wang & Bai, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interestingly, while enjoyment did not mediate the relationship between females' gender stereotypes and engagement, it significantly mediated this link among males. This means that males' gender stereotypes exert a greater impact on enjoyment in learning English and consequently play a more important role in influencing engagement compared with female students. This might be attributed to the potential conflicts with notions of masculinity and female-advantage-in-language gender stereotypes. Due to this conflict, males' enjoyment may be compromised by their gender stereotypes. On the contrary, females' enjoyment might be more affected by other factors such as the relevance of teaching materials and relatedness satisfaction.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-19">Limitations and Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Several limitations have to be acknowledged. First, data were collected at a single time point, hence, how students' gender stereotypes change over time and how these changes interact with motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement are yet to be investigated. Future researchers are recommended to use longitudinal approaches such as the cross-lagged modeling approach to observe changes and to unfold the dynamic interplay among these factors. In addition, intervention studies aimed at alleviating or reducing gender stereotypes in learning English merit further consideration. For instance, future researchers could explore training male students to adopt more positive attitudes toward learning English, introducing successful male role models, and fostering a positive growth mindset among students.</p> <p>Second, we solely relied on self-report questionnaires in the current research, albeit with high reliability and validity. Future researchers may integrate some qualitative measures such as interviews and classroom observations. For example, organizing interviews can inspect how females and males perceive and internalize gender stereotypes, while performing classroom observations can reveal how these stereotypes manifest in real-time interactions and behaviors. By integrating the quantitative and qualitative approaches, a more in-depth understanding of gender stereotypes and their associated factors can be unveiled.</p> <p>Third, the study only investigates the role of the personal process (i.e., gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, and emotional factors) and the behavioral process (i.e., engagement). The environmental process was not incorporated into the model. Future research could benefit from encompassing environmental factors such as expectations from significant others, teachers' gender stereotypes, school climate, and peer relationships.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-20">Implications</hd> <p>Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this study has some implications. Theoretically, the study adds empirical evidence to the social cognitive theory by ascertaining the relationship between personal (i.e., gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs, and emotional factors) and behavioral (i.e., engagement) processes among Chinese EFL learners. The interplay of gender stereotypes and EFL learning outcomes showcases the robustness of social cognitive theory in explaining the complexity of the language learning process.</p> <p>Pedagogically, the study shed light on the profound impact of gender stereotypes on EFL learning among Chinese learners. Our findings call for special attention to the prevalent stereotypic beliefs about foreign language learning among students. The teacher is recommended to promote a more equitable language learning experience for students. Particularly, they should adopt strategies to minimize this stereotypic conception, which is detrimental to males' foreign language learning engagement via impairing their beliefs of competence, values endorsement, and enjoyment in foreign language learning. To buffer the effect of stereotypic beliefs favoring females in EFL learning, males should be given support to boost their competence belief by offering positive verbal encouragement. By affirming their abilities and potential for success in learning English, teachers can help counteract the impact of gender stereotypes. Teachers can also consider emphasizing the practical benefits of learning English, increasing enjoyment, and easing anxiety (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]). For example, teachers are advised to help students understand the utility of English in job hunting and global communication (Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]). They can organize engaging activities, incorporate interactive tasks, utilize multimedia materials, and harness advanced language learning technologies to enhance students' enjoyment. Reducing students' fear of failure, adopting formative assessment, and providing scaffolding to ease EFL learning anxiety would also be beneficial (Feng et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref105">14</reflink>]; Hwang et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref106">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study revealed the differences in gender stereotypes and their correlates entailing motivational beliefs, emotional factors, and engagement among Chinese university students. Moreover, the study uncovered that gender stereotype in EFL learning was associated with engagement through heightened or decreased motivational and emotional factors, respectively. The findings of this study underscore the significance of addressing males' gender stereotypes in foreign language learning and highlight the necessity of making concerted efforts to bolster task values, competence beliefs, and enjoyment, and eliminate anxiety.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Not applicable.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-23">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by the Carolinas Consortium.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-24">Data availablity</hd> <p>The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-25">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184992681-26">Competing interests</hd> <p>We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-27">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>We received ethics approval (code: SSHRE21-APP078-FED) from the University of Macau.</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-28">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 18 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0184992681-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184992681-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bai B, Wang J. The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching Research. 2023; 27; 1: 207-228. 10.1177/1362168820933190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. 1997; W. H. Freeman and Company</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref82" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Botes E, Van der Westhuizen L, Dewaele JM, MacIntyre P, Greiff S. Validating the short-form foreign language classroom anxiety scale. Applied Linguistics. 2022; 43; 5: 1006-1033. 10.1093/applin/amac018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref85" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. 2010; Taylor and Francis</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carr J, Pauwels A. Boys and foreign language learning: Real boys don't do languages. 2006; Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230501652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chaffee KE, Lou NM, Noels KA, Katz JW. Why don't "real men" learn languages? Masculinity threat and gender ideology suppress men's language learning motivation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2020; 23; 2: 301-318. 10.1177/1368430219835025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref10" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chaffee KE, Plante I, Good C, Aronson JM, Kinch SB, Gauvin I. When stereotypes disadvantage boys: Strength of stereotypes in mathematics and language arts and their relations with grades. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2024; 54; 2: 71-82. 10.1111/jasp.13013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Denies K, Heyvaert L, Dockx J, Janssen R. Mapping and explaining the gender gap in students' second language proficiency across skills, countries and languages. Learning and Instruction. 2022; 80. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101618101618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref34" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dewaele JM, MacIntyre PD, Boudreau C, Dewaele L. Do girls have all the fun? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition. 2016; 2; 1: 41-63</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durik AM, Vida M, Eccles JS. Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98; 2: 382-393. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles JSElliot AJ, Dweck CS. Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Handbook of competence and motivation. 2005; The Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eccles JS, Wigfield A. From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 61. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859101859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espinoza AM, Strasser K. Is reading a feminine domain? The role of gender identity and stereotypes in reading motivation in Chile. Social Psychology of Education. 2020; 23; 4: 861-890. 10.1007/s11218-020-09571-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng E, Wang Y, King RB. Achievement goals, emotions and willingness to communicate in EFL learning: Combining variable-and person-centered approaches. Language Teaching Research. 2023. 10.1177/13621688221146887</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiver P, Al-Hoorie AH, Vitta JP, Wu J. Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research. 2021. 10.1177/13621688211001289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang GJ, Rahimi M, Fathi J. Enhancing EFL learners' speaking skills, foreign language enjoyment, and language-specific grit utilising the affordances of a MALL app: A microgenetic perspective. Computers & Education. 2024; 214. 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105015105015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang Y, Dewaele JM. How unique is the foreign language classroom enjoyment and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners?. System. 2019; 82: 13-25. 10.1016/j.system.2019.02.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kollmayer M, Schober B, Spiel C. Gender stereotypes in education: Development, consequences, and interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2018; 15; 4: 361-377. 10.1080/17405629.2016.1193483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kutuk G. Understanding gender stereotypes in the context of foreign language learning through the lens of social cognitive theory. TESOL Quarterly. 2023. 10.1002/tesq.3267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kutuk G, Putwain DW, Kaye LK, Garrett B. Relations between gender stereotyping and foreign language attainment: The mediating role of language learners' anxiety and self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2021. 10.1111/bjep.12446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J, King, R. B, & Wang, C. (2022). Profiles of motivation and engagement in foreign language learning: Associations with emotional factors, academic achievement, and demographic features. System, 108, 102820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102820</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, McLellan R. Is language learning a feminine domain? Examining the content and stereotype threat effect of female-language stereotypes among EFL Learners in China. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2021; 66. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101991101991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li J, McLellan R, Forbes K. Investigating EFL teachers' gender-stereotypical beliefs about learners: A mixed-methods study. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2021; 51; 1: 19-44. 10.1080/0305764X.2020.1772720</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li C, Pawlak M, Kruk M. Achievement emotions and control-value appraisals in foreign language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 2023. 10.1080/01434632.2023.2183961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, J, Wang, C, Zhao, Y, & Li, Y. (2023). Boosting Learners' Confidence in Learning English: Can Self‐Efficacy‐Based Intervention Make a Difference?. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3292</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, 121, 103268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lips HM. Sex and gender: An introduction. 2020; Waveland Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, L, Du, X, & Liu, J. (2018). Intrinsic and extrinsic value for English learning: Mediation effects of self-efficacy in Chinese EFL context. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2018-0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, L, Li, B, Jiao, Y, & Liu, J. (2023). Motivation profiles of Chinese rural foreign language learners: link with learning strategy and achievement. Applied Linguistics Review, (0). https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Master A, Meltzoff AN. Cultural stereotypes and sense of belonging contribute to gender gaps in STEM. International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology. 2020; 12: 152-198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. 2019; OECD Publishing. 10.1787/acd78851-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oga-Baldwin WQ. Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System. 2019; 86. 10.1016/j.system.2019.102128102128</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oga-Baldwin WQ, Nakata Y. Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System. 2017; 65: 151-163. 10.1016/j.system.2017.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pansu, P, Régner, I, Max, S, Colé, P, Nezlek, J. B, & Huguet, P. (2016). A burden for the boys: Evidence of stereotype threat in boys' reading performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich PR, Smith DAF, García T, McKeachie WJ. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). 1991; University of Michigan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plante I, Theoret M, Favreau OE. Student gender stereotypes: Contrasting the perceived maleness and femaleness of mathematics and language. Educational Psychology. 2009; 29; 4: 385-405. 10.1080/01443410902971500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plante I, De la Sablonnière R, Aronson JM, Théorêt M. Gender stereotype endorsement and achievement-related outcomes: The role of competence beliefs and task values. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2013; 38; 3: 225-235. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plonsky L, Oswald FL. How big is "big"? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning. 2014; 64; 4: 878-912. 10.1111/lang.12079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020; 60. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832101832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk DH, Pajares FWentzel, Miele. Self-efficacy theory. Handbook of motivation at school. 2009; Routledge: 49-68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schunk, D. H, & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed, pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J. Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2002; 34: 379-440. 10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steffens MC, Jelenec P. Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles. 2011; 64; 5: 324-335. 10.1007/s11199-010-9924-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teng LS. Individual differences in self-regulated learning: Exploring the nexus of motivational beliefs, self-efficacy, and SRL strategies in EFL writing. Language Teaching Research. 2024; 28; 2: 366-388. 10.1177/13621688211006881</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> Voyer D, Voyer SD. Gender differences in scholastic achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2014; 140; 4: 1174. 10.1037/a0036620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, C, & Bai, B. (2017). Validating the instruments to measure ESL/EFL learners' self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 931–947. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44984799">www.jstor.org/stable/44984799</ulink></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> Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2000; 25: 68-81. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wucherer BV, Reiterer SM. Language is a girlie thing, isn't it? A psycholinguistic exploration of the L2 gender gap. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2018; 21; 1: 118-134. 10.1080/13670050.2016.1142499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yao Y. Reasons for male students' underachievement in foreign language studies in higher education institutions and proposed strategies. Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy and Social Sciences). 2011; 36; 1: 138-140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeng Y. A review of foreign language enjoyment and engagement. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 3496. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.737613</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang X, Dai S, Ardasheva Y. Contributions of (de) motivation, engagement, and anxiety to English listening and speaking. Learning and Individual Differences. 2020; 79. 10.1016/j.lindif.2020.1018101856</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhong S, Wang Y, Wu W. Exploring the mediating role of emotions between growth language mindset and engagement among EFL learners. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2023. 10.1007/s40299-023-00771-9</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184992681-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Self-efficacy refers to "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments" (Bandura, [2], p. 3).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jiajing Li; Chuang Wang and Ziyou Shen</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref106"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1488448
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gender Stereotypes as Related to Language Learning Engagement: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors
– 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="http://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="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3372-2053">0000-0003-3372-2053</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ziyou+Shen%22">Ziyou Shen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4214-9113">0000-0003-4214-9113</externalLink>)
– 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(3):909-920.
– 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: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sex+Stereotypes%22">Sex Stereotypes</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="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Motivated+Strategies+for+Learning+Questionnaire%22">Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s40299-024-00907-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0119-5646<br />2243-7908
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Most people view language learning as a feminine domain and take it for granted that females have better performance in foreign language learning. Despite researchers' efforts in uncovering the phenomenon of gender stereotypes in language learning, it remains unclear: (1) whether there were differences in language learning stereotypes and their correlates across genders; (2) whether gender stereotypes impinge on Chinese English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' engagement through the mediating role of motivational beliefs and emotional factors. This study examined the gender differences in and the relationships among gender stereotypes, motivational beliefs (i.e., task values and competence beliefs), emotional factors (i.e., enjoyment and anxiety), and language learning engagement with 473 university EFL learners in China. Results of multivariate analyses of variance failed to see differences in gender stereotypes between females and males, both viewing foreign language learning as a feminine domain. Females exhibited significantly higher levels of motivational beliefs and enjoyment in learning English. Using structural equation modeling, we found that gender stereotypes indirectly predicted learners' engagement via motivational beliefs and emotional factors. Future directions and pedagogical implications are discussed.
– 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: EJ1488448
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488448
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s40299-024-00907-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 909
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sex Stereotypes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gender Stereotypes as Related to Language Learning Engagement: Mediating Roles of Motivational Beliefs and Emotional Factors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jiajing Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chuang Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ziyou Shen
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              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: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
              Type: main
ResultId 1