Content uploaded by Hitoshi Mikami
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hitoshi Mikami on Oct 22, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241287501
Language Teaching Research
1 –26
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13621688241287501
journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
RESEARCH
A self-regulation perspective
on L2 grit development
and its impact on language
achievement
Hitoshi Mikami
Chubu University, Japan
Tadashi Shiozawa
Chubu University, Japan
Abstract
Evidence from recent studies has shown that sustained perseverance and passion for long-term
goals in the domain of second language (L2) learning – a personality trait called L2 grit – is
associated with various aspects of language learning, including positive psychological attributes
(e.g. motivation, beliefs, and emotions), actions (e.g. learning efforts and strategy use), and
achievement (e.g. course and task performance). Meanwhile, relatively little has been written
about the mechanism through which such relationships emerge. Expanding upon L2 grit’s
association with self-regulated learning (SRL) behaviors and SRL-related psychological variables,
this study explores the development of L2 grit and its role in language achievement using the
SRL framework. One hundred and eight English majors in Japan responded to a questionnaire,
granted permission to access their L2 class records, and completed a standardized L2 test. The
main findings include: (1) the psychological attributes that facilitate SRL may play a critical role
in increasing levels of L2 grit, (2) the relationship between L2 grit and achievement in language
classes was mediated by behavioral self-regulation (intensified learning efforts), and (3) L2 grit may
promote different types of self-regulatory behaviors depending on learners’ status (i.e. learning
experience and proficiency levels) and learning situations (e.g. learning content and goals). The
results provide one explanation for the superior performance of gritty learners in L2 classes
observed in previous studies.
Keywords
enjoyment, growth mindset, ideal L2 self, L2 grit, objective performance measures, positive
psychology, self-efficacy, self-regulated learning
Corresponding author:
Hitoshi Mikami, Chubu University, 1200 Matsumotocho, Kasugai, Aichi 487-8501, Japan
Email: mikami_h@isc.chubu.ac.jp
1287501LTR0010.1177/13621688241287501Language Teaching ResearchMikami and Shiozawa
research-article2024
Article
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
I Introduction
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a cyclical process wherein individuals work toward
achieving their goals in specific social settings, including the modulation of affect, cog-
nition, and behavior (Panadero, 2017). Existing meta-analyses have confirmed a positive
relationship between SRL (or the use of SRL strategies) and learning outcomes in vari-
ous academic domains with diverse age groups (Dent & Koenka, 2016; Dignath &
Büttner, 2008; Donker et al., 2014; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). The effectiveness of SRL has
also frequently been reported in the field of second language (L2) education (R. Zhang
& Zou, 2024); and Chen’s (2022) meta-analysis concluded that SRL interventions
improve self-regulatory behaviors in language learning and L2 test/task performance
across age groups and educational levels. Regarding the types and effectiveness of inter-
ventions, Dignath and Büttner’s (2008) meta-analysis found that SRL interventions
could be most effective when they are based on the social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1977), which places emphasis on learners’ psychology in self-regulation processes.
Previous L2 studies have shown that the social cognitive model of SRL proves useful
in elucidating the role of learners’ psychology in the complex and dynamic process of
language learning. For instance, Bai and Guo (2019) found that motivation and beliefs
not only predicted self-regulatory behaviors among young L2 learners, but also noted
variations in the relationship between motivation, beliefs, and behaviors depending on
the learners’ L2 proficiency. The findings of Wilby (2020) also showed that the relation-
ship between motivation, belief, and self-regulation underwent major changes even dur-
ing a 4-week language course. Outside of motivation and belief, Shen et al. (2023)
confirmed that emotions, both positive and negative types, were predictive in university-
level L2 learners’ self-regulatory behaviors.
Existing studies have highlighted the importance of motivation, beliefs, and emo-
tions in the process of self-regulated language learning (SRLL). In this study, we pro-
pose a potential benefit of incorporating a new concept, personality trait, into the body
of SRLL research. The psychology literature suggests that personality traits affect out-
comes in various life domains by engendering relatively enduring patterns of thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors in new and uncertain situations (Bleidorn et al., 2019). Given
the continual need for learning new and complex linguistic and socio-linguistic rules in
L2 learning, personality may play a critical role in shaping individual differences in
SRLL (i.e. how learners modulate their affect, cognition, and behavior). In addition,
previous research has suggested that, while personality traits are often relatively stable
within individuals, self-regulatory behaviors can be beneficial in cultivating personality
traits advantageous to achieving specific goals (Hennecke et al., 2014). This means that
the SRL framework can be valuable in understanding not only how personality affects
SRLL but also in what way SRLL is associated with the development of personality
traits that are beneficial for L2 learning.
The personality trait that this study focuses on is called L2 grit; that is, a higher-order
construct composed of sustained perseverance and passion for L2 goals (Alamer, 2021;
Sudina et al., 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022). Having higher levels of per-
severance and passion is considered beneficial for promoting L2 learning, and empirical
studies have demonstrated L2 grit’s relevance to psychological and behavioral factors,
Mikami and Shiozawa 3
and relative success in L2 learning. The former was measured in terms of, for instance,
enjoyment (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2021; Pawlak, Csizér, et al., 2022; Pawlak, Zarrinabadi,
& Kruk, 2022), motivation (Paradowski & Jelińska, 2023; Sudina et al., 2021), learning
effort (Sudina & Plonsky, 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022), and engagement
(Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2023); and the latter, in terms of vocabulary size (Alamer, 2021),
writing quality (J. Zhang & Zhang, 2023), course performance (Sudina & Plonsky, 2021;
Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022; Teimouri, Tabandeh, & Tahmouresi, 2022), and
proficiency (Mikami, 2024). One limitation of these studies is that they explored either
the affect–grit relationship, grit–behavior relationship, or grit–achievement relationship,
leaving the general mechanism/s that unify all these relationships open for further inves-
tigation. Based on the observations that learners’ psychology matters in the SRLL pro-
cess and self-regulation behaviors can induce personality change, we contend that
self-regulation can be a key mechanism worth exploring in the study of L2 grit.
Specifically, we believe that (1) motivation, beliefs, and emotions that promote SRLL
contribute to higher levels of L2 grit, and (2) L2 grit is related to language success
through SRLL.
In what follows, this article elaborates on the social cognitive model of SRLL and
how motivation, beliefs, emotions, and L2 grit are related to SRLL. It then presents the
findings of our empirical study, which examines the feasibility of our propositions.
1 The social cognitive model
This section will describe the characteristics of the social cognitive view of SRLL by
reviewing the triadic model (Zimmerman, 1989, 2000, 2013). This model is useful in
comprehending the role of L2 learners’ psychology and contextuality in determining
their learning approaches and strategies (Shen et al., 2023). In the triadic model, self-
regulation operates through a cyclical interaction involving three levels: the person,
behavior, and environment levels. These levels are interconnected through a feedback
loop, leading to covert/person-level, behavioral, and environmental self-regulation.
In the following passages, we will elucidate the model in more detail with reference
to Figure 1.
First, person-level self-regulation involves (meta)cognitive and affective processes.
Regarding the former, learners have some degree of metacognitive knowledge about
their own L2 skills, which can form the foundation for the use of cognitive strategies
(Sardegna et al., 2018). In addition, learners’ motivation, beliefs, and emotions can also
affect how they engage in L2 activities (Lou & Noels, 2017; Macintyre, 2017; Yousefi
& Mahmoodi, 2022). The solid arrow from Person to Behavior in Figure 1 indicates that
all these factors are involved in the determination of learning approaches and strategies.
The person-level also entails the schematic process of monitoring and adjusting the
cognitive and affective states (i.e. covert self-regulation). For instance, when learners
self-assess their mastery of L2 grammar they have learnt, they are using a metacogni-
tive strategy aiming at a better understanding of their own knowledge state (Pintrich
et al., 1991). Also, achieving satisfactory performance in such attempts can strengthen
learners’ belief in their own capability to use relevant grammar rules (i.e. self-efficacy)
through enactive feedback.
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Next, behavioral self-regulation refers to behavioral adjustments in terms of learning
approaches and strategies. Adjustments may take the form of changes in the amount of
time and effort one invests in learning activities or the frequency with which one uses
specific strategies in such activities (Bai & Guo, 2019; Zhao et al., 2023). The implemen-
tation of behavioral self-regulation provides learners with feedback regarding how effec-
tive and enjoyable strategies/activities were, which shape learners’ responses and future
behavior (see the broken arrow from Behavior to Person in Figure 1).
Lastly, environmental self-regulation refers to learners’ efforts to adjust learning envi-
ronments in their favor. Attempts to manipulate one’s learning environment (e.g. finding
more opportunities to communicate in their L2) entail a series of behavioral actions
aimed at expanding one’s L2 community (Papi et al., 2019; Sasaki, 2011; Shen et al.,
2023) (see the solid arrow from Behavior to Environment). These actions may involve,
for instance, finding conversation partners within one’s immediate social circle or online.
Feedback from Environment to Person in Figure 1 is the perceived effectiveness of envi-
ronmental manipulation strategies in assisting L2 learning, which can influence the
intensity and duration of strategy implementation.
2 Learners’ psychology and SRLL
a Motivation/ideal L2 self. To gain a better understanding of the value of the social cog-
nitive view of SRLL, it is useful to review an ongoing discussion concerning the associa-
tion between motivation and language achievement. Motivation has long been considered
Figure 1. The triadic model of self-regulated language learning (SRLL).
Source. Adapted from Zimmerman, 1989.
Mikami and Shiozawa 5
a prerequisite for initiating and sustaining language learning (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015),
and the intensity of one’s ideal L2 self-image (Ideal L2 Self) has repeatedly been identi-
fied as a predictor of intended learning efforts (Teimouri, 2017; Yousefi & Mahmoodi,
2022). At the same time, however, Al-Hoorie’s (2018) meta-analysis revealed a lack of
clarity in the relationship between intended efforts and objective achievement measures
(r = .12 [95% CI: –.12, .34]). One underlying reason for this is, as Al-Hoorie argued, the
limited use of objective performance measures in motivation research. Another potential
explanation is the use of both hypothetical and behavioral items as effort measures (Papi
et al., 2019; Yousefi & Mahmoodi, 2022). When comparing these types of items (e.g.
items beginning with ‘I wish . . .’ vs. ‘I am trying . . .’), only the latter represents the
actual effort one puts into learning. This provides a convincing rationale for only using
the behavioral items/indexes in exploring the motivation–achievement relationship. On
this point, the SRL framework is valuable as it enables us to use various behavioral
measures, including the usage frequency of metacognitive, cognitive, and environmental
strategies. Indeed, recent studies have highlighted that Ideal L2 Self not only correlated
with actual learning behaviors (Saito et al., 2018), but was also connected to better L2
performance/achievement through the frequent use of self-regulatory strategies (Papi &
Khajavy, 2021; Zhao et al., 2023).
b Belief. Belief is what learners believe about themselves and language learning. On
this topic, Bai and Guo (2019) provided insightful findings by exploring how motivation
and two belief types affect L2 writers’ learning process. One belief type was self-effi-
cacy. This belief has long been considered a key variable underlying successful SRLL
(Chen et al., 2022; Wilby, 2020), as self-efficacious learners perceive a sense of control
over their learning process and such a perception in turn assists them to be more active
in pursuing their goals (Y. Wang et al., 2021). Another belief type was growth mindset,
which refers to what learners believe about the growth potential of language intelligence.
Growth mindset can also be of importance in promoting the pursuit of L2 goals in that it
leads to greater mastery responses and less helpless responses particularly in challenging
situations (Lou & Noels, 2017). Using these belief variables, Bai and Guo (2019) con-
firmed that interest in L2 writing (a motivation variable) exhibited a stronger connection
with low-achieving students’ SRL strategy uses. In contrast, among medium and high
achievers, the use of these strategies was more strongly facilitated by growth mindset
and self-efficacy in writing, with both belief types showing positive associations with
interest. Bai and Guo (2019) took this as an indication that L2 learners at different profi-
ciency levels ‘may configure their motivational factors in different ways in order to
achieve their desired learning goals appropriate to their own situations’ (p. 394). This
suggests that specific types of beliefs facilitate self-regulatory behaviors together with
motivation, depending on learners’ L2 proficiency levels and goal settings.
c Emotion. Emotion can be described as spontaneous and functional reactions to specific
matters or events (de Dios Martínez Agudo, 2018). Emotion can also be broadly divided into
negative and positive types (e.g. hate vs. love) (MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017; Shen et al., 2023;
Y. Wang et al., 2021). Both negative and positive emotions experienced during L2 activities
trigger situational adaptations, and the accumulation of such adaptations can in turn lead to
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
individual differences in L2 learning and use. We can see such examples in the results of Li’s
(2022) meta-analysis, where anxiety was related to the less frequent use of reading strategies,
and in Saito et al.’s (2018) longitudinal study, which highlighted the importance of enjoyment
in enhancing the comprehensibility of L2 speech in a classroom setting.
In comparison, positive emotions are shown to be more beneficial than negative ones
in promoting L2 learning. For instance, MacIntyre and Vincze (2017) reported the rela-
tive importance of positive emotions over negative types in shaping motivation, self-
perceived L2 competence, and learning efforts. In addition, Y. Wang et al. (2021)
observed that self-efficacious learners tended to experience more positive emotions in
L2 learning and scored higher in language tests. Regarding its relationship with SRLL,
Shen et al. (2023) found that enjoyment, a positive emotional state that arises when
learners’ needs are fulfilled (Botes et al., 2021), had consistent positive relationships
with all metacognitive, behavioral, and environmental self-regulation variables, while
negative emotions (anger, anxiety, and shame) predominantly exhibited negative asso-
ciations with the self-regulatory behaviors.
d L2 grit. We have seen that L2 learners’ motivation, beliefs, and emotions interact
with each other in initiating and maintaining SRLL. In this section, we develop the argu-
ments that (1) these attributes may also contribute to higher levels of L2 grit, and (2)
gritty L2 learners achieve relative success through SRLL.
The first argument is derived from the observation that L2 grit has been positively
related to key attributes for successful SRLL; they are: Ideal L2 Self (Alamer, 2021),
growth mindset (Paradowski & Jelińska, 2023; Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2023; Teimouri,
Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022), efficacy belief (Pawlak, Zarrinabadi, & Kruk, 2022), and
enjoyment (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2021; Pawlak, Csizér, et al., 2022). One possible inter-
pretation of these results is that these positive attributes are facilitative of SRLL; and
the SRL process, including mastery experience and positive affective states elicited by
such experiences, can lead to the relatively enduring traits of perseverance and passion
for L2 goals.
Regarding enjoyment, if it is an emotional state frequently experienced in L2 learn-
ing, this can lead to positive changes in learning motivation (MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017;
Saito et al., 2018) and efficacy belief (Y. Wang et al., 2021). Concerning Ideal L2 Self, a
perceived gap between learners’ current and ideal self-images can be a motivator for
enhancing strategic approaches to learning (Papi & Khajavy, 2021; Zhao et al., 2023). As
for beliefs, self-efficacy helps learners to engage in effortful tasks by maintaining a sense
of control (Bai & Guo, 2019). An incremental view on language intelligence (i.e. growth
mindset) can also assist learners’ pursuit of L2 goals in the presence of challenges (Lou
& Noels, 2017). As learning progresses, self-regulatory behaviors fostered by these
attributes may become habitual, contributing to increased levels of L2 grit.
Our second argument posits that L2 grit is related to language outcomes through
SRLL. As reviewed in Teimouri, Plonsky, and Tabandeh (2022), the concept of L2 grit
was introduced partly due to grit’s relatively weak correlations with academic outcomes,
including language achievement, when measured as how gritty one generally is (for fur-
ther discussion on the nature of grit, see Credé et al., 2017; Lam & Zhou, 2022). To
address this issue, Teimouri and associates developed a scale designed to measure grit
Mikami and Shiozawa 7
specific to language learning (see also Alamer, 2021); and since then, L2 studies have
illustrated the grit–achievement relationship with greater clarity (for a detailed review,
see Demir, 2024). These findings underscore the value of understanding why gritty
learners excel in language learning, and we consider SRLL serves as an underlying link.
Supporting evidence for this assertion comes from recent studies highlighting L2 grit’s
positive relationship with multiple aspects of SRL. To begin with, successful SRL
requires proactive engagement in the cyclical process of self-regulation over an extended
duration (e.g. continuous monitoring of learning progress). On this point, Sadoughi and
Hejazi (2023) showed that L2 grit predicts academic engagement, encompassing agen-
tic, behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagements. The available data also suggest
that L2 grit promotes the use of strategic approaches necessary for SRLL. Examples of
such approaches can be seen in Solhi et al. (2023), where gritty learners showed more
frequent use of an emotional regulation strategy, and in Sudina and Plonsky (2021), a
study which demonstrated a strong correlation between L2 grit and intended learning
effort, including looking for more opportunities for L2 activities. If grit personality facil-
itates learners’ use of emotional regulation strategy (Solhi et al., 2023), there is a possi-
bility that the same trait also affects frequency of use of other types of strategies for
better learning outcomes. In addition, the results of Sudina and Plonsky (2021) indicate
that gritty learners tend to seek to create opportunities for self-improvement by adjusting
their learning environment (i.e. environmental self-regulation). Given these findings, it
is a logical possibility that SRLL is an underlying mechanism behind the grit–achieve-
ment relationship.
3 The current study
As reviewed above, the existing research findings indicate the possible contribution of
SRLL in linking (1) positive psychological attributes with L2 grit, and (2) increased
levels of L2 grit with relative success in L2 learning. The aim of this study was, there-
fore, to investigate the underlying mechanism in the development of L2 grit and its
contribution to language success using the SRL framework. The present study is based
on the following hypotheses:
• Hypothesis 1: SRLL-related psychological attributes (Ideal L2 Self, growth mind-
set, self-efficacy, and enjoyment) can positively predict levels of L2 grit.
• Hypothesis 2: SRLL mediates the relationship between L2 grit and language
achievement.
II Method
1 Participants
One hundred and eight English majors at a Japanese university participated in this
research (45 female and 63 male participants, 19–23 years of age) (M = 19.62, Mdn = 20.00,
SD = 0.71). All participants spoke Japanese as their first language, and no one had
extended study abroad experience. The participants had studied English as a school
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
subject for between 6 and 8 years before enrolling in university. At the time of the study
(April 2023), they had experienced various types of English as a second language (ESL)
university classes for 2 to 3 years (M = 2.52 years, Mdn = 3.00, SD = 0.50). These include
Communicative Grammar, Reading/Writing Skills, Integrated English, and Collaborative
Projects in English.
2 Measurement instruments
a Questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part asked respond-
ents to report their name, gender, age, year at university, and L2 learning experience. The
second part consisted of 80 items, whereby participants were asked to indicate the extent
to which certain qualities or situations applied to them. All questionnaire items, except
those related to L2 grit, underwent back-translation between English and Japanese to
ensure equivalency in meanings. In what follows, we will first provide information on
the five psychological indexes.
L2 grit. The two components of L2 grit, perseverance of effort (POE) and consistency
of interest (COI), were measured using the Japanese version of the L2-Grit Scale (nine
5-point Likert items; Sudina et al., 2021). The former represents one’s persistence in the
achievement of goals, and the latter the constancy of interest in the pursuit of goals. Of
the nine items, five measure POE, and the remaining four assess aspects related to COI.
Questions include ‘When it comes to English, I am a hard-working learner’ (POE) and
‘My interests in learning English change from year to year’ (COI). Among the available
language-domain-specific grit measures (e.g. Alamer, 2021; X. Zhang et al., 2023), the
L2-Grit Scale was the most widely validated at the time of our investigation (Mikami,
2024; Sudina et al., 2021; Sudina & Plonsky, 2021; R. Wei et al., 2020).
Ideal L2 self. The Ideal L2 Self/Own Scale (four 6-point Likert items; Papi et al.,
2019) was employed to assess Ideal L2 self (IL2S) levels. This index was chosen due to
its empirical association with strategic learning behaviors and L2 outcomes (Papi et al.,
2019; Papi & Khajavy, 2021). Questions include ‘I can imagine a day when I speak Eng-
lish fluently with international friends/colleagues.’
Self-efficacy. The Self-Efficacy Scale (four 7-point Likert items; Bai & Wang, 2020)
was used to measure self-efficacy in L2 learning. This index was selected based on its
empirical association with SRLL behaviors (Bai & Wang, 2020). Questions include ‘I
expect to do well in learning English.’
Growth mindset. Growth mindset was measured using the Incremental Sub-Scale of
the Language Mindsets Inventory (nine 6-point Likert items; Lou & Noels, 2017). This
index was adopted based on its empirical association with SRLL (Bai & Guo, 2019; Bai
& Wang, 2020). Questions include ‘In learning a foreign language, if you work hard at
it, you will always get better.’
Enjoyment. The Short Form of the Foreign Language Enjoyment Scale (nine 5-point
Likert items; Botes et al., 2021) was used to assess the typical levels of enjoyment that
Mikami and Shiozawa 9
the participants feel in ESL classes. Slight modifications were made because the origi-
nal instruction (‘In the foreign language class . . .’) and one item (‘I enjoy it’) were
designed to assess enjoyment experienced in a specific class, whereas our participants
are involved in multiple L2 classes. For this reason, the instruction and relevant item
have been revised to ‘In English classes I have been taking . . .’ and ‘I enjoy them.’
Enjoyment has previously been demonstrated to support SRLL (Shen et al., 2023; Zhao
et al., 2023).
The questionnaire also included five SRLL measures aimed at assessing the person-
level, behavioral, and environmental self-regulation. The person-level process in the tri-
adic SRL model, as reviewed earlier, involves the planning, monitoring, and adaptation
of learning; and a range of strategies and approaches are employed in the behavioral and
environmental processes aimed at facilitating learning (Zimmerman, 1989, 2000, 2013).
Metacognitive Self-Regulation (MCSR). MCSR refers to the extent to which individuals
focus on planning, monitoring, and regulating their cognitive processes to enhance L2
learning (the person-level process). A sub-scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learn-
ing Questionnaire was used to measure this (twelve 7-point Likert items; Pintrich et al.,
1991). Slight modifications were made to the descriptions that ask respondents to refer to
their MCSR in an unspecified class, with the aim of limiting the context to ESL classes.
Questions include ‘When studying for English classes, I try to determine which concepts
I don't understand well.’
Rehearsing and Memorizing Strategies (R&MS). R&MS is one form of behavioral self-
regulation employed to facilitate L2 vocabulary learning. The R&MS sub-scale (five
4-point Likert items) of the Questionnaire of English Self-Regulated Learning Strategies
(QESRLS; C. Wang & Bai, 2017) was used to measure this. Questions include ‘I read
new words repeatedly in order to memorize them.’
Organizing and Transforming Strategies (O&TS). O&TS also represents a form of
behavioral self-regulation, which is used to facilitate information processing and learn-
ing. Another QESRLS sub-scale (eighteen 4-point Likert items) was used to measure
this. Questions include ‘I write an outline after reading an English article.’
Motivated L2 Learning Behavior (L2MLB). L2MLB is a part of the behavioral self-regu-
lation process, which focuses on the intensity of efforts made for L2 learning. The Moti-
vated Behavior Scale (five 6-point Likert items; Papi et al., 2019) was used to measure
this. Questions include ‘I spend a lot of time studying English.’
Eager L2 Use (Eager). Eager is a form of environmental self-regulation. It represents
the intensity of efforts made to create or participate in environments where learners have
more opportunities for L2 learning and use. The Eager L2 Use Scale (five 6-point Likert
items; Papi et al., 2019) was used to measure this. Questions include ‘I put myself in
situations where I can frequently use English to interact with others.’
b Performance measures. L2 grit, sustained perseverance and passion could be assumed
to be of particular relevance to long-term achievement by sustaining learning behaviors
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
despite challenges and obstacles (Khajavy et al., 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh,
2022). For this reason, this study employed two types of performance measures that
improve as a result of continuous efforts, rather than those that can be improved by short-
term/narrowly focused efforts.
The first measure is the grade point average in L2 classes (L2-GPA) (for similar per-
formance measures, see Rose et al., 2020; Yuksel et al., 2023); that is, the average (mean)
of the grade points earned across all ESL classes that the participants have ever taken
(number of credits attempted: M = 24.64, SD = 11.30, Mdn = 21.05). L2-GPA represents
overall success in classroom L2 learning (score range: 0.00–4.00). If L2 grit is related to
SRLL, gritty individuals would make constant adjustments in their learning in response
to course demands, such as using various approaches and strategies necessary for success
in, for instance, grammar, reading, writing, presentation, and communication classes;
and such strategic efforts could lead to success in ESL classes. The use of L2-GPA also
serves as a countermeasure for the issue of cherry-picking, which can occur when
researchers rely on a limited number of course grades or in-class test scores when inves-
tigating the grit–achievement relationship.
A limitation of L2-GPA is that course grades do not always, or do not entirely, reflect
L2 attainment (Brown et al., 2018). Therefore, to examine how SRLL mediates the rela-
tionship between grit personality and absolute levels of L2 attainment, this study meas-
ured the participants’ L2 proficiency (Proficiency) using an internationally administered
standardized test called TOEIC®. TOEIC® is a 2-hour test and consists of reading and
listening sections (100 comprehension questions for each section; score range: 10–990).
This test was considered an appropriate measure for the present project because (1) the
validity and reliability of the test are well-documented (Y. Wei & Low, 2017) and (2) the
use of a standardized test facilitates comparisons with results obtained elsewhere.
3 Procedure
We set the minimum sample size for this study at 100 participants. This decision was
prompted by the combination of the study’s cross-sectional design and the use of specific
achievement measures. Particularly, due to the cross-sectional design, it was necessary to
account for the moderating effect of L2 learning experience/years of L2 learning when
examining the mediation effects of SRLL on the grit–achievement relationship.
Conducting such an analysis, known as the moderated mediation analysis, requires rela-
tively large samples. However, it was also expected that the inclusion of the long-term
achievement measure (L2-GPA) and the 2-hour test (Proficiency) would place limita-
tions on our sample size. In this context, we referred to the data reported in Xu et al.
(2024) to ascertain the minimum adequate sample size for the moderated mediation
analyses (n > 100).
An invitation to participate in this study was sent via email to 135 students in the
target department, and 108 participants agreed to take part. They first gave permission
for their academic records to be accessed, and then responded to the online question-
naires. All questionnaire items required a response, and the order of questions was rand-
omized for each participant. The participants then sat the proficiency test for 2 hours.
The first author downloaded the academic records from the university’s database, and the
proficiency test was scored by the official testing organization.
Mikami and Shiozawa 11
4 Data analysis
There were no missing data for any variables, and all negatively worded items were
reverse scored. All psychological and SRLL scales had previously undergone validation
in their original and other contexts. The groups of question items were thus treated as
latent construct indicators when their reliability coefficients exceeded the common
threshold of .70 in all of Cronbach’s α, McDonald’s ωt, and the greatest lower bound
(GLB). This requirement was set because each reliability index has the potential to pro-
duce unreliable estimates under certain conditions, such as a small number of items,
unequal variances, and high skewness (Malkewitz et al., 2023). Only R&MS did not
meet the requirement and was excluded from further analysis at this point (Table 1).
The normality of distributions was evaluated by the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov
test, and all target variables were found to be normally distributed (D = 0.05–0.11, p = .172–
.903). All variables were standardized and centered before analyses, and a variance inflation
factor (VIF) of less than 10 was taken to imply absence of multicollinearity. All analyses
were 2-tailed (n = 108), and the risks of statistical Type 1 and 2 errors were set to .05 and .20
respectively. The false discovery rate method (Benjamini & Hochberg, 2000) was used to
control for Type I errors. SPSS and AMOS (ver. 27), Langtest (Mizumoto, 2023), and
G*power 3 (Faul et al., 2007) were employed for statistical computations.
Multiple regression and relative weight analyses, and the Boruta algorithm, were used to
assess the importance of the SRLL-related psychological attributes in explaining the levels
of the L2 grit components (POE and COI) (hypothesis 1). The two components, rather than
their higher-order construct, were the focus because (1) each L2 grit component has been
shown to play a unique role in L2 learning (Alamer, 2021; Pawlak, Zarrinabadi, & Kruk,
Table 1. Descriptive statistics on the 14 indexes (raw scores).
Index M SD Skew Min Max α ωtGLB
L2 grit 3.32 0.70 –0.19 1.00 4.89 .83 .81 .91
POE 3.02 0.77 –0.02 1.00 4.80 .79 .79 .84
COI 3.69 0.87 –0.50 1.00 5.00 .79 .82 .87
IL2S 3.68 1.23 0.01 1.00 6.00 .89 .89 .90
Self-efficacy 4.35 1.00 0.21 2.00 7.00 .81 .78 .80
Growth mindset 4.40 0.99 –0.20 1.78 6.00 .92 .92 .96
Enjoyment 3.66 0.59 0.19 2.33 5.00 .83 .82 .88
MCSR 3.83 0.83 –0.44 1.42 5.58 .79 .80 .89
R&MS 2.74 0.52 –0.21 1.20 4.00 .59 .61 .71
O&TS 2.48 0.42 –0.62 1.06 3.44 .79 .79 .90
L2MLB 3.89 0.93 0.05 2.00 6.00 .82 .84 .88
Eager 3.33 0.98 0.09 1.14 5.57 .80 .82 .89
L2-GPA 2.49 0.80 –0.65 0.36 3.94 n/a
Proficiency 437 129 0.61 205 850 n/a
Notes. n = 108; L2 grit = language-domain-specific grit; POE = perseverance of effort; COI = consistency of
interest; IL2S = Ideal Second Language (L2) Self; MCSR = metacognitive self-regulation; R&MS = rehearsing
and memorizing strategies; O&TS = organizing and transforming strategies; L2MLB = L2 motivated learning
behavior; L2-GPA = the grade point average in L2 classes.
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
2022; Sudina et al., 2021; Sudina & Plonsky, 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022),
and (2) if each component exhibits a unique relationship with SRLL, it provides more
nuanced insights into future research and educational practices. The regression and relative
weight analyses were used to determine the extent to which IL2S, growth mindset, self-
efficacy, and enjoyment predict levels of POE and COI. In other words, we gained the
adjusted R2 values and relative weights (RWs) for each predictor through these analyses
(Mizumoto, 2023). Boruta is a Random Forest-based feature selection method (Kursa &
Rudnicki, 2010). In brief, it creates pseudo-copies of all target attributes/variables and uti-
lizes the Random Forest algorithm to provide an unbiased and stable selection of important
attributes. For all three types of analyses mentioned above, we included the participants’
year at school (Year at School) as an additional predictor, because we employed a cross-
sectional design and recognized the potential influence of learning experience on SRLL
(Wilby, 2020) and levels of L2 grit (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2021; Teimouri, Tabandeh, &
Tahmouresi, 2022). The use of Year at School enabled us to assess the relative importance
of each positive variable and learning experience in levels of POE and COI.
A similar variable importance selection procedure was taken as an initial step in
examining the mediation effects of SRLL in the grit–achievement relationship (hypoth-
esis 2). We first evaluated the importance of MCSR, O&TS, L2MLB, Eager, and Year at
School in explaining the scores of L2-GPA and Proficiency. We then performed moder-
ated mediation analyses using the SRLL variables that were confirmed to be important in
the first-step analyses. As shown in Figure 2, we tested the models in which SRLL medi-
ates the relationship between L2 grit (POE and COI) and language achievement (L2-GPA
and Proficiency), and Year at School moderates the mediation effects.
III Results
1 Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1 (n = 108). On average, the participants dis-
played relatively high scores on all psychological and SRLL indexes, particularly on
Figure 2. Hypothesized theoretical model.
Notes. SRLL = self-regulated language learning; POE = perseverance of effort; COI = consistency of interest;
IV = independent variable; L2 = second language; DV = dependent variable.
Mikami and Shiozawa 13
COI (M = 3.69/5.00), growth mindset (M = 4.40/6.00), and enjoyment (M = 3.66/5.00).
Regarding the performance measures, there were noticeable variations in both L2-GPA
(M = 2.49/4.00, SD = 0.80) and Proficiency (M = 437/990, SD = 129).
2 Correlation matrix
Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between the target variables (r) and the partial
correlations after controlling for the influence of year at school (rs). With the exception
of COI’s relationships with growth mindset and Eager, POE and COI had significant
partial correlations with all target variables, ranging from rs = .28–.60 for the positive
psychological variables, rs = .27–.85 for the SRLL variables, and rs = .31–.44 for the
achievement measures. There was also a strong correlation (i.e. r > .60; Plonsky &
Oswald, 2014) between the two performance measures (L2-GPA–Proficiency: rs = .62),
showing that participants who performed well in ESL classes generally also excelled in
the proficiency test.
a Hypothesis 1: Importance of SRLL-related psychological attributes to POE and COI levels.
Table 3 summarizes the results of multiple regression and relative weight analyses. The
residual distributions were found to be normal (D = 0.06–0.07, p = .755–.828), and all
VIF values were below 1.88. The five variables together explained 40% and 25% of the
variance in POE and COI, respectively. With respect to POE, self-efficacy was most
strongly associated with POE (RW = 45.17%), followed by enjoyment (RW = 24.38%)
Table 2. Zero-order and partial correlation matrices.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. L2 grit – .87 .83 .50 .59 .46 .26 .38 .77 .60 .32 .47 .39
2. POE .87 –.44 .45 .60 .45 .28 .45 .85 .63 .27 .36 .31
3. COI .84 .46 –.40 .40 .31 .16 .18 .43 .37 .27 .44 .36
4. Enjoyment .50 .45 .40 –.50 .22 .32 .25 .42 .46 .17 .22 .16
5. Self-efficacy .59 .60 .39 .50 –.56 .38 .38 .59 .53 .28 .30 .36
6. IL2S .45 .45 .31 .22 .56 –.43 .62 .52 .38 .32 .18 .25
7. Growth mindset .23 .26 .13 .31 .38 .43 – .25 .29 .23 .17 .07 –.04
8. Eager .34 .43 .15 .23 .38 .61 .25 – .44 .47 .23 .13 .12
9. L2MLB .77 .85 .44 .42 .59 .52 .28 .42 –.63 .26 .41 .30
10. MCSR .60 .64 .38 .47 .53 .38 .22 .46 .63 –.41 .34 .25
11. O&TS .34 .28 .30 .18 .28 .32 .15 .21 .27 .42 – .05 .19
12. L2-GPA .35 .29 .31 .17 .27 .15 .11 .16 .35 .28 –.01 – .62
13. Proficiency .28 .24 .23 .12 .32 .23 .01 .15 .25 .20 .12 .67 –
Notes. POE = perseverance of effort; COI = consistency of interest; IL2S = Ideal Second Language (L2) Self;
L2MLB = L2 motivated learning behavior; MCSR = metacognitive self-regulation; O&TS = organizing and
transforming strategies; L2-GPA = the grade point average in L2 classes. Values displayed in the lower left
are the Pearson’s r, while those shown in the upper right of the table and colored in gray indicate partial
correlation coefficients controlled for Year at School, values printed in bold are p < .05 and 1−
β
> .80.
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
and IL2S (RW = 22.96%). Meanwhile, the level of COI was primarily explained by
enjoyment (RW = 36.19%), followed by self-efficacy (RW = 24.63%), Year at School
(RW = 20.10%) and IL2S (RW = 16.96%). Year at School emerged as a significant vari-
able only in the model including COI, and it was negatively related to COI (
β
= –.22).
The same trends were observed for the important variables selected by the Boruta
algorithm (Figures 3 and 4). Specifically, self-efficacy, IL2S, and enjoyment were found
to be important predictors of both POE and COI. Year at School was also selected in the
model including COI (Figure 4).
b Hypothesis 2: The mediating role of SRLL in the grit–achievement relationship. Table 4
presents the results of multiple regression and relative weight analyses. The residual
distributions were found to be normal (D = 0.07, p = .593–.680), and all VIF values were
below 1.98. The five variables together explained 27% and 17% of the variance in
L2-GPA and Proficiency, respectively. Regarding L2-GPA, Year at School emerged as
the strongest predictor. L2MLB demonstrated the second strongest positive association
with the L2-GPA score (RW = 31.44%), succeeded by MCSR (RW = 16.97%). As for
Proficiency, although the model itself was significant and adequately powered, their rela-
tive weights were found to be non-significant at p < .05.
Figures 5 and 6 show the variables selected by the Boruta algorithm. With regard to
L2-GPA, the results resembled those obtained in the first-step analyses; that is, Year at
School, L2MLB, and MCSR were identified as the important variables (Figure 5).
Meanwhile, in relation to Proficiency, Year at School and L2MLB were selected as the
important features (Figure 6).
Based on the results produced by the first-step analyses, we conducted moderated
mediation analyses. When L2-GPA was the dependent variable, L2MLB and MCSR
Table 3. Relative importance of five variables in predicting perseverance of effort (POE) and
consistency of interest (COI).
Model summary
β
SE RW (Raw) BCa CI tests of significance RW (%)
DV: POE (Adjusted R2 = .40, F(5, 102) = 15.14, p < .001, 1–
β
> .99):
Enjoyment .21 0.07 .10 [.03, .18] 24.38
Self-efficacy .39 0.09 .19 [.08, .31] 45.17
IL2S .20 0.10 .10 [.01, .19] 22.96
Growth mindset –.03 0.09 .02 [–.02, .07] 4.47
Year at school –.09 0.08 .01 [–.02, .07] 3.03
DV: COI (Adjusted R2 = .25, F(5, 102) = 8.03, p < .001, 1–
β
> .99):
Enjoyment .29 0.10 .10 [.02, .23] 36.19
Self-efficacy .17 0.11 .07 [.01, .17] 24.63
IL2S .18 0.11 .05 [.01, .13] 16.96
Growth mindset –.07 0.10 .01 [–.03, .04] 2.12
Year at school –.22 0.09 .06 [.01, .16] 20.10
Notes. RW = Relative Weight (when the CI does not include zero, weights are significant at p < .05); RW
(%) represents the rescaled weight (i.e. the relative importance of the predictor variables in explaining the
dependent variable); DV = dependent variable.
Mikami and Shiozawa 15
were set as the mediators in the relationship between L2 grit (POE and COI) and achieve-
ment. In terms of Proficiency, based on the results produced by the Boruta algorithm,
L2MLB was used as the mediator. Years at school was the moderator in all models.
Figure 3. Variable importance of perseverance of effort (POE) using random forest.
Notes. GM = growth mindset; Enjoy = enjoyment; IL2S = Ideal Second Language (L2) Self; SE = self-efficacy.
The features marked in green were classified as ‘Important’ based on the results of 31 iterations.
Figure 4. Variable importance of consistency of interest (COI) using random forest.
Notes. For abbreviations, see Figure 3. The features marked in green were classified as ‘Important’ based on
the results of 34 iterations.
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Table 5 summarizes the results of the moderated mediation analyses. Significant indi-
rect effects were found for L2MLB as a mediator of the POE–GPA relationship (
β
= .33,
p = .014) and COI–GPA relationship (
β
= .11, p = .013). Full mediation was observed for
the POE–L2MLB–GPA model (i.e. the total effect was significant, but the direct effect
Table 4. Relative importance of five variables in predicting achievement measures.
Model summary
β
SE RW (Raw) BCa CI tests of significance RW (%)
DV: L2-GPA (adjusted R2 = .27, F(5, 102) = 8.74, p < .001, 1–
β
> .99):
Eager –.09 0.10 .01 [–.02, .04] 2.51
L2MLB .33 0.11 .09 [.03, .19] 31.44
MCSR .19 0.12 .05 [.01, .14] 16.97
O&TS –.10 0.10 .01 [–.01, .07] 2.45
Year at school .40 0.09 .14 [.05, .26] 46.62
DV: Proficiency (adjusted R2 = .17, F(5, 102) = 5.53, p < .001, 1–
β
= .96):
Eager –.04 0.10 .01 [–.09, .02] 2.49
L2MLB .23 0.12 .04 [–.04, .13] 20.35
MCSR .07 0.12 .02 [–.06, .05] 8.97
O&TS .11 0.10 .01 [–.08, .04] 5.68
Year at school .39 0.09 .13 [–.01, .26] 62.51
Note. RW = Relative Weight (when the CI does not include zero, weights are significant at p < .05); RW(%)
represents the rescaled weight (i.e. the relative importance of the predictor variables in explaining the
dependent variable); DV = dependent variable.
Figure 5. Variable importance of the grade point average in L2 classes (L2-GPA) using random
forest.
Notes. O&TS = organizing and transforming strategies; MCSR = metacognitive self-regulation; L2MLB = L2
motivated learning behavior. The features marked in green were classified as ‘Important’ based on the
results of 26 iterations.
Mikami and Shiozawa 17
was not) (
β
= .34, p < .001 →
β
= .01, p = .940); and partial mediation was present for the
COI–L2MLB–GPA model (i.e. the direct effect remains significant) (
β
= .41, p < .001 →
β
= .31, p = .001). Regarding Proficiency, only the direct paths from POE and COI to the
outcome were significant (POE:
β
= .30, p = .001; COI:
β
= .33, p < .001). MCSR and
L2MLB only neared the threshold of significance as a mediator of the COI–GPA rela-
tionship (
β
= .06, p = .079) and the COI–Proficiency relationship (
β
= .07, p = .099).
Conditional indirect effects were observed in the POE–L2MLB–GPA and COI–
L2MLB–GPA models (Table 6). Here, we can see that mediation was found only for
learners with less ESL experience (i.e. the cases of –1SD). In contrast, for those
Figure 6. Variable importance of Proficiency using random forest.
Notes. For abbreviations, see Figure 5. The features marked in green were classified as ‘Important’ based on
the results of 54 iterations.
Table 5. Moderated mediation analyses for POE or COI (IV), SRLL (mediator), year at school
(moderator), and achievement (DV).
DV IV Mediator Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect
β
SE
β
SE
β
SE Boot 95% CI
L2-GPA POE MCSR .34** 0.09 .24* 0.11 .10 0.07 [–.03, .26]
L2MLB .01 0.16 .33* 0.14 [.07, .61]
COI MCSR .41** 0.09 .36** 0.09 .06+0.04 [.01, .15]
L2MLB .31** 0.09 .11* 0.05 [.04, .22]
Proficiency POE L2MLB .30** 0.09 .19 0.17 .11 0.14 [–.18, .39]
COI .33** 0.09 .27** 0.10 .07+0.04 [–.01, .18]
Notes. **p < .01; *p < .05; +p < .10; Boot 95% CI = BCa bootstrapped CIs using 20,000 repetitions;
DV = dependent variable; IV = independent variable.
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
participants with prolonged ESL experience (+1SD), only the direct paths from POE and
COI to L2-GPA were found to be significant (
β
= .30 and .52, respectively).
IV Discussion
Hypothesis 1: SRLL-related psychological attributes positively predict levels
of L2 grit
Hypothesis 1 was mostly supported in that three out of four target variables (i.e. IL2S,
self-efficacy, and enjoyment) were confirmed to be important in explaining the levels of
POE and COI. Although longitudinal confirmation is crucial, these results lend prelimi-
nary support to the notion that psychological attributes facilitating SRLL are key to the
development of gritty personality in L2 learning. An implication of the present results is
that, in situations where language teachers wish to enhance their students’ grittiness, it
appears advantageous to support their SRLL by cultivating ideal L2 self-image, evoking
feelings of enjoyment, and enhancing the perception of control over L2 activities.
The results also indicate that self-efficacy has greater relevance to POE levels than to
COI, and this trend is reversed when it comes to enjoyment. This raises the possibility
that the ability to exert persistent effort in L2 learning may be strongly associated with a
sense of control over the learning process, while typical levels of enjoyment may be
particularly important for the ability to maintain enthusiasm and interest in L2 learning.
The unique associations of self-efficacy and enjoyment imply that different teaching
approaches can be taken in promoting learners’ POE and COI, depending on the context.
When there is a specific need for increased persistence in L2 learning, then goal settings
and perceived progress, factors known to contribute to higher levels of self-efficacy (Dent
& Koenka, 2016; Sitzmann & Ely, 2011; Zimmerman, 1990, 2000), could also promote
perseverance. The use of formative assessment is one way to achieve this by (1) providing
students with feedback on their performance against their L2 goals and (2) enabling them
to make necessary improvements (Xiao & Yang, 2019). Meanwhile, when teachers wish
to promote the passion aspect of L2 grit, the creation of a positive class atmosphere could
be effective. As L2 enjoyment is reported to be highly influenced by external factors
Table 6. Conditional indirect effect (POE or COI → L2MLB → L2-GPA).
Moderator Total effect Direct effect Indirect effect
School year
β
SE
β
SE
β
SE Boot 95% CI
IV: POE:
–1SD .39** 0.13 –.17 0.24 .56** 0.21 [.16, .98]
+1SD .30* 0.12 .19 0.21 .11 0.18 [–.24. .46]
IV: COI:
–1SD .30* 0.13 .12 0.13 .18* 0.08 [.05, .35]
+1SD .52** 0.11 .50** 0.12 .02 0.06 [–.10, .15]
Notes. **p < .01; *p < .05; Boot 95% CI = BCa bootstrapped CIs using 20,000 repetitions.
Mikami and Shiozawa 19
including teachers and peers (Pan & Zhang, 2023), language teachers should establish and
maintain rapport with their students and strengthen the bonds among students in their
classroom. Such efforts are expected to lead to enduring passion for L2 learning.
Interestingly, our result was incompatible with Solhi et al.’s (2023) cross-sectional
data that growth mindset was associated positively with levels of L2 grit. This discrep-
ancy may arise from the contextual differences between our ESL environment and Solhi
et al.’s (2023) English as a foreign language (EFL) environment. As the participants of
this study chose to study English as their major, they likely held a positive belief in the
incremental potential of language intelligence from the time they began their L2 learn-
ing. It may be the case that this belief remains relatively stable as they spend time in the
ESL environment, while pronounced individual differences emerge in learners’ ideal
self-image, sense of control over L2 tasks, and levels of enjoyment as their L2 learning
progresses at different paces. This may account for the absence of a clear relationship
between growth mindset and L2 grit in this study. Meanwhile, because EFL learners’
growth mindset tends to exhibit greater variability compared to that of ESL learners (Lou
& Noels, 2017), higher levels of growth mindset in Solhi et al. (2023) may have more
directly facilitated the development of grittiness in language learning.
Another notable result is that Year at School was negatively related to levels of COI,
while its association with POE was not confirmed. One possible explanation for this is
the presence of a plateau in the passion aspect of L2 grit. The participants of this study
had been studying English within the English department for 2 to 3 years at the time of
our investigation. L2 activities offered in the target department may have been particu-
larly novel and authentic for the participants during the early stages of their university
lives. Such early-stage learning experiences may strongly contribute to the development
of passion for L2 learning, which may then plateau or even experience a slight decline as
L2 learning becomes a more routine and integrated aspect of their lives. This possibility
is worthy of investigation using a longitudinal design, as it allows for a deeper under-
standing of the developmental process of L2 grit over time (Elahi Shirvan et al., 2021).
Hypothesis 2: SRLL mediates the grit–achievement relationship
Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. Specifically, of the three SRL processes,
only the behavioral process represented by ML2LB significantly mediated the POE–
GPA and COI–GPA relationships, and no clear evidence of mediation was found con-
cerning Proficiency.
The relationship between perseverance and L2-GPA was fully mediated by motivated
learning behaviors, and partial mediation was identified in the case of passion. These
results, albeit partial, suggest a possible explanation for why gritty learners’ L2 class
performance was better in previous studies (Sudina & Plonsky, 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky,
& Tabandeh, 2022). Specifically, both the perseverance and passion components of L2
grit appear to enhance the intensity of learning efforts to varying degrees, and these
efforts in turn contribute to consistently higher achievement in L2 classes. Integrating
these results with the findings related to hypothesis 1, we propose the following notion:
the psychological attributes that facilitate SRLL contribute to higher levels of L2 grit,
subsequently enhancing classroom L2 learning by intensifying learning efforts.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Another interesting finding was that the mediation of motivated learning behavior
in the POE–GPA and COI–GPA relationships was clear only for the participants with
shorter ESL experience, whereas the direct paths from POE and COI to L2-GPA
remained significant for those with prolonged learning experience. These results imply
that L2 grit may be related to different types of self-regulatory behaviors depending on
the stage of learning that individuals are in. Prior SRLL research has demonstrated that
the association between psychological attributes and self-regulation is dynamic,
depending particularly on L2 learning experiences (Wilby, 2020) and proficiency lev-
els (Bai & Guo, 2019). Given these findings, the conditional indirect effects observed
in this study may mirror the dynamic relationship between grittiness and L2 develop-
ment. It may be the case that gritty L2 learners initially intensify their efforts to enhance
their language skills in ESL classes; and as they gain a deeper understanding of their
progress and become more knowledgeable about self-management in these classes,
their approaches may evolve toward adopting strategies to effectively achieve higher-
level performance in ESL classes.
While these results offer some insights, we did not find that self-level SRL behavior
(i.e. MCSR) mediated the relationship between L2 grit and L2-GPA. Moreover, no clear
evidence of mediation was found when absolute L2 attainment was the target variable.
We, however, believe that these results do not necessarily negate the utility of the SRL
framework in investigating the link between the grit–achievement relationship.
Our argument is that L2 grit may promote different types of self-regulatory behaviors
in response to learning situations, just as the grit–GPA relationship may be mediated by
different behaviors depending on the stage of learning. The SRLL indexes employed in
this study represent the behaviors that broadly contribute to the development of L2
knowledge and skills (e.g. using metacognitive strategies for effective learning and
Eager for expanding L2 use opportunities). On this point, L2 grit is a goal-oriented per-
sonality, and the world ‘goal’ can encompass both situational and individual dimensions.
For example, one may strive to improve their performance in ESL classes as a situational
goal with the individual (and ultimate) goal of achieving their ideal level of L2 profi-
ciency. Given this possibility, the mediating role of the three SRL processes may be bet-
ter elucidated when we focus on the behaviors that help learners achieve higher
performance in particular learning situations. In the context of classroom learning, learn-
ers may try to create environments where they can concentrate on the tasks at hand
(Zimmerman, 1989) rather than seeking out L2 use opportunities. They may also lever-
age teachers’ feedback as a resource for enhancing their metacognitive skills (Yang et al.,
2023) before effectively monitoring their own learning. When it comes to test perfor-
mance, it could be advantageous to concentrate on actions more closely aligned with the
constructs that a particular test aims to measure. On this point, Zhao et al. (2023) recently
found the mediation of reading-to-write strategies in the relationship between Ideal L2
Self and integrated writing task performance. In this study, as the proficiency test con-
sisted of reading and listening comprehension questions, it could be the case that an
environmental strategy of actively seeking opportunities for written and auditory input
outside the classroom is a potentially important predictor of learners’ scores on the test.
Another interesting finding is that significant direct paths were observed between
both grit components and two achievement measures (L2-GPA and Proficiency). These
Mikami and Shiozawa 21
data add to the growing body of literature on how L2 grit components are associated with
language achievement. Previous studies have found a consistent positive relationship
between POE and language achievement, whereas a much weaker or even negative rela-
tionship has been observed between COI and achievement measures (Alamer, 2021;
Sudina et al., 2021; Teimouri, Plonsky, & Tabandeh, 2022; J. Zhang & Zhang, 2023). At
the same time, however, COI emerged as the only significant predictor of class exam
scores in Sudina and Plonsky (2021), and J. Zhang and Zhang (2023) found that COI was
more strongly related to the quality of narrative writing compared to POE (for a general
review, see Demir, 2024). These mixed findings could reflect the fact that L2 grit com-
ponents contribute to different outcomes depending on learners’ status and situations.
Our results suggested that the grit–achievement relationship could be mediated by differ-
ent types of self-regulatory behaviors depending on learners’ status (e.g. learning experi-
ence and proficiency levels) and learning situations (e.g. learning contents and goals).
Additionally, Sudina et al. (2021) demonstrated that the association between L2 grit
components and achievement can vary across learning contexts. These findings together
suggest the possibility that both learner and situational factors can moderate the grit–
behavior and grit–achievement relationships. It may therefore be beneficial for future
research to consider such factors in their assessment and discussion of the relationship
between L2 grit components and outcome variables. Such consideration could advance
our understanding of the role of L2 grit in specific learning stages and situations.
Limitations
Several limitations must be noted. The first is the sample size of this study. We employed
a 2-hour standardized test (TOEIC®) and L2-GPA as performance measures. The use of
such measures increases the practicality and comparability of the results. The downside
of this, however, is that our final sample size was limited to 108, which is relatively small
compared with similar studies. This sample size may be a factor behind the result that
two mediators (i.e. MCSR and L2MLB) only came close to significance in the moder-
ated mediation analyses. For this reason, the use of larger samples (potentially by collect-
ing data from multiple sites) is advisable in future studies.
The second limitation relates to the correlational nature of this study. Due to the nov-
elty of L2 grit, previous research has predominantly used a cross-sectional design, and
this study adopted the same approach. Nonetheless, given that our results underscore the
importance of accounting for L2 learning stage when evaluating the role of L2 grit in
linguistic success, the adoption of longitudinal designs and SRL models that help explain
changes in self-regulation (e.g. the cyclical phase model in Zimmerman, 2013) should be
encouraged in future research.
Relatedly, the final limitation of this study is that our results only partially supported
the mediating role of SRLL in the grit–achievement relationship. The behavioral scales
employed in this study were considered suitable for representing each of the three pro-
cesses of the triadic SRL model (Shen et al., 2023; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000, 2013).
However, considering the potential influence of L2 grit on different self-regulatory
behaviors based on learners’ status and learning settings, a contextual focus should be
emphasized in selecting or developing SRLL indexes in future studies.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
V Conclusions
Using the SRL framework, this study investigated the underlying mechanism in the
development of L2 grit and its contribution to language achievement. The results showed
that the psychological attributes facilitating self-regulation in L2 learning (i.e. Ideal L2
Self, self-efficacy, and enjoyment) were important in explaining levels of the two L2 grit
components, and both of these components were related to higher achievement in ESL
classes through motivated learning behavior. Based on these results, we proposed the
possibility that the three attributes contribute to higher levels of L2 grit, subsequently
enhancing classroom L2 learning by intensifying learning efforts. Our results also sug-
gested that L2 grit may promote different types of self-regulatory behaviors depending
on learners’ status (i.e. learning experience and proficiency levels) and learning situa-
tions (e.g. learning contents and goals). Meanwhile, the cross-sectional design of this
study limited the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships among variables stud-
ied. Hence, future research should adopt a longitudinal design to examine how SRL (1)
influences levels of L2 grit and (2) mediates the grit–achievement relationship, consider-
ing learners’ status and learning settings.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Dr Natalie-Anne Hall for English language editing. Note that this work was
supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (number 24K04118 and 24K04144).
Author contributions
Hitoshi Mikami collected the data and wrote the first draft. Both authors contributed to the design
and analysis of the data, and revised the drafts.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science (24K04118 and 24K04144).
Ethics approval
Ethical approval was granted by the university where the first and second authors were affiliated.
Consent to participate
All participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
ORCID iD
Hitoshi Mikami https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1311-8991
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated for this study will be made available by the first author upon reasonable
request.
Mikami and Shiozawa 23
References
Alamer, A. (2021). Grit and language learning: Construct validation of L2-grit scale and its rela-
tion to later vocabulary knowledge. Educational Psychology, 41, 544–562.
Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754.
Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2019). Motivation and self-regulated strategy use: Relationships to primary
school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Language Teaching Research, 25, 378–399.
Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2020). The role of growth mindset, self-efficacy and intrinsic value in
self-regulated learning and English language learning achievements. Language Teaching
Research, 27, 207–228.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (2000). On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple
testing with independent statistics. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 25, 60–83.
Bleidorn, W., Hill, P.L., Back, M.D., et al. (2019). The policy relevance of personality traits.
American Psychologist, 74, 1056–1067.
Botes, E., Dewaele, J., & Greiff, S. (2021). The development and validation of the short form of
the foreign language enjoyment scale. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 858–876.
Brown, A.V., Plonsky, L., & Teimouri, Y. (2018). The use of course grades as metrics in L2
research: A systematic review. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 763–778.
Chen, J. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learn-
ing achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic study. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13, 1021101.
Chen, J., Zhang, L.J., & Chen, X. (2022). L2 learners’ self-regulated learning strategies and self-
efficacy for writing achievement: A latent profile analysis. Language Teaching Research.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221134967
Credé, M., Tynan, M.C., & Harms, P.D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of
the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 492–511.
de Dios Martínez Agudo, J. (2018). Emotions in second language teaching: Theory, research, and
teacher education. Springer.
Demir, Y. (2024). L2 grit: A structured approach to preliminary biblio-systematic review. System,
123, 103353.
Dent, A.L., & Koenka, A.C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic
achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 28, 425–474.
Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among stu-
dents: A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level.
Metacognition and Learning, 3, 231–264.
Donker, A.S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C.C., & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2014).
Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis.
Educational Research Review, 11, 1–26.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
Elahi Shirvan, M., Taherian, T., Shahnama, M., & Yazdanmehr, E. (2021). A longitudinal study
of foreign language enjoyment and L2 grit: A latent growth curve modeling. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 720326.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 175–191.
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Hennecke, M., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J.J.A., & Wood, D. (2014). A three-part framework for
self-regulated personality development across adulthood. European Journal of Personality,
28, 289–299.
Khajavy, G.H., MacIntyre, P.D., & Hariri, J. (2021). A closer look at grit and language mindset
as predictors of foreign language achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43,
379–402.
Kursa, M.B., & Rudnicki, W.R. (2010). Feature selection with the Boruta package. Journal of
Statistical Software, 36, 1–13.
Lam, K.K.L., & Zhou, M. (2022). Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross-cultural
meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114, 597–621.
Li, R. (2022). Foreign language reading anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Reading and
Writing, 35, 995–1018.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2017). Measuring language mindsets and modeling their relations with
goal orientations and emotional and behavioral responses in failure situations. The Modern
Language Journal, 101, 214–243.
Macintyre, P.D. (2017). An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development.
In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele (Eds.), New insights into language anxiety:
Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 11–30). Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P.D., & Vincze, L. (2017). Positive and negative emotions underlie motivation for L2
learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 61–88.
Malkewitz, C.P., Schwall, P., Meesters, C., & Hardt, J. (2023). Estimating reliability: A com-
parison of Cronbach’s α, McDonald’s ωt and the greatest lower bound. Social Sciences and
Humanities Open, 7, 100368.
Mikami, H. (2024). Revalidation of the L2-grit scale: A conceptual replication of Teimouri, Y.,
Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (2022). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-language
learning. Language Teaching, 57, 274–289.
Mizumoto, A. (2023). Calculating the relative importance of multiple regression predictor vari-
ables using dominance analysis and random forests. Language Learning, 73, 161–196.
Pan, C., & Zhang, X. (2023). A longitudinal study of foreign language anxiety and enjoyment.
Language Teaching Research, 27, 1552–1575.
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for
research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 422.
Papi, M., Bondarenko, A.V., Mansouri, S., Feng, L., & Jiang, C. (2019). Rethinking L2 motiva-
tion research: The 2 × 2 model of l2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
41, 337–361.
Papi, M., & Khajavy, G.H. (2021). Motivational mechanisms underlying second language achieve-
ment: A regulatory focus perspective. Language Learning, 71, 537–572.
Paradowski, M.B., & Jelińska, M. (2023). The predictors of L2 grit and their complex interactions
in online foreign language learning: Motivation, self-directed learning, autonomy, curiosity,
and language mindsets. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2023.2192762
Pawlak, M., Csizér, K., Kruk, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2022). Investigating grit in second language
learning: The role of individual difference factors and background variables. Language
Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221105775
Pawlak, M., Zarrinabadi, N., & Kruk, M. (2022). Positive and negative emotions, L2 grit and
perceived competence as predictors of L2 motivated behaviour. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.
2022.2091579
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A manual for the use of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to
Mikami and Shiozawa 25
Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI. Available at: https://eric.
ed.gov/?id=ED338122 (accessed September 2024).
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research.
Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
Rose, H., Curle, S., Aizawa, I., & Thompson, G. (2020). What drives success in English medium
taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills, and motivation.
Studies in Higher Education, 45, 2149–2161.
Sadoughi, M., & Hejazi, S.Y. (2023). Teacher support, growth language mindset, and academic
engagement: The mediating role of L2 grit. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 77, 101251.
Saito, K., Dewaele, J.-M., Abe, M., & In’nami, Y. (2018). Motivation, emotion, learning experi-
ence, and second language comprehensibility development in classroom settings: A cross-
sectional and longitudinal study. Language Learning, 68, 709–743.
Sardegna, V.G., Lee, J., & Kusey, C. (2018). Self-efficacy, attitudes, and choice of strategies for
English pronunciation learning. Language Learning, 68, 83–114.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experiences on Japanese EFL stu-
dents’ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal study. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 81–105.
Shen, B., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., & Yu, X. (2023). Relationships between Chinese university
EFL learners’ academic emotions and self-regulated learning strategies: A structural equa-
tion model. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.
1177/13621688221144832
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training
and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin,
137, 421–442.
Solhi, M., Derakhshan, A., & Ünsal, B. (2023). Associations between EFL students’ L2 grit, bore-
dom coping strategies, and emotion regulation strategies: A structural equation modeling
approach. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publica-
tion. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2175834
Sudina, E., Brown, J., Datzman, B., et al. (2021). Language-specific grit: Exploring psychomet-
ric properties, predictive validity, and differences across contexts. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 15, 334–351.
Sudina, E., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Academic perseverance in foreign language learning: An
investigation of language-specific grit and its conceptual correlates. The Modern Language
Journal, 105, 829–857.
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 39, 681–709.
Teimouri, Y., Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (2022). L2 grit: Passion and perseverance for second-
language learning. Language Teaching Research, 26, 893–918.
Teimouri, Y., Tabandeh, F., & Tahmouresi, S. (2022). The hare and the tortoise: The race on the
course of L2 learning. The Modern Language Journal, 106, 764–783.
Wang, C., & Bai, B. (2017). Validating the instruments to measure ESL/EFL learners’ self-effi-
cacy beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 931–947.
Wang, Y., Shen, B., & Yu, X. (2021). A latent profile analysis of EFL learners’ self-efficacy:
Associations with academic emotions and language proficiency. System, 103, 102633.
Wei, R., Liu, H., & Wang, S. (2020). Exploring L2 grit in the Chinese EFL context. System, 93,
102295.
Wei, Y., & Low, A. (2017). Monitoring score change patterns to support TOEIC® listening and
reading test quality. ETS Research Report Series, 2017, 1–20.
Wilby, J. (2020). Motivation, self-regulation, and writing achievement on a university foundation
programme: A programme evaluation study. Language Teaching Research, 26, 1010–1033.
26 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Xiao, Y., & Yang, M. (2019). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: How forma-
tive assessment supports students’ self-regulation in English language learning. System, 81,
39–49.
Xu, Z., Gao, F., Fa, A., Qu, W., & Zhang, Z. (2024). Statistical power analysis and sample size
planning for moderated mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 56, 6130–6149.
Yang, L. (Francoise), Zhang, L.J., & Dixon, H.R. (2023). Understanding the impact of teacher feed-
back on EFL students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 60, 101015.
Yousefi, M., & Mahmoodi, M.H. (2022). The L2 motivational self-system: A meta-analysis
approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 274–294.
Yuksel, D., Soruç, A., Horzum, B., & McKinley, J. (2023). Examining the role of English lan-
guage proficiency, language learning anxiety, and self-regulation skills in EMI students’ aca-
demic success. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13, 399–426.
Zhang, J., & Zhang, L.J. (2023). Examining the relationship between English as a foreign language
learners’ cognitive abilities and L2 grit in predicting their writing performance. Learning and
Instruction, 88, 101808.
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2024). Self-regulated second language learning: A review of types and
benefits of strategies, modes of teacher support, and pedagogical implications. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 37, 720–765.
Zhang, X., Zhang, S., & Xu, H. (2023). Evaluating the dimensionality of L2 grit: A confirmatory
bifactor model. System, 119, 103144.
Zhao, P., Zhu, X., Yao, Y., & Liao, X. (2023). Ideal L2 self, enjoyment, and strategy use in L2
integrated writing: A self-regulatory learning perspective. System, 115, 103033.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 3–17.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39).
Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career
path. Educational Psychologist, 48, 135–147.
