933190

research-article2020
LTR0010.1177/1362168820933190Language Teaching ResearchBai and Wang

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

The role of growth mindset,

1­–22
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
self-efficacy and intrinsic value sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362168820933190
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820933190
in self-regulated learning and journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

English language learning

achievements

Barry Bai and Jing Wang

Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Abstract
This study examined the role of growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value in self-regulated
learning (SRL) and English language learning achievements in Hong Kong primary school students.
A sample of 690 4th graders participated in the study. The findings suggest that the level of
SRL strategy use (i.e. monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning) was driven
by the students’ motivational beliefs (i.e. growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value) in
different ways. Monitoring and effort regulation, in turn, were significant contributors to the
participants’ English language learning achievements, but goal setting and planning did not predict
their English language learning achievements. The finding suggests that growth mindset was a
stronger predictor of SRL than self-efficacy and intrinsic value. Implications for fostering adaptive
motivational beliefs and SRL are discussed. Future research should consider the influence of the
socio-cultural context on the relationships between motivational factors, SRL strategy use, and
English language learning achievements.

Keywords
English as a second language (ESL), English language learning achievements, growth mindset,
intrinsic value, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning

I Introduction
As a world language, English language is crucial for educational and professional devel-
opment (Tsang, 1996). In most countries and regions where English is a non-native lan-
guage, e.g. Hong Kong, South Korea, and Malaysia, English language is one of the key

Corresponding author:
Jing Wang, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Ho Tim Building, Faculty of Education, Shatin, N.T.,
Hong Kong
Email: xiaoyuer19921023@126.com
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

learning areas together with their first language (Tsui & Tollefson, 2017). Investigating
the factors that may affect English as a foreign/second language (EFL/ESL) learning
achievements is crucial for informing theory, practice and policy. Researchers have long
attempted to identify factors that contribute to English language learning achievements
for students in EFL/ESL contexts (Bai, 2018; Muñoz, 2017; Wang & Bai, 2017).
Motivational beliefs (e.g. self-efficacy and intrinsic value) are crucial factors that
drive students’ learning. Research on motivation has sought to answer the question of
what moves people to act and why people think and do what they do (Eccles & Wigfield,
2002; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010; Wigfield et al., 2015). Depending on motivational
beliefs, students may choose different tasks and activities to do. Once students are
engaged in tasks, motivation relates to their quality and intensity of engagement accord-
ing to expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Jansen, Scherer, & Schroeders,
2015). Expectancy-value theory posits that students’ task value beliefs and beliefs about
their capabilities to complete a task are determinants of academic achievements. On the
other hand, calls to examine growth mindset are becoming increasingly prevalent given
its significance in promoting persistence and resilience. Growth mindset has been incor-
porated in empirical research as another important motivational belief that can help stu-
dents make a significant difference in their EFL/ESL learning (Bai & Guo, 2019).
Especially, the concept of growth mindset may be a very significant motivational belief
that impacts Asian students’ learning achievements, given the special value attached to
efforts in learning in Confucian cultural contexts. According to implicit theories of intel-
ligence, students’ beliefs that intelligence is malleable and can be improved through
efforts (i.e. growth mindset) are central to positive learning achievements (Blackwell,
Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck, 2006). Although both expectancy-value theory
and implicit theories of intelligence highlight the important role of students’ beliefs in
their learning, it is surprising that the two strands of research have rarely been considered
together with regard to EFL/ESL students’ learning.
Furthermore, research suggests that motivational beliefs help to promote and sustain
self-regulated learning (SRL), which in turn directly contributes to academic success
(Pintrich, 2003). Self-regulated language learning strategies are learners’ deliberate and
goal-directed attempts to manage and control their efforts in order to learn the language
(Oxford, 2011). Self-regulated learners apply a variety of SRL strategies, e.g. metacog-
nitive self-regulation, cognitive strategies, and environment and resource management,
to effectively regulate their learning (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). For example, self-
regulated learners may persist or continue to invest their time and efforts in the face of
setbacks (i.e. effort regulation). Self-regulated learning is particularly important in
EFL/ESL contexts, such as Hong Kong. EFL/ESL learners may not be provided with
sufficient interaction opportunities because their target language learning may be
largely limited to the classroom and they have limited exposure to the target language
in everyday settings (Kormos & Csizér, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary for them to
become self-dependent and autonomous lifelong learners, which means that they need
to learn on their own outside the classroom and employ various SRL strategies. Self-
regulated learning has been considered an important type of 21st century competence
that underlies the idea of lifelong learning (Trilling, 2009). Understanding how SRL
Bai and Wang 3

may promote English language learning achievements can offer EFL/ESL learners a
great advantage in overcoming their difficulties.
Despite our growing knowledge of the above constructs, the relations between moti-
vational beliefs, SRL, and English language learning achievements in EFL/ESL contexts
have not been adequately explored. Further to this, relatively little is known about how
they contribute to young students’ EFL/ESL learning. Therefore, this study aimed to
examine the role of motivational beliefs in SRL and English language learning achieve-
ments in Hong Kong primary schools. Specifically, three motivational beliefs (i.e. growth
mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value) and three types of SRL strategies (i.e. moni-
toring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning,) were included in the present
study. In the hypothesized model proposed in the present study, motivational beliefs
were assumed to impact SRL, which in turn would contribute to English language learn-
ing achievements.
One significant contribution of this study is to offer insights into the impacts of moti-
vational beliefs and SRL strategies on primary school EFL/ESL learners’ language learn-
ing achievements in an Asian context. If young students believe that they can learn
English well through efforts, have confidence and feel that English language learning is
interesting, such beliefs will probably remain till their adulthood. Otherwise, their nega-
tive beliefs may lead to their disengagement in English language learning. Especially,
this study highlights the importance of both growth mindset and self-efficacy, two simi-
lar but also different concepts in English language learning. English teachers can better
capitalize on such motivational beliefs of their students in order to enhance their English
language learning achievements. In addition, this study will map out how various moti-
vational beliefs (i.e. growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value) may impact
English language learning achievements through the use of various SRL strategies (i.e.
monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning). As such, this study can
provide a better understanding of how motivational beliefs and SRL strategies may work
on young students so that early interventions and pedagogical reforms can be made
possible.

1 Relating motivational beliefs (i.e. self-efficacy, growth mindset, and

intrinsic value) to self-regulated learning
Expectancy-value theory posits how students behave can be predicted by beliefs
about their capabilities in accomplishing a task, i.e. self-efficacy, and whether the task
is worth pursuing, i.e. task values (Bandura, 1997, 2001; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Self-efficacy is a domain-specific belief that is strongly related to students’ previous
learning experiences in a given task (Bai, Chao & Wang, 2019; Hsieh & Schallert,
2008). Difficulties of tasks vary and students’ ability levels are different. Students’
self-efficacy beliefs therefore vary across academic domains because their success
and mastery experiences as well as setbacks in each task are different (Pajares, 2006).
Additionally, Hsieh and Schallert (2008) point out that language learning is particu-
larly linked to possible loss of face and embarrassment, which influences students’
self-efficacy.
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

A wide range of empirical studies have confirmed that self-efficacy plays a signifi-
cant role in language learning. Language learners who maintain higher self-efficacy
beliefs are more self-regulated (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).
Specifically, Pintrich and De Groot’s (1990) study found that students’ self-efficacy
was a significant predictor of cognitive strategy use (measured by use of rehearsal
strategies, elaboration strategies, and organizational strategies), self-regulation (meas-
ured by use of metacognitive and effort management strategies), and English language
learning achievements. In Liem et al.’s (2008) study with 1475 secondary school stu-
dents in Singapore, self-efficacy was found to be positively related to cognitive strat-
egy use (measured by use of elaboration strategies), and English language learning
achievements, and was negatively related to task disengagement for English language
learning. Kim, Wang, Ahn, and Bong (2015) found that the students with high self-
efficacy profiles were significantly more self-regulated (measured by 68 items in 10
scales, such as self-evaluation, seeking social assistance, keeping records, and moni-
toring) than the students with low self-efficacy profiles. Thus, self-efficacy can be
considered a positive predictor of self-regulation in English language learning.
There are several types of task values (e.g. intrinsic value, importance, and utility).
Intrinsic value, also called interest or perceived enjoyment, pertains to students’ beliefs
that the task is interesting (Wigfield et al., 2015). Intrinsic value has been proposed as a
central goal of many curriculum guides worldwide to sustain and promote EFL/ESL
learners’ interest, e.g. the Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT, 2008), and the Hong
Kong Curriculum Development Council (Curriculum Development Council, 2017). In
Deci and Ryan’s (2000) view, individuals have the inherent tendency to explore and
learn, to seek out novelty and challenges, and to improve competence. Intrinsically moti-
vated behaviors are those through which people get enjoyment and will engage in tasks
without the necessity of consequences. If students enjoy learning the task, they are more
likely to engage in learning and use effective learning strategies (Pintrich & De Groot,
1990; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
Intrinsic value has been found to significantly predict SRL in science, math, and gen-
eral education (Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2005; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Some research-
ers have argued for the importance of intrinsic value in language learning (Oga-Baldwin,
Nakata, Parker, & Ryan, 2017; Noels, Vargas Lascano, & Saumure, 2019). According to
Noels et al. (2019), when language learners are intrinsically motivated, they enjoy the
process of mastering that language and language learning is pleasurable in itself. In addi-
tion, intrinsic value has a lasting effect on language learning achievements and engage-
ment. When extrinsically motivated, however, individuals learn a language for
instrumental or other reasons, e.g. gaining rewards and avoiding punishment, meeting
parents’ and teachers’ expectations, and interacting with others. Intrinsically motivated
students are more inclined to continue to learn a foreign/second language than those
extrinsically motivated. For primary school students, developing a positive affect for the
foreign/second language is particularly important as intrinsic value may lead to a lifelong
effect. Our study, thus, focused on primary school students’ intrinsic value. Pintrich and
De Groot (1990) found that students’ intrinsic value was very strongly related to use of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and was mildly related to English language
learning achievements. Bonney, Cortina, Smith-Darden, and Fiori (2008) examined the
Bai and Wang 5

relation between motivational beliefs and strategy use among 694 high school students
in foreign language classrooms (e.g. French, German, Latin, and Spanish). They found
that intrinsic value was the best predictor of the students’ reports of self-regulated extra-
curricular learning activities. In a survey with 128 Canadian learners of Japanese,
McEown, Noels, and Saumure (2014) found that the students’ intrinsic value was a sig-
nificant predictor of learning engagement (e.g. efforts and intentions to continue study-
ing the foreign language) and academic outcomes. In the present study, we hypothesized
that intrinsic value was a positive predictor of self-regulation in English language learn-
ing among Hong Kong primary school students.
Whereas language teaching and learning research has benefited greatly from the work
on such motivational variables as self-efficacy and task values, another important moti-
vational variable that has positive effects on language learning is growth mindset.
Implicit theories of intelligence are concerned about whether intelligence is malleable or
fixed (Blackwell et al., 2007; Claro, Paunesku, & Dweck, 2016; Dweck, 2006). Growth
mindset refers to an individual’s belief that ability is malleable and can be increased
through efforts (Claro et al., 2016). People with a growth mindset are more likely to
persist in the face of adversity because they view failures as a sign that they need to
expend more efforts to improve. Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, and Finkel’s
(2013) meta-analysis of previous research on general learning suggests that growth
mindset is positively related to learners’ persistence, planning, monitoring, and regulat-
ing their learning process, as well as enjoyment. Blackwell et al. (2007) found that stu-
dents’ growth mindset was positively related to their use of positive and effort-based
strategies in mathematics learning, and positively predicted an upward trajectory in
grades over the two years of junior high school.
Although the influence of growth mindset has been widely examined across various
academic domains, it has rarely been considered in EFL/ESL contexts (Lou & Noels,
2019). Especially, many students may believe that achievements in language learning
are well associated with a gift or the ear for languages, and thus they may be less likely
to report having a growth mindset in language learning than in other areas (Horwitz,
1999; Lou & Noels, 2016). Within the limited research on growth mindset in language
learning, there is some evidence showing the positive impacts of growth mindset on
self-regulated language learning. Lou and Noels (2016) investigated Canadian univer-
sity students’ language growth mindset and found that second language learners with a
growth mindset reported a stronger intention to continue learning, and gave fewer help-
less responses in challenging situations. Nevertheless, Lou and Noels’s (2016) study
focused on English speaking students who were studying a second or foreign language
such as Arabic and Chinese. In EFL/ESL contexts, empirical research shows that the
students with a growth mindset adopted a feedback seeking orientation in English writ-
ing (e.g. analysing the teacher’s questions and clarifying comments with the teacher)
instead of a feedback avoiding orientation (Waller & Papi, 2017).
Growth mindset should be a particular important area of research to understand EFL/
ESL learning given the challenges faced by learners and the important role of growth
mindset in response to failures. EFL/ESL learners, especially young students, experience
many fundamental but essential problems in English language learning due to uncondu-
cive language environments (Kormos & Csizér, 2014; Tsang, 1996). For example, only
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

7% of the English learners in China may often use English in their daily lives, given a
lack of the language environment (Bolton & Graddol, 2012). Evans’s (2017) survey
study with 828 university students in Hong Kong suggest that speaking and writing
English were not their regular daily activities. Most of the students spoke little English
on a daily basis because they found it challenging to use the language if they studied in
Chinese-medium secondary schools. A major reason offered by Evans (2017) was the
issue of language typology. Hong Kong students would face more challenges than
European EFL/ESL learners because Cantonese, a local Chinese dialect, and English do
not belong to the same language family, whereas European students’ native languages
have the same writing system as English.
Notably, growth mindset may be particularly relevant to Hong Kong students due to
the emphasis on efforts in learning in East Asian Confucian societies (Tweed & Lehman,
2002). For example, Wang and Rao (2019) found that Chinese teachers transmitted
Confucian values of education that competence is malleable and can be improved
through hard work. Prior studies have also shown that the Chinese tend to attribute aca-
demic success to efforts rather than perceived competence, i.e. self-efficacy (Hau & Ho,
2010; Leung & Shek, 2015). It is believed that as long as students expend efforts, they
will achieve desirable learning outcomes.

2 Relating self-regulated learning to EFL/ESL learning achievements

Being motivated is far from enough, students need to independently and effectively man-
age their EFL/ESL learning. Various theorists have proposed that motivational beliefs
are not a direct cause of academic achievements. It is students’ academic engagement,
e.g. SRL strategy use, and investment of time and energy, that in turn directly predict
students’ academic achievements (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Wigfield et al.,
2015). Among the various types of engagements, SRL has been considered a pivotal
contributor to performance in English language learning (Bai, 2018; Oxford, 2011; Wang
& Bai, 2017; Xiao & Yang, 2019). Zimmerman (1990) describes self-regulated learning
as a self-oriented feedback loop, in which students initiate the setting of goals and sub-
goals (e.g. making plans for the sequence and time to complete tasks), monitor their
learning effectiveness, evaluate the quality and progress of learning by comparing
observed outcomes with their own goals, and modify their learning progress. Self-
regulated learners proactively set personal goals, make efforts and manage the environ-
ment, monitor and regulate their learning, and make reactions constantly to achieve
preset goals (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002).
Language learning research has examined the impacts of employing a wide range of
SRL strategies, which include but are not limited to 1) metacognitive self-regulation
strategies, which are used to monitor, plan, and adjust learning, 2) cognitive strategies,
which help students select, organize, and store information in the long-term memory,
and 3) environment and resource management, which helps manage the assistance and
create an appropriate learning environment (Wang & Bai, 2017; Xiao & Yang, 2019).
Oxford and her colleagues developed a widely used strategy inventory with six sub-
scales: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacogni-
tive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies (Oxford, 1996; Oxford &
Bai and Wang 7

Burry-Stock, 1995). Moreover, a recent study by Wang and Bai (2017) examined
English language learners’ use of nine main types of SRL strategies: (1) goal setting
and planning, (2) record keeping and monitoring, (3) self-consequences (i.e. students
arrange rewards or punishment for themselves), (4) self-evaluation, (5) effort regula-
tion, (6) organization and transformation, (7) rehearsal and memorization, (8) seeking
social assistance, and (9) seeking opportunities to practice English. Their study showed
that seven types of SRL strategies were frequently used by Chinese learners of English.
Only two types, i.e. seeking opportunities to practice English, and goal setting and
planning were seldom used.
In the present study, we focused on three types of metacognitive self-regulation
strategies, namely monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning. The
three types of SRL strategies are especially useful for Hong Kong primary school
students due to a general lack of exposure to English in their daily lives (Li, 2018).
Students need these types of SRL strategies to regulate their English learning not only
in the classroom but also beyond. Prior studies have shown that metacognitive self-
regulation is a positive predictor of English language learning achievements (Oxford,
2011; Xiao & Yang, 2019). Specifically, high-achieving English learners were found
to use more metacognitive self-regulation strategies than low-achieving learners, e.g.
making a study plan in the learning process, checking own understanding by asking
questions, and checking homework before turning it in (Wang & Bai, 2017). Xiao and
Yang (2019) found that secondary school EFL learners in China set up such learning
goals as setting quality quizzes or writing a concise essay, and they planned their use
of SRL strategies (e.g. coping with word choices) beforehand. They also conciously
monitored their whole learning process from goal setting to taking actions to achieve
their goals. In a study with 168 Chinese university English learners, Nisbet, Tindall,
and Arroyo (2005) found that metacognitive strategies most strongly contributed to
performance in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Shih and
Reynolds (2018) found that Taiwanese EFL learners’ reading proficiency improved
better through goal setting, compared with those who did not use goal setting strate-
gies. With regard to effort regulation, a self-regulated learner would not give up when
s/he encounters difficulties and controls her/his attention in the face of distractions,
which reflects a commitment to achieving one’s goals. Research has well documented
a positive relationship between effort regulation and English language learning
achievements (Liem et al., 2008; Mega, Ronconi, & De Beni, 2014). Thus, monitor-
ing, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning were hypothesized to predict
English language learning achievements positively among Hong Kong primary school
students.

3 Integrating motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning and English

language learning achievements in one hypothesized model
This study examined the relationships between EFL/ESL students’ motivational beliefs
(i.e. growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value), SRL strategy use (i.e. monitoring,
effort regulation, and goal setting and planning), and English language learning achieve-
ments. The following research questions were addressed:
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Motivational beliefs Self-regulated learning strategy use English language

learning achievements

Monitoring
Growth
mindset

Effort English test

Self-efficacy regulation scores

Intrinsic
value Goal setting
and planning

Covariate: gender (0 = girls; 1 = boys )

Figure 1.  A theoretical model on the relations between motivational beliefs, self-regulated
learning (SRL) strategy use, and English language learning achievements.

1. What is the relationship between motivational beliefs and SRL strategy use
among Hong Kong primary school students?
2. What is the relationship between SRL strategy use and English language learning
achievements among Hong Kong primary school students?

Figure 1 presents the theoretical model to be tested in the present study. The model
shows that SRL strategy use mediates the relation between motivational beliefs and
English language learning achievements (i.e. test scores). In addition, gender was
included as a covariate in the model. Gender has shown associations with English lan-
guage learning achievements in prior studies. Boys generally showed a lower level of
SRL and achievements in language learning than girls (Fraine, Damme, & Onghena,
2007; Yeung, Lau, & Nie, 2011). Thus, it was hypothesized that girls would obtain higher
English test scores than boys in general.

II Method
This study was conducted in Hong Kong. Most Hong Kong primary school students’
mother tongue is Cantonese, a local Chinese dialect. Hong Kong children start to learn
English from kindergarten. After entering primary school, they begin to systematically
learn English. Out of the requirements of the Hong Kong Education Bureau (EDB)
subject curriculum, Hong Kong primary school students have seven to 10 general
English lessons each week, and each one lasts 35 to 40 minutes. Their English learning
focuses on four key areas, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The participants
comprised 690 4th graders aged between 9–10 years old (M = 9.33, SD = .79) from
Bai and Wang 9

eight government-aided primary schools in Hong Kong. The students’ English profi-
ciency levels varied from low to high, and each school had the autonomy to choose
suitable textbooks for their own students according to students’ English proficiency
levels. Based on our survey with the schools, most schools adopted Longman Elect or
Longman Express as their main textbooks and they also used some supplementary
materials to suit their students’ needs better. There were seven co-educational schools
and one all girls’ school in the study. Thus, there were more girls (n = 407, 59%) than
boys (n = 283, 41%).

III Measures
1 Measures of motivational beliefs in English language learning
Items on growth mindset were adapted from Dweck’s (2006) measures on implicit
beliefs. The scale (4 items, α = .88) consists of four statements that measured the
extent to which students believe that they can change their general ability in English
language learning. A sample item is ‘I can always greatly change how intelligent I am
in English language learning.’ Items on self-efficacy and intrinsic value were adapted
from Pintrich and De Groot (1990). The self-efficacy scale (4 items, α = .86) meas-
ured the extent to which students believe in their capability to master skills for English
language learning. Sample items are ‘I am sure I can learn the skills taught in the
English class well’ and ‘I can learn English well even if the work in English is hard.’
The intrinsic value scale (4 items, α = .84) measured the degree to which students
engage in English language learning for enjoyment. Sample items for this scale are ‘I
am interested in learning English’ and ‘I enjoy learning English.’ The students
responded to the items on a five-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).

2 Measures of self-regulated learning in English language learning

Three subscales of metacognitive self-regulation were included, i.e. monitoring, effort
regulation, and goal setting and planning. The monitoring scale (5 items, α = .76) was
adapted from Pintrich, Smith, and García (1991) and Wang and Bai (2017). Sample items
included in this scale are ‘I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the materials
I have been studying in English’ and ‘When studying English, I try to determine which
concepts I don’t understand well.’ The effort regulation scale (4 items, α = .86) was
adapted from Pintrich et al. (1991) and measured students’ effort regulation in the face of
challenging situations. Sample items are ‘I will not give up when the work in English is
difficult’ and ‘Even when learning materials are dull and uninteresting, I keep studying
until I finish.’ Items on goal setting and planning (3 items, α = .85) were adapted from
Zimmerman and Pons (1986) to examine the extent to which students set goals and make
plans for themselves. Sample items for this scale are ‘I set a concrete English learning
plan for myself’ and ‘I have my own English learning goals.’ The students responded to
the items on a five-point scale based on their frequency of use from 1 (never) to 5
(always).
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

3 English language learning achievements

English language learning achievements were measured by the students’ scores in a
standardized English test. Three experienced English teachers designed the test, checked
the validity and clarity, and ensured that the test was appropriate for assessing 4th grad-
ers’ English language learning achievements. The test comprised of multiple-choice
questions in five parts, i.e. listening comprehension (7 points), word reading (15 points),
sentence comprehension (10 points), vocabulary (15 points), and passage comprehen-
sion (12 points). The students were assigned points for correct answers in each part of the
test. The five parts were summed up to derive a composite total score on a 59-point scale,
ranging from 0 to 59.

4 Procedures
All ethical protocols were followed in conducting the research. Invitations were sent to
school principals, and consent forms were obtained from the students’ guardians. The
questionnaires were translated into Chinese and checked by one researcher and two
English teachers to ensure accuracy. The students’ own English teachers administered
the questionnaires to them in class. Before the questionnaire administration, their English
teachers informed them that their answers would be kept confidential and only for
research purposes. The teachers also reminded students to be very serious and answer all
questions, ensured that the students would not discuss the questions with each other, and
handled the students’ questions if any. The students answered the Chinese version of
questionnaires, most of whom completed the questionnaires within around 15–20 min-
utes. In the same week of the questionnaire administration, the standardized English
proficiency test was administered by their English teachers in another English class. The
students finished the English test independently. On average, it took the students 40–50
minutes to complete the English test.

IV Results
1 Reliability and discriminant validity of the English test
This study adopted Ebel and Frisbie’s (1986) classification levels on the discrimination
power (D value) of a test: > .39 (excellent), .30–.39 (good), .20–.29 (mediocre), and
.00–.20 (poor). The average D value for the English test was .47, and difficulty degree was
.53, suggesting that the English test used in this study had an excellent discrimination
power. We also compared the differences of the test scores between the high achievers and
the low achievers to test the discriminant validity. To do this, six sets of t-tests were con-
ducted to compare the main differences in the English test scores between the top 27%
(n = 186, Mtotal = 46.05, SD = 5.04) and the bottom 27% (n = 186, Mtotal = 18.22,
SD = 4.53) of the participants. Results of the t-tests showed that the top group and the
bottom group performed significantly differently in the five parts of the test, listening
comprehension, t = 25.606, p < .001, word reading, t = 27.538, p < .001, sentence com-
prehension, t = 41.640, p < .001, vocabulary t = 24.677, p < .001, passage comprehen-
sion, t = 30.294, p < .001, and total scores, t = 25.606, p < .001.
Bai and Wang 11

Table 1.  Goodness of fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural
equation modeling (SEM) (n = 690).

χ2/df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Recommended value < 5.00 > .01 > .90 > .90 < .08 < .08
CFA for six-factor model 2.91 < .01 .97 .96 .053 .039
Sequential equation modeling 3.39 < .01 .94 .93 .059 .066
Sequential equation modeling-2 3.38 < .01 .94 .93 .059 .065
(deleting the non-significant paths)

Notes. CFI = Comparative Fit Index. TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation. SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

2 Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the measurement model. Maximum
likelihood estimation was used as skewness and the kurtosis values (within the recom-
mended levels of 2 and 7) indicated that the distributions did not depart substantially
from normality (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). The analyses rendered a six-factor model
comprising growth mindset, self-efficacy, intrinsic value, monitoring, effort regulation,
and goal setting and planning (see Table 1). These six variables were allowed to correlate
freely with each other. Based on the criteria summarized by Byrne (2001), multiple fit
indices were used to evaluate the overall goodness: Chi-square (χ2) testing (χ2/df < 5 is
an acceptable fit, and χ2/df < 3 is an excellent fit), Comparative Fit Index (CFI > .90 is
an acceptable fit, and CFI > .95 is an excellent fit), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI > .90 is
an acceptable fit, and TLI > .95 is an excellent fit), Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA < .08 is an acceptable fit, and RMSEA < .05 is an excellent
fit), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR < .08 is a good fit, and
SRMR < .05 is an excellent fit). The fit indices suggested a good fit between the
hypothesized model and the data: χ2 (215, n = 690) = 625.73, p < .01, χ2/df = 2.91,
CFI = .97, GFI = .93, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .05, 95% CI [.048, .057], SRMR = .039.
The model showed a significant χ2, but the chi-square statistic was sensitive to the sam-
ple size (n = 690) in this study. Thus, the current fit was still considered good with the
other model fit indices. Factors loading for all the items were significant at p < .001. The
factor loadings for growth mindset ranged from .68 to .86, self-efficacy from .76 to .84,
intrinsic value from .86 to .94, monitoring from .59 to .74, effort regulation from .81 to
.86, and goal setting and planning from .80 to .86.

3 Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, the Cronbach’s alpha values, and correla-
tions for all the variables. The internal consistency, i.e. Cronbach’s alpha values of the
three motivational beliefs and three SRL strategy scales, were acceptable. According to
Oxford’s (1990) classification levels of a 5-point Likert scale, a mean in the range of
3.5–5.0 is considered a high level, 2.5–3.4 medium level, and 1.0–2.4 low level. Overall,
the participants reported a medium level of motivational beliefs. They maintained a
high level of growth mindset (M = 3.76, SD = .99), but a medium level of self-efficacy
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Table 2.  Correlations among the key measures (n = 690).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 α M SD
1. Growth mindset — .88 3.76 .99
2. Self-efficacy .57** — .86 3.28 .91
3. Intrinsic value .68** .66** — .84 3.14 1.16
4. Monitoring .63** .49** .52** — .76 3.22 .83
5. Effort regulation .74** .61** .71** 68** — .86 3.40 1.04
6. Goal setting and planning .58** .51** .59** .61** .70** — .85 3.04 1.14
7. English test scores .40** .58** .44** .29** .36** .26** — 31.54 11.20

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

(M = 3.28, SD = .91) and intrinsic value (M = 3.14, SD = 1.16). The rank order of
SRL strategy use showed that the students reported more effort regulation (M = 3.40,
SD = 1.04) than monitoring (M = 3.22, SD = .83), followed by goal setting and plan-
ning in English language learning (M = 2.94, SD = 1.14). With regard to correlation
analyses, the results showed that growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value were
positively associated with monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning.
All the motivational beliefs, the three types of SRL strategies, and the English test scores
were positively related (.26 ⩽ r ⩽ .74, p <.01).

4 Structural equation modeling (SEM)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to examine the impacts of motiva-
tional beliefs and the mediating role of self-regulated learning. The full SEM model
considered measurement errors that empowered the results to be more reliable and trust-
worthy. First, we tested an initial model based on the theoretical model. Each construct
was treated as a latent variable, and its items were used as observed variables. The
English language learning achievements were also treated as a latent variable with scores
for listening comprehension, word reading, sentence comprehension, vocabulary, and
passage comprehension as five indicators. The model had a significant χ2 and the χ2/df
(χ2/df = 3.39, p < .001) was higher than an excellent value χ2/df < 3. However, a fit
model may report a significant χ2 and high square value relative to degrees of freedom
because of a large sample size (Rigdon, 1995). Our sample size (n = 690) was relatively
large. Thus, the model fit was considered reasonable based on other indices: CFI = .94,
TLI = .93, RMSEA = .059, 95% CI [.055, .063], SRMR = .066. The data supported 11
out of the 13 hypothesized paths. Only two paths were not significant, i.e. the path from
intrinsic value to monitoring and the path from goal setting and planning to English lan-
guage learning achievements. In the second step, the non-significant paths were deleted
to have a more parsimonious model, resulting in the following model fit (see Table 1):
χ2/df = 3.38, p < .001, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .059, 95% CI [.055, .062],
SRMR = .065. The final model is presented in Figure 2.
Concerning the impacts of motivational beliefs on self-regulated learning, the results
showed that all three motivational beliefs significantly predicted effort regulation and
Bai and Wang 13

Motivational beliefs Self-regulated learning strategy use English language

learning achievements

Monitoring
.59
Growth
mindset .23
.54
.41

.30
.21 Effort .33 English test
Self-efficacy regulation scores
.21

-.22
Intrinsic .23
value Goal setting Gender
.19
and planning (0 = girls; 1 = boys )

Figure 2.  Final structural equation modeling (SEM) model showing the relations between
motivational beliefs, self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use, and English language learning
achievements.
Notes. Statistically significant paths are depicted in black lines, while the non-significant paths are depicted in
dash lines.

goal setting and planning. A total of 77.8% of the variance in the students’ effort regula-
tion was accounted for by the model. Effort regulation was predicted by growth mindset
(γ = .54, p < .001), self-efficacy beliefs (γ = .21, p < .001), and intrinsic value (γ = .23,
p < .001). For goal setting and planning, the model accounted for 53.4% of the variance.
Goal setting and planning was predicted by growth mindset (γ = .41, p < .001), self-
efficacy beliefs (γ = .21, p < .001), and intrinsic motivation (γ = .19, p = .001). However,
when the students needed to control their process of monitoring activities (i.e. monitor-
ing), only growth mindset (γ = .59, p < .001) and self-efficacy beliefs (γ = .30, p < .001)
were significant, and intrinsic value was insignificant. Growth mindset and self-efficacy
beliefs explained 65.2% of the variance in monitoring.
With respect to the impacts of self-regulated learning on English language learning
achievements, more monitoring (γ = .23, p < .001) and higher effort regulation (γ = .33,
p < .001) were related to higher English test scores. The impact of goal setting and
planning was not significant. A total of 27.1% of the variance in English language learn-
ing achievements was explained by monitoring and effort regulation. The female stu-
dents showed better achievements in English language learning than the boys (γ = –.22,
p < .001). With respect to the indirect impact of motivational beliefs on English lan-
guage learning achievements, bootstrapping (5000 bootstrapping sample) was used to
understand the mediation effects. The results showed that the relationship between
growth mindset and English test scores was mediated (indirect effect = .27, p = .001)
by monitoring and effort regulation. The relationship between self-efficacy and English
test scores was mediated (indirect effect = .12, p = .009) by monitoring and effort regu-
lation. The indirect impact of intrinsic motivation on English test scores was not signifi-
cant (indirect effect = .07, p = .21).
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

V Discussion
This study examined the role of motivational beliefs in self-regulated learning and
English language learning achievements among Hong Kong primary school students. A
major contribution was the empirical test of a hypothesized model in which motivational
beliefs predicted English test scores through self-regulated learning among young EFL/
ESL learners. The results showed that growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value
predicted SRL strategy use, which in turn predicted English test scores. This study thus
confirmed the importance of motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning among
young EFL/ESL learners (Bai & Guo, 2019), which may advance our understanding of
young learners’ motivational beliefs in EFL/ESL learning.

Research question 1: relationship between motivational beliefs and self-

regulated learning
The first research question concerned the impacts of motivational beliefs on SRL strat-
egy use. The impact of self-efficacy in language learning has been found in many studies
(Bai et al., 2019; Liem et al., 2008). In line with the findings of previous studies, the
present study also showed that English self-efficacy was positively associated with all
three types of SRL strategy use, i.e. monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and
planning.
In addition, the students’ intrinsic value significantly predicted effort regulation and
goal setting and planning in line with the findings of prior studies in other academic areas
(Durik et al., 2005; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). The finding means that the students who
get enjoyment in English language learning are more likely to control their efforts and
attention in the face of distractions and setbacks, and make plans for their own learning.
It is obvious that those who have enjoyment in learning itself are less likely to be dis-
turbed by distractions and would focus on academic tasks for a longer time (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). The students who feel happy in the learning experience are more likely to
initiate their learning and plan their learning activities. This finding underscores the
importance of the learner’s positive intrinsic motivation (Noels et al., 2019). However,
intrinsic value was not a significant predictor of monitoring. Although this finding
appears to contradict the literature that indicates a positive role of intrinsic value, it is not
surprising. The students who enjoy learning English itself are more likely to invest time
and energy but may not effectively monitor and regulate their own learning.
The present study is one of the first empirical investigations into the predictive role of
growth mindset in EFL/ESL learning. The results showed that the students’ growth
mindset, which has been largely neglected in EFL/ESL contexts, was significantly linked
to monitoring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning. Previous studies have
widely documented that growth mindset is a key factor in explaining effort regulation in
the face of setbacks in many academic domains (Blackwell et al., 2007; Claro et al.,
2016; Dweck, 2006). The result is also aligned with Lou and Noels’s (2016) findings,
which showed that university students with a growth mindset were more likely to persist
in the face of failure in language learning. Thus, the present study confirmed the positive
role of growth mindset in EFL/ESL learning for young learners.
Bai and Wang 15

Moreover, this study is one of the first empirical investigations into the impacts of
motivational beliefs (i.e. growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value) in the same
model that were derived from divergent theories (i.e. expectancy-value theory and
implicit theories of intelligence). It offers insights into the specific effects and com-
parative merits of these beliefs by examining how they work together to predict self-
regulated learning. The model showed that in comparison to self-efficacy (.21 ⩽ γ ⩽
.30), growth mindset (.41 ⩽ γ ⩽ .59) was a stronger predictor of self-regulated learn-
ing. The result highlights the importance of growth mindset in EFL/ESL learning. This
finding may challenge the traditional view on the impacts of motivational beliefs on
self-regulated learning. Self-efficacy has been found to be the most powerful predictor
in empirical research (Bai et al., 2019; Liem et al., 2008; Wang & Bai, 2017). However,
the present study suggests that growth mindset may play a more important role in self-
regulated learning in EFL/ESL contexts. Although self-efficacy possesses a unique
predictive power, EFL/ESL learners in East Asian Confucian societies may value a
growth mindset better. In such societies, efforts are highly valued by students, teachers
and parents (Wang & Rao, 2019). Through efforts, students may figure out effective
ways for self-regulated learning as well. Of course, more research should be conducted
to differentiate the role of growth mindset and self-efficacy in the future in order to
understand their unique contributions.

Research question 2: relationship between self-regulated learning and

English language learning achievements
The second research question concerned the role of self-regulated learning in eventual
achievements in English language learning. The correlation analyses showed that moni-
toring, effort regulation, and goal setting and planning were all positively related to
English language learning achievements. The result is aligned with the findings of pre-
vious studies that show self-regulated learning is an important predictor of EFL/EFL
learning achievements (Bai, 2018; Waller & Papi, 2017). However, goal setting and
planning did not show significant impacts on the English test scores in the SEM. This is
an unexpected finding because goal setting and planning constitutes an important part
of SRL (Zimmerman, 1990) and is an especially important component of self-regulated
language learning (Oxford, 2011). The absence of a significant path between goal set-
ting and planning and English language learning achievements in the model was most
likely due to a lack of use of goal setting and planning strategies by the participants
in English language learning, who reported a relatively low level of goal setting and
planning (M = 2.94, SD = 1.14). Our sample was a group of 4th graders in Hong
Kong primary schools. Teachers may require young students to follow their pace of
teaching and complete daily homework, but they may not stress the importance of
setting goals and planning by students themselves. Thus, primary school students may
not set their own personal goals for English language learning. According to social
cognitive theorists, the SRL process is not only determined by students themselves,
but is also influenced by environmental events (Bandura, 2001). If teachers or parents
have not guided students to plan their own learning or offered them opportunities to
practice self-regulated learning, they may not be able to set goals for themselves.
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Specifically, the lack of goal setting and planning may be due to the controlling teach-
ers in Asian cultures. For example, Chinese classrooms have been described as teacher-
centered with controlling teachers who have great power to direct students’ attention
and behaviors (Rao & Chan, 2010). Students may have few opportunities to set their
own goals without a flexible curriculum and support from teachers. This explanation
can also be supported by Wang and Bai’s (2017) study, which shows that goal setting
was missing from the frequently used strategies list among Chinese secondary school
students. In other words, the Chinese students in their study seldom set goals by them-
selves. An alternative explanation for the non-significant impact is the controlling of
shared variance of the other variables, such as monitoring and effort regulation.
Correlation analyses showed that goal setting and planning was related to English lan-
guage learning achievements. However, when goal setting and planning and the other
factors were analysed together in the model, the correlation strength decreased.
Additionally, the present study showed that the female students had better English
language learning achievements than the male students. This was not surprising because
many studies have found that girls outperformed boys in language learning, (Fraine
et al., 2007; Yeung et al., 2011). Researchers have explained gender differences in lan-
guage arts in terms of gender stereotypical beliefs (Yeung et al., 2011). That is, girls are
more gifted and motivated in language arts, whereas boys tend to be more motivated in
math and science, and express stronger self-beliefs in natural science. Although the pre-
sent study found gender differences in English language learning achievements, it did
not examine explanations for the finding. A worthwhile direction for further research
would be to understand the gender difference and its antecedents so as to cater to the dif-
ferent needs of boys and girls in English language learning.

VI Conclusions
1 Practical implications
The present study suggests that self-regulated EFL/ESL learners who effectively monitor
and expend efforts to regulate their learning are more likely to achieve desirable English
language learning results. Additionally, nurturing growth mindset, intrinsic value, and
self-efficacy can foster students’ self-regulated learning. Experimental studies suggest
that motivational beliefs are dynamic and can be changed through students’ engagement
in different contexts, and are also influenced by interactions with teachers, peers, and
parents (Dweck, 2006; Yeager et al., 2016). Therefore, universities and schools should
provide more teachers’ professional development opportunities and family education
programs. These programs should cover knowledge of motivational beliefs and self-
regulated learning. For example, growth mindset stands out as the best predictor of SRL
strategy use in English language learning. Practical tips on how to foster students’ growth
mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic value, and how to promote use of SRL strategies
should be provided.
Specifically, growth mindset can be fostered in several ways. First, research suggests
that students’ incremental beliefs can be primed by the scientific evidence on growth
mindset. For example, in Blackwell et al.’s (2007) study, growth mindset was primed
Bai and Wang 17

through eight sessions in which the students learned scientific research findings that
changes occur in the brain as a result of learning (e.g. formation of new and stronger
connections between nerve cells). Therefore, EFL/ESL teachers can read scientific arti-
cles on growth mindset and discuss its importance with students in practical ways appro-
priate to school students. Second, teachers and parents should focus on students’ learning
process, interpret outcomes in terms of improvement and help students set self-refer-
enced evaluation standards, and attribute academic success to efforts, to avoid attenuat-
ing ability differences. Third, it is important that teachers tell students that mistakes and
setbacks are inevitable and highlight the positive role of failures rather than dismissing
them as a sign of low competence. Teachers can explain that setbacks can expose stu-
dents’ problems. By amending weaknesses, students can develop more skills and master
more knowledge.
For self-efficacy, teachers can emphasize skill development that raises students’ com-
petence through authentic mastery experience (Liem et al., 2008). Effective learning
methods for enhancing English language learning achievements should be introduced,
through which students can make improvements in English language learning. Teachers
should also praise and encourage students honestly for their improvements made.
Additionally, similar to practices that can promote growth mindset, teachers also can
promote self-efficacy through recognizing efforts and improvements, minimizing social
comparison, and guiding students to develop their own internal standards for outcome
evaluation (Pajares, 2006). With regard to intrinsic value, students should be provided
with personally challenging, meaningful, and interesting tasks (e.g. making presenta-
tions, dubbing English films, English singing competitions, and playing drama), to foster
enjoyment of learning. EFL/ESL teachers should offer multiple interesting tasks so that
students can choose what they are personally interested to engage in (Wigfield &
Cambria, 2010).
In order to facilitate self-regulated learning, it is necessary for teachers to raise stu-
dents’ awareness of the importance of self-regulated learning, and introduce various
SRL strategies, demonstrate strategy use, and give support to students while they use
the strategies. For students to apply monitoring strategies, teachers can encourage stu-
dents to check their progress and quality of learning through keeping a record. Then,
students should identify discrepancies between their current state of learning and
desired learning outcomes. If their current EFL/ESL learning fails to reach their desired
learning outcomes, further actions should be taken. With regard to effort-regulation,
teachers can encourage students to keep trying multiple times and/or seek help when
encountering difficulties, and find a conducive place when the environment is disturb-
ing. Teachers should constantly remind their students that it takes great efforts to learn
English well so students should learn how to regulate their efforts with their teachers’
guidance.

2 Limitations and future directions

A number of limitations in the study should be noted. First, the survey data were cross-
sectional, which prevents us from making causal claims between motivational beliefs
and self-regulated learning. The variables in the model may have reciprocal effects or
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

relations. Although our model was justified by the literature on expectancy-value and
implicit beliefs theories, more future studies with a robust longitudinal or experimental
design are needed to test causal relationships. Second, although this study captured the
students’ English language learning achievements by a test, our data on motivational
beliefs and self-regulated learning relied on one data source, i.e. students’ self-reports.
Relying on students’ own reports may potentially induce biases in social desirability.
Students may answer the survey items in a way that are favored by the researcher, espe-
cially statements on self-regulated learning. This may lead to overestimation of the natu-
ral occurrence of SRL strategy use. Future work should collect data with multiple
methods, such as qualitative interviews, objective school records, and teachers’ sponta-
neous reports of students’ behaviors, to investigate EFL/ESL learners’ motivational
beliefs and actual SRL behaviors in depth. Third, the current study did not include the
students’ prior achievements as a covariate. Research suggests that students with higher
prior achievements tend to have higher self-efficacy beliefs and more enjoyment in the
learning process (Bandura, 1997). Thus, future studies should control for prior achieve-
ments together with gender to better understand the relationships between motivational
beliefs, self-regulated learning, and English language learning achievements.

3 Final conclusions
To conclude, expectancy-value theory has traditionally been a central concern in educa-
tional research, and implicit theories of beliefs have been the focus of much research
recently. However, there is a lack of studies that investigate motivational beliefs in the
domain of EFL/ESL learning among young learners. The present study examined how
motivational beliefs derived from divergent theories worked together to predict self-
regulated learning and English language learning achievements among Hong Kong pri-
mary school students. The results showed that growth mindset, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
value were contributors to self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning in turn played
an important mediating role between motivational beliefs and English language learning
achievements. The results also indicated that growth mindset was a stronger predictor of
self-regulated learning and achievements than self-efficacy and intrinsic value. Goal set-
ting and planning failed to predict the students’ English language learning achievements.
Such findings may point to the importance of understanding the socio-cultural context,
in which learning and teaching take place because the better predictive power of growth
mindset (i.e. learning through great efforts) and lack of goal setting and planning may be
uniquely situated in educational contexts, influenced by Confucianism.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Bai and Wang 19

ORCID iDs
Barry Bai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2124-5061
Jing Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9262-5133

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
Bai, B. (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies
through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15–26.
Bai, B., Chao, C.N.G., & Wang, C. (2019). The relationship between social support, self-efficacy
and English language learning achievement in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 208–221.
Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2019). Motivation and self-regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary
school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead
of print 4 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819859921.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 1–26.
Blackwell, L.S., Trzesniewski, K.H., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence pre-
dict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention.
Child Development, 78, 246–263.
Bolton, K., & Graddol, D. (2012). English in contemporary China. English Today, 28, 3–9.
Bonney, C.R., Cortina, K.S., Smith-Darden, J.P., & Fiori, K.L. (2008). Understanding strategies in
foreign language learning: Are integrative and intrinsic motives distinct predictors? Learning
and Individual Differences, 18, 1–10.
Burnette, J.L., O’Boyle, E.H., VanEpps, E.M., Pollack, J.M., & Finkel, E.J. (2013). Mind-sets mat-
ter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin,
139, 655–701.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C.S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on
academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 113, 8664–8668.
Curriculum Development Council. (2017). English language education: Key learning area cur-
riculum guide (primary 1 – secondary 6). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Durik, A.M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J.S. (2005). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors of high
school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
382–393.
Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset : the new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Ebel, R.L., & Frisbie, D.A. (1986). Essentials of education measurement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
Prentice Hall.
Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51, 109–132.
Evans, S. (2017). English in Hong Kong higher education. World Englishes, 36, 591–610.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Fraine, B.D., Damme, J.V., & Onghena, P. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of gender differences
in academic self-concept and language achievement: A multivariate multilevel latent growth
approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 132–150.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the con-
cept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Hau, K.T., & Ho, I.T. (2010). Chinese students’ motivation and achievement. In Bond, M.H. (Ed.),
Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 187–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horwitz, E.K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs
about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557–576.
Hsieh, P.-H.P., & Schallert, D.L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for
an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 33, 513–532.
Jansen, M., Scherer, R., & Schroeders, U. (2015). Students’ self-concept and self-efficacy in the
sciences: Differential relations to antecedents and educational outcomes. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 41, 13–24.
Kim, D.-H., Wang, C., Ahn, H.S., & Bong, M. (2015). English language learners’ self-efficacy
profiles and relationship with self-regulated learning strategies. Learning and Individual
Differences, 38, 136–142.
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and
autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 275–299.
Leung, J.T., & Shek, D.T. (2015). Parental attributions of children’s success and failure
and family processes in poor Chinese families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24,
2191–2203.
Li, D. C. S. (2018). Two decades of decolonization and renationalization: The evolutionary
dynamics of Hong Kong English and an update of its functions and status’. Asian Englishes,
20, 2–14.
Liem, A.D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals
in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement out-
come. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2016). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal orienta-
tions and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A
research agenda for mindsets. System, 86, 1–12.
McEown, M.S., Noels, K.A., & Saumure, K.D. (2014). Students’ self-determined and integrative
orientations and teachers’ motivational support in a Japanese as a foreign language context.
System, 45, 227–241.
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-reg-
ulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106, 121–131.
MEXT. (2008). Shogakkou gakushuu shidou youryou kaisetu: Gaikokugo katsudouhen
[Explanatory commentary for the elementary school curriculum guidelines: Foreign lan-
guage activities]. Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
Muñoz, C. (2017). Tracing trajectories of young learners: Ten years of school English learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 168–184.
Nisbet, D.L., Tindall, E.R., & Arroyo, A.A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English pro-
ficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 100–107.
Noels, K.A., Vargas Lascano, D.I., & Saumure, K. (2019). The development of self-determination
across the language course. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 821–851.
Bai and Wang 21

Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P., & Ryan, R.M. (2017). Motivating young language
learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign
language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies.
Applied Language Learning, 7, 28–47.
Oxford, R.L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow / New York:
Pearson/Longman.
Oxford, R.L., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies world-
wide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).
System, 23, 1–23.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and
parents. In Pajares, F., & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents: Volume 5
(pp. 339–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P.R., & De Groot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., García, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of
the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.
Pintrich, P.R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of
cognitive and motivational factors. In Eccles, A.W.S. (Ed.), Development of achievement
motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Rao, N., & Chan, C.K. (2010). Moving beyond paradoxes: Understanding Chinese learners and
their teachers. In Chan, C.K., & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner: Volume 25
(pp. 3–32). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Rigdon, E.E. (1995). A necessary and sufficient identification rule for structural models estimated
in practice. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 359–383.
Shih, Y.-C., & Reynolds, B.L. (2018). The effects of integrating goal setting and reading strategy
instruction on English reading proficiency and learning motivation: A quasi-experimental
study. Applied Linguistics Review, 9, 35–62.
Trilling, B. (2009). 21st century skills : Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Tsang, W.-K. (1996). Comparing the effects of reading and writing on writing performance.
Applied Linguistics, 17, 210–233.
Tsui, A.B., & Tollefson, J.W. (2017). Language policy and the construction of national cultural
identity. In Tsui, A., & J. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian
contexts (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.
Tweed, R.G., & Lehman, D.R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian
and Socratic approaches. American Psychologist, 57, 89–99.
Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence pre-
dict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing,
35, 54–65.
Wang, C., & Bai, B. (2017). Validating the instruments to measure ESL/EFL learners’ self-Effi-
cacy beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 931–947.
Wang, J., & Rao, N. (2019). Classroom goal structures: Observations from urban and rural high
school classes in China. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 1211–1229.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

West, S.G., Finch, J.F., & Curran, P.J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal vari-
ables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues,
concepts, and applications (pp. 56–75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest:
Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review,
30, 1–35.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Fredricks, J.A., et al. (2015). Development of achievement motivation
and engagement. In Lerner, R. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental
science (pp. 657–700). 7th edition. New York: Wiley.
Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How forma-
tive assessment supports students’ self-regulation in English language learning. System, 81,
39–49.
Yeager, D.S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., et al. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psycho-
logical interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the transition to high school.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 374–391.
Yeung, A.S., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2011). Primary and secondary students’ motivation in learning
English: Grade and gender differences. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 246–256.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An Overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Pons, M.M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing
student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal,
23, 614–628.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives: Routledge.