Introduction

There is widespread consensus among applied linguistics researchers and scholars about the crucial importance of student engagement for meaningful learning (Hiver et al., 2021a, 2021b), enhancement of learning efficiency, and successful learning of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Dörnyei, 2019; Mercer, 2019). Learner engagement in classroom activities and learning processes is a very desirable outcome since “when students are optimally engaged in their studies, they are on task, thinking, and enjoying the learning process” (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2017, p. 152). There is a growing body of studies emphasizing the important role of engagement as a valuable outcome which is associated with other important educational factors such as school completion rate (Archambault et al., 2019) and academic achievement (Lei et al., 2018). Hence, it is vital to examine factors which can affect and promote learners’ engagement in learning key subject matters such as mathematics, science, and foreign languages.

Engagement, as an important research topic in the theoretical and empirical literature of educational psychology (Fredricks, 2015), has drawn significant attention in different domains including mathematics (e.g., Alrajeh & Shindel, 2020; Wang et al., 2020) and science (Salmela-Aro et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2018). Over the past few years, an increasing number of studies have addressed engagement in foreign/second language (L2) learning (Hiver et al., 2021a, 2021b; Oga-Baldwin, 2019). A review of past studies on L2 engagement indicates that most studies have focused on certain areas such as task-level engagement (e.g., Aubrey et al., 2020; ChengChiang Chen & Kent, 2020; Mohamadi, 2017; Svalberg & Askham, 2020), linguistic engagement (e.g., Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, 2018; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2017; Svalberg, 2017), interactions among learners while performing tasks (e.g., Edstrom, 2015; Phung, 2017), engagement with feedback (Fan, & Xu, 2020; Koltovskaia, 2020), and engagement relating to different language skills such as writing (e.g., Yu et al., 2020), speaking (Bagheri & Zenouzagh, 2021), and reading (Yulia et al., 2020). To the best of our knowledge, apart from few recent studies (e.g., Eren and Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, 2020; Wang et al., 2021), psychological dimensions of engagement in L2 research have received scanty attention. In addition, a relatively few number of studies have explored the predictors of engagement in L2 learning (e.g., Khajavy, 2021; Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021).

Therefore, given the essential role of engagement highlighted in dominant L2 learning paradigms (e.g., communicative) and major L2 learning theories (e.g., complexity/dynamic systems theory) (Philp & Duchesne, 2016), its domain specificity (Sinatra et al., 2015), and the negligible attention paid to its psychological aspects in L2 research, the present study aims to examine the predictors of engagement in EFL learning. Since student engagement is dependent on a large number of situational and individual factors (Reinders & Nakamura, 2022), the current study examines learner internal as well as learner external factors which could contribute to a better understanding of EFL learners’ engagement.

Given the recent growing research on L2 engagement and the importance of motivation for L2 learning, this study investigates the role of teacher support, as a key learner external factor, in promoting learners’ engagement by taking into account the possible mediating roles of learners’ learning experience and motivated learning behaviour. More specifically, this study is an attempt to shed light on whether learning experience and motivated learning behaviour (individual factors) can play a mediating role in the relationship between teacher support and engagement, which could contribute to the L2 engagement literature by enhancing our understanding about how teacher support can promote leaners’ engagement.

Literature Review

Engagement or the “active, goal directed, flexible, constructive, persistent, and focused interactions with the social and physical environments” (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 149) is a multi-dimensional construct with four main aspects: agentic, behavioural, cognitive, and emotional (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). The agentic dimension concerns learners’ active and “constructive contribution into the flow of the instruction they receive” (Reeve & Tseng, 2011, p. 258) by intentionally personalizing instructional materials via stating their preferences, asking for clarification, and making suggestions. Behavioural engagement, as the most noticeable aspect of engagement, is related to body language, class participation, and attention to instructional tasks (Oga-Baldwin, 2019). The cognitive dimension concerns “how students actively think about the learning material by puzzling out meanings, making connections, solving problems, committing concepts to memory, and answering questions” (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2017, p. 152). Finally, emotional engagement is related to students’ negative and positive emotional reactions such as boredom and enjoyment to learning tasks and materials (Skinner et al., 2008). The four aspects of academic engagement are inter-related and can substantially contribute to and predict learners’ L2 achievement (Oga-Baldwin, 2019) and intention to continue studying English (Zhang et al., 2020a).

Student engagement in the process of mastering a foreign language not only is highly desirable but also could be considered even more important than other subject areas such as science and mathematics since EFL learners should invest a considerable amount of sustained effort, time, and attention in practicing the learning materials to guarantee the automatization of language skills (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). A recent study by Dincer et al. (2019) showed that engagement could predict achievement and absenteeism in EFL courses. Furthermore, considering the utmost importance of meaningful learning as recommended in task-based and communicative language teaching approaches (Dörnyei, 2019), it is essential to carefully examine learner engagement in foreign language education as well as the factors which could contribute to its enhancement.

Given the fact that language learners are “active self-reflective agents of interaction with their social context” (Taylor, 2013, p. 34), teachers could play a highly important role in providing them with valuable social support. Teachers have numerous interactions with EFL learners and can offer them different types of support in the language learning process. Past research in education has demonstrated that teacher support could promote students’ self-regulation (McEown & Sugita-McEown, 2019), motivation (Skaalvik et al., 2015), self-confidence (Ucar & Sungur, 2017), self-efficacy (Li et al., 2020), positive achievement emotions (Lei et al., 2018), and academic achievement (Sakiz et al., 2012).

The crucial importance of teacher support in L2 learning has been highlighted by Piechurska-Kuciel (2011) who maintains that successful and effective learning of a foreign language could be ‘difficult, if not impossible’ without teachers’ generous and active support of learners. However, teacher support has not received due attention in L2 empirical and theoretical literature (Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021). The scanty research in this field indicates that teacher support can enhance EFL learners’ willingness to communicate (Aomr et al., 2020; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2015), motivation (Chen, 2016; Fryer & Bovee, 2016), positive emotions (Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021), and cooperative learning (Ghaith, 2002). Furthermore, the results of a study by Jin et al., (2017) showed that teacher support can promote student cohesiveness and reduce foreign language anxiety.

Based on self-determination theory, contextual factors which help fulfil learners’ basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) can considerably foster internalization and integration of behavioural regulations, which may result in increased creativity, learning, and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Teachers, as an essential factor in learning situations, play a key role in building a motivating, supportive, secure, and friendly environment to enhance students’ foreign language achievement. More specifically, teachers can establish positive rapport with learners to maximize their self-motivation for as well as persistence and engagement in learning activities (Reeve, 2012) and provide them with considerable support so as to improve their concentration on learning tasks (Boulton et al., 2012). In doing so, they can provide their students with various kinds of support such as appraisal, emotional, and instrumental. Appraisal support refers to teachers’ comments, criticism, and evaluative feedbacks as well as recommendations and suggestions on learners’ performance (Malecki & Demaray, 2003). Emotional support is related to teachers’ care, friendliness, respect, and personal support (Patrick et al., 2007). Finally, instrumental support concerns teachers’ tangible support related to time, services, and skills (Tennant et al., 2015).

Past studies have indicated that teacher support could improve learner engagement. However, teacher support, as an external factor, can affect other internal factors, which might consequently enhance engagement (Helgeson & Lopez, 2010). Hence, it would be crucial to investigate the possible underlying mechanism(s) via which teacher support can promote learner engagement. A careful review of previous L2 research indicates that such possible mechanisms have not received sufficient attention. Given the fact that teachers are an essential aspect of learning experience in L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) (Dörnyei, 2019), they can motivate students to exert more effort and become more engaged in their learning. Therefore, it seems that L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour could possibly play a mediating role in the relationship between teacher support and engagement.

L2 learning experience, as an essential component of L2MSS which has been recently applied in research conducted in a wide range of contexts (Mahmoodi & Yousefi, 2021), concerns situated motives and experience in the immediate learning situation including teacher, teaching methodology, syllabus, curriculum, peer/learner group dynamics, instructional materials, classroom setting, and experience of success (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2010). The contribution of L2 learning experience to motivation has been confirmed and supported by increasing research (e.g., Al-Hoorie, 2018; Csizér & Kálmán, 2019; De Bot et al., 2007; MacIntyre & Serroul, 2015; Ushioda, 2009). For example, studies by Lamb (2012) and Teimouri (2017) showed that it was the strongest predictor of motivation in the L2MSS. In addition, the results of a study by Olsen (2017) indicated that L2 learning experience was associated with enjoyment and played a more important role, in comparison to the other aspects of L2MSS, in preventing student attrition. In another study by Papi (2010), L2 learning experience mediated the relationship between future self-guides and L2 motivated learning behaviour.

L2 learning experience has attracted less research attention vis-à-vis the other aspects of L2MSS (i.e., ought-to and ideal L2 selves) (Csizér, 2019; Csizér & Kálmán, 2019; Wen & Piao, 2020). Past studies have mostly investigated the effects of L2MSS components on each other (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Papi & Teimouri, 2012) as well as other variables such as L2 motivated learning behaviour (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Moskovsky et al., 2016; Taguchi et al., 2009), self-regulation (Iwaniec, 2014), and willingness to communicate (Munezane, 2013) while paying scanty attention to the role of L2 learning experience in engagement as a key educational outcome in L2 learning. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the effect of L2 learning experience on academic engagement and consider its possible mediating role in the association between teacher support and academic engagement.

Another important factor which can affect learner engagement in EFL learning is L2 motivated learning behaviour, which is defined as the amount of effort students are willing to expend in learning (Dörnyei, 2005). In fact, learning an L2 is a dynamic and gradual process which requires learners’ considerable effort and persistence in their task behaviour (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2010). Previous research has confirmed the significance of L2 motivated learning behaviour as an important predictor of foreign language achievement (Dörnyei, 2005). It has been extensively used as a criterion measure in a growing body of research on L2 motivation in various contexts (e.g., Arslan & Çiftçi, 2021; Khany & Amiri, 2018; Sato, 2021). Several studies have shown that it is significantly associated with L2 learning experience, as well as other components of LSMSS, in different countries (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Huang, 2019; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009; Yetkin & Ekin, 2018).

The review of literature indicates that there is a research gap relating to the predictors of psychological aspects of engagement in L2 research (Sadoughi & Hejazi, 2021) and the underlying causal effect of different motives in L2 learning experience (Al-Hoorie, 2018; Hiver et al., 2019). The present study is motivated by Csizér’s (2019) and Csizér and Kálmán’s (2019) suggestions for further research exploring the effect of different components of L2MSS, particularly L2 learning experience, on the L2 learning process as well as important learning variables. More specifically, the current study aims to investigate the serial mediating roles of L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour in the association between teacher support and engagement as two key factors in foreign language learning. The following hypotheses were formulated in this study:

  • H1: Teacher support can positively predict academic engagement.

  • H2: Teacher support can affect academic engagement through L2 learning experience.

  • H3: Teacher support can affect academic engagement through L2 motivated learning behaviour.

  • H4: Teacher support can affect academic engagement through the serial mediating roles of L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The data were gathered as part of a larger research project on engagement. The participants were 384 Iranian EFL learners (50.5% males & 49.5% females; mean age = 22.05 years) who were selected through multi-stage cluster sampling from eight language institutes in Kashan (a major city in Isfahan province, Iran) in summer 2021. First, 8 private language institutes were chosen. Subsequently, 6 classes from each institute and 7–10 students from each class were chosen randomly. The students were all Persian native speakers and their English proficiency level was intermediate based on the results of Oxford Placement Test (OPT) run by their institutes. The ethical considerations were taken into account by obtaining learners’ informed consent and assuring them about confidentiality and anonymity of the collected data. Incomplete questionnaires as well as lack of willingness for continuing the study and giving informed consent were the exclusion criteria. Out of the 400 questionnaires distributed among the learners, thirteen incomplete questionnaires were removed, which led to n return rate of about 96.7%. The EFL learners provided their demographic features (gender and age) and filled in four questionnaires assessing their academic engagement, perceived teacher support, L2 learning experience, and L2 motivated learning behaviour.

Measures

Academic Engagement

Academic engagement was measured by adapting Reeve and Tseng’s (2011) Academic Engagement Scale, which is a five-point Likert scale with four sub-scales: agentic (5 items; e.g., In my English class, I express my preferences and opinions.), behavioural (5 items; e.g., I work hard when we start something new in my English class), cognitive (8 items; e.g., Before I begin to study English, I think about what I want to get done.), and emotional (4 items; e.g., When we work on something in my English class, I feel interested.). This scale had good construct validity and high internal consistency coefficients (0.78-0.94) (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). In the current study, the scale had good construct validity according to confirmatory factor analysis (χ2/df = 1.76, CFI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.045, SRMR = 0.045) and high internal consistency. The Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients were 0.86, 0.89, 0.83, and 0.85 for different sub-scales, respectively.

Teacher Support

Teacher support was measured using three five-point Likert scale measures. Emotional support was assessed by four items (α = 0.84; sample item: My English teacher tries to help me when I am sad or upset.) adapted from Patrick et al. (2007). Additionally, appraisal support (4 items; α = 0.78; sample item: My English teacher tells me what I need to do to become better in English.) and instrumental support (5 items; α = 0.88; sample item: My English teacher continues teaching until the students understand.) scales were taken from Wong et al. (2018) and adapted for this study. The CFA results showed that the three-factor teacher support scale in this study had good model fit indices (χ2/df = 2.803, CFI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.069, SRMR = 0.042). Further, the α coefficients were 0.79, 0.80, and 0.89, respectively.

L2 Learning Experience

L2 learning experience scale was adopted from Papi (2010), which was originally developed based on Taguchi et al. (2009). This instrument has six five-point Likert-scale items (e.g., Do you think time passes faster while studying English?). Papi (2010) reported α coefficient of 0.85 for this scale. In the present study, the scale had construct validity (χ2/df = 2.562, CFI = 0.987, RMSEA = 0.064, SRMR = 0.025) and high reliability (α = 0.87).

L2 Motivated Learning Behaviour

L2 motivated learning behaviour scale was adopted from Papi (2010), which was originally designed based on Taguchi et al. (2009). This scale has six five-point Likert-scale items (e.g., I would like to spend lots of time studying English.). Papi (2010) reported α coefficient of 0.80 for this scale. In the current study, the scale had construct validity (χ2/df = 2.913, CFI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.071, SRMR = 0.029) and high reliability (α = 0.86).

Data Analysis

The data analyses were conducted by SPSS (Version 22) and Amos (Version 26) using Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE). Missing data, outliers, and normality were examined. There was an approximately low rate of missing data ranging from 0.3 to 2.1% for behavioural engagement. The results of Little’s test demonstrated that the data were missing completely at random (MCAR) (chi-Square = 2384.02, df = 2325, sig. = 0.193). The missing data were assessed using Expectation Maximization (EM), which is an iterative algorithm for restoring the complete data matrix through maximum likelihood estimation (Little & Rubin, 2019).

Z-standardized values and scatter plots were checked to examine univariate outliers. The Z-standardized values must be in the range of -3 and + 3. In the present study, three cases were excluded because they were not within this range. Skewness and kurtosis values between -2 and + 2 show no substantial departure from normality (Kunnan, 1998). Based on skewness and kurtosis values presented in Table 1, the assumption of univariate normality was not violated. Moreover, Mahalanobis distances were computed to examine multivariate outliers (Meyers et al., 2016), which resulted in removing no cases below the critical chi-square with a stringent α level of 0.001. Furthermore, four separate CFAs were performed to assess the construct validity of the scales, which showed that each instrument had adequate model fit (See Measures). Further, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used for checking the serial mediating role of L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour in the association between perceived teacher support and academic engagement.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables
Full size table

Results

Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations for variables are: academic engagement (79.13 ± 10.29 for males & 78.87 ± 10.41 for females), perceived teacher support (47.98 ± 7.31 for males & 47.76 ± 7.28 for females), L2 learning experience (18.62 ± 4.12 for males & 18.65 ± 3.87 for females), and L2 motivated learning behaviour (19.48 ± 4.36 for males & 19.37 ± 4.15 for females). The independent samples t tests indicated no statistically significant differences between females and males in academic engagement (t = 0.238, p = 0.812), perceived teacher support (t = 0.295, p = 0.768), L2 learning experience (t = -0.075, p = 0.940), and L2 motivated learning behaviour (t = 0.238, p = 0.812). Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, kurtosis, skewedness, as well as the Pearson correlation coefficients among the variables.

Table 1 shows that all components of academic engagement have significant positive correlations with L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour as well as all components of perceived teacher support. SEM was performed for investigating the serial mediating roles of L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour in the association between perceived teacher support and academic engagement. Furthermore, bootstrapping resampling with 500 times iterations, as a powerful technique for examining indirect effects (Hayes, 2009), was used for estimating sampling distribution. The model fit of the structural equation study was evaluated using several goodness of fit indices, which showed that the adequate fit of the suggested model (χ2/df = 2.320, GFI = 0.971, AGFI = 0.944, CFI = 0.951, NFI = 0.902, IFI = 0.952, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.043). Figure 1 presents the standardized parameter estimates for perceived teacher support, L2 learning experience, L2 motivated learning behaviour, and academic engagement model.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Structural model of teacher support, L2 learning experience, L2 motivated learning behaviour, and academic engagement

Full size image

The significance levels of the indirect effect for the hypothesized model were examined by bootstrap procedure. According to Table 2, academic engagement was positively and directly predicted by perceived teacher support (β = 0.243), L2 learning experience (β = 0.501), and L2 motivated learning behaviour (β = 0.406). In addition, perceived teacher support significantly and positively predicted L2 learning experience (β = 0.356), and L2 learning experience significantly and positively predicted L2 motivated learning behaviour (β = 0.378). Furthermore, academic engagement was indirectly predicted by perceived teacher support once through L2 learning experience (β = 0.178) and once through L2 motivated learning behaviour (β = 0.085). Further, the indirect effect of perceived teacher support on academic engagement through L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour was significant (β = 0.135) in a sequential manner. As shown by 95% confidence intervals in which zero does not fall between lower and upper bounds (Table 2), direct and indirect effects of perceived teacher support on academic engagement, and particularly the chain of perceived teacher support, L2 learning experience, L2 motivated learning behaviour, and academic engagement, are significant.

Table 2 Direct and indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals for the structural model
Full size table

Discussion

The current study investigated the association between perceived teacher support and academic engagement as well as the serial mediating roles of L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour. The results demonstrated that perceived teacher support positively and directly predicted academic engagement, which is in agreement with the results of previous research (e.g., Ansong et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Tas et al., 2019). As Oga-Baldwin maintains (2019), engagement is considered as “the doorway that teachers open for students; by taking action and stepping through, students may enter into new linguistic worlds” (p. 8). Following the main tenets of communicative language teaching approaches, teachers can promote participation of learners in various class activities by providing them with substantial support to actively practice and use L2 in classes (Mercer, 2019). For example, they can offer learners constructive feedback serving motivational and instructional purposes (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020), which can encourage them to exert more effort and become more engaged in the learning process.

As argued in planned behaviour theory in social psychology (Ajzen, 1988), teachers can support learners to gain and strengthen their control and ownership of their learning process. When learners feel control over their learning and develop desirable emotions, they would be more willing to devote efforts to learning and become engaged in classroom activities. Furthermore, teachers can help learners become more proactive and self-regulated by constructing a supportive and positive classroom atmosphere and emotionally supporting them so that they can feel more control and responsibility over their learning and, consequently, have higher levels of agentic and emotional engagement.

Additionally, teachers’ role in learner engagement could be discussed with respect to self-determination theory. More specifically, teachers play a determining role in fulfilling learners’ three basic psychological needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Accordingly, it is essential that teachers foster positive classroom and group dynamics and culture by establishing and maintaining a motivating and positive classroom atmosphere as well as building friendly rapport with students to increase their motivation and concentration on instructional activities (Reeve, 2012), which can help promote learner engagement (Skinner et al., 2008). In fact, when students feel their teacher’s care and support, they would develop a stronger sense of belonging to their class (Roeser et al., 1996) and become more prone to be engaged in different aspects of the foreign language learning experience (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). In addition, in response to learners’ need for competence, teacher support could be considered as a valuable scaffolding since it can enhance learners’ self-confidence (Ucar & Sungur, 2017), positive emotions (Lei et al., 2018), and creative thinking (Zhang et al., 2020b). When learners receive sufficient support from their teachers, they would be more motivated (Chen, 2016) and willing to cooperate in learning activities (Ghaith, 2002), and their negative emotions such as anxiety would be decreased (Jin et al., 2017), which can enhance their concentration on learning activities (Boulton et al., 2012). Finally, to satisfy learners’ autonomy need, teachers can act as a facilitator to support learners to have control and direction on their learning by “building in an element of choice where possible, sharing decision-making to include learners as democratic partners, and giving students positions of genuine responsibility” (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020, p. 82).

Furthermore, the SEM results showed that L2 learning experience and L2 motivated learning behaviour serially mediated the association between teacher support and academic engagement. Teachers can provide learners with substantial support and encouragement so as to enhance their L2 learning experience. L2 learning experience has a significant contribution to motivation since it is known as the most influential aspect of L2MSS in predicting motivation (Lamb, 2012; Teimouri, 2017), which could in tun considerably affect learners’ L2 motivated learning behaviour (Arslan, & Çiftçi, 2021; Papi, 2010; Sato, 2021). When learners are motivated and willing to exert effort in learning and classroom activities, they would be more engaged in their learning process.

Given the fact that L2 learning experience is related to several important situated motives in the immediate learning situation (e.g., teaching methodology, syllabus, peer/learner group dynamics, instructional materials, classroom setting) (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), attempts for its improvement will result in increasing learners’ enjoyment of learning and motivating them to exert considerable effort in their learning. In fact, when students feel satisfied with and enjoy the learning process and classroom atmosphere, they would become highly motivated and willing to devote the required effort to classroom and learning activities, which can consequently enhance their engagement and learning efficiency.

Teachers, as an essential element of any language learning situation and an important aspect of the L2 learning experience, play a highly important role by providing learners with substantial support, which can in turn improve other dimensions of L2 learning experience (e.g., classroom atmosphere). For example, they can incorporate learners’ favourite topics in their classes, implement effective instructional techniques, and use stimulating activities to motivate learners (Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, 2018) and enhance their learning experience. In addition, they can create “a space where learners can act and interact” (Oga-Baldwin, 2019, p. 8) by building positive rapport with students and establish a highly supportive atmosphere in which learners can develop positive attitudes towards the subject matter and gain a sense of belonging to the class (Rice et al., 2013). Under such circumstances, students would feel more encouraged, enthusiastic, motivated, and willing to devote considerable effort to their learning (Hughes & Chen, 2011; Lamb, 2012; Roorda et al., 2011) and become highly engaged in classroom and learning processes.

To sum up, teachers play a highly important role by supporting their learners to enhance their L2 learning experience. Improved L2 learning experience can make learners more motivated and willing to expend considerable and sustained effort in learning. Consequently, their engagement in learning activities and processes would be significantly increased.

Conclusions and Implications

Teachers are a crucial part of teaching and learning situations as well as an important determinant of L2 learning experience. Therefore, considering the malleability of teacher support and engagement (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) and the utmost importance of fulfilling learners’ basic psychological needs for promoting engagement and achievement in L2 learning (Alamer, 2021; Davis, 2022; Karbakhsh & Ahmadi Safa, 2020), EFL teachers could employ effective measures to support students, which can in turn help increase learners’ engagement in learning processes. For example, they can create a secure and supportive classroom setting by establishing friendly and positive rapport with students so that they can adopt and maintain positive attitudes to and enjoy learning English. In addition, teachers can promote pair and group work, employ highly engaging communicative learning activities (Zare-ee & Hejazi, 2018), and use humour (Senior, 2011) for motivating learners to enthusiastically participate in and devote substantial effort to classroom and learning processes. Additionally, teachers can supplement their support with conscious ‘scaffolding’ efforts by “breaking down tasks into more manageable sub-segments, providing structure which is gradually removed, demonstrating ways of completing tasks, offering detailed instructions and guidance, getting learners to work together in collaborative support groups” and being accessible and available whenever learners need guidance and encouragement (Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020, p. 49). Considering the recent definition of L2 learning experience as “the perceived quality of the learners’ engagement with various [emphasis added] aspects of the language learning process” (Dörnyei, 2019, p. 20), it is necessary that in-depth research be conducted to not only meticulously explore and describe different aspects of L2 learning process but also shed light on teachers’ crucial role in enhancing them.

This study has a few limitations. For example, since a cross-sectional research design was adopted and the data were gathered by self-report questionnaires, it is suggested that further research be performed by collecting data using other techniques (e.g., observation) and adopting a longitudinal design. Additionally, considering that the participants’ proficiency level was intermediate, it is recommended that further research be conducted on students with other proficiency levels (e.g., elementary and advanced). Given the domain and contextual differences relating to engagement levels (Sinatra et al., 2015), care must be exercised in generalizing the findings of the present study to other subject areas such as mathematics and science as well as other contexts such as university and high school.