Language mindsets, perceived instrumentality, engagement and graded performance in English as a foreign language students

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the relationships between English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ language mindsets (i.e. entity and incremental beliefs about general language intelligence, second language aptitude, and age sensitivity in language learning) and graded performance by considering the mediating roles of their perceived instrumentality as well as four aspects of engagement (i.e. agentic engagement, behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement) within English classes. A total of 526 EFL students voluntarily participated in the present study. A latent factor correlation analysis, a series of multiple regression analyses, and a structural equation modeling analysis were conducted to analyse the data. The results showed that EFL students’ language mindsets, four aspects of engagement, perceived instrumentality, and graded performance were significantly and selectively related to each other. The results also demonstrated that the relationship between incremental beliefs about second language aptitude and graded performance was fully mediated by perceived instrumentality, that the relationship between incremental beliefs about general language intelligence and graded performance was fully mediated by agentic engagement, and that the relationship between perceived instrumentality and graded performance was partially mediated by agentic engagement. Theoretical and practical implications for EFL learning, teaching, and educational policymaking processes are also discussed in the study.

Unpacking the relationships between emotions and achievement of EFL learners in China: Engagement as a mediator

“…Based on the findings, it can be inferred that when learners engage in foreign language classroom activities and put effort into language learning, they are more likely to score high on tests. This outcome supports those results that L2 engagement, whether it was treated as a multidimensional concept or a single dimension, had a positive and predictive impact on L2 achievement ( Masgoret and Gardner, 2003 ; Eren and Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, 2020 ; Khajavy, 2021 ; Feng and Hong, 2022 ; Kang and Wu, 2022 ). From a broader perspective, the role of engagement as a critical contributor to learning and academic success was further confirmed, corroborating the findings of the existing literature ( Klem and Connell, 2004 ; Reeve and Lee, 2014 ; Wang and Fredricks, 2014 ).…”

“…L2 engagement is defined as the extent to which a language learner is involved in doing a language learning task ( Hiver et al, 2021b ). Studies have connected engagement to foreign language classroom environment ( Sulis and Philp, 2021 ; Mohammad Hosseini et al, 2022 ), learning and communication mode ( Carver et al, 2021 ), learner-related variables ( Mercer and Dörnyei, 2020 ; Dewale and Li, 2021 ; Guo, 2021 ; Derakhshan et al, 2022 ; Zhao and Yang, 2022 ), and foreign language achievement ( Masgoret and Gardner, 2003 ; Eren and Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, 2020 ; Kang and Wu, 2022 ). Nevertheless, the sources and effects of this important construct in foreign language learning still have not been explicated in depth.…”

Examining the Interplay Between Growth and Fixed Mindsets, L2 Grit, and L2 Motivational Self-System of L2 Learners

“…Moreover, learners with a strong growth mindset could counter hurdles and react positively to failures than learners with a strong fixed mindset. Some studies have identified a relationship between mindsets and academic success (e.g., Mouratidis et al, 2017) whereas others failed to find any link between mindsets and success (e.g., Eren & Rakıcıog˘lu-So¨ylemez, 2023). Growth mindsets are critical for students' tenacity and long-term success (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).…”

Examining the relationship between perceived teacher support and students’ academic engagement in foreign language learning: Enjoyment and boredom as mediators

“…As argued by Reeve and Tseng (2011), the triple model overlooked students' 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.987554 agentic involvement, and then agentic engagement was added to indicate students' constructional, proactive, and intentional contribution to their learning. The proposed four-dimension model is empirically validated in the EFL context (e.g., Eren and Rakıcıoglu-Söylemez, 2020;Guo, 2021). Based on the assumption that the true potential of students' engagement cannot be captured by a single dimension (Zhou et al, 2021), engagement in the present study was defined as a multidimensional concept, incorporating behavioral, cognitive, emotional as well as agentic aspects (Reeve, 2012).…”