Self-Determination and Classroom Engagement of EFL Learners: A Mixed-Methods Study of the Self-System Model of Motivational Development

Abstract

This study examines the antecedents and outcomes of classroom engagement of 412 Turkish English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. Grounded in self-determination theory and the self-system model of motivation, this mixed-methods study examined the relations between context (perceived autonomy-support from the instructor), self (basic psychological needs), action (behavioral, emotional, agentic, and cognitive engagement), and outcome (achievement and absenteeism). The results of structural equation modeling supported the hypothesized model and showed that learners’ perception of their teachers’ autonomy-support within the classroom predicted their need satisfaction, which in turn predicted self-determined engagement. Engagement predicted achievement and absenteeism within English courses. Semi-structured interviews showed patterns consistent with the quantitative results, and also that students felt their engagement would best be supported in classes with a positive social atmosphere. As well, their comments underscored the important role of language teachers in supporting learners’ psychological need satisfaction, classroom engagement, and positive academic outcomes. The findings suggest strategies for English language educators to bolster students’ engagement within the classrooms, including students who seem to be unmotivated, reluctant language learners.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019853913
SAGE Open
April-June 2019: 1 –15
© The Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019853913
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Original Research
Introduction
Engagement, with its various modifiers such as school, stu-
dent, classroom, or course, is a buzzword for a topic that has
become very popular in education circles over the last
decades (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2005; Kahu, 2013). Although
this popular topic has been much researched, there remains a
lack of consensus on its conceptual definition and types, and
questions remain about how and why it is so crucial for
learning (Reschly & Christenson, 2012). This is particularly
true in the language education domain, where engagement
and its associations to learning within the classroom have
received less attention (Dincer, Yesilyurt, & Demiröz, 2017;
Montenegro, 2017; Noels, Chaffee, Lou, & Dincer, 2016;
Noels, Vargas Lascano, & Saumure, 2019; Philp & Duchesne,
2016). Despite the limitations in the current literature, there
is consistent evidence that engagement is strongly related to
effective learning (e.g., academic achievement, Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016;
Schlenker, Schlenker, & Schlenker, 2013), and it is often
portrayed as a remedy for students’ disruptive school behav-
iors and failing grades (Fredricks et al., 2004; Ryan &
Patrick, 2001).
Given its significance, it is useful to situate engagement in
a larger motivational paradigm (Christenson, Reschly, &
Wylie, 2012). One relevant framework that adopts a holistic
approach to motivation is Self-Determination Theory (SDT;
Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), which proposes
that the nature and extent of engagement follow from the
dynamics of self-processes. According to the SDT, people
853913SGOXXX10.1177/2158244019853913SAGE OpenDincer et al.
research-article20192019
1Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Turkey
2Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
3University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
4Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Ali Dincer, Department of English Language Teaching, Erzincan Binali
Yildirim University, 24100 Erzincan, Turkey.
Email: adincer@erzincan.edu.tr
Self-Determination and Classroom
Engagement of EFL Learners: A
Mixed-Methods Study of the Self-System
Model of Motivational Development
Ali Dincer1, Savas¸ Yes¸ilyurt2, Kimberly A. Noels3, and
Dayuma I. Vargas Lascano4
Abstract
This study examines the antecedents and outcomes of classroom engagement of 412 Turkish English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) learners. Grounded in self-determination theory and the self-system model of motivation, this mixed-methods study
examined the relations between context (perceived autonomy-support from the instructor), self (basic psychological
needs), action (behavioral, emotional, agentic, and cognitive engagement), and outcome (achievement and absenteeism). The
results of structural equation modeling supported the hypothesized model and showed that learners’ perception of their
teachers’ autonomy-support within the classroom predicted their need satisfaction, which in turn predicted self-determined
engagement. Engagement predicted achievement and absenteeism within English courses. Semi-structured interviews showed
patterns consistent with the quantitative results, and also that students felt their engagement would best be supported in
classes with a positive social atmosphere. As well, their comments underscored the important role of language teachers in
supporting learners’ psychological need satisfaction, classroom engagement, and positive academic outcomes. The findings
suggest strategies for English language educators to bolster students’ engagement within the classrooms, including students
who seem to be unmotivated, reluctant language learners.
Keywords
engagement, autonomy-support, basic psychological needs, achievement, absenteeism, mixed methods

2 SAGE Open
share universal, innate psychological needs for autonomy
(i.e., a sense of being self-governed and self-initiating in
activities), competence (i.e., a sense of being effective), and
relatedness (i.e., a sense of being emotionally connected with
others). When these psychological needs are met through
interactions with others in their social context, people are
likely to be more engaged in relevant activities. Within edu-
cation, students’ psychological needs can be affected by the
qualities of student–teacher relationships and the general
classroom climate (Jang et al., 2016; Reeve, 2013; Ryan &
Deci, 2016). Although limited, research shows that this holds
true in the foreign/second language learning (LL) domain
(Dincer & Yesilyurt, 2017; Noels et al., 2016; Noels et al.,
2019; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2017).
Although some LL research has shown that engagement is
linked to the teaching context (e.g., Oga-Baldwin & Nakata,
2015), to learners’ sense of self (e.g., Noels, 2015), and to
desirable outcomes (e.g., Dincer, Yesilyurt, & Takkac, 2012),
studies in the LL domain have generally only examined
bivariate correlations among these constructs. Few studies
have adopted a multivariate perspective to examine the inter-
play among multiple perceptions of the teaching context,
learners’ needs, and engagement. A deeper understanding of
the motivational processes by which language learners’
engagement is promoted or undermined in the L2 learning
settings is needed (Dincer et al., 2017; Noels, 2015; Noels
et al., 2016; Philp & Duchesne, 2016). To address this, the
present study focuses on the complex relations among lan-
guage learners’ teaching context (teacher need support), self-
perceptions (need satisfaction), engagement, and LL
outcomes (achievement and absenteeism). It also supple-
ments this multivariate perspective with an in-depth analysis
of students’ experiences of engagement.
Conceptualization of Classroom Engagement
Engagement is defined as a student’s active involvement and
emotional quality during a learning activity (Reeve, Jang,
Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). In the educational literature,
there are different typologies of engagement and some schol-
ars have used a two-part typology of engagement, identify-
ing behavioral and emotional components of this construct
(van Uden, Ritzen, & Pieters, 2013). Others conceptualize
engagement as threefold, comprised of behavioral, emo-
tional, and cognitive components (Fredricks et al., 2005;
Fredricks et al., 2004). In the latter model, each component
correlates with the other, and the three form a single compos-
ite construct. Within this typology, behavioral engagement
refers to active involvement or participation in learning-
related activities, such as asking questions in class and doing
the homework. Emotional engagement concerns students’
affective reactions in the learning process. Cognitive engage-
ment refers to adopting sophisticated learning strategies such
as conceptual understanding over surface knowledge.
Recently, Reeve (2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011) argued that
this three-dimensional model of engagement neglects to take
into consideration the learners’ active, constructive contribu-
tions to their learning activities, such as offering input and
making suggestions, which he labels as agentic engagement.
More research is required, however, to determine whether or
not agentic engagement is distinct from other types of
engagement and differentially predicts outcomes from the
already established three dimensions (Eccles, 2016). Thus,
the present study investigated engagement in LL as a four-
dimensional construct, including agentic engagement along
with behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement to
examine the distinctive roles of these four engagement types
in predicting language learners’ outcomes.
Theoretical Underpinnings of the Study
SDT provides a theoretical guide for how the social context
within the classroom can affect learners’ motivational expe-
riences (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This theory, however, does not
provide a clear picture of the role of engagement within the
learners’ motivational system. With the goal of connecting
multiple motivation theories, the researchers (Skinner,
Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008; Skinner,
Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009) have proposed the
Self-System Model of Motivational Development (SSMMD)
as a framework for causally connecting classroom engage-
ment to other motivational variables identified by other theo-
ries of human motivation, particularly SDT (Figure 1). In
this integrated model, there are four types of motivational
variables. Context variables refer to the social environment
of learners, including teachers, parents, and peers. Self-
variables refer to learners’ ability beliefs, values, and atti-
tudes, and particularly their perceptions of how well their
need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satis-
fied. The third category, action, concerns goal-directed
behaviors, particularly engagement in a learning activity.
The last component of the model is the outcome, which, in
the educational domain, is exemplified by cognitive develop-
ment and learning. The SSMMD with its four components
articulates the process by which the basic psychological
needs posited by SDT as important aspects of the self are
affected by the context and, in turn, affect engagement and
relevant outcomes. For the present study, we adopted this
holistic model of the motivational process as depicted below.
More specifically, the more that teachers’ actions and
classroom dynamics can support learners’ need for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness, the more that learners actively
involve themselves in their learning activities, allowing them
to learn more and to show higher academic achievement
(Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Dincer et al., 2012; Noels et al.,
2016; Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Engagement, then,
mediates the relation between psychological needs and learn-
ing outcomes (Skinner et al., 2008, 2009). Indeed, a number

Dincer et al. 3
of studies support the claim that engagement plays a media-
tional role in the associations among social context, self,
action, and outcomes (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Noels,
2015; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Skinner & Edge, 2002;
Skinner et al., 2009). This SSMMD is not unlike LL motiva-
tion models that emphasize the importance of the social con-
text, including Gardner’s (1985, 2010) socio-educational
model and Noels and colleagues’ (2016) socio-ecological
model.
Engagement and LL
In spite of the demonstrated positive effects of classroom
engagement on general learning, relatively little attention has
been given to engagement in LL. Some theoretical frame-
works use constructs analogous to engagement, including the
socio-educational (Gardner, 1985, 2010) and the socio-con-
textual (Clément, 1986) models of LL. For instance, Gardner’s
(2010) notion of motivational intensity, which refers to the
effort expended in LL in terms of the “the amount of work
done, persistence, and consistency in focus” (p. 121), is very
similar to Reeve’s (2013) conceptual definition of behavioral
engagement, which he describes as “how involved the student
is in the learning activity in terms of attention, effort and per-
sistence” (p. 579; see also Skinner et al., 2009). As well,
Gardner’s (2010) construct of positive attitudes toward the
language course clearly corresponds with the affective
engagement. Like the relation between engagement and aca-
demic outcomes, positive attitudes and motivational intensity
have been consistently associated with indices of language
achievement, including standardized measures, course
grades, and self-ratings (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).
In addition to these parallels among constructs from LL
motivation models and engagement theories, some research
has used the construct of engagement as elaborated by edu-
cational psychologists to better understand the role of active
engagement in LL. For instance, Noels (2009) showed that
intrinsic motivation (i.e., enjoying studying, finding English
interesting) was a stronger predictor of classroom engage-
ment in English learning than extrinsic reasons such as
passing the examination or pleasing one’s parents. Similarly,
Y. L. E. Chen and Kraklow (2015) investigated motivation
and engagement in Taiwanese English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) classrooms and found that students’ overall intrinsic
motivation and external regulation significantly predicted
behavioral engagement. More self-determined motivational
orientations, then, are strong predictors of LL engagement.
According to the SSMMD, these orientations, in turn, are
predicted by the engagement as part of the motivational
cycle. Indeed, Noels and colleagues (2019) found that, across
a semester, language learners’ behavioral engagement and
motivation became reciprocally associated across time.
In terms of basic psychological needs and engagement,
Thaliah and Hashim (2008) investigated the relationship
between language teachers’ autonomy-support and learners’
engagement in Malaysian context and found that autonomy-
supportive teaching explained about 30% of the variance in
classroom engagement in terms of behavioral and cognitive
dimensions. In a more recent study using structural equation
modeling (SEM), Oga-Baldwin and Nakata (2017) investi-
gated the relation between engagement and motivation in
the language classroom using in-class engagement as a sin-
gle latent variable to predict self-determined motivation.
They found that engagement strongly predicted learners’
intrinsic motivation and identified regulation and weakly
predicted introjected regulation whereas it negatively pre-
dicted external regulation in this study. The authors con-
cluded that engagement might be an important variable in
researching the long-term dynamics in EFL classrooms. The
studies highlighted that perceived autonomy-support from
language teacher plays a significant predictive role in deter-
mining engagement, the action component of the SSMMD
model.
Of note, this small body of literature on LL engagement is
mainly composed of quantitative research collected through
cross-sectional designs. Yet, several researchers (Fredricks
et al., 2016; Harris, 2011; Zyngier, 2008) have called for well-
designed qualitative studies investigating classroom engage-
ment. Furthermore, although general education research has
investigated the impacts of teachers’ and students’ perceptions
Figure 1. The Self-System Model of Motivational Development (SSMMD).
Source. Adapted from Skinner etal. (2008) and Skinner etal. (2009) with permission.

4 SAGE Open
of classroom engagement on learning outcomes and the multi-
dimensional nature of classroom engagement, there are also
discipline-specific teaching behaviors that warrant further
investigation (Bell, 2005). However, there is little qualitative
research on language teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of
engagement in language classrooms. Indeed, in their review of
qualitative research, Philp and Duchesne (2016) highlighted
the need for a principled, qualitative, understanding of LL
engagement, which they believe should be investigated as a
context-specific concept, multi-dimensional construct. They
called for more research in this relatively unexplored terrain,
and invited researchers to define the processes by which
engagement and LL are linked, to study these processes across
different contexts as well as the moderators that influence the
association between engagement and LL.
Three other major limitations in the existing LL engage-
ment research are also present. First, previous studies have
usually assessed classroom engagement as a one- or two-
dimensional construct, often focusing only on behavioral
engagement. As each dimension of engagement is only a
single piece of the puzzle, studies that overlook the affective,
cognitive, and agentic dimensions only partially account for
the complexity of language learners’ engagement. Second,
although prior studies have tested some aspects of the
SSMMD within English language education, no applied lin-
guistics research has simultaneously included variables rep-
resenting all aspects of this model (i.e., perceived
interpersonal context, self, action [i.e., engagement], and
outcomes), which is necessary to assess the place each com-
ponent holds within the motivational process. Third, there is
quite limited qualitative research investigating language
learners’ classroom engagement, and little is known to date
about which factors play roles in fostering engagement
within language classrooms.
The Present Study
Given the limitations of previous research, this study had
two objectives. The primary objective was to assess class-
room engagement as a multi-dimensional construct to deter-
mine its role within the SSMMD as a mediator between, on
one hand, context and the self and, on the other hand, aca-
demically relevant outcomes. Based on this framework, a
hypothesized SEM is presented in Figure 2.
According to this model, autonomy-support from the lan-
guage teacher predicts outcome variables by facilitating EFL
learners’ basic needs satisfaction and, mediated by need sat-
isfaction, each type of engagement. The secondary objective
was to more deeply consider language learners’ accounts of
their experience of engagement and to examine their sugges-
tions for how teachers could better motivate students to
engage in LL. Based on the objectives, the following research
questions were posed:
Research Question 1: Do all types of engagement medi-
ate the association between perceived autonomy-support
from teachers and achievement?
Research Question 2: Do all types of engagement medi-
ate the association between perceived autonomy-support
from teachers and absenteeism?
Research Question 3: What are EFL learners’ opinions
on learning English, including (a) the role of the teacher
and the classroom context; (b) their feelings of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness; (c) their experience of
engagement; and (d) their absenteeism within their EFL
course?
Research Question 4: What are EFL learners’ opinions
about how the EFL learning experience and engagement
could be improved?
Figure 2. Hypothesized structural model.

Dincer et al. 5
Method
Research Design
We used a mixed-methods design, which combines quantita-
tive and qualitative research techniques in a single study and
more specifically adopted a concurrent triangulation design
to seek convergence between the two approaches (Creswell
& Clark, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The design
of the study with its phases is given in Figure 3.
This approach is helpful for understanding the phenom-
ena within both macro and micro perspectives: quantitative
research shows group-level trends, and qualitative research
articulates how the phenomenon of interest is experienced by
individuals. In this design, the importance and centrality of
each method are determined by the researchers (Creswell &
Clark, 2007). We decided to use the quantitative and qualita-
tive methods to complement each other, and we integrated
their results at the interpretation level. We used the two data
to better understand EFL learners’ experience of classroom
engagement and to elaborate an understanding of how stu-
dents felt teachers could support their engagement. In the
weighting of the data, we emphasized the quantitative data
for our primary goal and followed up with analyses of par-
ticipants’ responses to open-ended questions for our second-
ary goal. We extended the research beyond numeric analyses
by adding student-generated suggestions for how the course
could best support self-determination and engagement.
Setting and Participants
The setting was a foreign languages school within a state
university in Turkey. The foreign languages school delivers
English courses and provides English education to the fresh-
man classes across different departments, such as engineer-
ing, medicine, and tourism. Within this school, there are over
30 English instructors, each class has 20 to 32 students, and
students are assigned to classes according to results of
English placement tests taken at the beginning of the term. It
should also be noted that as the research setting is an EFL
context, students are generally unable to use English outside
the classroom and mostly rely on their teachers and class-
mates for interpersonal support (Dincer, 2014).
Participants for the quantitative phase were 412 freshmen
EFL university-level students (65% men). They were
selected according to a convenience sampling strategy, a
non-probability sampling technique that was adopted
because of the target groups’ ready to access and availability.
The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 25 years (M = 19.82;
SD = 1.27). The participants were all born in Turkey and,
like all Turkish high school graduates, had a minimum of 7
years of English studies.
Participants for the qualitative phase were 18 students
(61% men) from 135 respondents in the quantitative phase
who volunteered to participate in one-on-one interviews.
From this subsample, three to four participants from each
class were selected with a simple random sampling strategy
for the interviews. Their age ranged from 18 to 23 years
(M = 20.44; SD = 1.58), and their responses to the question-
naire did not differ significantly from the full sample on any
of the main variables or in gender distribution. The qualita-
tive sample is slightly older than the full sample (t = –2.32,
df = 410, p = .02, d = .43), with small effect size according
to the benchmarks of Cohen (1988, d = .20, small; d = .50,
medium; d = .80, large).
Measures
All measures were previously validated in Turkish (Dincer,
2014) and used a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The instruments’ internal
Figure 3. Concurrent triangulation research design.

6 SAGE Open
consistency was analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha. All the
scales have a Cronbach’s alpha scores above .70, which indi-
cates they are reliable measures (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2014).
Teacher autonomy-support. The Learning Climate Ques-
tionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996) measured how
much teachers provide their student with support in auton-
omous learning. The translated LCQ had 14 items (e.g., “I
feel that my instructor provides me with choices and
options”; α = .95), with high mean scores indicating that
students perceive an autonomy-supportive communication
style from their instructors and low mean scores indicating
students perceive an autonomy-suppressive or controlling
communication style.
Psychological needs. The Activity Feelings State (AFS; Reeve
& Sickenius, 1994) assesses how strongly learners feel that
their psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and
relatedness) have been satisfied during their learning activi-
ties. In this scale, the prompt “Being in this English class
makes me feel. . .” is followed by nine items, with three mea-
suring autonomy (e.g., “free”; α = .87), three measuring
competence (e.g., “capable”; α = .88), and three measuring
relatedness (e.g., “my skills are improving”; α = .78). For
each subscale, higher mean scores indicate higher satisfac-
tion of the psychological need.
Classroom engagement. The Classroom Engagement Scale
(CES; Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011) combines items
from multiple sources to create four subscales, each repre-
senting a different dimension of classroom engagement:
Behavioral (three items, for example, “I pay attention in this
class”; α = .86), Emotional (five items, for example, “This
class is fun”; α = .91), Cognitive (four items, for example,
“When reading for this class, I try to explain the key con-
cepts in my own words”; α = .88), and Agentic (five items,
for example, “I let my teacher know what I am interested in”;
α = .87). For each subscale, higher mean scores indicate that
students engage with their LL.
Language course achievement and absenteeism. Students rated
their last English exam score with a 7-point scale from low
(0%-39%) to high (90%-100%) following the university
grading system (i.e., 90-100 = AA; 80-89 = BB; 70-79 =
CC; 60-69 = DD; any score lower than 59 is considered
fail). Higher scores indicate higher academic achievement.
Students also self-reported their course attendance through-
out the term using a 7-point scale ranging from no class
absences (0) to many class absences (16+). Higher scores
indicate greater absenteeism. Students who missed 16 or
more classes would automatically fail the course, and so, stu-
dents were likely to pay close attention to their attendance
record.
Semi-structured interviews. The qualitative phase of the
study involved semi-structured interviews that included 15
questions regarding classroom atmosphere, psychological
needs, classroom engagement, absenteeism, and suggestions
for improving the course (Table 1).
Data Collection and Analysis
The quantitative and qualitative data collection phases of this
study occurred concurrently. After securing institutional per-
mission, consent forms and questionnaires were distributed
Table 1. Questions From Semi-Structured Interviews.
Category Interview questions
Autonomy-support If one of your very close friends asked you what you think about this course and this teacher, what
would you say?
Basic psychological needs Do you feel autonomy in this class and how?
Could you give details about your relationships with classmates in the class?
How does being in this class make you feel about your English competency?
Behavioral engagement Do you participate in classroom activities orally?
What kind of behaviors do you perform in the class to be successful?
Emotional engagement Are you interested in classroom activities and course?
How do you feel in this course?
Cognitive engagement Do you do extra things that would help your learning when you are studying course-related
concepts?
What kind of strategies do you follow when studying this course?
Agentic engagement Do you ask questions that would help your learning in the class?
How do you express your opinions to your teacher in this course?
Absenteeism Could you give details about your course absenteeism and feelings when you do not attend the
course?
Student-generated suggestions If you had a magical wand to change anything about this course, what would it be?
What is your best suggestion for the improvement of this course?

Dincer et al. 7
to students during their English classes. The researcher was
the sole instructor in the classroom while participants com-
pleted the questionnaire.
After completing the questionnaire, learners who agreed
to participate in the qualitative phase with the researcher
were invited to one-on-one interviews, which took place, on
average, 1 day after the classroom visits for quantitative data
collection. Interviews were in Turkish to facilitate learners’
understanding of the questions and to allow them to answer
the questions more thoroughly. Interviews were audio-
recorded for later coding and lasted, on average, about 14
min. Before the interviews, the participants signed a consent
form informing them of the goals of the study, their rights to
withdraw from the study at any time, and keeping privacy
and anonymity of the participants in any phase of the study.
During the interviews, pre-determined, focal questions were
asked along with some explanatory (e.g., Does your feeling
stem from yourself or other factors?) and exploratory prob-
ing questions (e.g., What makes you think like that in the
class?) to deepen the discussion of the topic. In addition to
audio recording, the researcher took notes regarding the
responses.
For analysis of the quantitative data, SEM was used as the
main statistical method. SEM is a statistical methodology for
hypothesis testing by examing the relationships between
observed variables and latent variables (Byrne, 2012). SEM
was conducted to answer the first and second research ques-
tions. Using Mplus 7.0, the model shown in Figure 2 that
includes observed variables (teacher autonomy-support, four
types of engagement, achievement, and absenteeism) and the
latent variable (basic psychological needs) tested whether
the conceptual model is valid. We assessed how well the pro-
posed model fits the observed data using the chi-square test
of exact fit, the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) with its confidence interval (CI), the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit
index (CFI). Good model fit was present when either the chi-
square test was non-significant, or RMSEA and SRMR
values were less than .08, and CFI was more than .95
(Bandalos & Finney, 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Phakiti,
2018).
The qualitative data were analyzed using deductive con-
tent analysis, in which themes are identified on a previously
established scheme or matrix derived from previous knowl-
edge or theory (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). This analysis
was carried out using NVivo 7.0 software to answer Research
Questions 3 and 4. Following the steps set forth by Elo and
Kyngäs (2008), a structured categorization matrix was devel-
oped in accordance with the SSMMD framework as well as
one category for student suggestions, and all data were
reviewed for the correspondence with the predetermined cat-
egories. The researchers worked together to identify the
prevalence of theoretically derived and emergent themes
within each category to minimize potential individual bias in
the analysis and to ensure the reliability of the qualitative
results. When disagreements in classification arose, the
researchers reached a resolution with a dialogue among
researchers. In the presentation of the findings, anonymized
citations of students’ responses are provided to support ana-
lytic results.
Results
Quantitative Findings
Descriptive analyses. We first checked the data for missing-
ness. Given the very low percentage of missing data (i.e.,
less than one), we decided to use imputation to replace the
missing data.
Next, we examined the descriptive statistics and correla-
tions among all measures (see Table 2). Students generally
perceived their course environment as autonomy-supportive
and reported moderate levels of satisfaction of their basic
psychological needs within their English course. Students
were moderately engaged in the course across all four dimen-
sions. All variables of the model significantly correlated with
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for All Variables.
Variables M SD 123456789
1. Teacher autonomy-
support
3.52 1.08 —
2. Autonomy 2.92 1.22 .57** —
3. Competence 3.05 1.17 .62** .77** —
4. Relatedness 3.05 1.05 .39** .65** .56** —
5. Behavioral engagement 3.19 1.07 .44** .45** .49** .30** —
6. Emotional engagement 3.21 1.13 .67** .65** .75** .43** .59** —
7. Cognitive engagement 3.53 1.04 .46** .47** .59** .28** .46** .58** —
8. Agentic engagement 3.23 1.04 .66** .59** .66** .43** .53** .73** .58** —
9. Achievement 2.28 1.27 .27** .28** .43** .15* .17* .30** .31** .25**
10. Absenteeism 1.67 .93 –.22** –.18** –.24** –.12* –.21** –.24** –.21** –.25** –.13*
*p < .05. **p < .01.

8 SAGE Open
each other in the expected directions, with correlations mag-
nitude ranging from small to large. Teacher autonomy-sup-
port, three basic psychological needs, and four types of
engagement showed positive medium to large correlations
among each other (medium: rs between .40 and .59; large: rs
≥ |.60|; Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). Achievement was weakly
(rs of ≤ |.25|; Plonsky & Oswald, 2014) to moderately posi-
tively correlated with all other variables except absenteeism.
Achievement was weakly correlated with relatedness and
behavioral engagement. Absenteeism was weakly and nega-
tively correlated with all other variables.
SEM. An initial analysis of the hypothesized model showed
poor model fit to the data (χ2 = 241.13; df = 28, N = 412;
p < .001; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .136, 90% CI = [.12, .15];
SRMR = .046). Modification indices identified covariances
among the three psychological needs, which the original
model did not include. Given that these three variables repre-
sent the broad construct of psychological needs and were
measured using the same prompt (“Being in this class makes
me feel . . . ”), these covariances likely represent variance
shared due to the common measurement. The model was
tested again with these covariances added and this modified
model showed good fit to the data (χ2 = 94.53; df = 25,
N = 412; p < .001; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .08, 90%
CI = [.07, .10]; SRMR = .030). Next, non-significant regres-
sion and covariance paths in the model were removed for
greater parsimony and direct paths from autonomy-support to
outcomes (achievement and absenteeism) were added to
allow assessment of mediation. The final model fits the data
well (χ2 = 93.94; df = 26, N = 412; p < .001; CFI = .97;
RMSEA = .08, 90% CI = [.06, .10]; SRMR = .031) and was
retained for interpretative purposes (see Figure 4).
As hypothesized, perceived autonomy-support positively
predicted basic psychological needs, which in turn positively
predicted each dimension of classroom engagement. Some
dimensions of engagement predicted achievement and absen-
teeism. Specifically, emotional and agentic engagement posi-
tively predicted achievement while cognitive engagement
negatively predicted absenteeism. Behavioral engagement
did not predict any outcome variable. In addition, achieve-
ment and absenteeism did not covary significantly.
In terms of our first and second research questions about
the mediational role of engagement, teacher autonomy-sup-
port predicted EFL learners’ academic achievement posi-
tively through two pathways: autonomy-support  basic
needs  emotional engagement (β = .10 [.05], p = .04) and
autonomy-support  basic needs  agentic engagement
(β = .10 [.05], p = .03; total indirect effect of autonomy-
support on achievement: β = .20 [.05], p < .001). The direct
path between autonomy-support and achievement was non-
significant, indicating that the effects of autonomy-support
on achievement take place through the identified indirect
pathways. Teacher autonomy-support also had a significant
indirect effect on absenteeism through the following path-
way: autonomy-support  basic needs  cognitive engage-
ment (β = –.09 [.03], p = .001). The direct path from
autonomy-support to absenteeism was also significant, indi-
cating that basic needs and engagement partially mediated
the association between these two variables. In summary,
more perceived autonomy-support from teachers predicted
higher satisfaction of students’ basic psychological needs,
Figure 4. Final revised model.
Note. Standardized coefficients provided.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dincer et al. 9
which predicted higher engagement of all types, and students
were more likely to get better grades when they engaged
emotionally and agentically and were less likely to miss
classes when they engaged cognitively.
Squared multiple correlation (R2) values showed that 56%
of the variance in basic psychological needs satisfaction is
explained by the model. The model also explained much
variance in the four domains of class engagement (behav-
ioral: 41%; emotional: 80%; cognitive: 45%; agentic: 69%).
Although the model explained some of the variances in both
outcomes, the percentages were somewhat lower, with 11%
for EFL learners’ achievement and 8% for absenteeism.
Qualitative Findings
To answer our third and fourth research questions concerning
EFL learners’ opinions on their SSMMD concepts and how
their EFL learning experience and engagement could be
improved, deductive content analyses of the interviews were
conducted. Summaries of learners’ reflections in each com-
ponent of the model and suggestions are presented next.
Classroom context. When asked for their opinions about their
English course and teacher, most participants (15 out of 18)
expressed positive impressions. Only two participants
reported not enjoying the atmosphere of their English course.
Most students also expressed positive impressions about
their teachers, characterizing them as enjoyable, understand-
ing, and patient. For instance, one learner reported, “. . .[my
teacher] understands me, lets me ask questions without hesi-
tation and express myself.” Only three participants reported
negative views about their teacher. For instance, one learner
said, “If another teacher had taught us, it would be much bet-
ter . . . we [in the class] would be happy.”
Basic psychological needs. Most participants (15 out of 18)
reported experiences of satisfaction with each of their psy-
chological needs. Regarding autonomy, students commonly
mentioned feeling free to choose when and how to partici-
pate in class (e.g., “I am free in the class; in other words, I
can do whatever I want in this class. . . By getting right to
speak I say my ideas about the course.”). For relatedness,
students commonly expressed feeling a sense of belonging to
the class and with classmates. For instance, “We [in the class]
have closer relationships with our classmates compared to
other classes. It is the same with our teachers. We can do
extra activities with our friends and even the teacher.”
Regarding competence, the most prevalent experience stu-
dents reported was feeling successful within the course. For
instance, one student stated, “At the beginning, I had nega-
tive feelings and thought ‘No, I can’t do this.’ But now, I am
gradually getting the job [of learning English] done.” Corre-
spondingly, the participants who reported negative views of
the classroom context expressed less satisfaction of their
basic psychological needs. For instance, one of these partici-
pants expressed feeling controlled in the classroom (e.g., “I
feel pressured [in the course] because I cannot even talk to
my friend next to me [in class]”). Another one said that there
is not a relaxing environment in the class and she does not
feel belongingness much (e.g., “There are many people to
whom I have not spoken or even said ‘hello’ until now [sec-
ond semester] in this class, this problem is related to them
[classmates]”). Complaining with the teacher’ instruction
style and use of outdated teaching methods (e.g., Grammar
Translation Method), she added that she felt incompetent in
mastering English (e.g., “Everything [activities] in this class
is based on English grammar. I am not doing well in even
Turkish grammar [mother tongue]”).
Classroom engagement. Based on their statements when asked
about their behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agentic
engagement, most participants (15 out of 18) were catego-
rized as engaged learners. They actively participated in class
by, for instance, raising their hands, volunteering to write on
the blackboard, and taking notes (e.g., “By raising my hand, I
try to get right to speak. I ask questions to the teacher.”). They
reported positive course-related feelings, such as enjoying
course, feeling interested in course content, and feeling
relaxed in class (e.g., “This course is enjoyable. I really enjoy
the course.”). They used more sophisticated cognitive strate-
gies for learning English, such as reviewing course notes,
reading extra English materials, and trying to use English in
daily life (e.g., “After the course, I go to the library. I read
English texts there. I search some online documents.”). In
terms of agentic engagement, they reported driving their own
learning by, for example, asking for details when content was
not clear and expressing their likes and dislikes during classes
(e.g., “I say: My teacher, there is a mistake here that I have
found. What do you think [on the mistake]? . . . We [I and my
teacher] mutually talk and evaluate [the mistake].”). The
three students who reported negative views about their class-
room context showed low engagement—they reported
becoming bored and depressed in the class, using surface cog-
nitive strategies for learning such as memorizing (e.g., “I try
to memorize [new] vocabularies”).
Absenteeism. When participants were asked to talk about their
course attendance, most reported that, when they missed class,
it was due to external constraints or the need for sleep (e.g.,
“As the courses starts in early the morning, I fall asleep. But, I
try to attend the class with a great pleasure.”) and felt either
neutral or discomforted about missing class (e.g., “My respon-
sibilities towards myself, family, and teacher make me think I
should attend [the course]”). A minority of students reported
skipping class voluntarily (e.g., “Frankly, I do not have an
inner force to attend [the course]”) and having positive feel-
ings about their absenteeism (e.g., “To be honest, I am happy
when I do not attend [the course]”). No information was
offered by any interviewee regarding course achievement.
In general, learners’ comments during the semi-structured
interviews show that learners who experienced mostly posi-
tive classroom contexts felt mostly autonomous, competent,

10 SAGE Open
and related to their classmates and teachers. These learners
reported engaging in their EFL course in all four dimensions
of engagement—behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agen-
tic. They also skipped class only due to external pressures
and felt bad or neutral about doing so. In contrast, learners
who viewed their classroom context negatively expressed
low satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, reporting
even feeling controlled within their classroom context, and
expressed fewer and less complex engagement experiences.
These students also reported voluntarily choosing other
activities over attending class when possible and having pos-
itive feelings about their absenteeism. This pattern of experi-
ences corresponds with the pattern of findings from our
quantitative analysis. That is, positive, supportive classroom
contexts were positively linked to higher satisfaction of psy-
chological needs, higher engagement levels for all four
dimensions, and less absenteeism.
Student-generated suggestions for enhancing engagement.
Although about one third of participants felt that no changes
were needed and did not provide suggestions for improving
EFL courses, most participants identified at least one aspect
of their course that they would like to see changed. The most
frequently identified areas for improvement were course
content and classroom atmosphere.
In terms of course content, students felt that certain topics
covered in class were boring or irrelevant (e.g., “If I had a
magic wand, I would change the boring topics in the course.”)
and that certain language skills should receive more attention
than others (e.g., “I would place more emphasis on speaking
skill. We can learn grammar by ourselves after a certain level
but not speaking.”). In addition, students suggested specific
kinds of classroom activities that they felt would be most
effective for LL. The recommended activities shared one
thing in common; they required social interaction. For
instance, one participant commented, “More communication
dialogues and speaking activities [would be good]. . .These
kinds of activities make learning long-lasting,” while another
recommended role-playing activities, “Drama and theatrical
activities both develop learners’ English speaking skill and
increase their awareness of the course. Then, this helps learn-
ers become less timid in class. . .[activities like these] help
students gain self-confidence.” In terms of classroom atmo-
sphere, students mostly reported wanting to see more focus
on relationships within the classroom (e.g., “I like the course
atmosphere very much. I think people’s relationships are
more important than the course itself.”; “[I wish] a comfort-
able environment in the class.”).
Discussion
In this study, we investigated EFL learners’ motivational pro-
cesses following the holistic approach of the SSMMD, which
takes into consideration both teacher and learner roles.
Following this model, we hypothesized an order of
motivational components from teacher autonomy-support to
language learners’ outcomes such that teaching context pre-
dicts self-processes (i.e., need satisfaction), which in turn pre-
dicts motivated action, which ultimately predicts outcomes.
For the action component of this model, we investigated
classroom engagement as a multi-dimensional construct, with
four dimensions (behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and agen-
tic) mediating the association between context (autonomy-
support from teachers) and outcomes (achievement and
absenteeism). Furthermore, we qualitatively explored EFL
learners’ experiences related to each SSMMD component to
cross-validate our quantitative findings with the findings of
the content analysis. Finally, we explored EFL learners’ sug-
gestions for how teaching practice within the EFL classroom
could be improved, fostering student engagement and thereby
improving learning outcomes.
Consistent with our hypotheses about the importance of
social context (i.e., teacher support) and self-relevant pro-
cesses (i.e., need satisfaction) for learners’ action and out-
come components, the results generally confirmed the
“context  self  action  outcome” sequence theorized
by the SSMMD. Within the EFL context, we found that
learners who perceived their teachers as more autonomy-
supportive experienced the higher satisfaction of their auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness needs in their EFL
learning. In turn, students who felt their psychological needs
were more satisfied reported higher engagement levels in all
four dimensions. Finally, there was general support for
higher engagement predicting higher achievement and less
absenteeism, although not all dimensions of engagement pre-
dicted each of these outcomes. Although this finding is in
line with the literature in the education context in general
(e.g., Reeve, 2013; Reeve et al., 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Smith, 2009), it is the first time that all
components of the SSMMD model have been assessed
simultaneously, confirming the model within the EFL
context.
This model accounted for a high amount of variability in
students’ motivational experience (psychological needs sat-
isfaction and engagement). However, there remains a sub-
stantial portion of the variability among students to be
explained. That is, although the key motivational variables
explored here predicted these student outcomes, other, as yet
unspecified, factors also play a role in students’ academic
achievement and attendance. For instance, it has been well
established that previous academic achievement is a strong if
not the strongest predictor of later academic achievement
(Duncan et al., 2007). In addition, teacher factors such as
grading techniques and assessment styles are likely to con-
tribute to variability in achievement across students
(McMillan, 2001). In terms of absenteeism, our qualitative
data provide clear examples of non-motivational factors that
can impact attendance. As previously stated, students
reported that pressures and responsibilities external to the
EFL course at times influenced their decisions to skip class,

Dincer et al. 11
such as needing more sleep and having important family
commitments to attend to. Nevertheless, engagement and
teacher autonomy-support remain important motivational
predictors of outcomes in the model.
Focusing on engagement, this study demonstrated that
different dimensions of engagement predict different out-
comes. Higher emotional and agentic engagement were asso-
ciated with better grades while higher cognitive engagement
was associated with less absenteeism. The relevance of emo-
tional and agentic engagement for academic achievement
was expected and is consistent with previous findings
(Reeve, 2012, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). As explained by
Gardner (2010), students with positive attitudes (i.e., emo-
tionally engaged) tend to show greater motivational intensity
(i.e., behavioral engagement; McEown, Noels, & Saumure,
2014) and correspondingly have a higher level of achieve-
ment. Agentically engaged students, according to Reeve
(2012), are architects of their own motivation, proactively
trying to personalize and enhance their learning context by
offering input, making suggestions, expressing preferences,
and more. As they constructively contribute to their educa-
tion, agentically engaged learners’ behaviors affect their
learning positively. These agentic learner behaviors differ
from basic behavioral engagement as demonstrated by the
fact that behavioral engagement did not predict academic
achievement in this study while agentic engagement did.
This finding supports Reeve’s (2013) view that agentic
engagement should be considered above and beyond emo-
tional, behavioral, and cognitive engagement.
Cognitive engagement, which focuses on deeper learning
strategies and investment into course-related tasks, may not
be necessary to achieve good grades, as LL assessments
focus on skills gained and not the strategies learners use to
gain those skills. However, students who are more cogni-
tively invested in their course are likely to be more interested
in participating in in-class activities, which requires atten-
dance. In addition, cognitively disengaged students may feel
less prepared for upcoming lessons and therefore be less
willing to attend class (lest they be called on by the teacher!).
The fact that behavioral engagement did not predict either
learner outcome is somewhat counterintuitive. Multiple
studies have found that behavioral engagement predicts aca-
demic achievement in general education (for review, see
Fredricks et al., 2004). Within LL, Gardner’s (2010) motiva-
tional intensity, which arguably is similar to Reeve’s defini-
tion of behavioral engagement (Reeve, 2012), has consistently
predicted achievement and other LL outcomes (Gardner,
2010; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). At the same time, the lack
of association between behavioral engagement and achieve-
ment is not without precedence (Reeve, 2013; Reeve &
Tseng, 2011). This finding raises questions about whether
behavioral engagement is as important as other engagement
types in the language classroom. In this era of student-cen-
tered approaches that emphasize creating a pleasant and sup-
portive atmosphere in language classrooms and establishing
good relationships of mutual trust and respect between teach-
ers and learners (Dörnyei, 2001), it may be that language
learners find that answering teacher-directed questions or
participating in teacher-provided learning activities is less
important than feeling emotionally connected and contribut-
ing collaboratively to the course.
Given that previous research by Gardner and his col-
leagues shows motivational intensity to be a constant predic-
tor of achievement, a closer look at the operationalization of
motivational intensity is needed. This inspection suggests
that motivational intensity measures (see Gardner, 2010) not
only include behavioral engagement (e.g., “I keep up to date
with English by working on it almost every day”) but also
other aspects such as agentic engagement (e.g., “When I
have a problem understanding something in English class, I
always ask my teacher for help”; “I really work hard to learn
English”) within the same scale. The associations with
achievement, then, may be due to the combined aspects of
engagement that are assessed by this index. Assuming that is
the case, researchers must decide whether a comprehensive
index is sufficient for their research objective or whether dif-
ferentiating subtypes of engagement is preferable.
The results also show that classroom engagement medi-
ates the associations between teacher autonomy-support and
both achievement and absenteeism. Specifically, emotional
and agentic engagement fully mediated the link between
autonomy-support and academic achievement whereas cog-
nitive engagement partially mediated the link between
autonomy-support and absenteeism. These findings are con-
sistent with Fredricks and colleagues’ (2004) and Skinner
and colleagues’ (2008, 2009) views that motivated action is
the mechanism through which all other motivational pro-
cesses bring about learners’ outcomes. At the same time, the
partial mediation of cognitive engagement suggests other
mechanisms are also in play. Although engagement is an
important type of motivated action and the focus of this
study, it is not the only motivated action—persistence, task
selection, and coping, for instance, are also motivated actions
(Skinner & Pitzer, 2012). As such, teacher autonomy-support
likely affects absenteeism not only through cognitive engage-
ment but also by creating a classroom environment that stu-
dents enjoy and so they choose to attend regularly (i.e., task
selection).
The qualitative findings show that most students had posi-
tive motivational experiences in their EFL class, although a
small subset did not. Students who had positive experiences
were invariably positive about course atmosphere, basic
needs satisfaction, engagement, and less absenteeism. The
opposite was also true. Students with negative experiences
reported negative experiences in all aspects of their motiva-
tional process. As a whole, this pattern is consistent with the
SSMMD model that posits that positive social classroom
contexts are linked to positive experiences of need satisfac-
tion, to engagement, and to positive learner outcomes, as
well as the low occurrence of negative outcomes.

12 SAGE Open
Perhaps more importantly, the student-generated sugges-
tions for improving their EFL courses demonstrate that social
interactions in the classroom play a central role for their moti-
vational and learning experiences. Although some students
did not report any problems with their course and were
pleased with the teacher and the teaching practices, most indi-
cated that engagement could be enhanced by having language
activities that allow them to practice the language with one
another and by having positive relationships among peers and
with teachers. Supporting the claim of Philp and Duchesne
(2016) that the contextual factors such as the setting, the task,
and the students must be considered for engagement, these
relationships may be especially important in the EFL setting
given that most foreign language learners do not have access
to day-to-day language-relevant social interactions outside
the classroom. This concern may also be particularly impor-
tant in cultural settings where the teacher is seen as knowl-
edge provider or craftsperson who shapes language learners,
and learners feel much dependency on the teacher in teaching
and learning process (Saban, Kocbeker, & Saban, 2007).
The study findings presented here parallel a number of
SDT studies outlining how to implement an autonomy-sup-
portive teaching style in education (for reviews, see Reeve,
2012, 2013, 2016; Reeve et al., 2004), and we offer practical
recommendations for EFL teachers and educators at large
based on the findings.
 Use teaching practices that allow language learners to
feel autonomous and competent and that allow them
to have positive social interactions with their peers
and teacher. Giving participation opportunities to all
students, choosing teaching tasks that are personally
relevant to the learners and match their proficiency
levels, providing constructive feedback, being
approachable to students, and caring for and respect-
ing learners are just some examples of how we can
help satisfy learners’ psychological needs.
 Create opportunities for the learners to engage with
their learning not only at a behavioral level but also
emotionally and cognitively. Acknowledge students’
feelings in the classroom and address situations that
may lead to negative emotional experiences. Educate
learners to use more complex cognitive LL strategies
both inside and outside of the classroom and encour-
age them to connect new information to what they
have previously learned. As well, helping students
focus their attention and to work hard could indirectly
foster positive outcomes.
 Emphasize agentic behaviors in the class. Be open to
and welcoming of learner suggestions for classroom
activities, and encourage learners to actively seek help
when needed.
 Do not ignore the social nature of LL. A positive
atmosphere where students feel comfortable interact-
ing with each other and with the teacher facilitates
student engagement with both course content and
learning activities.
The mixed-methods approach adopted in this study, along
with our multi-dimensional approach to engagement, and
our use of a model addressing engagement from a broader
standpoint of learners’ general motivation process, all con-
tribute to a more nuanced understanding of classroom
engagement in EFL learners and how students’ learning may
be enhanced. There are, however, three limitations to keep
in mind in this study. First, the setting of the study is an EFL
context. Thus, the readers extrapolating the findings to the
English as a Second Language (ESL) context should be cau-
tious about the implications, because EFL and ESL class-
rooms can have different characteristics in terms of
motivation, language use, and cultural points (Krieger,
2005). Furthermore, what is theoretically good for one set-
ting sometimes may be invalid for other settings (J. F. Chen,
Warden, & Chang, 2005). Second, self-report scales and
interviews were used in the process of gathering engage-
ment data. Although self-reports are extensively used in lan-
guage and educational research, they provide only subjective
information. Therefore, other data collection methods such
as observations of teacher–student interactions in the class-
room and teacher reports in addition to student reports
should be considered in future engagement research
(Fredricks et al., 2005). Third, the cross-sectional nature of
the data does not allow causal interpretations of the associa-
tions investigated here, even though the guiding SSMMD
model posits a causal sequence. Further research should,
therefore, focus on longitudinal studies, tracking the devel-
opment of engagement in language learners over time (Oga-
Baldwin & Nakata, 2017). We need many experimental
designs researching the causal directions and investigating
the differences and the relationships in different engage-
ment levels (Carreira, Ozaki, & Maeda, 2013). In addition,
teacher motivation is also influenced by the classroom con-
text and learner behaviors. Considering the reciprocal rela-
tions between learner engagement and teacher motivation,
the hypothesized model can be extended and EFL instruc-
tors’ motivation to teach English can be further investigated
within the framework of classroom engagement (Reeve,
2013; Reeve et al., 2004).
Grounded in the well-constructed hypotheses of the
SSMMD and using a mixed-methods approach, the study
reported here provides a nuanced view of EFL learners’
motivational self-systems and supports the SSMMD model
of classroom engagement with its social context antecedents
and learner outcomes as a whole. It also polishes the signifi-
cant role of autonomy-supportive teacher behaviors in the
self, action, and outcome components of the model. Taken
together, this study provides important implications for lan-
guage educators on how to foster language learners’ class-
room engagement and mentor autonomously engaged
language learners.

Dincer et al. 13
Authors’ Note
This study is a part of the first author’s doctoral dissertation under
the supervision of the second and third authors.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Financial support for this project was gratefully received from the
Research Fellowship Programmes of the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) to the first
author and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada to the third author.
ORCID iD
Ali Dincer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0732-3975
References
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student
engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodologi-
cal issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-
386. doi:10.1002/pits.20303
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory
and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.),
The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sci-
ences (pp. 93-114). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bell, T. R. (2005). Behaviors and attitudes of effective foreign
language teachers: Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign
Language Annals, 38, 259-270. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.
tb02490.x
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Carreira, J. M., Ozaki, K., & Maeda, T. (2013). Motivational model
of English learning among elementary school students in
Japan. System, 41, 706-719. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.07.017
Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H. T. (2005). Motivators that
do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the
influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 609-
633. doi:10.2307/3588524
Chen, Y. L. E., & Kraklow, D. (2015). Taiwanese college students’
motivation and engagement for English learning in the context of
internationalization at home: A comparison of students in EMI
and Non-EMI programs. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 19, 46-64. doi:10.1177/1028315314533607
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012).
Handbook of research on student engagement. New York, NY:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and accultura-
tion: An investigation of the effects of language status and
individual characteristics. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 5, 271-290. doi:10.1177/0261927X8600500403
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy,
and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system pro-
cesses. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes
in development: Minnesota symposium on child psychology
(pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Choosing a mixed meth-
ods design. In J. W. Creswell & V. L. P. Clark (Eds.), Designing
and conducting mixed methods research (pp. 58-88). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Dincer, A. (2014). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determined
engagement in Turkish EFL classrooms: A mixed method
approach (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Ataturk University,
Erzurum, Turkey.
Dincer, A., & Yesilyurt, S. (2017). Motivation to speak English:
A self-determination theory perspective. PASAA: Journal of
Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 53, 1-25.
Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, S., & Takkac, M. (2012). The effects of
autonomy-supportive climates on EFL learner’s engagement,
achievement and competence in English speaking classrooms.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3890-3894.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.167
Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, Y., & Demiröz, H. (2017). Multidimensional
classroom engagement in EFL contexts. In D. Köksal (Ed.),
Researching ELT: Classroom methodology and beyond (pp.
91-102). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language class-
room. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston,
A. C., Klebanov, P., . . . Sexton, H. (2007). School readiness
and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428-
1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Eccles, J. S. (2016). Engagement: Where to next? Learning and
Instruction, 43, 71-75. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.003
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis pro-
cess. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/
j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School
engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do
children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indi-
cators of positive (pp. 305-321). New York, NY: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004).
School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the
evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Wang, M. T., Linn, J. S., Hofkens, T. L., Sung,
H., Parr, A., & Allerton, J. (2016). Using qualitative methods
to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement.
Learning and Instruction, 43, 5-15. doi:10.1016/j.learnin-
struc.2016.01.009
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language
learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London,
England: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisi-
tion: The socio-educational model. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, J. B., & Anderson, R. E. (2014).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland:
Pearson Education.

14 SAGE Open
Harris, L. (2011). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of stu-
dent engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling?
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 376-386. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2010.09.006
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver-
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become
more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A
self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and
Instruction, 43, 27-38. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed meth-
ods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.
Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/00131
89X033007014
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher educa-
tion. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 758-773. doi:10.1080/0
3075079.2011.598505
Krieger, D. (2005). Teaching ESL versus EFL principles and prac-
tices. English Language Teaching Forum, 43(2), 8-16.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing qualitative
research (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation,
and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies con-
ducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53,
167-210. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00227
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 con-
text. System, 45, 227-241. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.06.001
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assess-
ment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 20(1), 20-32. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.
tb00055.x
Montenegro, A. (2017). Understanding the concept of agentic
engagement. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19, 117-
128. doi:10.14483/calj.v19n1.10472
Noels, K. A. (2009). Identity and the internalization of language
learning into the self-concept. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda
(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 295-
313). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Noels, K. A. (2015). Supporting students’ self-determined motiva-
tion to learn languages. Contact, 41, 21-32. Retrieved from
http://contact.teslontario.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/
ContactSpring2015.pdf
Noels, K. A., Chaffee, K. E., Lou, N. M., & Dincer, A. (2016). Self-
determination, engagement, and identity in learning German:
Some directions in the psychology of language learning moti-
vation. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 45(2), 12-29.
Noels, K. A., Vargas Lascano, D. I., & Saumure, K. (2019). The
development of self-determination across the language course:
Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay
of psychological needs, orientations, and engagement. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1017/S0272263118000189
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2015). Structure also sup-
ports autonomy: Measuring and defining autonomy-supportive
teaching in Japanese elementary foreign language classes.
Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 167-179. doi:10.1111/
jpr.12077
Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gen-
der, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young
language learners. System, 65, 151-163. doi:10.1016/j.sys-
tem.2017.01.011
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents’
perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational
beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 83-98. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.83
Phakiti, A. (2018). Confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling. In A. Phakiti, P. De Costa, L. Plonsky, &
S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of applied linguis-
tics research methodology (pp. 459-500). London, England:
Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_21
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in
the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
36, 50-72. doi:10.1017/S0267190515000094
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting
effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878-912.
doi:10.1111/lang.12079
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on stu-
dent engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp.
149-172). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-
2018-7_7
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive
learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic
engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579-
595. doi:10.1037/a0032690
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy supportive teaching: What is it, how
to do it. In W. C. Liu, J. W. C. Keng, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research
and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 129-152).
Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_7
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004).
Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’
autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169.
doi:10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
Reeve, J., & Sickenius, B. (1994). Development and vali-
dation of a brief measure of the three psychological
needs underlying intrinsic motivation: The AFS scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 506-515.
doi:10.1177/0013164494054002025
Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of
students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. doi:10.1016/j.ced-
psych.2011.05.002
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and con-
ceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engage-
ment construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie
(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19).
New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_1
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environ-
ment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engage-
ment during middle school. American Educational Research
Journal, 38, 437-460. doi:10.3102/00028312038002437
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-

Dincer et al. 15
ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering
motivation, learning, and well-being in schools: Research and
observations from self-determination theory. In K. Wentzel &
D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 96-
119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic
psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Saban, A., Kocbeker, B. N., & Saban, A. (2007). Prospective teach-
ers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through
metaphor analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 123-139.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.003
Schlenker, B. R., Schlenker, P. A., & Schlenker, K. A. (2013).
Antecedents of academic engagement and the implications for
college grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 75-
81. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.014
Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping, and
development. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook
of self-determination research (pp. 297-338). Rochester, NY:
Rochester University Press.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008).
Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger
motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology,
100, 765-781. doi:10.1037/a0012840
Skinner, E., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of
student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S.
L. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of
research on student engagement (pp. 21-44). New York, NY:
Springer.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn,
J. G. (2009). Engagement and disaffection as organizational
constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In K.
R. Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at
school (pp. 223-245). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social con-
text as a determinant of teacher motivational strategies in phys-
ical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 235-243.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.09.002
Thaliah, R., & Hashim, R. A. (2008, November 19-21). Teacher’s
autonomy support and ESL classroom engagement: The road
less traveled. Proceedings of the EDU-COM 2008: International
Conference Sustainability in higher education: Directions for
change. Paper presented at the EDU-COM 2008 International
Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia.
Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ceducom/50/
van Uden, J. M., Ritzen, H., & Pieters, J. M. (2013). I think I can
engage my students. Teachers’ perceptions of student engage-
ment and their beliefs about being a teacher. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 32, 43-54. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.01.004
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of bio-psy-
chosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determina-
tion theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
767-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Zyngier, D. (2008). (Re)conceptualising student engagement: Doing
education not doing time. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24, 1765-1776. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.09.004
Author Biographies
Ali Dincer (PhD, Ataturk University) is a faculty member in the
Department of English Language Teaching at Erzincan Binali
Yildirim University, Turkey. His primary research interests include
language learning motivation, language learner autonomy, and
classroom engagement.
Savaş Yeşilyurt (PhD, Ataturk University) works as a faculty
member in the Department of Tourism Guidance at Ataturk
University, Turkey. His research focuses on the psychological
aspects of foreign language learning, language learning motivation,
and language teacher education.
Kimberly A. Noels (PhD, University of Ottawa) is a professor of
Psychology at the University of Alberta. She studies the role of self-
determination and motivation in the process of learning new lan-
guages (including foreign, second, heritage, and classical lan-
guages), and the impact of the societal, cultural, and interpersonal
contexts within which language learning takes place.
Dayuma I. Vargas Lascano (PhD, University of Alberta) is a post-
doctoral fellow in psychology at the University of Laval, Canada.
Following a developmental perspective, her research focuses on
students’ engagement and motivation with their learning/academ-
ics, its socio-emotional antecedents, and learning outcomes.