Perceived instructional environment and English achievement: The mediating role of student engagement

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
The Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20
Perceived instructional environment and English
achievement: The mediating role of student
engagement
Zeynep Yılmaz Bodur, Abdullak Faruk Kılıç & Sümer Aktan
To cite this article: Zeynep Yılmaz Bodur, Abdullak Faruk Kılıç & Sümer Aktan (2023):
Perceived instructional environment and English achievement: The mediating role of student
engagement, The Journal of Educational Research, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2023.2203093
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2023.2203093
Published online: 23 Apr 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Perceived instructional environment and English achievement: The
mediating role of student engagement
Zeynep Yılmaz Bodura , Abdullak Faruk Kılıçb and Sümer Aktanc
aEductional Sciences, Ministry of Education, Balıkesir, Türkiye; bDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Adıyaman, Adıyaman,
Türkiye; cDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of Balıkesir, Balıkesir, Türkiye
ABSTRACT
This study examined the mediating role of student engagement in the relationship between
students’ perception of the instructional environment and English course achievement. The study
sample consisted of 456 volunteer students studying in the 6th grade of secondary school in
Türkiye. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the mediation relationship between
variables. According to the analysis, REACT explains 66% of the SES variance, and both REACT and
SES explain 37% of the achievement variance. Moreover, mediational pathways going through SES
significantly predicted achievement. In addition, the study determined that SES played a partial
mediating role in the relationship between REACT and English achievement. Based on the finding
in this study that 90% of the total effect of REACT on achievement is realized through SES, it can
be said that teachers can increase students’ achievements in English by supporting their participation
in lessons.
Introduction
In an increasingly international business life in a globalized
world, learning a foreign language has become an essential
professional qualification criterion. In both developed (Saiz
& Zoido, 2005) and developing countries (Azam etal., 2013;
Levinsohn, 2007), the academic performance of students
with high foreign language achievement in university (Fox
et. al., 2019; Murphy etal., 2020; Schroedler, 2018) and in
their later careers make foreign language proficiency a crit-
ical factor in economic development (Di Paolo & Tansel,
2015; Itani etal., 2015). Achievement in English, therefore,
is an essential issue for students, teachers, parents, education
policymakers, and researchers around the world (Afriliani
& Holandyah, 1970; Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015; Gohar &
Sadeghi, 2015; Jin & Zhang, 2021; Qalavand et al., 2013;
Zhu & Urhahne, 2015).
The effective development of language skills in foreign
language learning requires long-term practice and mastery
(Ebrahimzadeh & Alavi, 2016; Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021).
Students’ participation in classroom learning activities is
thus critical in this process. Highly engaged students are
interested, enthusiastic, and focused, while students with
low levels of engagement are distracted, reluctant, passive,
and apathetic (Jang et al., 2010; Reeve et al., 2004; Reeve
& Tseng, 2011). Research has evidenced that student engage-
ment is one of the most important predictors of academic
achievement and that the higher students’ engagement, the
higher their achievement (Engels etal., 2016; Harbour etal.,
2015; Jang etal., 2010; Lam et al., 2014; Matos et al., 2018;
Nguyen et al., 2018; Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Philp &
Duchesne, 2016; Reeve & Shin, 2020; Reeve & Tseng, 2011;
Trowler, 2010). Student engagement and academic achieve-
ment are often viewed as individual characteristics, but in
reality they are a consequence of how teachers structure
their teaching process (Reyes et al., 2012).
The main factor influencing a student’s engagement is
the quality of the instructional process (Jang et al., 2010;
Parsons & Taylor, 2011; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). The class-
room environment, potentially the only place in which stu-
dents are exposed to the target language and where they
can speak it, plays a crucial role in teaching a foreign lan-
guage (Daemi etal., 2017; Jannati & Marzban, 2015; Qutob,
2018). Considering the frequency of interactions between
students and teachers in the foreign language teaching pro-
cess, teachers who inform their students about the learning
objectives, encourage them to participate in order to achieve
the desired skills and behaviors, introduce them to exciting
teaching practices, and provide formative evaluations can
increase the efficacy of the teaching process (Gedamu &
Siyawik, 2015; Haarala-Muhonen etal., 2011; Nelson et al.,
2014). Studies to examine and develop learning environ-
ments that encourage learning by facilitating participation
can be beneficial in improving students’ learning and
increasing their achievement by identifying their needs.
However, despite significant interest in student engagement
and the instructional environment in the literature, limited
© 2023 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CONTACT Zeynep Yılmaz Bodur zeynepyb3@gmail.com Eductional Sciences, Ministry of Education, Balıkesir, Türkiye.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2023.2203093
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 October 2022
Revised 12 March 2023
Accepted 11 April 2023
KEYWORDS
Academic achievement;
perceived instructional
environment;
student engagement

2 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
research has investigated the mediating role of student
engagement in the relationship between the instructional
process and student achievement in the context of foreign
language teaching (Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021; Shernoff etal.,
2017). Research that separately examine the relationship
between foreign language achievement (Afriliani &
Holandyah, 1970; Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015; Jannati &
Marzban, 2015; Pae & Shin, 2011; Qutob, 2018), student
engagement (Chen etal., 2020; Corso et al., 2013; Dewaele
& Li, 2021; Harbour etal., 2015; Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021;
Sun, 2021) and the quality of the teaching process and the
instructional environment reveal the influence of the teacher
and the teaching process on foreign language learning.
Contrary to previous studies, this study attempts to con-
tribute to a better understanding of the nature of this triadic
mechanism by trying to explain the relationship between
the instructional environment and foreign language achieve-
ment through student engagement rather than establishing
a direct causal relationship between the variables.
Consequently, this study aims to address this gap in the
literature by investigating whether the perception of the
instructional environment positively affects students’ achieve-
ment in English through class participation. It is thought
that the results obtained from the research will reveal (i)
which components of the foreign language teaching process
may increase student engagement, (ii) what should be con-
sidered when creating a better learning environment to
increase students’ foreign language achievement, (iii) how
student engagement can be increased by using the charac-
teristics of the teaching environment to support student
achievement, and (iv) the valuable information that the
evaluation of teaching processes from the student perspective
may provide to foreign language education in order to
improve the current situation.
Instructional environment and achievement
Academic achievement, which is an essential measure for
evaluating students’ potential and abilities, also contributes
to determining the effectiveness of the instructional process
(Afriliani & Holandyah, 1970). The classroom, the central
unit of the education system, is where learning and teaching
occur. As a result, the quality of foreign language teaching
in the classroom plays a significant role in English language
performance (Afriliani & Holandyah, 1970; Getie, 2020; Sun,
2021). The factors that determine the quality of the teaching
process, a factor identified by the literature as heavily affect-
ing student achievement, are considerable attributes that can
be modified and enhanced by the teacher (Afriliani &
Holandyah, 1970; Nelson et al., 2014; Treagust, 2004). For
this reason, it can be stated that teachers’ characteristics
constitute the basis of effective teaching (Prameswari &
Budiyanto, 2017). In the literature, having a good knowledge
of the field, giving regular feedback, being open to com-
munication, setting clear learning objectives, using various
teaching methods, being aware of student needs, and pro-
viding a positive atmosphere are listed among the traits of
an effective teacher (Harbour et al., 2015). Students learn
better in a classroom environment that they perceive posi-
tively (Abell et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2014; Webster &
Hazari, 2009; Wei & Elias, 2011). Accordingly, the teacher
needs to be aware of the needs and characteristics of each
student to create a positive classroom environment (Voltz
etal., 2010). With this aim, an atmosphere that encourages
students in the learning process makes them feel safe and
gives them the confidence that they will succeed if they
make an effort (Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015; Voltz etal., 2010;
Wahyudi, 2010). Additionally, in an effective learning envi-
ronment, students are informed about the learning objectives
and encouraged to participate in achieving the required
skills and behaviors (Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015;
Haarala-Muhonen etal., 2011; Nelson etal., 2014). Students
are more engaged in learning when they understand what
they will learn and why it is crucial (Voltz et al., 2010).
Instructional activities and formative evaluations appropriate
to students’ interests and abilities can thus increase student
engagement and achievement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Student engagement and achievement
Engagement is a multidimensional concept to describe stu-
dents’ involvement in learning activities (Philp & Duchesne,
2016; Reeve & Tseng, 2011; Trowler, 2010). Agentic engage-
ment is defined as students’ conscious and willing contri-
bution to the teaching process. For this purpose, students
clearly express their preferences and expectations to the
teacher. For example, they make suggestions about how to
make a teaching activity more fun or about the level of
difficulty. Students with high agentic engagement who give
ideas about the teaching process, enrich, modify and per-
sonalize their instruction by providing their teacher by ask-
ing questions, taking responsibility, and expressing their
needs, and this encourages the teacher to make an effort
for better teaching (Fletcher, 2016; Montenegro, 2017; Reeve
& Tseng, 2011). Behavioral engagement is defined as stu-
dents’ voluntary effort, attention, interest, and persistence
during teaching activities (Lam et al., 2014; Li & Lerner,
2013; Nguyen etal., 2018); emotional engagement is defined
as students’ interest, satisfaction, self-confidence, and enjoy-
ment in the instructional process (Lam et al., 2014; Park
et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2014; Taylor & Statler, 2014);
and finally, cognitive engagement (Archambault etal., 2012;
Walker et al., 2006) describes the learning strategies used
by students and the time they spend on learning. Though
there are many factors affecting English language achieve-
ment, research indicates that student engagement is one of
the most prominent predictors of foreign language achieve-
ment, and achievement tends to increase at a commensurate
rate with engagement (Fakeye & Ogunsiji, 2009; Getie, 2020;
Matos etal., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018; Philp & Duchesne,
2016; Reeve & Shin, 2020; Sun, 2021; Trowler, 2010).
Students’ cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and agentic
engagement relate to their efforts and engagement in learn-
ing a foreign language. In particular, engagement in the
classroom environment has a motivating effect on students’
future learning (Jang et al., 2010). By enhancing both

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3
students’ learning experiences and student development,
learning outcomes can be improved and students can become
lifelong learners (Parsons & Taylor, 2011). As a result, the
time, effort, and resources invested in learning can be used
more efficiently (Trowler, 2010). While student engagement
in foreign language teaching predicts students’ achievement
in the short term, it can also be a long-term predictor of
students’ achievement at university and in their later careers
(Di Paolo & Tansel, 2015; Fox etal., 2019; Itani etal., 2015;
Murphy etal., 2020; Schroedler, 2018).
Instructional environment and student engagement
While the definitions and methods associated with teaching
have evolved over time, the teacher’s critical role in the
teaching process remains. Global education systems still rely
on the teacher’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in the class-
room (Muijs & Reynolds, 2017; OECD., 2009) because teach-
ers are the determinants of teaching methods, learning
environment, teaching materials, and the implementers of
teaching programs (OECD., 2009).
Student engagement, which is the first visible reflection
of a student’s perception of the instructional process (Axelson
& Flick, 2010; Philp & Duchesne, 2016; Reeve & Tseng,
2011; Skinner & Belmont, 1993), is related to the teacher’s
ability to direct and shape it (Shernoff et al., 2017).
Consequently, teacher behavior in foreign language teaching
is essential in initiating and continuing engagement (Getie,
2020; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Notably, the teacher’s sup-
port and control are essential when the student loses their
interest and attention. While students must exhibit the
required effort and attention for the learning process, teach-
ers must similarly provide the appropriate environment to
ease students’ learning (Axelson & Flick, 2010; Sun, 2021).
Increased engagement in the lesson is beneficial not only
for the student but also for the teacher and the learning
environment. The higher the number of students who have
fun and pay attention in class, the higher the teacher’s com-
mitment to the class and professional satisfaction (Corso
et al., 2013; Matos et al., 2018; Reeve & Tseng, 2011).
In conclusion, the focus should be on the classroom to
understand why students become bored and prefer to remain
passive in some lessons while actively participating in others
(Corso et al., 2013). If the processes underlying classrooms
are understood, it will be easier to choose the most effective
ways to apply them therein. When teachers establish better
communication with their students, enrich their learning
content, and expand their pedagogical knowledge, students’
engagement is likely to increase (Axelson & Flick, 2010;
Jang et al., 2010).
Method
Participants
There are 3 different sample groups in this study. For the
adaptation of the REACT scale into Turkish for middle
school students, data were collected from a group of 278
6th, 7th and 8th grade students. Of the study group, 51.4%
(n = 143) were females, 48.2% (n = 134) were males, 34.5%
(n = 96) were 6th graders, 34% (n = 94) were 7th graders,
and 32% (n = 88) were 8th graders. The average age of the
students in the study group was 12.24. In the process of
developing the English language achievement test, in order
to determine the construct validity and reliability, it was
administered to 125 sixth grade students. Finally, data were
collected from 456 students studying in the 6th grade for
the main problem of the study.
The study population comprises 1468 students studying
in the 6th grade of secondary school. The reason for choos-
ing 6th-grade students as the research population is that
foreign language learning culture and skills start in child-
hood. Although the first contact with a foreign language in
Türkiye takes place in the 2nd grade of primary school,
evaluations of students’ English course achievement begin
at the secondary school level. For this reason, it was decided
that the 6th grade was the most appropriate grade level
since it is the earliest age group to measure course
achievement.
Among the 16 schools constituting the study population,
seven were randomly selected. The minimum number of
students to be sampled in the study with a 95% certainty
level and a 5% margin of error is 368. This study was
conducted with 456 volunteer 6th-grade students to increase
generalizability. Furthermore, 229 participants are female
(50.2%) and 227 are male (49.8%). Their ages are 10 (n = 3),
11 (n = 156), 12 (n = 289) and 13 (n = 8). When the research
was conducted in 2020–2021, 36 (7.9%) students had a
monthly family income of 310$, 132 (28.9%) of 311–475$,
132 (28.9%) of 476–675$and 154 (33.8%) of 676$or more.
In 2020, the minimum wage in Türkiye is 310 $. The family
incomes of 90% of the students participating in the study
were above the minimum wage. According to the results of
National Needs Analysis on the Teaching of English Language
in Public Schools in Türkiye, family income level is a factor
affecting success in learning English as it enables students
to have and utilize learning aids (British Council &
TEPAV, 2013).
Why Türkiye?
Research has long since established that English language
skills play an essential role in producing high-value-added
products, branding in tourism, carrying out prominent
research in the scientific field, following new world devel-
opments, and getting the desired share from the increasing
trade volume (British Council & TEPAV, 2013; EF EPI,
2021). Nevertheless, in 2021 Türkiye ranked 70th among
100 countries and 33rd among 34 European countries in
the English Proficiency Index (EPI; EF English Proficiency
Index, 2021). Countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark, and Finland, which are in the top 10 in the EPI,
are also in the top 10 in the Global Innovation Index. On
the other hand, Türkiye is 49th among 129 countries (Global
Innovation Index, 2020). These data show a strong relation-
ship between foreign language skills, entrepreneurship, and

4 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
high value-added production (Balçıkanlı, 2019). In addition,
Di Paolo and Tansel (2015) state that although the demand
for individuals with foreign language skills is increasing in
the labor market in Türkiye, a country that aims to facilitate
economic and social development, human capital with this
equipment is scarce, so speaking English increases the
chances of finding a higher paid job and contributes posi-
tively to career development. In this context, the fact that
educated individuals who know a foreign language will sig-
nificantly contribute to Türkiye’s goal of becoming one of
the world’s top ten economies necessitates that the reasons
behind the failure of English language education should be
investigated, in addition to the identification of solutions to
resolve this issue. The results from this study may help
other developing countries with low English proficiency
levels to make the right decisions in selecting effective for-
eign language teaching practices.
Measures
In the study, we used two scales and an achievement test.
We used the "Responsive Environmental Assessment For
Classroom Teaching (REACT) Scale" developed by Nelson
et al. (2014) and adapted into Turkish by the researcher to
measure the perceived instructional environment. In addi-
tion, we used the "Student Engagement Scale" developed by
Reeve and Tseng (2011), adapted to Turkish by Uçar and
Sungur (2018), to measure student engagement. Moreover,
we developed the multiple-choice English achievement test
to measure English achievement.
REACT scale
The scale consists of 27 four-point items (Yes, Mostly yes,
Mostly no, and No) and six factors. As a result of the
second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) performed
in the scale development study, it was reported that the
scale has six sub-factors and one second-order factor.
REACT was adapted to the Turkish culture. Firstly, a for-
ward translation process was carried out in the adaptation
study. Two English language experts evaluated the translated
items as 1 (poor) and 5 (excellent). The agreement between
the two experts was examined with the Kappa coefficient
and obtained as 0.43. As a result, the agreement between
the experts is sufficient (Cohen, 1960; Landis & Koch, 1977).
Then, a back-translation was made, and the translated
English form was compared with the original document.
Finally, the adapted scale was corrected in line with the
suggestions of Turkish language experts.
The adaptation study was carried out with 278 students.
These students were female (48.2%) and male (34.5%) study-
ing in the 6th (34%), 7th (34%), and 8th (32%) grades. The
adaptation study examined whether the original scale con-
struct was compatible with Turkish culture and utilized a
CFA. Before performing the CFA, the data set was examined
regarding its analysis assumptions. As a result of the exam-
ination, it was observed that there was no missing data,
there was no multi-collinearity between the variables, and
the skewness and kurtosis coefficients of the variables varied
between (-2.18) to (-0.31) and (-0.70) to (5.68), respectively.
Accordingly, it can be said that some variables deviate from
normality in terms of univariate normality. For this reason,
the ULSMV method, which is robust against violation of
the normality assumption, was used as the estimation
method in CFA (Forero et al., 2009).
As a result of the CFA, it was observed that the six-factor
structure suggested in the original culture did not fit with
the data set. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
was used to explore the data structure. Before performing
the EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.93.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was observed to be significant at
the 0.05 level. We used the principal axis as a factor
extraction method in EFA. As a result of the EFA, some
items had cross-loading and were subsequently excluded
from the analysis, and the EFA was repeated. Parallel anal-
ysis and minimum average partial (MAP) analysis methods
were used to decide the number of dimensions, and a scree
plot was also examined. In addition, the researchers dis-
cussed whether or not the structure was theoretically mean-
ingful. As a result of the analysis, a structure consisting of
four factors emerged: "Differentiated Instruction" (My
teacher gives extra review when I need it, There are other
learning activities to do when I finish my work early),
"Positive Reinforcement" (I am rewarded for doing good
work in my class, My teacher says nice things about my
work), "Instructional Enjoyment"(My teacher makes learning
interesting, My teacher makes class fun), and "Instructional
Presentation" (My teacher tells me what he/she’s going to
teach before the lesson begins, My teacher explains things
in more than one way). Four factors explain 52.36% of the
total variance. Factor loadings vary between 0.44 to 0.63
for instructional differentiation, 0.68 to 0.84 for positive
reinforcement, 0.47 to 0.94 for enjoyment of the instruc-
tional process, and 0.31 to 0.70 for instructional presenta-
tion. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the
construct validity of the adapted scale. Since the data were
normally distributed, maximum likelihood was used as the
method. As a result of CFA, it was observed that the model
data fit was achieved (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Maccallum et al.,
1996) (RMSEA: 0.63[0.04–0.06], p > 0.05, CFI: 0.97,
Chi-Square [df]]: 423.17 [203]). Factor loadings were in the
range of 0.57–0.88.
We also examined the model-data fit for the four-factor
structure by CFA in the main study group (n = 456) again.
For this purpose, we used a polychoric correlation matrix
and the unweighted least squares mean-and-variance adjusted
(ULSMV) estimation method in the CFA. The data set was
checked in terms of the analysis assumptions. As a result
of the second-order CFA, it was observed that the model
data fit was achieved (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Maccallum et al.,
1996) (RMSEA: 0.05[0.04–0.06], p > 0.05, CFI: 0.97, TLI:
0.97, Chi-Square [df]]: 433.88 [205]). Factor loadings were
in the range of 0.45–0.86 (Appendix 1). Additionally, the
adopted scale Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were
0.86 for PR, 0.77 for IP, 0.81 for DI, 0.77 for IE, and 0.92
for the whole scale. McDonald’s omega coefficient was 0.90
for PR, 0.83 for IP, 0.86 for DI, 0.86 for IE, and 0.95 for
the whole scale.

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5
Student engagement scale
Reeve and Tseng (2011) developed the Student Engagement
Scale consisting of 22 five-point Likert-type items and four
factors. The first factor of SES is “Agentic Engagement”
(During class, I express my preferences and opinions, I offer
suggestions about how to make the class better), the second
factor is “Behavioral Engagment” (I listen carefully in class,
I try very hard in school), the third factor is “Emotional
Engagement” (I enjoy learning new things in class, When
I am in class, I feel curious about what we are learning,
and finally the fourth factor is “Cognitive Engagement”
(When I study, I try to connect what I am learning with
my own experiences, I make up my own examples to help
me understand the important concepts I study). Uçar and
Sungur (2018) subsequently adapted it to Turkish culture.
A structure similar to that seen in the original study was
obtained in the adaptation study. Since the scale structure
was known, it was investigated whether the data set was
compatible with the four-factor structure with CFA. For this
purpose, the data set (n = 456) was first examined in terms
of its analysis assumptions. Accordingly, it was observed
that there was no missing data in the data set, nor was
there a multi-collinearity problem between the variables.
Multivariate outliers were examined with the Mahalanobis
distance. As a result of the second-order DFA performed
after excluding 26 people from the multivariate extreme
value data set, it was observed that the model data fit of
the structure with four factors and a second-order factor
was sufficient (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Maccallum etal., 1996)
(RMSE: 0.05 [0.05–0.06], p > 0.05, CFI: 0.97, TLI: 0.97,
Chi-Square [df]: 452.38[205]). When factor loads were
examined, they were observed to be in the range of 0.63
to 0.90 (Annex-2). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.88
for BE, 0.83 for AE, 0.85 for CE, 0.86 for EE, and 0.93 for
the whole scale. McDonald’s omega coefficient was 0.93 for
BE, 0.85 for AE, 0.87 for CE, 0.91 for EE, and 0.95 for the
whole scale.
English achievement test
Every student who completes secondary school education
in Türkiye takes an exam called the High School Transition
System (LGS), which is based on PISA and TIMSS questions
and measures skill-based logic reasoning ability. Within the
scope of the exam, there are questions that test students’
reading comprehension, inference making and vocabulary
knowledge to measure their English achievement. The test
prepared to measure students’ English achievement in this
study was prepared in a similar way. Due to the fact that
the study was conducted in 7 different schools and the
implementation period was limited to a maximum of 2
lessons of 40 min in length in accordance with the regula-
tions set by the Ministry of National Education, skills such
as speaking, listening and writing could not be tested. And
this is one of the limitations of our study. The English
achievement test was prepared as paper-pencil multiple-choice
test to measure vocabulary, inference making and reading
comprehension. In the development process, firstly, the
objectives in the 6th grade English curriculum were
examined and 5 questions were prepared for each unit by
selecting the critical objectives covering the first 5 units
with the teachers teaching the 6th grade students. Students
were given 40 min time to complete the test consisting of
25 questions.
An EFA was also performed to reveal the structure mea-
sured by the test. The data set (n = 125) was examined in
the analysis assumptions, determining that the skewness
coefficient of the variables ranged from −1.63 to 1.78 and
the kurtosis coefficient was between −2.00 and 1.15. For
this reason, the unweighted least squares (ULS) factor
extraction method was used (Costello & Osborne, 2005).
The dimensionality of the data set was examined by both
parallel analysis and MAP analysis. As a result of both
analyses, a unidimensional structure was proposed. The
KMO value was 0.77, and the result of Bartlett’s sphericity
test was significant (χ2 = 1322.1; df = 300; p = 0.00).
Furthermore, we used a tetrachoric correlation matrix for
the EFA, ascertaining that the unidimensional structure
explained 26.40% of the total variance. This unidimensional
ratio is sufficient (Reckase, 1979). The factor loadings of
the items varied between 0.21 to 0.74, the item difficulty
indexes between 0.23 and 0.83, and the corrected item dis-
crimination indexes between 0.20 to 0.54. Finally, the
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of the test was 0.85
and McDonald’s ω 0.87.
After the test development process was completed, it was
applied to 456 volunteer 6th grade students face-to-face and
in the form of a pencil and paper test by the researcher
during a 40-minute. In addition, the students were informed
that the scores they received from the test would not affect
their school success and that they should not worry. We
use 1 (true answer) and 0 (the others) scoring method.
Then, we use sum score for achievement. When the scores
obtained from the test were analyzed, it was seen that the
minimum score was 4 and the maximum score was 25. The
mean of the test was 17.66 and the standard deviation
was 5.19.
Data analysis
To examine the construct validity of the data obtained from
the scales and achievement test, both EFA and CFA were
performed. We used Factor (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2021)
software for EFA and Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2012)
software for CFA. In the latter, we used the ULSMV esti-
mation method with a polychoric correlation matrix because
it gives robust estimations against the skewness of the vari-
ables (Forero etal., 2009; Shi et al., 2018).
Structural equation modeling was used to examine the
mediation relationship between the variables, as it provides
more convenient estimations and is more flexible (MacKinnon
etal., 2013). The variables were handled categorically in the
structural equation modeling, so we used the ULSMV. The
mediation relationship was evaluated by determining the
confidence intervals of the estimations using the bootstrap
method (1000 samples). The model examined within the
scope of the research is presented in Figure 1, which

6 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
illustrates that both REACT and SES consist of 4 factors in
a hierarchical structure. Since English achievement is the
total score obtained from the achievement test, it is seen
in the model as an observed variable. We used second-order
factor structures for REACT and SES because of the CFA
results.
Results
The results obtained from the mediation model are pre-
sented in Table 1. In addition, the path diagram obtained
as a result of the structural equation modeling is included
in Appendix 3; this model (Figure 1) provided good
model-data fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Hu & Bentler,
1999) [RMSEA: 0.04 [0.03–0.04], p > 0.05, CFI: 0.91, TLI:
0.90, SRMR: 0.06, χ2/df = 1.61].
Moreover, the REACT scale predicted SES (
β
= 0.56; see
Table 1) and explained 66% of the SES variance. Similarly,
the REACT (
β
= 0.42) and SES (
β
= 6.77) variables pre-
dicted the outcome variable, achievement. REACT and SES
also explained 37% of the achievement variance. Standardized
coefficients are presented in the path diagram (Appendix
3), whilst Table 2 presents the direct and indirect effects of
REACT on success.
According to Table 2, the effect of REACT on success
partially mediated SES. In terms of total effect, REACT
significantly predicted achievement (β = 0.51, p < 0.01). When
SES was added to the model, the direct effect was decreased
but statistically significant. In other words, mediational path-
ways going through SES significantly predicted achievement.
Furthermore, SES explained approximately 90% (0.46/0.51)
of the total effect of REACT on success. Accordingly, it can
be said that the indirect effect was strong.
Discussion
This research aimed to determine to what extent the instruc-
tional process perceived by the students in the English
course affects their English achievement directly and through
student engagement. According to the study’s results, a pos-
itive relationship exists between the perceived instructional
process (REACT), student engagement (SES), and English
achievement. It was also determined that student engage-
ment (SES) partially mediated the relationship between the
perceived teaching process (REACT) and English
achievement.
The study results reveal that as students’ positive percep-
tions of the instructional process increase, their achievement
in English also increases. According to this result, a
well-planned and effectively managed instructional process
that students enjoy can lead to an increase in English lan-
guage achievement. This study contributes to the literature
by indicating that students’ positive perceptions of the
instructional process play an essential role in foreign lan-
guage education. Research that overlaps with the results of
the study shows that teachers can increase students’ achieve-
ment (Gedamu & Siyawik, 2015; Nelson et al., 2014; Pae &
Shin, 2011), motivation (Wei & Elias, 2011), willingness to
speak (Qutob, 2018), course performance (Wali, 2019),
self-efficacy (Daemi et al., 2017) and engagement (Sadoughi
& Hejazi, 2021) by providing a positively perceived instruc-
tional environment.
According to the research results, while the perceived
instructional process has a direct effect on achievement, it
Figure 1. The mediation model examined in the study.
REACT: The Responsive Environmental Assessment for Classroom Teaching, PR: Positive Reinforcement, IP: Instructional Presentation, DI: Dierentiated Instructions, IE: Instructional
Enjoyment, SES: Student Engagement Scale, BE: Behavioral Engagement, AE: Agentic Engagement, CE: Cognitive Engagement, EE: Emotional Engagement.
Table 1. Unstandardized structural path coefficients and 95% Bootstrap
Condence Intervals (BCI).
MAchievement (Y)
Estimate Lower Upper Estimate Lower Upper
REACT (X)0.56** 0.44 0.70 0.42** 0.21 0.63
SES (M)6.77** 6.41 7.13
R2 = 0.66 R2 = 0.37
**p < 0.01.
Table 2. Indirect and total eects of REACT on achievement and 95% BCIs.
Unstandardized
StandardizedEstimate Lower Upper
Direct eect 0.42** 0.21 0.64 0.05
Indirect eect 3.77** 3.58 3.95 0.46
Total eect 4.19** 4.07 4.31 0.51
**p < 0.01.

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7
also has an indirect effect on student engagement. When
the perceived instructional process is positive, student
engagement also increases. Student engagement, on the other
hand, increases English achievement. Since the effect of the
perceived instructional environment on achievement does
not disappear when the student engagement variable is
added to the model, it can be said that the role of the
instructional environment in increasing achievement is still
essential. In addition, the study determined that student
engagement is an essential factor influenced by the perceived
teaching process and affects achievement. Since 90% of the
total effect of the perceived instructional process on achieve-
ment stems from class engagement, interventions into the
class engagement variable can increase individuals’ achieve-
ment in English. Since the perceived instructional environ-
ment was found to affect student engagement, the findings
of this study are consistent with research suggesting that
the teacher plays a vital role in facilitating students’ engage-
ment (Axelson & Flick, 2010; Philp & Duchesne, 2016; Reeve
& Tseng, 2011; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). In the literature,
there have been a variety of studies on the mediating role
of engagement between different variables (Chong et al.,
2018; Jelas etal., 2016; Liu etal., 2021; Shernoff et al., 2017;
Wu et al., 2020), but limited research has been conducted
in the context of foreign language education. Oruç and
Demirci (2020), in their study examining the mediating role
of student engagement in the relationship between foreign
language anxiety and English language achievement, found
that student engagement mediates the relationship between
foreign language anxiety and English language achievement
and that when student engagement predicts English language
achievement, the effect of foreign language anxiety on
English language achievement is partially abolished. In addi-
tion, another study revealed that the relationship between
teacher enthusiasm and students’ perceptions of behavioral
engagement in English class was mediated by students’
enjoyment and boredom (Dewaele & Li, 2021). Providing
further support, Sadoughi and Hejazi (2021) stated that
perceived teacher support in English language classes directly
and positively affects academic engagement and that positive
emotions mediate the relationship between teacher support
and academic engagement. In this respect, it can be said
that the current study’s findings are in parallel with the
extant literature.
Conclusion
Previous studies on student engagement ascertained that
when engagement is high, students’ interest and enthusiasm
toward the course is higher (Jang et al., 2010; Reeve et al.,
2004; Reeve & Tseng, 2011), foreign language achievement
is better (Oruç & Demirci, 2020; Reyes et al., 2012), and
that positive attitudes toward the course increase course
engagement (Jin & Zhang, 2021). Teachers can increase
students’ enjoyment of the lesson by using different methods
and techniques and by maintaining open communication,
good relationships, and support for their students. In the
present study, the effect of the perceived instructional pro-
cess on student engagement supports these findings. In
addition, the enthusiasm and enthusiastic expression of the
teacher during the teaching process can help students
develop positive feelings toward the content (Chen et al.,
2020; Frenzel etal., 2009). The fact that the perceived teach-
ing process directly affects achievement in the present study
can be presented as proof of this. In their study, Sadoughi
and Hejazi (2021) state that teacher support directly and
positively affects student engagement in foreign language
learning. However, it should be considered that increasing
teacher support will also increase students’ engagement in
the lesson. As a matter of fact, in the current study, it was
observed that the perceived teaching process affected student
engagement and had a partial mediating role on achieve-
ment. In this regard, teachers can encourage students’ moti-
vation through classroom environments where effort and
results are positively associated with one another and failures
are seen as learning experiences (Koul etal., 2012). In this
way, student engagement and English achievement can be
improved because the current study shows that 90% of the
total effect of REACT on achievement is realized through
student engagement. Students may want to learn a foreign
language for different purposes. Therefore, teachers can
guide students to identify their learning goals in line with
their interests and abilities and help them acquire the nec-
essary learning strategies to achieve these goals (Deemer,
2004). In addition, the timely and adequate provision of
positive reinforcement by teachers can enable students to
make the necessary changes to their performance and atti-
tude to achieve their goals. Thus, both participation in the
lesson and English achievement will increase. Teachers can
encourage students to repeatedly exhibit desired behaviors
by using positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcements that
increase students’ beliefs that they can succeed can support
emotional engagement by increasing students’ self-confidence.
Furthermore, group work can be designed to increase peer
relations, allowing students with high participation to influ-
ence their friends and increase overall performance, discus-
sion environments can be created where students can express
their ideas, and rich, challenging, and enjoyable skill-building
learning experiences can be offered to students. By including
activities that support the autonomy of the student, students
can be allowed to conduct their research, organize their
planning and work, control their learning, and combat any
areas of weaknesses. Consequently, teachers can increase
students’ foreign language achievement by planning teaching
processes that prioritize students’ agentic, emotional, behav-
ioral, and cognitive engagement in the classroom in foreign
language education, where individual participation and effort
are essential.
Last but not least, governments could invest in improv-
ing the foreign language competence and pedagogical
knowledge of teachers, who are recognized as having an
essential role in promoting foreign language achievement.
Training courses could include different aspects of how
teachers can increase students’ engagement in different
aspects of foreign language learning so that they can foster
positive feelings toward learning a foreign language and
encourage their participation in lessons. In addition, for-
eign language teaching programs and course materials can

8 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
include activities that will enable students to develop pos-
itive emotions about the teaching process in the classroom
and to participate in the lesson.
Disclosure statement
is study was conducted as part of the 1st author’s master’s thesis.
e authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were
in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of
University of Balıkesir and Ministry of Education. e ethics committee
approval for this study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of
Balıkesir University, dated 12.01.2021 and Numbered E.2470.
ORCID
Zeynep Yılmaz Bodur http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0225-4042
Abdullak Faruk Kılıç http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3129-1763
Sümer Aktan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2938-7782
References
Abell, M. M., Jung, E., & Taylor, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of
classroom instructional environments in the context of universal
design for learning. Learning Environments Research, 14(2), 171–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9090-2[Mismatch]
Afriliani, M., & Holandyah, M. (1970). An investigation into a link
between classroom environment and EFL student teachers’ academ-
ic achievement. Edukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 5(1),
76–86. https://doi.org/10.19109/ejpp.v5i1.2051
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., & Chouinard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs
as predictors of adolescents’ cognitive engagement and achievement
in mathematics. e Journal of Educational Research, 105(5), 319–
328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.629694
Axelson, R. D., & Flick, A. (2010). Dening student engagement.
Change: e Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38–43. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096
Azam, M., Chin, A., & Prakash, N. (2013). The returns to
English-language skills in India. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 61(2), 335–367. https://doi.org/10.1086/668277
Balçıkanlı, C. (2019, December 12). İngilizce olmadan girişim olur
mu?. Hürriyet Gazetesi. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/egitim/
ingilizce-olmadan-girisim-olur-mu41402878
British Council & TEPAV. (2013). Türkiye’deki devlet okullarında
İngilizce dilinin öğretimine ilişkin ulusal ihtiyaç analizi. http://www.
tepav.org.tr/upload/files/13993885191.Turkiyedeki_Devlet_
Okullarinda_Ingilizce_Dilinin_Ogrenimine_Iliskin_Ulusal_Ihtiyac_
Analizi.pdf.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing
model t. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Chen, G., Zhang, J., Chan, C. K., Michaels, S., Resnick, L. B., & Huang,
X. (2020). e link between student‐perceived teacher talk and
student enjoyment, anxiety and discursive engagement in the class-
room. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 631–652. https://
doi.org/10.1002/berj.3600
Chong, W. H., Liem, G. A. D., Huan, V. S., Kit, P. L., & Ang, R. P.
(2018). Student perceptions of self-ecacy and teacher support for
learning in fostering youth competencies: Roles of aective and
cognitive engagement. Journal of Adolescence, 68, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.07.002
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement of nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Corso, M. J., Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., & Haywood, D. E. (2013).
Where student, teacher, and content meet: Student engagement in
the secondary school classroom. American Secondary Education,
41(3), 50–61.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in explorato-
ry factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from
your analysis. Practical Assessment. Research & Evaluation, 10(7),
27–29. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Daemi, M. N., Tahriri, A., & Zafarghandi, A. M. (2017). e relation-
ship between classroom environment and EFL learners’ academic
self-ecacy. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies,
5(4), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.4p.16
Deemer, S. (2004). Classroom goal orientation in high school class-
rooms: Revealing links between teacher beliefs and classroom en-
vironments. Educational Research, 46(1), 73–90. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0013188042000178836
Dewaele, J. M., & Li, C. (2021). Teacher enthusiasm and students’
social-behavioral learning engagement: e mediating role of student
enjoyment and boredom in Chinese EFL classes. Language Teaching
Research, 25(6), 922–945. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211014538
Di Paolo, A., & Tansel, A. (2015). Returns to foreign language skills
in a developing country: The case of Turkey. The Journal of
Development Studies, 51(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220
388.2015.1019482
Ebrahimzadeh, M., & Alavi, S. (2016). Motivating EFL students:
E-learning enjoyment as a predictor of vocabulary learning through
digital video games. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1255400. https://doi.or
g/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1255400
EF English Prociency Index. (2021). EF EPI Index 2021. https://www.
ef.com.tr/epi/regions/europe/turkey
Engels, M. C., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Van Den
Noortgate, W., Claes, S., Goossens, L., & Verschueren, K. (2016).
Behavioral engagement, peer status, and teacher–student relation-
ships in adolescence: A longitudinal study on reciprocal inuences.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1192–1207. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-016-0414-5
Fakeye, D., & Ogunsiji, Y. (2009). English language prociency as a
predictor of academic achievement among EFL students in Nigeria.
European Journal of Scientic Research, 37, 490–495.
Fletcher, A. K. (2016). Exceeding expectations: Scaolding agentic
engagement through assessment as learning. Educational Research,
58(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2016.1235909
Forero, C. G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2009). Factor
analysis with ordinal indicators: A monte carlo study comparing
DWLS and ULS estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705510903203573
Fox, R., Corretjer, O., & Webb, K. (2019). Benets of foreign language
learning and bilingualism: An analysis of published empirical re-
search 2012–2019. Foreign Language Annals, 52(4), 699–726. https://
doi.org/10.1111/an.12424
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), 705–716. https://psycnet.apa.org/
doi/10.1037/a0014695
Gedamu, A. D., & Siyawik, Y. A. (2015). e relationship between
students’ perceived e classroom climate and their achievement in
English language. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal,
3(4), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.4314/star.v3i4.27
Getie, A. S. (2020). Factors aecting the attitudes of students towards
learning English as a foreign language. Cogent Education, 7(1),
1738184. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1738184
Global Innovation Index. (2020). Global innovation index 2020 rankings.
https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2020-report
Gohar, M. J., & Sadeghi, N. (2015). e impact of learning style
preferences on foreign language achievement: A case study of Iranian

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9
EFL students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 754–
764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.188
Haarala-Muhonen, A., Ruohoniemi, M., Katajavuori, N., & Lindblom-Ylänne,
S. (2011). Comparison of students’ perceptions of their teaching–learn-
ing environments in three professional academic disciplines: A valuable
tool for quality enhancement. Learning Environments Research, 14(2),
155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9087-x
Harbour, K. E., Evanovich, L. L., Sweigart, C. A., & Hughes, L. E.
(2015). A brief review of eective teaching practices that maximize
student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 59(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/104598
8X.2014.919136
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). e power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/
003465430298487
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecication.
Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.103
7/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cuto criteria for t indexes in co-
variance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Itani, S., Järlström, M., & Piekkari, R. (2015). e meaning of language
skills for career mobility in the new career landscape. Journal of
World Business, 50(2), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jwb.2014.08.003
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learn-
ing activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autono-
my support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3),
588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
Jannati, M., & Marzban, A. (2015). Iranian EFL learners’ perception
of learning environment in English language institutes and its re-
lationship with learners’ English prociency. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 2(3), 23–38.
Jelas, Z. M., Azman, N., Zulnaidi, H., & Ahmad, N. A. (2016). Learning
support and academic achievement among Malaysian adolescents:
e mediating role of student engagement. Learning Environments
Research, 19(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9202-5
Jin, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). e dimensions of foreign language class-
room enjoyment and their eect on foreign language achievement.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(7),
948–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1526253
Koul, R., Roy, L., & Lerdpornkulrat, T. (2012). Motivational goal ori-
entation, perceptions of biology and physics classroom learning
environments, and gender. Learning Environments Research, 15(2),
217–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9111-9
Lam, S.-F., Jimerson, S., Wong, B. P. H., Kikas, E., Shin, H., Veiga, F.
H., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F., Cefai, C., Negovan, V.,
Stanculescu, E., Yang, H., Liu, Y., Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P.,
Nelson, B., & Zollneritsch, J. (2014). Understanding and measuring
student engagement in school: e results of an international study
from 12 countries. School Psychology Quarterly: e Ocial Journal
of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological
Association, 29(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000057
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). e Measurement of Observer
Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Levinsohn, J. (2007). Globalization and the returns to speaking English
in South Africa. In Harrison A. (Ed), Globalization and poverty (pp.
629–646). University of Chicago Press.
Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 42(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-012-9857-5
Liu, H., Yao, M., Li, J., & Li, R. (2021). Multiple mediators in the
relationship between perceived teacher autonomy support and student
engagement in math and literacy learning. Educational Psychology,
41(2), 116–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1837346
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2021). Factor (Version 12.01.02)
[Computer soware]. Universitat Rovirai Virgili.
Maccallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power
analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure
modeling of t involving a particular measure of model. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
MacKinnon, D. P., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., & Gottschall, A. C. (2013).
Developments in mediation analysis. In T. D. Little (Ed.), e Oxford
handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 338–360). Oxford University.
Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D., & Claux, M. (2018). Students’ agen-
tic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived
autonomy-supportive teaching: e squeaky wheel gets the grease.
e Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 579–596. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1448746
Montenegro, A. (2017). Understanding the concept of student agentic
engagement for learning. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal,
19(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1.10472
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Eective teaching: Evidence and
practice. Sage.
Murphy, V., Arndt, H., Briggs Baoe-Djan, J., Chalmers, H., Macaro,
E., Rose, H., & Woore, R. (2020). Foreign language learning and
its impact on wider academic outcomes: A rapid evidence assess-
ment. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612981.pdf
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus statistical modeling
soware: Release 7.0. Muthén & Muthén.
Nelson, P., Demers, J. A., & Christ, T. J. (2014). e responsive envi-
ronmental assessment for classroom teaching (REACT): e dimen-
sionality of student perceptions of the instructional environment.
School Psychology Quarterly: e Ocial Journal of the Division of
School Psychology, American Psychological Association, 29(2), 182–
197. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000049
Nguyen, T. D., Cannata, M., & Miller, J. (2018). Understanding student
behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers
and teachers. e Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 163–174.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220359
OECD. (2009). Creating eective teaching and learning environments:
First results from TALIS. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development.
Oruç, E., & Demirci, C. (2020). Foreign language anxiety and English
language achievement in higher education: e mediating role of
student engagement. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(3),
199–212. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3756910
Pae, T. I., & Shin, S. K. (2011). Examining the eects of dierential
instructional methods on the model of foreign language achieve-
ment. Learning and Individual Dierences, 21(2), 215–222. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.023
Park, S., Holloway, S. D., Arendtsz, A., Bempechat, J., & Li, J. (2012).
What makes students engaged in learning? a time-use study of
within-and between- individual predictors of emotional engagement
in low-performing high schools.Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41(3), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9738-3
Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current
Issues in Education, 14(1), 1–33.
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the
language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094
Pietarinen, J., Soini, T., & Pyhältö, K. (2014). Students’ emotional and
cognitive engagement as the determinants of well-being and achieve-
ment in school. International Journal of Educational Research, 67,
40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.05.001
Prameswari, S. J., & Budiyanto, C. (2017). e development of the
eective learning environment by creating an eective teaching in
the classroom. IJIE (Indonesian Journal of Informatics Education),
1(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijie.v1i1.11960
Qalavand, M., Srarvazad, S., Kalanzadeh, G., Bakhtiarvand, M., &
Roshani, A. A. (2013). e study of the correlation between EFL
students’self-concept and their academic achievement in EFL class-
rooms. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied
Linguistics World, 4(2), 331–341.

10 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
Qutob, M. M. (2018). e relationship between EFL learners’ satisfac-
tion within the classroom environment and their speaking skills.
English Language Teaching, 11(7), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.5539/
elt.v11n7p116
Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to mul-
tifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational
Statistics, 4(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164671
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing
students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support.
Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’
agentic engagement. eory into Practice, 59(2), 150–161. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1702451
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’
engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ced-
psych.2011.05.002
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.
(2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and ac-
ademic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3),
700–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027268
Sadoughi, M., & Hejazi, S. Y. (2021). Teacher support and academic
engagement among EFL learners: e role of positive academic
emotions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101060. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101060
Saiz, A., & Zoido, E. (2005). Listening to what the world says:
Bilingualism and earnings in the United States. Review of Economics
and Statistics, 87(3), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1162/0034653054638256
Schroedler, T. (2018). e value of foreign language learning: A study
on linguistic capital and the economic value of language skills.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19736-0
Sherno, D. J., Ruzek, E. A., & Sinha, S. (2017). e inuence of the
high school classroom environment on learning as mediated by
student engagement. School Psychology International, 38(2), 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316666413
Shi, D., DiStefano, C., McDaniel, H. L., & Jiang, Z. (2018). Examining
chi-square test statistics under conditions of large model size and
ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
25(6), 924–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2018.1449653
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:
Reciprocal eects of teacher behavior and student engagement across
the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Sun, Y. (2021). e eect of teacher caring behavior and teacher praise
on students’ engagement in EFL classrooms. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 746871. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746871
Taylor, S. S., & Statler, M. (2014). Material matters: Increasing emo-
tional engagement in learning. Journal of Management Education,
38(4), 586–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913489976
Treagust, D. F. (2004). Learning environment and students’ outcomes
in science classes in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 27(1),
139–165.
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. e Higher
Education Academy, 11(1), 1–15.
Uçar, F. M., & Sungur, S. (2018). Adaptation of engagement question-
naire to Turkish for science classes: Validity and reliability study.
İlköğretim Online, 17(3), 1691–1705. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkon-
line.2018.466419
Voltz, D. L., Sims, M. J., & Nelson, B. (2010). Connecting teachers,
students, and standards: Strategies for success in diverse and inclusive
classrooms: Strategies for success in diverse and inclusive classrooms.
ASCD.
Wahyudi, R. (2010). Teacher-students interaction and classroom learning.
International Journal of Education, 33(1), 41–42.
Wali, Y. S., Abulfathi, F. A., & Mustapha, M. A. (2019). Impact of
classroom environment on students’ performance in English lan-
guage. Environment, 10(17), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification
with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy
as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learning and Individual
Differences, 16(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2005.
06.004
Webster, B. J., & Hazari, A. (2009). Measuring language-learning en-
vironments in secondary science classrooms. Learning Environments
Research, 12(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-009-9055-x
Wei, L. S., & Elias, H. (2011). Relationship between students’ percep-
tions of classroom environment and their motivation in learning
English language. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 1(21), 240–250.
Wu, H., Li, S., Zheng, J., & Guo, J. (2020). Medical students’ motiva-
tion and academic performance: e mediating roles of self-ecacy
and learning engagement. Medical Education Online, 25(1), 1742964.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2020.1742964
Zhu, M., & Urhahne, D. (2015). Teachers’ judgements of students’
foreign-language achievement. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 30(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0225-6

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11
Appendix 1 REACT DFA path diagram obtained after adaptation study

12 Z. YILMAZ BODUR ETAL.
Appendix 2 Path diagram of Engagement Scale

THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13
Appendix 3 SEM results for examined mediation model
REACT: e Responsive Environmental Assessment for Classroom Teaching, PR: Positive Reinforcement, IP: Instructional Presentation, DI:
Dierentiated Instructions, IE: Instructional Enjoyment, SES: Student Engagement Scale, BE: Behavioral Engagement, AE: Agentic Engagement,
CE: Cognitive Engagement, EE: Emotional Engagement