System 86 (2019) 102121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Emotions in classroom language learning: What can we learn

from achievement emotion research?
Kaiqi Shao a, *, Reinhard Pekrun b, Laura J. Nicholson c
a
Hangzhou Dianzi University / South China Normal University, School of Foreign Studies, Baiyang Road. 1158, Hangzhou, 310018, China
b
University of Munich / Australian Catholic University, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Leopoldstr. 13, Munich, 80802, Germany
c
Edge Hill University, Faculty of Education, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, L39 4QP, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research on emotions and second language (L2) learning has proceeded for four decades,
Received 7 February 2019 and L2 scholars have made important contributions in this overshadowed research area.
Received in revised form 10 June 2019 However, advances in the field have failed to match the more general research on emotion
Accepted 16 August 2019
and learning in psychology and education that has proven beneficial for understanding a
Available online 21 August 2019
broad range of emotions experienced in educational settings and has direct implications
for classroom teaching. Specifically, the control-value theory (CVT) of achievement
Keywords:
emotion, which addresses the origins and functions of diverse emotions in education, has
Emotion
Second language learning
gained strong momentum and emerged as a useful theoretical framework, although it is
Classroom largely unknown and unused by L2 researchers. The present article aims to introduce the
Achievement concept of achievement emotions into the L2 context and bridge the gaps between these
Teaching two fields of emotion research. We first review research on emotions in second language
acquisition (SLA) and identify crucial areas for improvement. Then, we discuss theory,
measurement, and empirical studies related to the construct of achievement emotions. In
conclusion, we call for an integration of research on achievement emotions with the field
of emotions and instructed SLA and highlight the potential benefits of such an endeavor.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Language classrooms are filled with a rich variety of emotions such as enjoyment of learning, pride, anxiety, shame and
boredom (Bown & White, 2010). Emotions are likely to impact on students' second language (L2) learning and performance
by directing attentional processes and the use of cognitive resources, inducing and sustaining student interest in the learning
material, triggering different modes of information processing, and facilitating/impeding students' engagement and self-
regulation of learning (see Oga-Baldwin, this issue; Pekrun, 2006; Schumann, 1994). The past three decades have wit-
nessed important developments in research on emotion and second language acquisition (SLA; Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert,
1999; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986; Saito, Dewaele, Abe, & In'nami, 2018); however, emotions remain understudied
compared with mainstream cognitive linguistic studies of L2 learning. This may be, to a great extent, due to the strong
cognitive tradition in linguistics, especially revolutionized by Chomsky’s (1959) Universal Grammar, which searches for un-
derlying principles linking language structures and forms with concepts and ideas. With few notable exceptions (Dewaele,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Shao), [email protected] (R. Pekrun), [email protected] (L.J. Nicholson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102121
0346-251X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121

Witney, Saito, & Dewaele, 2018; Horwitz, 2001; MacIntyre, 1995), L2 researchers did not attend to the evolution of emotion
theories in psychology and neuroscience, which have generated a substantial body of research on emotions over the past half
century (Barrett, Lewis, & Haviland-Jones, 2018; Damasio & Carvalho, 2013; Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2009). Many psychologists
began to see emotion and cognition as intertwined and inseparable and began to examine each construct from the lens of the
other (see Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013, for a review). Although some L2 researchers acknowledged the important
role of emotion in language learning (e.g., Dewaele, 2005; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994; Swain, 2013), research on emotion and
SLA is lagging behind the rapidly progressing field of emotion and learning in psychology and education (Frenzel, Goetz,
Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009; Goetz, Frenzel, Stoeger, & Hall, 2010; Pekrun et al., 2017a,b, 2019). In order to move for-
ward and benefit from the advancements in this adjoining field, L2 researchers face a number of challenges, among which
measurement of emotions, as well as use of advanced statistical methods and up-to-date knowledge on emotion research in
psychology and educational science, should be given priorities in the research agenda.
The goal of the present article is to integrate information from an emerging line of research in psychology and education,
namely, studies on achievement emotions, into the framework of SLA. Through synthesizing research on emotions and
learning in general and L2 learning in particular, we aim to open dialogues between the fields of educational psychology and
SLA, improve the visibility of achievement emotion research for linguistic researchers, and offer new directions and op-
portunities for future empirical research. This article will first discuss theoretical and empirical work on emotions and
classroom language learning that has been conducted by L2 researchers to date. We will then examine the measurement of
one type of emotions: foreign language anxiety (FLA), notably the most widely researched emotion in SLA, and highlight the
obstacles that L2 emotion researchers need to overcome. Next, we consider research on achievement emotions in education
(see Pekrun et al., 2017a,b; Pekrun & Perry, 2014), which could be extended to investigate emotions in L2 learning. Finally, we
review the first pioneering studies in which achievement emotion research was integrated into the field of SLA (Lee, 2014;
Shao, Pekrun, Loderer, & Marsh, 2019) and the potential benefits which come with this multidisciplinary approach.

2. Emotion and second language acquisition

Before giving a brief review on emotion and SLA, we need to explain how we identified and selected studies to be included
in this review. Due to the paucity of research before 1970, we searched for studies that were published between 1970 and
2019, using the Web of Science database. Specifically, we focused on articles that were published in journals cited in the Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Multiple terms related to the three categories of emotions, language, and learning/teaching/
achievement were combined as the topic words for searching. An initial search yielded a total of 728 articles, on emotion of
which 358 are related to both language and education or psychology. After further screening, we retained 211 articles that
related to classroom language learning. Due to the focus of the present article, 146 empirical reviews on emotion and SLA as
well as quantitative studies including measures of discrete emotions related to language learning (Pekrun & Stephens, 2012)
were left for further consideration. The final inclusion of studies for the review was based on both subjective and objective
criteria regarding the importance and quality of the articles (e.g., in terms of number of citations and journal reputation) in
the field of emotions and second language learning.
Research on emotion and instructed language learning can be traced back to the 1970s. Although more than two hundred
SSCI studies have been published since then (see, e.g., Dewaele et al., 2018; Horwitz, 2010; MacIntyre, 2002), L2 researchers
tended to avoid giving a direct definition of emotion. On the other hand, this comes as no surprise because it reflects the lack
of consensus on the definition of emotion in adjacent fields, including culture studies, philosophy, anthropology, and psy-
chology. This being said, L2 emotion research has long been hampered by this lack of a clear definition. The term emotion has
been used to denote a wide range of disparate constructs in SLA, including attitudes, motivation, personality, self-efficacy,
affect, interests, goal orientations, beliefs, cognitive styles, and learning strategies (see, e.g., Bown & White, 2010; Gardner
& MacIntyre, 1993). Scovel (1978), one of the first L2 emotion experts, defined affect (often seen as a synonym of emotion)
as feelings of pleasure and displeasure while performing L2 learning tasks that signal arousal of the limbic system and its
influence on learning. Later, Schumann (1994) contended that emotion modulates cognition in processing L2 stimuli,
including attention, memory and the subsequent use of information in behavior. Until recently, however, very few L2 applied
linguists considered reexamining the definition issue.
Drawing on a social-cognitive psychological approach (Bandura, 2001), Bown and White (2010) defined affect as the
emotional interpretation of L2 experience and contexts and posited that this interpretation can influence the dynamic process
of language learning. Pavlenko (2012) defined affective processing of L2 learning as somatovisceral responses triggered by
automatic appraisals of language stimuli, an account grounded in appraisal theory of emotion (Scherer, 2009). Swain (2013)
described emotion from a Vygotskian (2000) perspective and argued that emotions are interpersonal and that they are so-
cially and culturally co-constructed, along with cognition, as the L2 learning events progress. Swain conceives emotion and
cognition as interdependent and inseparable. Taken together, each researcher tried to explain emotion in L2 learning from a
unique vantage point and contributed insights to our understanding of this construct. In this article, we define emotions
pertaining to classroom L2 learning as affective experiences that are tied directly to language learning activities and resulting
learning outcomes, a dynamic process which is determined by appraisals of socio-culturally shaped L2 learning tasks. This
definition is in line with current appraisal theories of emotion, which assume that appraisals are a core determinant of the
affective, cognitive, physiological, motivational, and behavioral component processes of emotions (Pekrun et al., 2017a,b;
Scherer, 2013).
 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121 3

Research into emotion in L2 learning in the past four decades has tended to predominantly focus on negative emotions,
mostly FLA (Cheng, 2017; Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008; Horwitz, 2010; Horwitz et al., 1986). Early studies on the
effects of anxiety on SLA (Chastain, 1975; Kleinmann, 1977) produced contradictory results in terms of whether anxiety was
positively or negatively related to students' L2 performance. Scovel (1978) attributed the inconsistent findings to differences
in the measurement of anxiety in these studies. “Facilitating anxiety” (Alpert & Haber, 1960) was reported to be positively
related to learners' L2 achievement (Kleinmann, 1977), while “debilitating anxiety” tended to be negatively correlated with
language achievement (Chastain, 1975). Shortly after this, Krashen (1982) proposed an “affective filter” hypothesis, which
posits that when learners' anxiety is high, they become less able to process language input, fail to take in the available target
language messages, and do not progress in their language acquisition (i.e., due to the language input and messages being
“filtered”). When learners' anxiety is low, language input becomes more accessible and language acquisition occurs. Albeit an
influential argument at the time, this hypothesis seems to only imply negative effects of anxiety on L2 learning but neglects
the possible positive effects of anxiety. However, both theory and evidence suggest more complex and variable effects of
anxiety on L2 outcomes (Eysenck, 1979). Some anxious individuals may increase effort to compensate for the increased
cognitive demands, leading to better results (Marcos-Llina
s & Garau, 2009). Anxiety may also interact with linguistic ability
and task demands in predicting L2 learners’ performance, and the correlation often becomes negative when language tasks
are complex (see Eysenck, 1979; Scovel, 1978).
In response to Scovel’s (1978) concerns about the measurement of language anxiety, Horwitz et al. (1986) developed the
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), which started a new era of investigation. The scale received broad
attention (see Horwitz, 2010), and the resulting burgeoning research on language anxiety led some researchers to debate the
role anxiety plays in L2 learning (MacIntyre, 1995; Sparks & Ganschow, 1995). A well-known example is the dispute between
Sparks and Ganschow (1991, 1993, 1995) and MacIntyre and Gardner (1991, 1994), MacIntyre (1995). Stemming from their
studies on dyslexia and learning disabilities, Sparks and Ganschow (1991) claimed that native linguistic ability should account
for the largest portion of variance in explaining learners' L2 problems and performance. L2 anxiety may only be a side effect
due to learners' linguistic coding deficits in their native language and thus play a minor role in L2 learning (Sparks &
Ganschow, 1993). In response, MacIntyre and Gardner (1991, 1994) noted that first language aptitude is different from L2
aptitude and that generalizing a conclusion derived from individuals with dyslexia or learning difficulties to students with
normal native language ability is untenable. Anxiety arousal distracts attention, causes task-irrelevant cognition, and may
affect the processing of L2 stimuli at all stages of language acquisition (MacIntyre, 1995). To date, the majority of research
evidence confirms that there are significantly negative associations between anxiety and L2 performance (e.g., Cheng, 2017;
Dewaele et al., 2018; Shao, Yu, & Ji, 2013). This is in line with the vast body of literature on the relations between anxiety,
cognition and learning in psychology and education (e.g., Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007; Ramirez, Shaw, &
Maloney, 2018; Zeidner, 1998). Anxiety was also shown to be a better predictor than L1 aptitude for objective achieve-
ment measures (e.g., scores from achievement tests, cloze tests, and essay writing) in some studies when simultaneously
included in the same model (Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Saito et al., 2018).
The vibrant research on language anxiety left other discrete emotions in SLA largely unnoticed. Language classrooms are
known to be abundant with a broad spectrum of emotions (Bown & White, 2010; Swain, 2013), for example, enjoyment of
learning, relief, happiness, admiration, surprise, gratitude, jealousy, shame, boredom and so forth. However, it was only very
recently that a few pioneering L2 researchers started to explore a limited number of other discrete emotions in the second
language context (Teimouri, 2017). For example, Teimouri (2018) examined the links of guilt and shame with L2 learners’
motivation and performance. Results showed that shame negatively correlated with motivation and language achievement,
whereas guilt was positively related to motivation and achievement.
As for positive emotions, Dewaele et al. (2018) and MacIntyre, Gregersen, and Mercer (2016) were among the first to
explicitly introduce these emotions from the perspective of positive psychology into the field of SLA (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), although other positive psychological factors such as intrinsic motivation, positive attitudes to-
wards target languages and positive relationships with L2 native speakers have been addressed for some time (Do € rnyei, 2007;
Gardner, 1985). These authors emphasized the importance of positive emotions in boosting students' L2 motivation, crea-
tivity, interest, performance, and social cohesion. They asserted that positive emotions not only broaden learners’ perspec-
tives and facilitate the development of cognitive resources for L2 learning, but also help to promote psychological resilience
and dispel the protracted effects of negative emotions in the face of frustration.
Dewaele et al. (2018) went further by examining one type of positive emotion: enjoyment, among 189 British high school
students learning various foreign languages in class. Results were in line with those yielded from psychology and education
(e.g., Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2011, Pekrun et al., 2017a,b). They showed that students' foreign language
enjoyment (FLE) was negatively correlated with their foreign language anxiety (FLA) and positively related to their relative
achievement position in the class. Students' gender, age, language proficiency, degree of multilingualism, and attitude to-
wards the foreign language also related to their FLE. Interestingly, teacher-related variables such as frequency of L2 use,
unpredictability of the class, and students' attitudes towards the teacher seemed to be more related to students' FLE than to
their FLA. It should also be mentioned that Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014) developed a new scale to measure students’ foreign
language enjoyment in the classroom, which has recently been revised by the authors (Dewaele et al., 2018; Li, Jiang, &
Dewaele, 2018).
In another study, which employed a mixed cross-sectional and longitudinal design, Saito et al. (2018) investigated how L2
emotion and motivation related to oral proficiency among 108 Japanese high school students. Results showed that learners'
4 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121

enjoyment and motivation were positively related to studying, using and practicing the target language throughout their L2
learning experience. Anxiety was not linked to studying and practicing. Students with a clear vision of their ideal L2-Self
experienced more enjoyment and less anxiety in their language learning. Moreover, students' enjoyment positively pre-
dicted both their long-term and short-term language achievement, controlling for prior achievement. In contrast, partici-
pants' anxiety was only negatively related to their long-term language development. In short, this initial evidence highlights
the importance of positive emotions in enhancing L2 learners' motivation and performance and suggests that L2 teachers
should strive to boost students’ enjoyment and other beneficial affective experiences such as hope, pride and contentment.

3. Measurement issues of emotions in SLA: anxiety as an example

The measurement of emotions in SLA has been obstructed by the aforementioned lack of definition and associated nar-
rowing of focus on anxiety. Nevertheless, a handful of scales (mostly measuring anxiety) have been developed and validated
(Cheng, 2004; Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Saito, Horwitz, & Garza, 1999; Woodrow, 2006), with the FLCAS (Horwitz et al.,
1986) being the most widely utilized (see Fallah, 2017; Horwitz, 2010). The construction of the scale made a ground-breaking
contribution to the field of language anxiety, which was based on the authors’ teaching and clinical experience, interviews
with 75 students in a Spanish L2 program and prior literature on learning anxiety (see Horwitz et al., 1986). For the
advancement of research, we elaborate on three aspects of the scale: dimensions, item contents and statistical properties, all
of which may provide room for improvement.
Dimensions. Drawing from performance anxiety research, Horwitz et al. (1986) developed the FLCAS as comprising three
dimensions: communication apprehension; test anxiety; and fear of negative evaluation. According to the authors,
communication apprehension is a type of shyness characterized by fear of, or anxiety about, communicating with people. Test
anxiety refers to a type of performance anxiety stemming from fear of failure. Fear of negative evaluation was defined as
apprehension about others' negative evaluations and the tendency to avoid evaluative situations. All three dimensions were
operationalized in relation to classroom L2 learning. However, factor analyses from later validation studies suggested that
communication apprehension may be the most relevant and meaningful component of the scale (Aida, 1994; Cheng et al.,
1999; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989; Park, 2014). For example, although Aida (1994) found four factors when examining the
construct of FLCAS, the first factor, labeled as ‘speech anxiety’, constituted 37.9% of the total variance, whereas the highest
amount of variance among the other three factors was only 6.3% and none of them represented ‘test anxiety’ or ‘fear of
negative evaluation’. Similarly, Cheng et al. (1999) factor analyzed the FLCAS and found two meaningful factors, where the
first factor, labeled as ‘low self-confidence in speaking English’, accounted for 38.1% of the total variance and the second factor,
labeled as ‘general English performance anxiety’, accounted for only 5.4% of the variance. In both studies, the dominant factor
could be considered an aspect of communication apprehension.
In short, these and other validation studies (Mak, 2011; Park, 2014) did not support the proposed two dimensions of ‘test
anxiety’ and ‘fear of negative evaluation’ of the FLCAS. By definition, test anxiety is the physiological arousal, tension, and
worry that occurs before or during test situations (Zeidner, 1998). It often occurs in a unique setting different from normal
classroom teaching (Pekrun et al., 2011). Moreover, as Horwitz et al. (1986) rightly pointed out, ‘fear of negative evaluation’ is
broader in scope than ‘test anxiety’ and ‘communicative apprehension’, i.e., it is not limited to language classrooms and may
occur in any social or evaluative situation. Furthermore, ‘fear of negative evaluation’ may also be considered a component of
‘test anxiety’, which has been recognized in the anxiety literature (Zeidner, 1998). Thus, it might be more judicious to exclude
these two dimensions that apparently have broader meaning than classroom anxiety from the FLCAS and focus on the
communicative component of the instrument (e.g., Dewaele et al., 2008).
Item contents. The FLCAS consists of thirty-three items. More than one third of them relate to constructs other than the
feeling of anxiety. For example, “During language class, I find myself thinking about things that have nothing to do with the
course” (for similar items see Horwitz et al., 1986). Although task-irrelevant thinking may be due to students' worries about
studying language courses (i.e., an aspect of anxiety), it may also be due to the student feeling bored in language classes.
Boredom, commonly described as an affective state composed of unpleasant feelings, lack of stimulation, and low physio-
logical arousal (Harris, 2000) is another type of emotion considered in the contemporary literature in psychology and edu-
cation (Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry, 2010). It has no less deleterious effects than anxiety on students’ learning
and performance (Pekrun, Hall, Goetz, & Perry, 2014) but is clearly differentiated from anxiety.
Moreover, some of the items of the FLCAS refer to students' self-efficacy for language learning rather than their anxiety. For
instance, “I feel confident when I speak in foreign language class”. There is a large body of research on self-efficacy and
learning (see Bandura, 2001; Sardegna, Lee, & Kusey, 2018), which addresses students' beliefs in their ability to succeed in
specific academic situations or tasks. Endorsement of such an item generally indicates students' self-confidence in performing
certain language tasks and may not indicate a lack of anxiety. It may also indicate, for example, a reduced level of shame
(Pekrun & Perry, 2014; Turner & Schallert, 2001). Furthermore, some of the items pertain to anxiety that usually happens
outside of the classroom setting, such as, “I would not be nervous speaking the foreign language with native speakers” and “I
would probably feel comfortable around native speakers of the foreign language”. These items may represent a lack of anxiety
that typically arises from authentic communication with L2 speakers in naturalistic settings, rather than ‘classroom anxiety’
as intended to be measured by the scale. As such, it could be beneficial to revise some of the items in the FLCAS such that they
clearly focus on anxiety relating to language learning activities and outcomes in the classroom.
 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121 5

Statistical properties. Surprisingly, although the FLCAS was developed over thirty years ago and many L2 researchers
have employed the scale in their studies (Aida, 1994; Cheng et al., 1999; Fallah, 2017; see Horwitz, 2010, for a review), it was
only until very recently that Park (2014) performed both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA,
respectively) to test its latent factor structure. The result was largely congruent with previous studies using EFA as discussed
earlier, showing one dominant factor, labeled “communicative apprehension and understanding”, which accounted for 32.3%
of the variance. A second factor, labeled “communicative apprehension and confidence”, explained 6.38% of the total variance.
While the first factor was related to the cognitive components of anxiety about communicating with people in L2, the second
factor was related to confidence (or lack of confidence) in communicative situations. Clearly, there is a shared component of
‘communicative apprehension’ in these two factors. Goodness of fit indices resulting from the CFA of the two-factor model
were minimally acceptable (see Park, 2014). It should be noted that the latent structure tested by CFA in this study was based
on the two factors extracted from the EFA and did not directly test the originally proposed three dimensions.
CFA is a commonly used statistical technique in social science (Byrne, 2011) and is essential to test whether a priori hy-
pothesized model fits the data. However, most L2 researchers, including Horwitz et al., did not employ this technique to test
the proposed three-dimensional structure of the FLCAS. Other properties of the scale, such as convergent and discriminant
validity, were also rarely examined. This may lead subsequent researchers to misinterpret the underlying structure of the
FLCAS (see, e.g., Aida, 1994; Fallah, 2017; Liu & Jackson, 2008) and conceal the necessity for further work to develop and refine
the instrument.
As Dewaele (2005) has pointed out, SLA researchers are often autodidacts in statistics which may explain why some of the
extant research lacks methodological rigor. This is also a key reason for the current measurement problems in the field. In
order to conduct state of the art research that has more practical and theoretical significance, L2 researchers may benefit from
becoming acquainted with recent substantive and methodological developments in related areas of psychology and the
learning sciences (e.g. see also McEown & Oga-Baldwin, this issue), to be discussed in the next section. Specifically, we are
going to consider recent research on achievement emotions and theory and measurement related to these emotions.

4. Conceptual framework of achievement emotions and construction of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire

Over the past 20 years, achievement emotions have received considerable attention within the fields of psychology and
education. Achievement emotions refer to emotions that are directly related to achievement activities or outcomes (Pekrun,
2006; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). One framework for conceptualizing these emotions is the control-value theory (CVT) which
proposes that control and value appraisals are the proximal determinants of the emotions that students experience in
achievement settings (see Pekrun & Perry, 2014, for details). CVT provides an integrative approach for analyzing these diverse
achievement emotions and builds on assumptions from expectancy-value theories of emotions (Pekrun, 1992; Turner &
Schallert, 2001), attributional theories of emotions and motivation (Weiner, 1985), transactional models of responses to
stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), and models of the effects of emotions on academic performance (Fredrickson, 2001; Pekrun,
Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002; Zeidner, 1998). It expands these perspectives by integrating propositions from different theories
and addressing both activity and outcome-related achievement emotions.
Based on a series of qualitative and quantitative studies, Pekrun et al. (2002) identified nine emotions (enjoyment, hope,
pride, relief, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom) which were most frequently reported by students in aca-
demic settings, yet largely ignored by emotion researchers (with the exception of anxiety). Building upon these findings, a
three-dimensional taxonomy encompassing different types of achievement emotions and a self-report instrument measuring
these discrete emotions were developed (Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005, Pekrun et al., 2011). In this taxonomy, achievement
emotions were classified according to object focus (activity vs. outcome emotions), valence (positive vs. negative), and
activation (activating vs. deactivating). The object focus dimension was subcategorized into prospective, retrospective and
concurrent emotions. For instance, hope and anxiety are prospective outcome emotions related to possible future success and
failure, respectively, while pride and shame are retrospective outcome emotions pertaining to prior success and failure,
respectively (Weiner, 1985; Zeidner, 2007). Enjoyment, anger, and boredom are examples of activity emotions linked to
current achievement activities (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006, Pekrun et al., 2010). In terms of valence, positive emotions are
differentiated from negative emotions, such as pleasant enjoyment versus unpleasant anxiety. In terms of activation, phys-
iologically activating emotions are distinguished from deactivating emotions, such as activating hope versus deactivating
hopelessness (Pekrun et al., 2011). The classification of dimensions of valence and activation is consistent with circumplex
models of affect which organize affective states into a two-dimensional (valence
activation) space (Barrett & Russell, 1998;
Linnenbrink, 2007; Pekrun & Perry, 2014).
In accordance with contemporary component models of emotions (e.g., Scherer’s, 2013, component process model), CVT
views emotions as sets of interrelated psychological processes, in which affective, cognitive, physiological, and motivational
components are of primary importance (e.g., for anxiety, feeling tense and uneasy, worrying, being activated peripherally, and
wanting to escape; Pekrun et al., 2011). This multi-component definition of achievement emotions served as the foundation
for the construction of items and scales of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ; Pekrun et al., 2011). The AEQ
addresses the nine aforementioned emotions as experienced in the three most typical academic situations: attending classes,
doing homework, and taking tests. Within each situation, the items are ordered in three temporal sections assessing students'
emotions before, during and after being in the respective situation. The AEQ can be adapted to examine emotional experi-
ences across different time frames and academic subjects. For instance, by adapting the instructions accordingly, the original
6 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121

items assessing trait achievement emotions (e.g., habitual test anxiety) can be used to measure course-specific emotions (e.g.,
anxiety aroused in a single course) or state emotions (e.g., anxiety experienced a few minutes before a specific exam).
Similarly, they can be utilized to measure emotions that may occur in different domains such as math, language, sports or
performing arts (Pekrun et al., 2005).
The AEQ has been validated across different ages, cultures, situations, and domains (Frenzel, Thrash, Pekrun, & Goetz,
2007; Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Lüdtke, 2007; Lee, 2014; Lichtenfeld, Pekrun, Stupnisky, Reiss, & Murayama, 2012;
Peixoto, Mata1, Monteiro, Sanches, & Pekrun, 2015; Pekrun et al., 2002, 2011). For example, using a sample (N ¼ 389) of
university students from North America, Pekrun et al. (2011) tested the reliability, internal validity, and external validity of the
AEQ. Findings indicate that the instrument is reliable, internally valid as demonstrated by CFA, and externally valid in terms of
relationships with students' control-value appraisals, motivation and academic performance. Moreover, Lichtenfeld et al.
(2012) examined and confirmed the structural validity of an adapted version of the AEQ measuring elementary students’
enjoyment, anxiety and boredom in three academic settings. Analyses of correlations between control-value antecedents and
emotions also lent support to the external validity of the instrument. In general, these studies provide adequate empirical
support for the theoretical basis of the AEQ and demonstrate the utility of the instrument across different settings.

5. Antecedents and outcomes of achievement emotions

The CVT proposes that control and value appraisals are the proximal determinants of achievement emotions (Pekrun,
2006; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). That is, students experience specific achievement emotions when they feel in control of, or
out of control over, achievement activities and outcomes that are subjectively important to them. Higher levels of perceived
control over achievement activities and outcomes are presumed to engender positive emotional experiences such as hope,
pride, or enjoyment, whereas lower levels of control are assumed to elicit negative emotions such as anxiety, hopelessness or
shame. In contrast, value is expected to amplify both types of emotion, except for boredom which is prompted when value is
lacking. To date, a number of studies have corroborated that positive achievement emotions are positively associated with
students’ control as well as positive value appraisals, while the opposite trend has generally been found for negative
achievement emotions (Artino & Jones, 2012; Daniels & Stupnisky, 2012; Lee, 2014; Pekrun et al., 2017a,b).
Furthermore, the CVT posits that perceived controllability and value of academic activities or outcomes are assumed to
influence achievement emotions in a multiplicative fashion. Pleasant achievement emotions are posited to be caused
interactively by high perceived control and high positive value. For example, if a student is interested in the learning material
and believes she is able to master it, she will enjoy learning the material. In contrast, if she does not value the material, or
perceives a lack of control over how to understand it, she will dislike the learning activity. Similarly, unpleasant achievement
emotions (except for boredom) are posited to be a joint function of perceived uncontrollability and high negative value (i.e.,
importance in terms of costs). For instance, if a student perceives failure at an upcoming exam to be likely and uncontrollable,
and judges failure on the exam to involve high costs in terms of not attaining academic goals, he will fear the exam. If failure is
not anticipated, or the exam is irrelevant to the student's goals, anxiety will be unlikely (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). A few recent
studies have empirically tested and supported the proposed interactive effects of control and value appraisals on discrete
emotions (Bieg, Goetz, & Hubbard, 2013; Goetz et al., 2010; Putwain et al., 2018).
As for outcomes, Pekrun's (2002, 2006) cognitive-motivational model of emotion effects predicts that the effects of
emotions on learning and performance hinge on the interplay between various cognitive and motivational mechanisms, such
as students' learning strategies, regulation of learning and motivation (Pekrun, 2006). Specifically, emotions can promote the
use of different learning strategies, including flexible strategies such as elaboration of learning material and rigid strategies
such as simple rehearsal. Emotions can also stimulate different styles of regulation including self-regulation versus external
regulation of learning (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). Furthermore, emotions are thought to impact students' intrinsic motivation
which is determined by interest and curiosity in learning, as well as their extrinsic motivation, which is directed towards
attaining positive outcomes or preventing negative outcomes.
These effects can be further specified based on activation and valence of emotions. Specifically, positive activating emo-
tions such as hope, pride, and enjoyment are presumed to enhance both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, facilitate use of
flexible learning strategies, and promote self-regulation, and thus have a positive influence on academic performance under
most circumstances. Conversely, negative deactivating emotions, such as boredom and hopelessness, are thought to uni-
formly diminish motivation and effort, which implies detrimental effects on performance. For positive deactivating emotions,
such as relief, and negative activating emotions, such as anger, anxiety, and shame, the relationships are predicted to be more
complex. Although anger, anxiety, and shame can undermine intrinsic motivation, they may induce strong extrinsic moti-
vation to invest extra effort to avoid failure, suggesting that the effects of these emotions on students’ overall motivation need
not be negative. Furthermore, these emotions are posited to facilitate use of more rigid learning strategies like rehearsal
(Pekrun et al., 2011). As a result, negative activating emotions can have variable effects on learning and performance (e.g.
Lane, Whyte, Terry, & Nevill, 2005; Turner & Schallert, 2001), although negative consequences on overall academic perfor-
mance are likely to outweigh any beneficial effects for most students (Hall, Sampasivam, Muis, & Ranellucci, 2016; Peixoto
et al., 2015; Pekrun et al., 2011). Empirical data from both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have largely supported
these propositions (Goetz et al., 2016; Luo, Ng, Lee, & Aye, 2016; Peixoto, Sanches, Mata, & Monteiro, 2016; Pekrun,
Murayama, Marsh, Goetz, & Frenzel, 2019).
 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121 7

6. Integration of achievement emotions into the field of SLA

CVT suggests that, to the extent that control and value appraisals underlying achievement emotions follow the principle of
domain specificity (e.g., math vs. language; see Marsh, 1993), achievement emotions should also be arranged in domain- and
task-specific manners (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). In spite of this domain specificity of achievement emotions, past research on
these emotions in psychology and education has predominantly dealt with domain-general emotion variables (such as
general test anxiety). Alternatively, achievement emotion researchers have considered multiple student emotions related to
math (e.g., Ahmed, Minnaert, Van der Werf, & Kuyper, 2010; Luo et al., 2016; Peixoto et al., 2016; Pekrun et al., 2017a,b). In the
L2 context, however, multiple achievement emotions other than anxiety have rarely been examined, with very few
exceptions.
For example, using the AEQ, Lee (2014) explored the relations between achievement goals, achievement emotions and L2
performance among high school students in Germany and South Korea. The findings show that students' different goal
orientations were linked to different patterns of emotions. Achievement emotions mediated the relationships between
achievement goals and language performance. In addition, enjoyment, hope, and pride were positively related to L2 per-
formance, whereas relations for anxiety, anger, shame, boredom, and hopelessness were negative. These associations were
similar across the two cultures. Recently, Shao et al. (2019) validated the learning-related AEQ measuring eight discrete
emotions among 1021 Chinese university students who studied English as a foreign language. Results confirm that the
adapted AEQ is a reliable and valid instrument which can be used to assess students’ various emotions in L2 learning. The
goodness of fit indexes of the hierarchical models obtained from both single- and multi-group (two cohorts of freshmen in a
Southeastern college in China) measurement invariance tests corroborate the proposed affective, cognitive, physiological and
motivational components of the AEQ. The internal relations among the discrete emotions confirmed their distinctiveness and
the external relations with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and self-regulation were largely as expected.
Furthermore, in a longitudinal study, Shao, Pekrun et al. (2019) examined the independent and interactive effects of
control and value on L2 achievement emotions and performance as well as the conditional indirect effects of appraisals on
achievement through emotions. Five hundred and fifty Chinese college students were studied across one semester. Results
indicated that students experienced more positive emotions and less negative emotions when they felt confident about
language learning and found the learning activities and outcomes important and interesting. These students were also more
likely to achieve better performance in the language exam. Moreover, the results suggest that students’ perception of control
may affect their pleasant or unpleasant feelings more strongly in relation to academic activities or outcomes which were
highly valued by them. The multiplicative impact of control and value appraisals on L2 performance was also mediated by
four of the focal emotions (enjoyment, hope, pride, and hopelessness).
The above pioneering studies provide preliminary evidence for the utility of the achievement emotion construct in the
field of SLA. As noted by Noels (2000), L2 researchers need to explore models of emotion and motivation developed by
educational and social psychologists not directly involved in L2 research in order to advance the field. In the same vein,
Dewaele (2005) argued against research isolationism and for more interdisciplinarity in research on instructed SLA. This
implies that findings in other fields such as psychology and learning sciences should be communicated to the SLA community
through conference presentations and publications in journals with a wider focus (e.g. Fryer, this issue). L2 emotion re-
searchers might benefit from considering these concepts and methodologies in neighboring disciplines that could potentially
enrich their own perspectives (see Lee & Bong, this issue).
CVT proposes that although the contents and intensity of emotions may be different across various achievement settings,
the functional mechanisms linking these emotions with their antecedents and outcomes are universal across academic
domains (Pekrun, 2006). This suggests that basic principles underlying the construct of achievement emotions are gener-
alizable to different subjects, including SLA. From this perspective, research on emotions in instructed SLA has both specific
and general aspects. With this in mind, the integration of achievement emotions into the field of SLA will open new op-
portunities for both language and education researchers. L2 researchers may use established theories of emotion in psy-
chology and learning sciences to guide their empirical exploration; at the same time, existing theories of achievement
emotions can be expanded by considering domain-specific features of emotions in language learning.
For example, achievement emotion research has shown that teachers' emotions can significantly influence students'
emotions, likely through mechanisms of emotion transmission such as emotional contagion (Frenzel et al., 2009, 2018).
Emotion transmission from teachers to students may be especially important and readily observable in instructed SLA since
language teachers are often the primary facilitators and authorities in language classrooms. L2 researchers may develop a
research agenda to investigate how teachers' affective experiences in language teaching relate to students' emotions in
language learning, and they may propose effective strategies to help language educators promote positive emotion dynamics
between teachers and students. Practically, it is advised that language teachers be aware of their own emotions in class, up-
regulate their pleasant emotions, and adopt an enthusiastic teaching style as a way of influencing students’ positive emotions
toward learning through emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Shao, Ji, & Yu, 2012).
Similarly, the emotion interaction between students and their peers in L2 classrooms deserves more attention since there
is a greater need for students to communicate and interact with one another when learning a language, compared to other
subjects. Applied linguists can employ multi-level analysis to see how students' language learning emotions are influenced by
the emotional experiences of their peers through processes such as emotional contagion (Hatfield et al., 1994) or social
appraisals (Parkinson & Manstead, 2015) at both classroom and individual levels. By implication, this suggests that teachers
8 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121

may also promote students’ adaptive emotions by nurturing positive peer relations. One way to achieve this is through
encouraging collaborative learning in and out of the classroom (Gillies, 2004), which may help with developing positive
interdependence and a supportive learning climate among students (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Moreover, technology-enhanced classroom learning designed to promote students' achievement emotions and perfor-
mance will be a future focus for both L2 researchers and educational scientists in light of the recent advances in technology-
based learning (see Loderer, Pekrun, & Lester, 2018). L2 researchers may examine the interactions between task environments
(technology-based vs. traditional, as well as different variants of technology-based environments) and diverse achievement
emotions in predicting students' language learning processes (e.g., motivation, effort, and interest) and outcomes (Hwang,
Ting-Chia Hsu, Lai, & Hsueh, 2017). L2 teachers can then employ techniques such as problem-based gaming (Butler, 2017)
as well as learning analytics (see, e.g., Kim, Soyata, & Behnagh, 2018) to boost students’ interest and alleviate their negative
learning emotions.
Furthermore, intervention research targeting appraisal antecedents of achievement emotions such as perceived control
and task values can contribute to our knowledge on how to enhance students' L2 learning experience both cognitively and
affectively (Pekrun & Perry, 2014). By the same token, researchers may consider developing interventions that help teachers
to promote their students’ perceptions of control and/or value, which in turn will foster adaptive emotions in the language
classroom. Possible interventions may focus on promising techniques in the field such as attributional retraining (Hall et al.,
2016), mindset intervention, and value induction (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018).
Research on L2 learning, by its very nature, requires the consideration of emotions and applications of emotion research
that are unique to this domain of learning, and L2 researchers can capitalize on such special features to explore new research
topics. For instance, research on foreign language anxiety has shown that students' experiences of anxiety differ markedly in
the four aspects of language learning: speaking, reading, listening, and writing (Cheng et al., 1999; Elkafaifi, 2005; Saito et al.,
1999). We may extrapolate that this phenomenon applies to other emotions as well. Accordingly, L2 researchers could
examine how students’ emotional experiences differ with respect to each dimension of language learning such that rec-
ommendations can be made to tailor classroom instruction to their specific language needs.
One limitation of current research on learning-related achievement emotions is that it focuses on achievement emotions
in academic settings. It is important to note that communication that occurs outside of these settings can profoundly affect L2
proficiency (e.g., studying abroad or interacting with L2 speakers outside of the classroom). Thus, investigating L2 learners’
emotions in non-academic contexts may yield new knowledge and provide an important complement to current CVT
research.
Furthermore, contextual factors such as second language versus foreign language instruction are also assumed to
differentially influence students’ emotions in the language classroom. For example, it could be that the achievement emotions
of Chinese students who strive to acquire English language proficiency and perform well in their exams differ considerably
from the emotions that immigrants or refugees may have when learning English in order to integrate into their host com-
munity in the UK. L2 researchers may examine whether the propositions of the CVT hold in these two settings and which
teaching methods are more conducive to each group of students. Such research could, in turn, promote the development of
amendments in the theory of achievement emotions when applied to the field of SLA.
Finally, SLA usually entails communication between L2 learners with limited linguistic knowledge and native speakers
who reside, or were born, within a different culture. Thus, qualitative as well as quantitative research based on refined
theories could provide more detailed insights into how learners’ emotions develop and change during ongoing language
acquisition situations and tasks (Garrett & Young, 2009; Gregersen, Meza, & MacIntyre, 2014; Swain, 2013). Triangulation of
data from different methods may also provide an optimal ground for the further development of emotion theories using both
idiographic and nomothetic research perspectives. Findings of research based on this approach would likely yield rich im-
plications for L2 practitioners.

7. Conclusion

Emotions are of fundamental importance to students’ language learning, performance and wellbeing. As such, they
deserve more attention from L2 researchers. The recent development of research on achievement emotions in psychology and
education provides exciting possibilities for L2 educators. Integration of emotion constructs into the field of SLA will not only
help to overcome existing deficits in language research such as methodological issues and measurement problems, but also
bring new dynamics and opportunities for the research communities of both language learning and psychology. The initial
empirical evidence generated in this joint research area is already producing new ideas, knowledge and insights for L2
emotion scientists (Lee, 2014; Shao et al., 2019) and proposing practical recommendations for language teachers (Shao,
Pekrun et al., 2019). However, further research is sorely needed in order to validate, support and apply these preliminary
findings in language classrooms.
The successful integration of achievement emotion research into the second language context depends on how to find the
best combination between psychology and language pedagogy and make them complementary to each other. We believe that
learning from emotion research in psychology and learning sciences can provide crucial insights into L2 acquisition. This may
serve as a new impetus for applied linguists to design more refined and rigorous studies for investigating the emotional
aspects of L2 learning. There is also considerable input we can offer from our unique experiences and perspectives as language
teachers and applied linguists to the theories and practice of educational psychology. The collaboration between SLA
 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121 9

researchers and experts in achievement emotions in designing classroom interventions that target emotions will ultimately
benefit the development and learning of instructed L2 learners.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Hangzhou Dianzi University, Grant No. 16BYY092; South China Normal University, Grant No.
8S0528.

References

Ahmed, W., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., Van der Werf, M. P. C., & Kuyper, H. (2010). The role of competence and value beliefs in students' daily emotional ex-
periences: A multilevel test of a transactional model. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 507e511.
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and cope's construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 155e168.
Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 61(2), 207e215.
Artino, A. R., & Jones, K. D. (2012). Exploring the complex relations between achievement emotions and self-regulated learning behaviors in online learning.
The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 170e175.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review Of Psychology, 52, 1e26.
Barrett, L. F., Lewis, M., & Haviland-Jones, J. M. (2018). Handbook of emotions (4th ed.). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967e984.
Bieg, M., Goetz, T., & Hubbard, K. (2013). Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control-value antecedents of trait and state
academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 28, 102e108.
Bown, J., & White, C. J. (2010). Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System, 38, 432e443.
Butler, Y. G. (2017). Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners' game designs. Language Teaching Research, 21(6),
735e750.
Byrne, B. M. (2011). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 25, 153e161.
Cheng, Y.-s. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13,
313e335.
Cheng, Y.-s. (2017). Development and preliminary validation of four brief measures of L2 language-skill-specific anxiety. System, 68, 15e25.
Cheng, Y.-s., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49, 417e446.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's ‘Verbal behavior’. Language, 35, 26e58.
Damasio, A., & Carvalho, G. B. (2013). The nature of feelings: Evolutionary and neurobiological origins. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(2), 143e152.
Daniels, L. M., & Stupnisky, R. H. (2012). Not that different in theory: Discussing the control-value theory of emotions in online learning environments.
Internet And Higher Education, 15, 222e226.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and the emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The
Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 367e380.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language
Learning and Teaching, 4, 237e274.
Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional intelligence and socio-biographical variables on communicative anxiety and
foreign language anxiety among adult multi-linguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4), 911e960.
Dewaele, J.-M., Witney, J., Saito, K., & Dewaele, L. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language
Teaching Research, 22(6), 676e697.
Do€ rnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp.
719e731). New York: Springer.
Elkafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 206e220.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13, 363e385.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336e353.
Fallah, N. (2017). Mindfulness, coping self-efficacy and foreign language anxiety: A mediation analysis. Educational Psychology, 37, 745e756.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist,
56(3), 218e226.
Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Lüdtke, O. (2018). Emotion transmission in the classroom revisited: A reciprocal effects model of
teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 628e639.
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher
and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705e716.
Frenzel, A. C., Thrash, T., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Achievement emotions in Germany and China: A cross-cultural validation of the academic emotions
questionnaire-mathematics. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 302e309.
Fryer, L. K. (this issue). Getting interested in learning a language: Developing a sustainable source of engagement.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43, 157e194.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, T.,A. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language
Journal, 81, 344e362.
Garrett, P., & Young, R. F. (2009). Theorizing affect in foreign language learning: An analysis of one learner's responses to a communicative based Portuguese
course. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 209e226.
Gillies, R. M. (2004). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197e213.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & Lüdtke, O. (2007). Between- and within-domain relations of students' academic emotions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(4), 715e733.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Stoeger, H., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Motivation and
Emotion, 34(1), 49e62.
Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2016). Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions:
An experience sampling approach. Learning and Instruction, 41, 115e125.
Gregersen, T., Macintyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners' foreign language anxiety. The Modern
Language Journal, 98, 574e588.
Hall, N. C., Sampasivam, L., Muis, K. R., & Ranellucci, J. (2016). Achievement goals and emotions: The mediational roles of perceived progress, control, and
value. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 313e330.
10 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: The science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 69(1), 409e435.
Harris, M. B. (2000). Correlates and characteristics of boredom proneness and boredom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 576e598.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. R., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 2, 96e99.
Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review Of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112e126.
Horwitz, E. K. (2010). Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching, 43(2), 154e167.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125e132.
Hwang, G.-J., Ting-Chia Hsu, T-C.h, Lai, Ch-L., & Hsueh, Ch-J. (2017). Interaction of problem-based gaming and learning anxiety in language students' English
listening performance and progressive behavioral patterns. Computers & Education, 106, 26e42.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational
Researcher, 38, 365e379.
Kim, Y., Soyata, T., & Behnagh, R. F. (2018). Towards emotionally aware AI smart classroom: Current issues and directions for engineering and education. IEEE
Access, 6, 5308e5331.
Kleinmann, H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93e107.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lane, A. M., Whyte, G. P., Terry, P. C., & Nevill, A. M. (2005). Mood, self-set goals and examination performance: The moderating effect of depressed mood.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 143e153.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lee, M. (2014). Achievement goals, emotions, and foreign language performance in German and Korean students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Munich,
Germany: University of Munich.
Lee, M. & Bong, M. (this issue). Relevance of goal theories to language learning research.
Lichtenfeld, S., Pekrun, R., Stupnisky, R. H., Reiss, K., & Murayama, K. (2012). Measuring students' emotions in the early years: The achievement emotions
questionnaire-elementary school (AEQ-ES). Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 190e201.
Li, C. C., Jiang, G. Y., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Understanding Chinese high school students' foreign language enjoyment: Validation of the Chinese version of
the foreign language enjoyment scale. System, 76, 183e196.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and
engagement. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 107e124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Liu, M. H., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners' unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 92, 71e86.
Loderer, K., Pekrun, R., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Beyond cold technology: A systematic review and meta-analysis on emotions in technology-based learning envi-
ronments. Learning and instruction. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.08.002.
Luo, W., Ng, P. T., Lee, K., & Aye, K. M. (2016). Self-efficacy, value, and achievement emotions as mediators between parenting practice and homework
behavior: A control-value theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 275e282.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and Ganschow. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 90e99.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language
learning (pp. 45e68). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second language learning: Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251e275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relationship to other anxieties and to processing in native and second languages. Language
Learning, 41, 513e534.
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283e305.
MacIntyre, P., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2016). Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mak, B. (2011). An exploration of speaking-in-class anxiety with Chinese ESL learners. System, 39(2), 202e214.
Marcos-Llina
s, M., & Garau, M. J. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three proficiency level courses of Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language
Annals, 42, 94e111.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement and research. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 4, pp. 59e98).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McEown, M. S., & Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (this issue). Self-determination for all language learners: New contributions to language education.
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5(2),
119e124.

ment, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Cle
theory. Language Learning, 50, 57e85.
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (this issue). Acting, thinking, feeling, making: The engagement process in foreign language learning.
Park, G.-P. (2014). Factor analysis of the foreign language classroom anxiety scale in Korean learners of English as a foreign language. Psychological Reports,
115(1), 261e275.
Parkinson, B., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). Current emotion research in social psychology: Thinking about emotions and other people. Emotion Review, 7,
371e380.
Pavlenko, A. (2012). Affective processing in bilingual speakers: Disembodied cognition? International Journal Of Psychology, 47, 405e428.
Peixoto, F., Mata1, L., Monteiro, V., Sanches, C., & Pekrun, R. (2015). The achievement emotions questionnaire: Validation for pre-adolescent students.
European Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 12, 472e481.
Peixoto, F., Sanches, C., Mata, L., & Monteiro, V. (2016). “How do you feel about math?”: Relationships between competence and value appraisals,
achievement emotions and academic achievement. European Journal Of Psychology Of Education, 32(3), 385e405.
Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology, 41,
359e376.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice.
Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315e341.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583e597.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and
performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 531e549.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students' learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36e48.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Academic emotions Questionnaire (AEQ): User's manual. Munich, Germany: University of Munich, Department of
Psychology.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and
quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91e105.
Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal Of Educational
Psychology, 106(3), 696e710.
 K. Shao et al. / System 86 (2019) 102121 11

Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017a). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of
reciprocal effects. Child Development, 88, 1653e1670.
Pekrun, R., Muis, K. R., Frenzel, A. C., & Goetz, T. (2017b). Emotions at school. New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., Marsh, H. W., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2019). Happy fish in little ponds: Testing a reference group model of achievement and
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000230.
Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of
emotions in education (pp. 120e141). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational
psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 3e31). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Putwain, D. W., Pekrun, R., Nicholson, L. J., Symes, W., Becker, S., & Marsh, H. W. (2018). Control-value appraisals, enjoyment, and boredom in mathematics:
A longitudinal latent interaction analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1339e1368.
Ramirez, G., Shaw, S. T., & Maloney, E. A. (2018). Math anxiety: Past research, promising interventions, and a new interpretation framework. Educational
Psychologist, 53, 145e164.
Saito, K., Dewaele, J., Abe, M., & In'nami, Y. (2018). Motivation, emotion, learning experience, and second language comprehensibility development in
classroom settings: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Language Learning, 68, 709e743.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 202e218.
Sardegna, V. G., Lee, J., & Kusey, C. (2018). Self-efficacy, attitudes, and choice of strategies for English pronunciation learning. Language Learning, 68, 83e114.
Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307e1351.
Scherer, K. R. (2013). The nature and dynamics of relevance and valence appraisals: Theoretical advances and recent evidence. Emotion Review, 5(2),
150e162.
Schumann, J. (1994). Where is cognition? Emotion and cognition in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 231e242.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 129e142.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5e14.
Shao, K. Q., Pekrun, R., Loderer, K., & Marsh, H. W. (2019). The influence of control and value appraisals on achievement emotions and second language per-
formance (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Shao, K. Q., Loderer, K., Symes, W., & Pekrun, R. (2019). Achievement emotions in second language learning: Validating the achievement emotion Questionnaire
(Learning-related) in a Chinese EFL context (Manuscript submitted for publication).
Shao, K. Q., Yu, W. H., & Ji, Z. M. (2012). The relationship between EFL students' emotional intelligence and writing achievement. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 7, 107e124.
Shao, K. Q., Yu, W. H., & Ji, Z. M. (2013). An exploration of Chinese EFL students' emotional intelligence and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 97, 919e931.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native language aptitude differences? The Modern Language Journal, 75,
3e16.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language learning difficulties: Linking first and second language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 77, 289e302.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign language learning: A response to MacIntyre. The Modern Language
Journal, 79, 235e244.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195e207.
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(4), 681e709.
Teimouri, Y. (2018). Differential roles of shame and guilt in L2 learning: How bad is bad? The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 632e652.
Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancyevalue relationships of shame reactions and shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
320e329.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). In A. Kozulin (Ed.), Thought and language (revised). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548e573.
Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37, 308e328.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum.
Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: What I have learned so far. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 165e184).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.