SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Language Teaching and Educational Research / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Goal Orientations and Engagement in Chinese University EFL Learning: Evidence from SEM and LPA

Xiaoyun He(Hunan Normal University)0009-0001-8387-4525
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-05
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The SEM results showed that all four goal orientations were positively associated with the three engagement dimensions, although the larger coefficients for avoidance goals should be interpreted descriptively rather than as evidence of statistically stronger effects.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sustaining engagement is a central challenge in university EFL learning, especially in contexts where English study is closely tied to assessment, peer comparison, and career opportunities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It asked two main questions: how mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals were related to vigor, dedication, and absorption; and how different combinations of these goals were linked to engagement outcomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The SEM results showed that all four goal orientations were positively associated with the three engagement dimensions, although the larger coefficients for avoidance goals should be interpreted descriptively rather than as evidence of statistically stronger effects.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:goal orientations · EFL student engagement · structural equation modeling

Abstract

Sustaining engagement is a central challenge in university EFL learning, especially in contexts where English study is closely tied to assessment, peer comparison, and career opportunities. Drawing on achievement goal theory, this study examined how four second-language achievement goal orientations were associated with Chinese university students' EFL engagement. It asked two main questions: how mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals were related to vigor, dedication, and absorption; and how different combinations of these goals were linked to engagement outcomes. Questionnaire data were collected from 589 English-major university students in China. Structural equation modeling was used to examine variable-level associations, while latent profile analysis was used to identify goal profiles. BCH analysis was then conducted to compare engagement across profiles. The SEM results showed that all four goal orientations were positively associated with the three engagement dimensions, although the larger coefficients for avoidance goals should be interpreted descriptively rather than as evidence of statistically stronger effects. The LPA results supported a five-profile solution:Low-All, Mastery/Avoidance-Oriented, Performance/Avoidance-Oriented, High-All, and Approach-Oriented. BCH comparisons showed that the Low-All Goal Profile reported the weakest engagement, whereas the High-All Goal Profile and the Performance/Avoidance-Oriented Goal Profile reported relatively high engagement. These findings suggest that EFL engagement is shaped not only by separate goal orientations but also by students' broader motivational patterns. Pedagogically, the study points to the need for differentiated support: students with weak goal endorsement may need clearer short-term goals, while highly engaged students with strong performance or avoidance concerns may need both challenge and pressure control.

🔖

Cite This Article

He, X. (2026). Goal Orientations and Engagement in Chinese University EFL Learning: Evidence from SEM and LPA. Language Teaching and Educational Research, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.1996510

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 84*(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
  2. Anderman, E. M., & Patrick, H. (2012). Achievement goal theory, conceptualization of ability/intelligence, and classroom climate. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), *Handbook of research on student engagement* (pp. 173–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_8
  3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21*(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
  4. Aubrey, S., & Philpott, A. (2023). Second language task engagement in face-to-face and synchronous video-based computer-mediated communication modes: Performances and perceptions. *System, 115*, Article 103069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103069
  5. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80*(5), 706–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706
  6. Carmona-Halty, M. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2019). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-9S): Factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance in a Chilean sample of undergraduate university students. *Frontiers in Psychology, 10*, Article 1017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01017
  7. Chang, Y.-F. (2021). Two-dimensional cognitive test anxieties and their relationships with achievement goals, cognitive resources, motivational engagement, and academic performance. *Learning and Individual Differences, 92*, Article 102084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102084
  8. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. *Psychological Review, 95*(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
  9. Elliot, A. J., & Hulleman, C. S. (2017). Achievement goals. In A. J. Elliot, C. S. Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), *Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application* (2nd ed., pp. 43–60). Guilford Press.
  10. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80*(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
  11. Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 100*(3), 613–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
  12. Feng, E., & Li, C. (2024). Examining the role of achievement goals in L2 learning: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. *System, 125*, Article 103438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103438
  13. Feng, E., Wang, Y., & King, R. B. (2023). Achievement goals, emotions and willingness to communicate in EFL learning: Combining variable- and person-centered approaches. *Language Teaching Research*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221146887
  14. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), *Handbook of research on student engagement* (pp. 763–782). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37
  15. 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*(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
  16. Guan, Y., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Zhu, S., & Yao, Y. (2024). Investigating the relationships between language mindsets, attributions, and learning engagement of L2 writers. *System, 125*, Article 103431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103431
  17. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. *American Psychologist, 52*(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
  18. Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. *Organizational Research Methods, 21*(4), 846–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744021
  19. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6*(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  20. Ji, H., Park, S., & Shin, H. W. (2022). Investigating the link between engagement, readiness, and satisfaction in a synchronous online second language learning environment. *System, 105*, Article 102720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102720
  21. Kline, R. B. (2016). *Principles and practice of structural equation modeling* (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  22. Liu, H., Yao, M., & Li, J. (2020). Chinese adolescents’ achievement goal profiles and their relation to academic burnout, learning engagement, and test anxiety. *Learning and Individual Differences, 83–84*, Article 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101945
  23. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. *Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14*(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
  24. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. *Journal of Management, 12*(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
  25. Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. *Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33*(5), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003
  26. Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. *Anales de Psicología, 33*(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
  27. Wang, C., Shim, S. S., & Wolters, C. A. (2017). Achievement goals, motivational self-talk, and academic engagement among Chinese students. *Asia Pacific Education Review, 18*(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-017-9495-4
  28. Wang, J., Bai, B., & Nie, Y. (2023). Examining the role of perceived classroom goal structures and parents’ goals in ESL/EFL learners’ achievement goals, engagement and achievement. *Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67*(5), 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2070928
  29. Xu, J., Li, J., & Yang, J. (2024). Self-regulated learning strategies, self-efficacy, and learning engagement of EFL students in smart classrooms: A structural equation modeling analysis. *System, 125*, Article 103451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103451
  30. Yang, G., & Liu, J. (2025). Unpacking the relationship between achievement goals, grit and engagement among Chinese university students: Variable- and person-centered approaches. *System, 133*, Article 103766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103766
  31. Zhong, S., & Zhan, S. (2024). Classroom environment and engagement in the EFL writing context: The mediating role of goal orientations. *Language Teaching Research*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241277016