Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mirosław Pawlak
Joanna Zawodniak
Mariusz Kruk
Boredom in
the Foreign
Language
Classroom
A Micro-Perspective
Second Language Learning and Teaching
Series Editor
Mirosław Pawlak, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz
University, Kalisz, Poland
The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and
teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs
and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes
underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language
learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching
process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and
evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas,
they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research
paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic
and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists,
curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate
students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt
and taught.
Mariusz Kruk
123
Mirosław Pawlak Joanna Zawodniak
Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts University of Zielona Góra
Adam Mickiewicz University Zielona Góra, Poland
Kalisz, Poland
State University of Applied Sciences
Konin, Poland
Mariusz Kruk
University of Zielona Góra
Zielona Góra, Poland
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
You’ll find boredom where there is the
absence of a good idea.
Earl Nightingale
Preface
A foreign language (L2) classroom is a unique kind of learning theater where from
the very outset students find themselves in a stressful, face-threatening situation
of the individuals whose range of L2 resources is limited and whose immature
command of a new language is subject to constant evaluation. They bring into the
classroom different beliefs, expectations and motivations which are more or less
skillfully responded to by the teacher. The extent to which students are successful,
satisfied and determined to pursue their goals depends to a great extent on a con-
stellation of individual difference (ID) factors influencing the learning process (e.g.,
Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Pawlak, 2017, 2020a). While there has been an evident
tendency in recent years to shift the emphasis to the positive aspects of L2 learning,
primarily under the influence of positive psychology (e.g., MacIntyre, Gregersen, &
Mercer, 2016; Mercer & MacIntyre, 2014), it is clear that negative emotions have
always played a crucial role in language classrooms. One of them is boredom which
has been reported to be the most pervasively experienced emotion in school settings
(Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020; Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, & Perry, 2010) and
which therefore constitutes an overarching concept that guides this volume.
Boredom is among the most neglected, insufficiently understood and underex-
plored emotions, and at the same time, it is referred to as one of the most deacti-
vating, disturbing and aversive human experiences. Although it occupies an
important place in educational psychology, in applied linguistics it is still something
of a terra incognita that necessitates and deserves systematic attention from theorists,
researchers and teachers. The main reason is that for more than several decades,
applied linguists have been preoccupied with examining other, more conspicuous ID
factors, such as motivation, anxiety, aptitude, age, or learning strategies, not real-
izing how devastating boredom can be for students’ work and achievement. This
being the case, the purpose of this volume is to approach the phenomenon of
boredom from the interconnected theoretical, empirical and pedagogical perspec-
tives intended to enhance the understanding of this complex emotion and its place in
the process of teaching and learning a foreign or second language. The book is
composed of four chapters. Chapter 1 presents the concept of boredom in the light
of theories elaborating on its definitions, causes and typologies as well as with
vii
viii Preface
Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Prof. Aleksandra
Wach (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland) whose insightful comments and sugges-
tions have helped improve the quality of the final version of the present work.
Contents
ix
x Contents
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Chapter 1
Approaching Boredom
from a Theoretical Angle
1.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to delve into the essence of boredom and specify its place in the
process of second and foreign language learning. The concept of boredom has only
recently attracted the attention of second language acquisition (SLA) researchers,
which explains why it is still an insufficiently researched and thus poorly under-
stood emotion in this particular learning context (Chapman, 2013). This also refers
to teachers whose idea of which activities are or are not boring is based on their
own beliefs, perceptions, sentiments and assumptions rather than on their students’
opinions and preferences, not to mention insights from carefully designed research
studies that are few and far between. At the same time, researchers in the domain of
educational psychology (e.g., Belton & Priyadharshini, 2007; Goetz, Frenzel, Hall,
Nett, Pekrun, & Lipnevich, 2014; Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & Lüdtke, 2007;
Pekrun et al., 2010; Tulis & Fulmer, 2013) report that boredom is the most intense
and the most commonly experienced academic emotion and that it has been on the
increase among adolescent student populations in relation to different subjects (e.g.,
social studies, math, foreign languages). For this reason, it certainly deserves closer
investigation with regard to its various dimensions, types, sources and manifestations
that may affect learning an additional language. This is because a thorough under-
standing of the complex and equivocal nature of boredom may facilitate a search for
ways of successfully dealing with it in the L2 classroom. The chapter begins with
the presentation of the definitions of boredom that are followed by a discussion of
its typologies and causes. Subsequently, the role of disengagement as part and parcel
of the experience of boredom is explained and, lastly, options that practitioners can
fall back upon to combat this aversive and disturbing emotion are considered, in
particular those that have been proposed by educational psychologists.
ways of combating this negative experience being the contemplation of art, in partic-
ular music. Yet another author who voiced his opinion on the subject of boredom is
the 19th-century Danish philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard (1992) [1843], who defined
this condition as a sense of inner emptiness resulting from a lack of meaning rather
than an absence of diversion. At the same time, he stressed the fact that despite its
sedateness and solidity, boredom can initiate and encourage action As far as the
means of preventing this negative emotion are concerned, Kierkegaard emphasized
the importance of idleness, understood as fertile solitude and readiness to perceive
life as a collection of moments to be filled with meaning rather than a sequence
of tasks to be performed. Finally, it is worth mentioning that for the 20th-century
English moral philosopher, Bernard Williams (1973), not being bored can at least in
some circumstances be the evidence of one’s inability to notice and reflect, which is,
in turn, indicative of intellectual and ethical failure (Kuhn, 1976).
Aside from philosophers, the concept of boredom has occupied the minds and
thoughts of a number of writers (e.g., Charles Baudelaire, Joseph Brodsky, George
Gordon Byron, François-René de Chateaubriand, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy,
Henrik Ibsen, August Strindberg, Thomas Stearns Eliot) who used their imagination
and literary skills to specify its place in human life (Martin et al., 2006). One of the
authors whose works offer insights into the nature of boredom is the 19th-century
French poet and essayist, Charles Baudelaire (2012) [1857]. His interpretation of this
phenomenon undergoes a kind of evolution as he proceeds from portraying it as a
monster to be struggled with to viewing it as an internal element of creativity (Healy,
1984; Spacks, 1995). Consequently, boredom is represented in his writings as an
action-provoking force making individuals look for something that could keep them
alive. It is also worthwhile to comment on the approach to boredom embraced by one
of the major 20th-century American poets, essayists, playwrights and social critics,
Thomas Stearns Eliot. He perceived it as a socio-cultural phenomenon emerging from
the tough historical experience, in this case that of World War II, which evidently
added to the meaninglessness and absurdity of human existence and contributed to
the pervasiveness of boredom. In this way, Eliot linked this condition to modernism,
portraying it as a state accompanied by uncertainty, insecurity and decay as well
as identifying it with emotional numbness, blankness and bankruptcy (Eliot, 1961,
as cited in Labang, 2010, p. 44; Kim, 2013). The phenomenon of boredom has also
featured prominently in the thoughts of the 20th-century Russian-American poet and
essayist, Joseph Brodsky (1995), who metaphorized it as the psychological Sahara
that is everyone’s window on the infinity of time, with its redundancy, monotony and
repetitiveness. To be more precise, he argued that boredom can be instrumental in
teaching the life’s most precious lesson of human insignificance, littleness and finite-
ness; such a lesson should put an individual’s life into a proper perspective increasing
his or her sense of humility and reducing any signs of self-aggrandizement. Finally,
Brodsky asserted that it is important to embrace boredom so as to better understand
its mechanisms and claimed that the most effective antidote to this negative emotion
is passion for doing things.
4 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
neither the will to participate in an activity nor the desire to escape it, boredom
directly leads to the state of being disengaged, thus triggering avoidance behaviors.
There is of course some kind of relationship between lack of interest and boredom
but it is more of a cause-and-effect nature as the former may result in the latter
(Goetz & Frenzel, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010). In sociology, the concept of boredom
is explained with reference to adolescents and young adults who find it difficult to
accept the adult system of values to which they respond with diverse manifesta-
tions of boredom. More precisely, boredom is viewed here as a component of the
individual’s persona adopted as a means of resistance to school authority reflected
in the rules and restrictions imposed by the educational system (Brumhead, Searle,
Trowbridge, & Williams, 1990; Larson & Richards, 1991).
In some of the definitions, emphasis is laid on the arousal dimension of boredom.
There is a controversy over whether boredom stems from a higher or a lower activa-
tion of peripheral physiological processes. For example, according to Fisher (1993),
Harris (2000) and Mikulas and Vodanovich (1993), boredom is a painful condi-
tion of fairly low arousal and dissatisfaction ascribed to an insufficiently stimulating
environment. By contrast, Barbalet (1999) defines boredom as a high arousal state
that contributes to feelings of restlessness and irritability, thus having nothing in
common with acceptance or resignation (see also Berlyne, 1960; Fenichel, 1934).
At the same time, Vogel-Walcutt, Fiorella, Carper and Schatz (2012) maintain that
boredom is a condition of either increased or suppressed arousal resulting from indi-
vidual learner characteristics and/or situation-specific factors. Finally, Leary, Rogers,
Canfield and Coe (1986) suggest that there exists an optimal level of arousal at which
boredom will not occur, though it may be experienced above or below this optimum
threshold. Boredom is also discussed in relation to gifted individuals and it is not yet
clear whether it is more symptomatic of low- or high-ability learners (Preckel et al.,
2010). On the one hand, this negative emotion is reported to be a defining character-
istic of low-ability and low-achieving students who stop focusing on what is going
on in anticipation of failure. However, on the other hand, it might as well pose a
threat to gifted students who do not feel sufficiently challenged or stimulated. This is
especially likely to happen when they attend classes adjusted to their average-ability
counterparts, which leads the more gifted learners to play truant and/or reduce the
amount of effort that they are prepared to invest in learning (Larson & Richards,
1991; Pekrun et al., 2010; Plucker et al., 2004).
As has been shown above, there have been systematic attempts to approach
boredom from a broader perspective, viewing it as something more than just a purely
emotional condition. In line with this reasoning, Nett et al. (2010) and Pekrun (2006)
discuss boredom as a multifaceted condition composed of affective, cognitive, phys-
iological, expressive and motivational factors. Therefore, they suggest that boredom
includes unpleasant feelings, the impression that time is slowing down, reduced
arousal, various extralinguistic and vocal manifestations of this experience, as well
as a desire to make some changes or terminate the tedious situation. This multidi-
mensionality of boredom, together with the lack of consensus on its components as
well as the controversy over its role in the learning process (Martin et al., 2006) make
6 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
it a unique and nebulous phenomenon (Daniels et al., 2015), which surely deserves
to be systematically and thoroughly investigated.
a negative, yet reversible, psychological condition that can work to students’ advan-
tage because it has the potential of motivating them to search for new goals and
alternative solutions conducive to the implementation of change (Sharp, Hemmings,
Kay, Murphy, & Elliott, 2017; Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2012).
As for trait boredom, it is equated with boredom proneness and, as such, it refers
to individuals who are extremely susceptible to experiencing this negative emotion.
To be more precise, boredom seems to be an inherent part of their personality, which
means that they exhibit a tendency to be permanently disengaged and/or disinter-
ested. Researchers further categorize this more stable type of boredom into external
boredom proneness, connected with the perception of environment as uninteresting,
and internal boredom proneness, referring to one’s difficulty in generating involving
things to do (Macklem, 2015). Students who are more prone to experiencing boredom
also have the tendency to succumb to negative rather than positive emotions. Conse-
quently, they can encounter difficulty controlling anger in everyday situations as
well as can experiencing higher levels of impulsivity and aggression than their peers
(Barnett & Klitzing, 2006; Dahlen, Martin, Ragan, & Kuhlman, 2004). On the one
hand, students exhibiting susceptibility to boredom tend to be extraverted, but, on the
other, they often act as if they were shy and can easily be hurt (Gordon, Wilkinson,
McGown, & Jovanoska, 1997). Trait boredom has been reported to correlate with
introspectiveness, loneliness, negative affect (e.g., hostility and aggression), and a
variety of dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., sleep disorder, drug abuse, eating disor-
ders, juvenile delinquency, gambling) (Anshel, 1991; Blaszczynski, McConaghy,
& Frankova, 1990; Gana, Deletang, & Metais, 2000; Gordon et al., 1997; Kass,
Wallace, & Vodanovich, 2003; Mercer-Lynn, Hunter, & Eastwood, 2013; Newberry
& Duncan, 2001; Vodanovich & Rupp, 1999). It has also been shown to be related to
school absenteeism and dropout, lower school achievement, lower grades, anxiety,
lower levels of self-actualization, reduced willingness to speak and decreased moti-
vation (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013; Daschmann, Goetz, & Stupnisky,
2011; Kass et al., 2003; LePera, 2011; McLeod & Vodanovich, 1991; Sommers &
Vodanovich, 2000; Toohey, 2011). Despite the obvious differences between state
and trait boredom, the two conditions may overlap when the external and internal
experience of this negative emotion is put together. This means that an individual
can be both generally susceptible to boredom as well as bored at a particular point in
time due to the unchallenging or unrewarding environment (Fahlman, 2009; Todman,
2003).
Boredom can also be classified with respect to its intensity. This can be seen
in the classification put forward by Goetz et al. (2014), which can be referred
to as describing multiple boredoms and pertaining to the different degrees of
un/pleasantness of this emotion. These are as follows:
8 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
Boredom can be traced back to a wide array of factors which have been discussed
by a number of models and theories discussed in the present section. They provide
a psychologically relevant explanation why some students may be withdrawn from
tasks and activities perceived by others as interesting and, as a result, they may refuse
to invest the necessary effort in trying to perform them. These theoretical positions
are explained in some detail below:
• The under-stimulation model (Larson & Richards, 1991) shows boredom as
emerging from a paucity of new stimuli that could encourage students to actively
seek new facts and investigate the world around them. In other words, if students
are taught by being told what to do and/or by memorizing rather than by being
given problems to solve in their own trial-and-error way, they are likely to switch
off, which triggers boredom.
1.5 The Antecedents of Boredom 9
• The forced-effort model (Hill & Perkins, 1985; Pekrun et al., 2010) posits that
boredom results from being compelled to invest mental energy in doing tasks
which are regarded as monotonous, repetitive and lacking in challenge. This
mainly happens when the teacher acts as a controller, according students very
few or no opportunities to take charge of their own learning.
• The attentional theory of boredom proneness (Carriere, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2008;
Cheyne, Carriere, & Smilek, 2006; Eastwood, Cavaliere, Fahlman, & Eastwood,
2007; Fisher, 1993; Harris, 2000; LePera, 2011) asserts that boredom is the conse-
quence of an individual’s difficulty in taking attentional control over the task at
hand. To be more precise, if a given task does not meet students’ interests, concerns
or expectations, they will have to generate self-sustained attention, which will give
them the impression that time is slowing down, thus contributing to the experience
of boredom. This theory clearly shows that inattention can be viewed not only as
one of the components of boredom (Fahlman, 2009) but also as its cause. Failure
to engage attentional processes may exert a negative impact on learners’ motiva-
tion as well as diminishing their persistence in task performance. For this reason,
particular importance needs to be attached to fostering self-awareness of attention
as a way of helping students overcome boredom-related problems (Damrad-Frye
& Laird, 1989; Eastwood et al., 2012).
• The control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al.,
2010; Tulis & Fulmer, 2013) proposes that students’ emotional experiences,
including boredom, are predicted by their appraisals of control that they have
over a given task and the value that they attribute to it. If no value or valance
is perceived in the completion of this task and if learners feel obliged to do it
regardless of whether they like it or not, then the most likely outcome will be the
emergence of boredom with its avoidance behaviors, passivity and reduction of
cognitive focus. It has to be stressed that a lack of perceived intrinsic value of the
task being performed, connected with its uninvolving and uninteresting nature,
is more influential for the instigation of boredom than failure to see its extrinsic
benefits.
• The emotion theory (Eastwood et al., 2007, 2012) stipulates that an important
antecedent of boredom may be an individual’s alexithymic inability to identify,
access, understand and communicate their own feelings. This emotional unaware-
ness, typical of externally oriented students, makes the learning process a stren-
uous and unrewarding experience fraught with difficulties in diagnosing one’s
problems as well as finding effective solutions.
• The Menton Theory of Boredom (Davies & Fortney, 2012) indicates that cognitive
processing necessary for task performance requires the use of mental energy units,
referred to as mentons, and that boredom can be caused not only when an indi-
vidual has a surplus of mentons but also when their number is insufficient. More
specifically, students can be bored as a result of being exposed to over-challenging
as well as under-challenging tasks, in which case boredom has a positive function
of motivating them to seek new incentives for action and therefore constructively
use the excess energy at their disposal.
10 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
• The dimensional model (Pekrun et al., 2010) focuses not only upon the deacti-
vating quality of boredom, but also upon its activating potential. More specifically,
in some circumstances, when, for example, students have been bored for too long,
their activity levels may display a rising tendency in response to their attempts
to sustain attention or combat frustration at being unable to change the situation.
In this sense, boredom can be again viewed as serving a motivating function of
helping students persist in completing the assigned task (Tulis & Fulmer, 2013).
Boredom can also be connected with a lack of meaning in learning, which entails
an inability to set one’s own goals and which is likely to result in lower levels of self-
regulation or diminished readiness to plan, monitor, control and reflect on one’s own
actions (Arsenio & Loria, 2014; Grund, Brassier, & Fries, 2014; Wolters & Taylor,
2012; Zimmerman, 1998). If school tasks are situationally meaningless, having little
or no relationship to real-life contexts, students will perceive them as boring and
undeserving of their perseverance or engagement (Eastwood et al., 2012; Yeager
et al., 2014).
low levels of anxiety and boredom (i.e., emotional engagement), learning strategy
use and self-regulation (i.e., cognitive engagement), and/or conscious attempts to
enrich one’s learning experience (i.e., agentic engagement) (Finn & Zimmer, 2012;
Mahatmya, Lohman, Matjasko, & Farb, 2012; Veiga, Reeve, Wentzel, & Robu, 2014).
In this way, “the soft skills of engagement” (Schreck, 2011, p. 4) can be associated
with meaningful learning that goes hand in hand with active participation in task
performance, which in turn is conducive to achieving success in SLA. Of all the four
aspects of engagement indicated above, the most crucial for the language classroom
is the behavioral one as it is directly connected with the actual, here-and-now real-
ization of an individual’s learning potential (Dörnyei, 2019; Oga-Baldwin, 2019). It
is also possible to distinguish two different dimensions of engagement, internal and
external. The former is the amount of time and effort expended by an individual in the
learning process, whereas the latter involves the measures taken at the institutional
level to handle its resources and organize the curriculum as well as other learning
options and support services intended to encourage participation in activities believed
to result in expected outcomes (e.g., persistence and satisfaction) (Harper & Quay,
2009; Kuh, 2009; Kuh, Klinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Although not
very firmly grounded in SLA literature, the notion of engagement was discussed a
decade ago by such scholars as Ellis (2010) in relation to corrective feedback and
Svalberg (2009) in relation to language awareness.
The reason why engagement deserves a lot of attention from teachers and
researchers is that it serves as a behavioral means of realizing students’ motivation
and as such it may directly contribute to their development (Jang, Reeve, & Deci,
2010). Participatory engagement is likely to protect their motivation from possible
distractions and make them perceive encountered obstacles as worth tackling and
overcoming. Since the nature of such engagement is concrete and straightforward,
teachers can initiate and regulate it as well as observe how well they have done
in this respect. Encouraging active involvement in the L2 classroom is an oppor-
tunity for preventing disruptive behaviors and reducing negative emotions, such as
anxiety, frustration and boredom. While engagement is a manifestation of motiva-
tion, boredom is overtly revealed by disengagement, which is why the latter condition
deserves serious consideration below.
Disengagement represents the flip side of engagement that refers to the learner’s
withdrawal from active participation in the task at hand because of the inability
to derive pleasure, interest and/or satisfaction from it (Henry & Thorsen, 2018;
Macklem, 2015). Disengagement is a condition akin to amotivation, because it
comprises a complete lack of effort, alienation from one’s desires and passions,
as well as feeling discouraged from getting involved in the learning environment,
perceived as impoverished (Skinner, Kindermann, Connell, & Wellborn, 2009).
Disengagement decreases positive emotions, increases helplessness and has a nega-
tive effect on self-esteem and self-regulated learning (Lam, Wong, Yang, & Lui, 2012;
Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993). In effect, disengaged students either resort to
avoidance behaviors or seek ways to change the frustrating situation, depending on
their individual characteristics as well as environmental factors. Once disengaged,
students feel stuck in the present, distracted and reluctant to go on doing the task at
12 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
Careful analysis of the models and theories elaborating on the antecedents of boredom
discussed in this chapter seems a good point of departure for indicating remedial
actions that can be taken by teachers and students who are determined to confront
this perplexing experience. In order to successfully address the causes of boredom
and come up with a tentative list of ideas for intervention, it is necessary to take into
account the types of proposed activities, the learning environment, individual students
together with their expectations, abilities and preferences, and the intricate interplay
between learners and their environment (Fisher, 1993). Although the ideas outlined
in this section derive for the most part from the field of educational psychology, many
of them are likely to be relevant to battling boredom in L2 teaching and learning,
which will be the focus of Chapter Two.
Daniels et al. (2015) and Nett et al. (2010) distinguish and comment on three
boredom-coping profiles classifying students as evaders, criticizers and reappraisers.
Evaders typically fall back upon avoidance strategies which help them escape partici-
pation in uninteresting or unchallenging tasks and find other things to do. Criticizers’
disapproving attitude to boredom is reflected in their attempts to reduce its level by
pinning the blame for their condition on the teacher. As regards reappraisers, they are
the most reflective group, viewing boredom as an internally determined condition
and intending to extend control over a given task by incorporating its content into
their value system, which would enable them to re-engage with the material being
covered.
Some authors (e.g., Eastwood et al., 2007, 2012; Weinerman & Kenner, 2016)
point to developing boredom awareness as one of the crucial responsibilities of a
present-day teacher who, given that this negative emotion is common to most students
in virtually all learning environments (Goetz et al., 2014; Pekrun et al., 2010), should
even arrange a class in which boredom would be openly discussed rather than treating
this unfavorable condition as a taboo topic. Training students in boredom-focused
mindfulness (Feldman & Kuyken, 2019), which would enable them to accept a
temporary lack of stimulation, and better understand their own feelings and needs, is
1.7 Ways of Coping with Boredom in Educational Settings 13
1.8 Conclusion
As has been repeatedly shown throughout this chapter, boredom remains an insuf-
ficiently understood and researched learner variable when it comes to educational
settings in general and the L2 classroom in particular. It has also been demonstrated
that, although silent and elusive, boredom is a deleterious, distressing and debilitating
emotion with serious implications for students who find the learning environment
unchallenging and unrewarding. On the one hand, boredom is one of the greatest
maladies of the modern world, while on the other, it is an essential, to some extent
inherent, part of human behavior and mentality with its brighter and darker, initiative-
and withdrawal-provoking sides. It is an emotion characterized by various degrees of
intensity, with the effect that students may experience it in more or less un/pleasant
ways. This is connected with their decision whether or not to be active and search for
possibilities of actively coping with this negative condition. The complexities of the
multidimensional phenomenon of boredom have been explained within the frame-
work of a number of models and theories shedding light on its numerous antecedents,
14 1 Approaching Boredom from a Theoretical Angle
including, among others, a paucity of novel stimuli, excessive teacher control, situ-
ational meaninglessness, attentional constraints, and the overuse or the underuse of
mental energy units. The role of many of these factors in affecting student boredom
will be presented in Chapter Two devoted to an overview of the most important studies
examining this construct in different educational environments with a particular focus
on teaching and learning additional languages.
Chapter 2
Approaching Boredom
from an Empirical Angle
2.1 Introduction
of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Murray, & Swinson,
1998). The findings demonstrated that boredom proneness can be divided into two
separate types: (1) an apathetic boredom-prone state, which characterizes individuals
who lack motivation to engage in particular tasks, and (2) an agitated boredom-prone
state, which relates to those individuals who lack satisfaction, even though they are
motivated to get involved in learning activities. Apathetic boredom proneness was
found to negatively correlate to attentional control, while agitated boredom prone-
ness was shown to be negatively associated with sensitivity to errors and positively
associated with ADHD symptoms.
prepare interesting, yet not too challenging, homework assignments that are inher-
ently linked to and that reinforce what has been done or is currently being done in
the classroom. Finally, it has to be stressed that in this study a general homework
emotions scale was used, and, therefore, it was not possible for the researchers to
report findings for discrete emotions’ variability in relation to homework quality and
achievement outcomes.
Although not primarily concerned with boredom, the studies discussed in this section
provide valuable insights into the behaviors, expectations and reactions of individ-
uals who perceive certain activities, materials or target language (TL) skills and
subsystems as not entirely involving, challenging or useful.
Peacock (1997)
The aim of Peacock’s (1997) 7-week, mixed-methods classroom-based research
project was to examine the effect of authentic materials on the motivation of L2
learners in a more situated manner. The research project involved 31 (13 females
and 18 males) beginner-level Korean university EFL students with the help of two
types of observation sheets, meant to: (1) quantify student on-task behavior, and (2)
assess general class motivation with respect to the materials used, as well as a struc-
tured self-report learner questionnaire, and post-class interviews. While the results
derived from both observation sheets revealed that the exposure to authentic materials
significantly increased the participants’ on-task behavior, the students, somewhat
surprisingly, found them to be significantly more boring than artificial materials.
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning 21
As pointed out by Peacock (1997), this implies that being more motivated does not
necessarily entail being more interested and that interest in proposed materials does
not have much in common with attention, action and perseverance in performing
specific learning activities. This may warrant an assumption that, for certain reasons,
learners may try to conceal their negative emotions such as boredom, dissatisfac-
tion or frustration, pretending to be engaged with the task at hand, a possibility that
was confirmed in one of the studies undertaken by the present authors (Kruk &
Zawodniak, 2018).
Aubrey (2017)
In his mixed-methods, quasi-experimental 2-stage, 11-week research project, Aubrey
(2017) examined the effect of intercultural contact on 63 Japanese EFL university
students’ experience of flow, defined as a state of complete involvement in some-
thing occurring when people are productive (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993),2
in the performance of five oral tasks. The students, divided into two groups, intra-
cultural and intercultural, were asked to do five tasks, after each of which they were
expected to write diaries. Using a content analysis of 208 diary entries made over a
period of five weeks, the researcher demonstrated that flow-enhancing experiences
of the students who participated in intercultural interactions significantly exceeded
those that were detected in the intracultural group members, the most important
contributors to this condition being challenge-skill balance as well as a sense of
accomplishment. Although Aubrey (2017) does not explicitly address the issue of
boredom, it has to be noted that creating conditions conducive to a state of flow
1 Since the learning contents and materials were found among major contributors to boredom in other
studies (Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Zawodniak, Kruk, & Chumas, 2017; Zawodniak & Kruk, 2018a,
2019; Peacock, 1997) and since boredom is related to decreased motivation (Preckel et al., 2010),
this issue certainly deserves further consideration, especially when it comes to boredom-coping
solutions (Pekrun et al., 2010).
2 Flow can be regarded as the flip side of boredom, which is why the findings emanating from this
study can give some directions relating to ways of preventing this negative emotion.
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning 23
in the L2 classroom will prevent student disengagement, which is one of the most
conspicuous manifestations of this aversive emotion.
Chapman (2013)
Chapman’s (2013) study, which used a combination of quantitative and qualitative
methodology and spanned the periods of four weeks, was guided by three aims:
(1) investigating the beliefs about boredom held by 57 (27 females and 30 males)
second-semester students of German as a foreign language and their three teachers,
(2) determining whether boredom is an inherent characteristic of German language
classes, and (3) identifying and examining to the causes of this academic emotion.
Quantitative research methodology drew on a number of research tools including the
Attitude Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, 1985), the Foreign Language Classroom
Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), and the 6-point Boredom Proneness
Scale (BPS) (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). Data were also collected by means of three
instruments designed by Chapman (2013), that is, the Entrance Questionnaire, the
German Class Boredom Proneness Scale, constituting in fact a modified version of
the BPS, and the Real-Time Boredom Questionnaire, with a 6-point scale for students
and an 8-point scale for teachers. In regard to the qualitative data, they were gleaned
from five interview protocols, encompassing a teacher one-on-one entrance interview
protocol, a student one-on-one interview protocol, a small-group interview protocol
for students, a large-group interview protocol for students and teachers, and a teacher
one-on-one exit interview protocol. The students came up with a variety of ideas of
what boredom feels like and looks like, referring to it, among other things, as: a desire
to be elsewhere, a lack of connection to the teacher, classmates or the material, a
lack of interest and engagement, or exasperation or frustration driven by language
learning difficulties. The majority of the student participants perceived boredom as
an inevitable part of their learning experience that has to be accepted and coped with.
To a certain extent, these ideas echoed in the teachers’ beliefs about boredom which
is, in their opinion, unavoidable as long as grammar has to be taught and as long as
some of the learners cannot wait till a language class is over. When it comes to the
factors that the students blamed for experiencing boredom, they most often involved
textbook-based activities, unengaged partners and a state of being under-challenged.
It is also noteworthy that Chapman classified the respondents’ “bored” behaviors into
24 2 Approaching Boredom from an Empirical Angle
active (e.g., searching the planner for upcoming deadlines in other classes, reading
ahead in the textbook, making weekend plans, making grocery lists) and passive
(e.g., zoning out, playing with the phone, biting fingernails).
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning 27
Kruk (2016a)
In his first study, being of quantitative nature and concentrating on 8 classes conducted
over the period of 3 weeks, Kruk (2016a) examined the fluctuating nature of boredom
as experienced by 32 second- and fourth-grade male students learning English in
senior high school and its antecedents. As regards the data-gathering tools, they were
divided into two sets, the first of which was administered to the participants prior to
the study, while the second was employed during the actual lessons under investi-
gation. As for the former, it encompassed the Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer &
Sundberg, 1986), comprised of 28 7-point Likert-scale items (1—strongly disagree,
28 2 Approaching Boredom from an Empirical Angle
7—strongly agree), and the English Classroom Boredom Proneness Scale (ECBPS),
which was a modified version of the BPS in the sense that general statements were
transformed into items specifically referring to the L2 classroom experience. Moving
on to the latter set of data-collection instruments, it included the English Classroom
Boredom Grid (ECBG), the Overall Assessment Scale (OAC), class observations,
teacher notes and lesson plans. The first of them, the ECBG, was intended to measure
the levels of boredom indicated by the students four times in the course of a lesson
on a 7-point scale, whereas the OAC, which was a modified version of the tool
applied by Peacock (1997) and Pawlak (2012), required participants to assess each
lesson with respect to seven items on a semantic differential scale (e.g., interesting vs.
boring, pleasant vs. unpleasant, monotonous vs. absorbing), which was subsequently
converted into a 7-point Likert scale. Finally, in-class observations and teacher notes
performed a descriptive function in relation to the students’ behaviors without exces-
sively interfering with the events they had been engaged in. The analysis of obtained
data revealed the respondents’ boredom as constantly being in a state of flux in some
of the classes and in a state of relative stability during others. The appearance of this
negative emotion was attributed to such factors as the topics discussed, activity types,
especially those connected with grammar, the experience of being over-challenged,
students’ individual characteristics, as well as their susceptibility to boredom in
general and in the L2 classroom in particular.
Kruk (2016b)
The next study conducted by Kruk (2016b) was a one-semester, mixed-methods
longitudinal project which aimed to examine fluctuations in the levels of boredom,
alongside such ID factors as motivation and anxiety, experienced by 16 female
English majors while visiting an online environment constituted by Second Life (SL),
and to identify the main causes of the changes observed. The data were collected
through the three-part session log filled out by the respondents before, during and
after each visit to SL. The first part was completed with the participants’ name,
session date, its topic and aim, while the second part comprised three grids, where the
students were requested to self-rate their levels of boredom, motivation and anxiety
at seven-minute intervals on a 7-point scale (1—minimum, 7—maximum) as well
as to specify the amount of time spent in this virtual world during each session. As
regards the third part of the session log, it required the students to describe what
they were doing in SL, indicate the possible learning benefits reaped during a partic-
ular session and plan what they would do in SL in the nearest future. Quantitative
analysis of the self-ratings revealed dynamically changing levels of boredom and
motivation, with to the former tending to increase and the latter to decrease over
time, whereas anxiety levels remained relatively stable. As for the factors respon-
sible for the diminution in boredom levels, they included the students’ willingness
to use SL as a tool enabling them to practice the L2 with enjoyment while commu-
nicating with its residents, explore the world, freely choose a conversation topic or
autonomously set goals for every single visit to this online environment. Kruk also
singled out the reasons for occasional increases in the level of observed boredom,
involving reluctance to engage in conversations displayed by some of the SL users,
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning 29
Dumančić (2018)
The qualitative study conducted by Dumančić aimed to identify the antecedents of 38
Croatian EFL teachers’ boredom, to investigate its most common manifestations, to
30 2 Approaching Boredom from an Empirical Angle
gain an insight into the respondents’ ways of regulating this problematic emotion and
to examine the relationship between boredom and their instructional quality. Using
the data obtained from a five-item, open-ended questionnaire developed with reliance
on other tools intended for measuring L2 student boredom (Chahkandi, Rasekh, &
Tavakoli, 2016; Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018), the researcher indicated uninvolving
teaching content, grammar exercises, student assessment, behavior, knowledge and
motivation as the main causes of boredom. As for teacher manifestations of boredom,
they were categorized into four groups: cognitive (e.g., lack of creativity and/or imag-
ination, insufficient concentration), expressive (e.g., facial expressions, postures),
motivational (e.g., loss of enthusiasm and/or interest), no overt signs of boredom
and no boredom experienced. With regard to a repertoire of boredom-coping strate-
gies adopted by the teachers, they included, for instance, physical activity, cogni-
tive change or engaging students. Finally, it is noteworthy that the majority of the
teachers did not perceive the instructional quality of their work as influenced by their
experience of boredom.
of learning tasks (e.g., writing essays, doing multiple-choice exercises), the person-
ality of the teacher, and a mismatch between the activities used and the participants’
level of L2 proficiency. The “bored” behaviors mentioned by the participants were
mainly passive as they boiled down to daydreaming, doodling, using a mobile phone
and pretending involvement. It should also be remarked that the students tended to
manifest more boredom in relation to practical English classes than in the case of
electives and content subjects that often seemed to lack a practical purpose, relied on
Polish as the language of instruction and were taught in large groups, which made it
difficult for the teacher to cater for individual students’ needs and expectations.
Kruk (2019)
Another mixed-methods study conducted by Kruk (2019) over a span of one semester
with regard to SL was undertaken with three aims in mind: (1) to examine two
English majors’ (a male and a female) willingness to communicate (WTC), motiva-
tion, boredom and language anxiety (LA) during a single visit to this virtual envi-
ronment as well as from one session to another, (2) to examine the relationship
between these ID variables, and (3) to pinpoint possible predictors of the fluctua-
tions that these variables underwent. The data were gathered through a three-part
session log whose design resembled that of the instrument utilized in the earlier
empirical investigations by Kruk (2016b), and Zawodniak and Kruk (2018b). The
findings revealed that all the investigated constructs were subject to variation during
a single session as well as over time, with the caveat that the extent of these vari-
ations differed depending on the participant. It was also demonstrated that in some
of the sessions under investigation the trajectory of the individual students’ data
viewed from a more general, all-encompassing perspective did not follow the path of
their individual session patterns. As far as the relationship between these constructs is
concerned, they interacted dynamically and therefore somewhat unpredictably. There
were, however, some evident tendencies connecting the two participants’ trajectories
at particular points in time (e.g., WTC and motivation, boredom and LA from one visit
to another, WTC and motivation in the majority of sessions). A variety of both posi-
tive and negative reasons for fluctuations of the investigated variables was detected,
such as interesting topics, the ability to understand the messages conveyed by inter-
locutors, the presence of unfriendly SL users, monotony, or negative experiences
related to working in a virtual environment.
2.3 Research on Boredom in L2 Learning 33
shown to exhibit a much more varied pattern of boredom than was the case with
the rest of students in this group. Lastly, rather than merely pinpointing a range of
factors shaping individual trajectories of boredom that had already been identified in
earlier studies, the researchers sought more nuanced explanations connecting high
and/or low levels of this emotion with, for instance, students’ self-awareness, learning
experience or learning styles.
2.4 Conclusion
The present chapter has offered an overview of research into boredom in the learning
process, both more generally and with a specific focus on L2 learning. It began with
the description of studies referring to different contexts other than L2 classroom.
For the most part, such empirical investigations were quantitative in nature and they
typically involved large samples of participants, thus mainly representing a macro-
perspective. In consequence, they deprived the researchers of the opportunity to yield
in-depth insights into the complex mechanisms governing and shaping boredom at
specific points in time. This was followed by a description of the available studies
which sought to examine boredom in L2 learning, whose volume is still blatantly
insufficient. As opposed to the bulk of studies thus far carried out in the field of educa-
tional psychology, these are mainly mixed-methods projects attempting to approach
L2 student boredom from different, often overlapping perspectives. This enables the
understanding of the multifaceted nature of this negative academic emotion, with
2.4 Conclusion 37
a focus not only on its causes, types or coping strategies but also on its long- and
short-term fluctuations and interactions with other internal and external variables.
An important contribution of this line of inquiry is that not only did such studies
examine the experience of boredom per se, but also because they set out to paint
a more nuanced and comprehensive picture of this negative emotion, looking into
possible relationships between its more general patterns and its individual trajecto-
ries. It is also noteworthy that the Boredom in Practical English Language Classes
Questionnaire-Revised (BPELC-R) was developed and validated, which will enable
researchers to further investigate this construct with reliance on a domain-specific tool
expected to ensure more consistent findings in the area of SLA. The research project
described in the following two chapters adopts an “insider” view of boredom and its
uniqueness consists in investigating this emotion as experienced by two groups of
respondents participating in two classes based on the same lesson plans. Embracing
such a perspective may help in more profound understanding why this experience is
so aversive, unpleasant and deactivating, and how it can be effectively controlled.
Chapter 3
Design of the Study
3.1 Introduction
The previous two chapters have provided an overview of crucial issues related to the
experience of boredom in educational contexts, thus offering a backdrop to the study
reported on in the remainder of this book. To be more specific, Chapter One focused
on the efforts to define boredom, the theoretical perspectives that have striven to shed
light on its causes, as well as the ways in which this negative emotion can be handled
in the classroom. Chapter Two, in turn, was devoted to an overview of empirical
investigations, both those that have been undertaken by educational psychologists
with respect to different school subjects and such that have targeted boredom in the
context of L2 learning and teaching. Even a cursory look at the studies conducted thus
far shows that the available empirical evidence is scant and further research should
be conducted to provide more insights into the occurrence of boredom in different
contexts, the extent to which it is stable or, rather, tends, to fluctuate at different time
scales, and the causes of these fluctuations, in the hope of proposing some suggestions
and recommendations as to how it can be combated in L2 classrooms. Accordingly,
the present chapter will present the design, methodology and implementation of a
yet another empirical investigation that was meant to provide insights in this respect.
The chapter will commence with the presentation of the overall aims that the study
pursued as well as the specific research questions addressed. This will be followed
by the description of the participants of the study, the classes under investigation,
detailed description of the instruments by means of which the requisite data were
collected, and the ways the gathered data were analyzed.
The present study builds on previous research projects carried out by the authors
(e.g., Pawlak et al. 2020, 2020b) and it contributes to the body of empirical evidence
This is exactly the rationale that guided the present empirical investigation since,
in the view of the present authors, also in the case of boredom, statistical anal-
yses of responses obtained from questionnaires administered to large samples can
yield some general tendencies, which, although valuable, do not tell us much about
how this negative emotion is shaped during specific classes, consisting of specific
students, taught by specific teachers in specific contexts. Thus, the overall aim of the
present study was to explore the changing character of boredom experienced by a
group of advanced learners of English (i.e., English majors in a BA program) in the
course of naturally occurring English lessons (i.e., focused on integrated skills) and
to uncover factors responsible for the ups and downs in the students’ experience of
this negative academic emotion. Importantly, what distinguishes this investigation
from some of the previous research projects undertaken by the present authors is that
the issues listed above were examined in two groups of students during two classes
that followed exactly the same lesson plans. In more specific terms, the following
research questions were formulated for the purpose of the study:
1. What are the differences in the levels of boredom in the classes taught in both
groups? What can they be attributed to? (RQ1)
2. How does the experience of boredom change and what patterns can be identified
in this respect? (RQ2)
3. What are the differences regarding the experience of boredom for individual
students? (RQ3)
4. What influences are responsible for the changes in boredom levels? (RQ4).
3.3 Participants
The whole sample involved in the study consisted of 23 Polish university students, 11
of whom were females and 12 males. The students were enrolled in the final year of a
three-year BA program, and they were majoring in English, with the effect that they
were expected to attain superior proficiency in that language which would allow them
3.3 Participants 41
As can be seen from the description of the participants constituting both groups,
they were very much similar in terms of such criteria as mastery of the TL as well
as their overall experience in learning it. The only major difference between the two
groups concerned gender distribution. This is because Group 1 consisted of more
male than female students when compared to Group 2 in which the number of females
exceeded the number of males.
The four classes analyzed for the purpose of the present study, two per each group,
comprised naturally occurring integrated skills classes for 90 min each and carried out
by one of the present authors—an experienced English teacher. As mentioned above,
classes of this kind were included in the curriculum for the BA program, constituting
an integral component of the intensive practical English language course that was
obligatory for all English majors and was intended to ensure that they reach the
requisite level of proficiency (i.e., C1). The main goal of the integrated skills course
was to develop students’ receptive and productive TL skills as well as subsystems.
The classes taught in the course involved a variety of modes of classroom organization
(e.g., individual, pair- and group work), they were dedicated to performing different
types of language tasks (e.g., gap-filling, multiple-choice, true/false, whole class
discussions, presentations), and they were based on a variety of resources (e.g.,
coursebooks, Internet materials).
What follows is a description of the lesson plans devised for the classes under
investigation, with a focus on the stages followed, the activities applied, the skills
practiced, and the modes of class organization employed. It should be once again
pointed out that the two lesson plans were the same for both groups, they included
the same topics and language activities and they were conducted in the same manner,
with the caveat that the timing of these components might have inevitably differed
to some extent (see Tables 3.2 and 3.3).
3.4.1 Class 1
Class 1 (see Table 3.2) revolved around the topic of the world of success. It began with
checking attendance, going over the homework assignment (i.e., a true/false exercise
based on a text about the psychology of success), and informing the students about the
planned tasks and activities to be covered during the class. The first language activity
focused on vocabulary in which the learners were asked to work individually and
complete six pairs of sentences with words they could find in the text they had read at
home. The exercise was checked by the teacher who asked several students to provide
their answers. The following three grammar exercises were devoted to practicing the
language of cause and effect (e.g., the reason for, be a consequence of , accordingly,
44 3 Design of the Study
thanks to). In the first of these activities the students were requested to read the
initial part of a short text and underline any words and expressions connected with
the language of cause and effect. Next, they were asked to read the rest of the text
and fill gaps with suitable words indicating cause-and-effect relationships. During the
third grammar activity, the participants listened to an audio-recording in which a man
talked about why he had become an actor. The students were asked to select the words
and expressions concerning the language of cause and effect from a list accompanying
the activity. All the grammar activities were performed by the learners individually
and on completion of each of them the teacher randomly nominated several students
to read the answers and provided feedback. This was followed by a reading task in
which the students were asked to read individually a report about “work experience
program” and answer a set of questions. Once again, the responses were verified by
the teacher who asked at random several students to read the answers. After that, the
students were instructed to perform a speaking task in pairs. They were presented
with a list of several jobs and asked to talk about the ones that they considered to
3.4 Description of the Classes 45
3.4.2 Class 2
Inventions were the general theme of Class 2 (see Table 3.3). At the start of the class,
the teacher checked attendance, talked about the language activities to be dealt with
in the next 90 min and provided feedback on the language test which the students had
taken in the previous week. The first language activity was performed in dyads and
the students discussed ten inventions presented in a picture taken from a course book
which showed ten inventions (e.g., an electric dishwasher, a pop-up toaster, a video
recorder, a can with ring-pull, a computer mouse). During this speaking task, the
participants were requested to name each object, put the inventions in chronological
order and provide the correct decade in which they appeared. As soon as the students
completed the task, it was verified by the teacher who provided the correct answers.
This was followed by reading five short descriptions of “unsuccessful” inventions
and a discussion performed in pairs as well. The students were asked to explain why
each of the inventions failed to catch on and suggest ways in which each of the objects
might have been altered to make it successful. As was the norm for classes taught
in the course, when the learner-learner discussions were in progress, the instructor
circulated around the room, listened to interactions and corrected the mistakes when
such a need arose. The subsequent two vocabulary activities were performed indi-
vidually by the participants and they were devoted to working with a set of adjectives
conveying strong, positive or negative, feelings. In the first exercise, the participants
were asked to group the given adjectives into positive and negative ones, and, in the
second, the students were requested to complete seven sentences with appropriate
words. The two activities were as usual validated by the teacher who asked some of
the students to provide the answers. The next activity was a listening task in which
the participants listened to a radio program where four persons discussed things they
could not live without. During the task the students were supposed to answer ques-
tions which asked them to recognize objects in the pictures and list the positive and
negative features of the objects mentioned by the speakers. The recording was played
twice and the answers were verified by the teacher, who randomly nominated some
students to read out their choices. This was followed by a grammar exercise performed
by the students individually and dedicated to practicing various modal verbs (i.e.,
must, should, ought to, shall, will, would). During the activity the students were
invited to identify the specific meanings of these verbs conveyed in a given context
and to complete a number of sentences with appropriate modals. Finally, in the last
phase of the class, the students were requested to perform a speaking task which
took the form of a role-play in which the participants’ job was to sell an invention.
The lesson ended with a short conclusion in which the teacher summarized the most
important aspects of the class in question and set a new homework assignment, that
is, a written description of an invention of the students’ own choice.
3.5 Data Collection Instruments 47
• Part One requested the students to provide their names and the date of the class;
it was filled out at the very beginning of each class;
• Part Two included a boredom grid in which the students were asked to self-rate
the level of their boredom on a scale from 1 (minimum) to 7 (maximum) at 5-min
intervals in response to a prerecorded sound; the Cronbach alpha value for this
instrument calculated on the basis of all the responses in each class oscillated
around the value of 0.93, which speaks to high internal consistency reliability;
• Part Three encompassed seven items on a semantic differential scale (i.e., mean-
ingless vs. meaningful, dull vs. exciting, useless vs. useful, unsatisfying vs.
satisfying, usual vs. unusual, unappealing vs. appealing and monotonous vs.
absorbing), which was later converted into a 7-point Likert scale for the purpose
of analysis, with the extreme responses being accorded the values from 1 (e.g.,
dull) to 7 (e.g., exciting); the questionnaire was completed by the subjects towards
48 3 Design of the Study
the end of each class; Cronbach alpha oscillated around the value of 0.84 and can
also be deemed satisfactory;
• Part Four required the participants to write a short narrative about their feelings of
boredom experienced during each class with an eye to obtaining further insights
into the patterns of boredom and the influences shaping these patterns; more
specifically, the students were asked to respond to the following prompt: Please
write a few sentences related to the experience of boredom during the class.
It should be pointed out at this juncture that, despite the relative high level of TL
proficiency of the respondents, Polish was used in the in-class boredom questionnaire
in order to avoid possible misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In accordance with
this rationale, the participants were allowed to use Polish or English when composing
the narrative in the last part of the instrument.
Semi-structured interview
In order to provide further insights into the nature of boredom and its fluctuations,
semi-structured interviews were conducted with four individual students, one per
class under investigation (see Appendix C). This type of interview was chosen delib-
erately, since to some extent open-ended format encourages the interviewee “to
elaborate on the issues raised in an exploratory manner” (Dörnyei 2007, p. 136).
Each interview was held immediately after a lesson with a student who volunteered
to share his or her thoughts about the class, it took place in the classroom, it was
audio-recorded and subsequently partly transcribed. The interviewees were asked
questions intended to probe deeper into the reasons for changes in boredom levels
indicated in the grid and to elicit their general opinions about the class taught (e.g.,
the choice of language activities, the ways the students were asked to perform them,
the resources used). Following the reasoning expounded above, the interviews were
conducted in Polish so that the interviewees could express their thoughts freely and
could say what they really wanted to say as opposed to what they were able to say.
Each individual interview lasted approximately six minutes.
Lesson plans with annotations
Lesson plans were used to provide information related to the conducted classes.
More specifically, apart from the intended outline of what was supposed to happen,
they included a short description of what actually transpired in the course of the four
classes, their stages, the modes of classroom organization, the tasks and language
activities included, the ways in which these tasks and activities were executed, and the
approximate time needed for their implementation. In addition, they offered space
for the teacher to include the exact amount of time devoted to the completion of
specific tasks and activities, which, as indicated above, might have varied slightly in
the two groups.
3.6 Data Analysis 49
The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively and, when necessary, a
combination of both approaches was applied. The numerical data derived from the
background questionnaire and some parts of the in-class boredom questionnaire (i.e.,
the self-ratings made with the help of the boredom grid and the evaluations of classes
on the semantic differential scale) were subjected to quantitative analysis, which
involved calculating the mean and standard deviation values. In view of the fact that
some of the data were not normally distributed, the levels of statistical significance
of the observed differences in boredom self-ratings and overall class evaluations
were established by means of the Mann-Whitney U Test and the Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Test. The former test was employed to assess the changes in boredom levels
between the two groups and the latter was used when the changes within one group
were compared. In addition, the significance value was set at p ≤ 0.05 for all anal-
yses. The effect size was calculated on the basis of Rosenthal’s (1994) formula and
interpreted as suggested by Plonsky and Oswald (2014). In addition, the changes in
boredom levels of selected members of Group 1 and Group 2, that is, those partici-
pants who displayed the lowest and highest overall mean values of boredom in the
course of Class 1 and Class 2, were also subject to numerical analysis.
As far as the qualitative analysis is concerned, it was performed with two sets
of data. The first set involved the participants’ narratives (i.e., the last part of the
in-class boredom questionnaire) and the transcripts of semi-structured interviews.
The second set of data comprised graphical representations of boredom in each class
which combined the mean levels of boredom calculated at 5-min intervals set against
the background of the tasks and activities performed in a given class on the basis of
the lesson plans outlined above.
When it comes to the first set of data, the process of analysis by and large adhered to
the procedures outlined by Dörnyei (2007, pp. 250–257). Thus, the analysis consisted
of four stages: (1) the pre-coding stage, (2) the initial coding stage, (3) the second-
level coding stage and (4) the final coding stage. The students’ narratives were first
transcribed using a word processor program and the individual interviews underwent
partial transcription of the parts of the data that seemed to be important in light of
the issues under investigation (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 249), with the transcription being
subsequently saved as a Word file as well. The pre-coding stage commenced with a
careful reading of both sets of responses with the purpose of familiarizing oneself
with the data and uncovering some preliminary patterns and tendencies.1 The second
stage involved initial coding. According to Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 56), codes
are “tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential
information compiled during a study.” During this stage the participants’ statements
were read several times in order to search “for recurring regularities in the data”
(Patton, 2002, p. 465). For any relevant words, phrases or sentences specific labels
were created and appropriate descriptions of the codes were made, which permitted
1 It
should be noted, however, that although no analysis was done during the transcription of the
data, some subconscious interpretations of the data might have occurred during that period of time.
50 3 Design of the Study
a precise recoding of code properties. As for the third stage, it comprised second-
level coding. The purpose of this procedure was to “go beyond a mere descriptive
labeling of the relevant data segments” (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 252). During this stage,
the data were organized into new broad categories and this was done by clustering
some similar and closely connected categories produced in the previous stage and, if
no similarity was found, a new category was created. This stage proceeded until all
the meaningful components were categorized. Finally, the last, fourth stage involved
data interpretation and drawing conclusions (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 257). During the this
stage, the organized data were reviewed yet again and the present categories were
revised to accommodate new insights to be elaborated upon. The plausibility of the
obtained categories was subsequently verified by another researcher.
As mentioned above, the second set of data comprised graphical representations
that emerged from teacher lesson plans onto which students’ self-ratings of boredom
at 5-min intervals were juxtaposed. The analysis encompassed the interpretation of
the increases and decreases in the participants’ self-reported boredom levels against
the background of what happened in a particular lesson at a specific point in time, also
taking into account students’ interpretations and assessments revealed in the inter-
views and written narratives. In this case, the interpretations emerged from discus-
sions among the present authors to minimize the impacts of subjective perceptions
and evaluations.
3.7 Conclusion
The present chapter has provided a detailed description of the aims of the empirical
investigation, its design and participants as well as the research instruments used
to gather the requisite data and the procedures in which these data were analyzed.
Since the study included only a limited number of lessons and employed a small
sample that consisted of 23 students in total, it could be argued that more language
lessons and a larger sample may have supplied more data. However, it was the belief
of the present authors that meticulously analyzing the lessons and making careful,
in-depth comparisons between the two groups involved, which followed identical
lesson plans, were an effective way of obtaining further, invaluable insights into the
construct of boredom. Moreover, the limited numbers of lessons and participants were
compensated for by the employment of specifically designed research instruments by
means of which it was possible to obtain rich data and uncover unknown aspects of the
changing nature of boredom in the language classroom as well factors causing it. Such
an approach is in the spirit of the micro-perspective as it allowed the investigation of
boredom in a specific context with the help of information gleaned from a variety of
sources, thus revealing the intricate interplay of factors interacting in these contexts
rather than general tendencies. The findings of the study and their interpretation can
be found in Chapter Four.
Chapter 4
Findings of the Study
4.1 Introduction
The present chapter is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results of
the study undertaken for the purpose of the present volume. Specifically, it focuses
on the outcomes of the in-depth analysis of the patterns of boredom as well as the
influences shaping these patterns in the four integrated skills classes taught to two
groups of Polish university students majoring in English. Initially, the differences
in the changes in overall boredom levels in Group 1 and Group 2 will be examined
and those in the variations in the levels of boredom at 5-min intervals in Class 1 and
Class 2 in both groups will be explored. Subsequently, the focus will be shifted to
what transpired in the course of the classes, separately for Group 1 and Group 2. In
each case, the results will be presented in the following order: (1) overall variation
in boredom levels in both classes with respect to the students’ self-reported ratings
of the intensity of this negative emotion, (2) the variation in boredom levels during
individual classes as well as for individual students, (3) the participants’ evaluations
of the classes, and, finally, (4) factors responsible for the changes in the experience of
boredom will be considered. This will be followed by the discussion of the findings
in terms of the research questions posed for the present empirical investigation and
some of the limitations will be highlighted as well.
Figure 4.1 offers a graphical representation of the overall levels of boredom for
Group 1 and Group 2 in Class 1 and Class 2, while Table 4.1 includes specific
means, standard deviations and information about statistical significance. As can be
seen from these data, the students in Group 1 self-reported greater intensity of the
feeling of boredom in Class 1 than their counterparts in Group 2 (M = 3.13 vs. M =
6
Level of boredom
1
Group 1 Group 2
Class 1 Class 2
Fig. 4.1 Levels of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 for Group 1 and Group 2
Table 4.1 Mean self-reported levels of boredom in Group 1 and Group 2 during the two classes
under investigation, and the results of non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test
Group 1 Group 2 Statistical significance between groups (Mann-Whitney U
M (SD) M (SD) Test)
2.78). The difference in the mean boredom level equaled 0.35 and turned out to be
statistically significant although the effect size was small (U = 55, p = 0.046, r =
0.38). As regards Class 2, the participants in Group 1, once again, proved to be more
susceptible to boredom in comparison with Group 2 (M = 2.33 vs. M = 2.02).
The difference in the means amounted to 0.31, but it did not reach a statistically
significant value in this case and the effect size was small as well (U = 61, p =
0.088, r = 0.32). What is noteworthy is that not only were students in Group 1 more
prone to succumb to boredom in both classes than those in Group 2, but they also
proved to be more varied in the extent to which they were likely to experience this
negative emotion. This is evidenced by the values of standard deviation which were
consistently higher in the former than in the latter (0.49 and 0.65 in Group 1 vs. 0.36
and 0.23 in Group 2).
As can be seen in Fig. 4.2, which graphically presents the overall assessment of
the classes by Group 1 and Group 2, and Table 4.2, which offers the overall mean
and standard deviation values as well as information about statistical significance,
the members of Group 1 were less positive about the two classes in comparison with
the students in Group 2 (M = 4.48 vs. M = 4.65 for Class 1 and M = 4.79 vs. M =
5.31 for Class 2). It is worth noting that the differences in the means for Class 1 and
4.2 Changes in Overall Boredom Levels in Group 1 and Group 2 53
5
Mean
1
Group 1 Group 2
Class 1 Class 2
Table 4.2 Mean and standard deviation values of the evaluations of Class 1 and Class 2 by Group
1 and Group 2, and the results of non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test
Group 1 Group 2 Statistical significance between groups (Mann-Whitney U
M (SD) M (SD) Test)
Class 2 amounted to 0.17 and 0.52, respectively, and were not statistically significant
(U = 15, p = 0.223 and U = 15, p = 0.222, respectively). It should also be remarked
that the standard deviation values differed in each group as well as for each class
(e.g., they were higher in Group 2 for Class 2 than in Group 1 for Class 1), which
shows that the students differed in their evaluations of the two classes.
The levels of boredom at 5-min intervals during both classes in Group 1 and
Group 2 can be found in Table 4.3 and are graphically depicted in Fig. 4.3. As can
be seen from the data, the observed differences in Class 1 were the largest in minute
15 (3.00 in Group 1 and 2.00 in Group 2; a difference of one point), minute 35 (3.73
in Group 1 and 2.29 in Group 2; a difference of 1.44), minute 40 (3.82 in Group 1
and 3.00 in Group 2; a difference of 0.82), minute 45 (4.00 in Group 1 and 3.14 in
Group 2; a difference of 0.86), minute 55 (2.45 in Group 1 and 3.00 in Group 2; a
difference of 0.55) and minute 75 (2.27 in Group 1 and 3.00 in Group 2; a difference
of 0.73). It should be emphasized, however, that none of these differences proved
to be significant (p > 0.05). As regards Class 2, the greatest disparities in the self-
reported intensity of boredom between Group 1 and Group 2 were detected in minute
54 4 Findings of the Study
Table 4.3 Means, standard deviations, statistically significant differences and effect sizes for self-
reported levels of boredom in Group 1 and Group 2 during Class 1 and Class 2
Minutes Group 1 Group 2 Statistical significance between groups
M (SD) M (SD) (Mann-Whitney U Test)
6
Level of boredom
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.3 Changes in the self-reported levels of boredom at 5-min intervals in Class 1 and Class 2
for Group 1 and Group 2
moderate. This was the case for the following three points of measurement: minute
25 (U = 15, p = 0.023, r = 0.55), minute 50 (U = 14, p = 0.023, r = 0.55) and
minute 55 (U = 14, p = 0.030, r = 0.53). It is also worth noting that both groups
varied in their self-reported levels of boredom during the two classes as evidenced
by the values of standard deviation which were rather high in both groups throughout
Class 1 but lower on some occasions in Class 2 (e.g., minutes 20–30 in Group 1 and
minutes 25–50 in Group 2).
As mentioned in the introduction, the subsections that follow focus on overall fluctu-
ations in the intensity of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2, changes in the experience of
this negative emotion in each of the two classes taken separately, the ways in which
boredom changed for individual students and participants’ evaluations of the classes
under investigation. These results are based on the outcomes of quantitative analysis.
56 4 Findings of the Study
As can be seen from Table 4.4 and Fig. 4.4, which numerically and graphically
present the levels of boredom in Group 1 for Class 1 and Class 2, both overall and
at 5-minute intervals, the students experienced this negative academic emotion more
acutely in the case of the former (M = 3.13) than in the latter (M = 2.33). The overall
difference in the means between the two classes amounted to 0.80 and turned out
to be statistically significant (p = 0.009), with a medium effect size (r = 0.49). It
should also be noted that there was little individual variation in this respect between
Class 1 and Class 2, as evident in the values of standard deviation which were quite
low and similar. The fluctuations in the self-reported intensity of boredom were more
pronounced in Class 2, which is visible in the fact that the lowest boredom mean
amounted to 1.33 (minute 25), while the highest stood at 3.44 (minutes 55 and 60),
with a difference of 2.11. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test found these differences to
be statistically significant (p = 0.011) and the effect size was moderate (r = 0.60).
By contrast, in Class 1, the extent of variation was lower since the largest difference
of 1.73 was detected between minute 45 (M = 4.00) and minute 75 (M = 2.27),
but also reached significance (p = 0.44) with the effect size verging on small (r =
0.43).
It should also be noted that some similarities but differences as well could be
observed in the overall patterns of boredom in the two classes taught to Group 1.
More precisely, there was a decrease in the self-reported intensity of boredom from
the very beginning of both classes, albeit from different initial levels (higher in Class
1), followed by a temporary growth (minute 25 in Class 1 and minute 30 in Class 2),
a small, one could say minute, drop (minute 30 in Class 1 and minute 35 in Class
2), followed by a steady increase until minute 45 in Class 1 and minute 55 in Class
2. Then, in Class 1, a major decrease in boredom levels occurred in minute 50 and
continued until minute 55, but then a spike in the experience of this negative emotion
was recorded, which was followed by a steady downward trend which persisted until
the end of the class in question. As for Class 2, the intensity of boredom leveled off
between minutes 55 and 60, with the participants reporting being gradually less and
less bored till the end of the class. On a more general level, when the trajectories of
boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 are set against each other, it becomes clear that while
the reported mean intensity of this negative emotion was consistently higher in Class
1 than Class 2 for the first 50 min, this tendency was reversed between minutes 55
and 60, but then the initial pattern was seen to reinstate itself in the course of the last
15 min in both classes.
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1 57
Table 4.4 Means, standard deviations, statistically significant differences and effect sizes for self-
ratings on the boredom grid in Class 1 and Class 2 taught in Group 1
Minutes M (SD) Statistical significance between minutes (Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Test)
Class 1 10 3.36 (1.75) 15 ↔ 45 (Z = 2.157, p = 0.031, r = 0.46)
15 3.00 (1.34) 20 ↔ 35 (Z = 2.332, p = 0.020, r = 0.50)
20 ↔ 45 (Z = 2.360, p = 0.018, r = 0.50)
20 2.82 (1.25) 30 ↔ 40 (Z = 2.271, p = 0.023, r = 0.48)
25 3.18 (1.72) 35 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.399, p = 0.016, r = 0.51)
30 3.09 (1.70) 40 ↔ 55 (Z = 2.547, p = 0.011, r = 0.54)
40 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.155, p = 0.031, r = 0.46)
35 3.73 (1.49) 45 ↔ 50 (Z = 2.326, p = 0.020, r = 0.50)
40 3.82 (1.83) 45 ↔ 55 (Z = 2.539, p = 0.011, r = 0.54)
45 4.00 (1.79) 45 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.013, p = 0.044, r = 0.43)
50 3.00 (1.26)
55 2.45 (1.21)
60 3.18 (1.83)
65 3.09 (1.51)
70 2.82 (1.08)
75 2.27 (1.35)
Class 2 10 2.44 (0.88) 10 ↔ 25 (Z = 2.157, p = 0.031, r = 0.51)
15 2.33 (1.22) 15 ↔ 25 (Z = 2.530, p = 0.011, r = 0.60)
20 ↔ 55 (Z = 2.456, p = 0.014, r = 0.58)
20 1.89 (0.60) 20 ↔ 60 (Z = 2.388, p = 0.017, r = 0.56)
25 1.33 (0.50) 25 ↔ 30 (Z = 2.428, p = 0.015, r = 0.57)
30 2.44 (0.73) 25 ↔ 45 (Z = 2.414, p = 0.016, r = 0.57)
25 ↔ 50 (Z = 2.388, p = 0.017, r = 0.56)
35 2.22 (1.72) 25 ↔ 55 (Z = 2.536, p = 0.011, r = 0.60)
40 2.44 (1.81) 25 ↔ 60 (Z = 2.546, p = 0.011, r = 0.60)
45 2.67 (1.41) 50 ↔ 65 (Z = 2.070, p = 0.038, r = 0.49)
50 ↔ 70 (Z = 2.588, p = 0.010, r = 0.61)
50 2.89 (1.45) 50 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.041, p = 0.041, r = 0.48)
55 3.44 (1.59) 55 ↔ 65 (Z = 2.636, p = 0.008, r = 0.62)
60 3.44 (1.42) 55 ↔ 70 (Z = 2.546, p = 0.011, r = 0.60)
55 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.459, p = 0.014, r = 0.58)
65 2.11 (1.17) 60 ↔ 65 (Z = 2.585, p = 0.010, r = 0.61)
70 1.56 (1.13) 60 ↔ 70 (Z = 2.701, p = 0.007, r = 0.64)
60 ↔ 75 (Z = 2.448, p = 0.014, r = 0.58)
75 1.44 (0.73)
65 ↔ 70 (Z = 2.236, p = 0.025, r = 0.53)
Overall Class 1 3.13 (0.49) Class 1 ↔ Class 2 (Z = 2.605, p = 0.009, r = 0.49)
Class 2 2.33 (0.65)
58 4 Findings of the Study
Class 1 Class 2
7
6
Level of boredom
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.4 Changes in the self-reported levels of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 for Group 1
In the present subsection, an attempt will be made to relate the patterns of boredom
intensity that were identified in Class 1 and Class 2 in Group 1 to the ways in which
these classes proceeded. When it comes to Class 1, Fig. 4.5 shows that the students
Fig. 4.5 Changes in the level of boredom reported in Class 1 in Group 1. Note O = organization,
V = vocabulary, G = grammar, R = reading, S = speaking, L = listening, C = conclusion
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1 59
became quite bored in the first 10 min, which is evident in the fact that the initially
reported boredom level in this minute equaled 3.36 points. This was the time when
the teacher provided feedback on the homework assignment, explained the aims of
the class and talked about activities to be covered in class (O = organization). The
situation started to change during the first two activities in which the participants were
asked to complete a set of sentences with appropriate words (V = vocabulary) and
read a short text devoted to the language of cause and effect (G1 = grammar), where
a decrease in boredom levels from 3 points (minute 15) to 2.82 (minute 20) could
be observed. Subsequently, the levels of boredom started to rise during the second
grammar activity (G2), where the students were requested to read and complete a
text with words indicating cause-and-effect relationships. The intensity of boredom
continued to grow at the beginning of the third grammar activity (G3), where the
students were asked to listen to an actor and select words and expressions concerning
the language of cause and effect but it began to fall slightly somewhere in the middle
of this activity and when the students set about reading the text about “work expe-
rience program” (R) (minute 30). This was followed by a rather sharp increase in
the intensity of the experience of boredom (M = 3.73 points, minute 35) which
persisted until minute 45 when it reached its peak (M = 4.00). During that time the
students were reading the text in question and were subsequently asked to answer a
set of questions about it. A one-point drop in the levels of boredom was subsequently
observed at the end of the speaking task (S) (minute 50), in which the learners were
asked to work in pairs and talk about jobs most valuable to society. The intensity of
boredom continued to diminish until the first half of the listening activity (L) (M =
2.45, minute 55), devoted to listening to eight individuals talking about their jobs.
As the listening activity was in progress, though, an increase in the level of boredom
was initiated, which is evidenced by an increase of 0.73 from minute 55 to minute
60, followed by a slight decrease in the next five minutes towards the end of the task
(M = 3.18 in minute 60 and M = 3.09 in minute 65). The remainder of Class 1
(i.e., minutes 70 and 75) witnessed a steady decrease in boredom levels when the
participants, in pairs, discussed the most and least interesting jobs (S2) (a change of
0.82 from minute 65 to minute 75).
Moving on to Class 2 conducted in Group 1, Fig. 4.6 shows that the students
reported a moderate level of boredom after the first 15 min (in this case the mean
oscillating around 2.5). This was the time when the teacher introduced the aims of the
class, talked about the tasks and activities to be performed and offered feedback on
the language test that the students had sat in one of the previous classes (O = organi-
zation). The experience of boredom reported by the participants was even lower after
the next five minutes (a change of 0.44 from minute 15 to minute 20) and it continued
to fall until minute 25, reaching its lowest level during this class at this point (M =
1.33). This steady decrease in the experience of boredom occurred during a speaking
activity (S1) devoted to a discussion a number of inventions shown in a picture
taken from a coursebook. The following task (R + S = reading + speaking), which
consisted in reading five short descriptions of “unsuccessful” inventions accompa-
nied by a discussion performed in pairs, resulted in, first, a substantial increase in
the experience of boredom (a change of 1.11 from minute 25 to minute 30), second,
60 4 Findings of the Study
Fig. 4.6 Changes in the level of boredom reported in Class 2 in Group 1. Note O = organization,
V = vocabulary, G = grammar, R = reading, S = speaking, L = listening, C = conclusion
a minor drop (a change of 0.22 from minute 30 to minute 35), and, third, a slight
increase in its level (a change of 0.22 from minute 35 to minute 40). The level of
boredom continued to rise throughout the next two vocabulary exercises (V1 and V2)
(2.67 in minute 45 and 2.89 in minute 55), dealing with adjectives (i.e., grouping
a set of adjectives into positive and negative ones and completing some sentences
with suitable words), and this tendency was maintained during the listening task
(L), where the students familiarized themselves with a radio program in which four
people talked about things they could not live without and then were requested to
answer a number of questions, reaching its apex as this task was drawing to a close
(3.44 points in minute 55). This high level of boredom persisted at the beginning of
the subsequent grammar activity (G) (minute 60) devoted to modal verbs, in which
the learners were asked to identify their meanings in specific contexts and complete
several sentences with appropriate verbs of this kind but the intensity of boredom
decreased considerably (a change of 1.85 from minute 60 to minute 70) during the
grammar activity in question. The last activity, that is, a role-play in which the partic-
ipants were asked to sell an invention (S2), brought about a further decrease, albeit
a minute one, in the experience of this academic negative emotion (a change of 0.12
from minute 70 to minute 75) confirming the overall trend that began to set in towards
the completion of the class.
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1 61
As demonstrated in Table 4.5, which includes the mean and standard deviation values
for self-reported boredom levels for the two classes taught in Group 1, as well as
Figs. 4.7 and 4.8, which diagrammatically represent the levels of boredom for each
of the students in Group 1 at the 14 measurement points when self-ratings were
provided on the boredom grid in Class 1 and Class 2, there was considerable indi-
vidual variation in this respect. For example, if we examine the mean values of the
self-reported boredom levels for each student in Class 1, it becomes evident that the
mean ratings for particular students range from 1.57 to 5.71 (a difference of 4.14
points), and in 5 out of the 11 cases (almost 50%) they exceed the overall average for
the entire group (i.e., 3.13). Since it makes little sense to discuss in detail the changes
in boredom levels for all of the members of Group 1, not least because some of these
were minute and not very revealing, the self-ratings of only selected participants,
that is, those who exhibited the lowest and highest overall mean values of boredom
in the course of both classes, will be subjected to detailed analysis in this subsection.
For this reason, the patterns of boredom of four students will undergo close scrutiny
at this juncture, namely S9 and S13 in Class 1 and S2 and S10 in Class 2.
Overall, S9 experienced the lowest level of boredom (M = 1.57, SD = 0.76) of all
the participants in Class 1. He felt somewhat bored in the first ten minutes dedicated
to checking the homework assignment and explicating organizational issues (i.e.,
aims of the class, the activities to be included). The student reported no boredom (a
self-rating of 1) with the onset of the first activity related to vocabulary practice (V)
(i.e., filling out the gaps in sentences) as well as during two subsequent grammar
6
S1
S3
5
Level of boredom
S4
S5
S7
4
S8
S9
3 S10
S11
S12
2 S13
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.7 Changes in the level of boredom for individual members of Group 1 in Class 1 with a
particular focus on S9 and S13
S1
Level of boredom
5 S2
S5
4 S6
S7
3 S8
S10
S11
2
S12
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.8 Changes in the level of boredom for individual members of Group 1 in Class 2, with a
particular focus on S2 and S10
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1 63
activities (G1 and G2) in which the participants were requested to read a short text and
underline expressions related to the language of cause and effect as well as to read
and complete a text with appropriate cause-and-effect words. The student started
to experience some boredom during the third grammar activity (G3) which again
revolved around the issue of the language of cause and effect and at the beginning of
reading about “work experience program” (R) (a self-rating of 2 in minute 35) (see
Fig. 4.7). Then a one-point increase and a one-point decrease in the self-reported level
of boredom could be observed in minutes 40 and 45, respectively. This was the time
when the students continued reading the text, started answering questions related to it
and when the comprehension of text content was verified by the teacher. The speaking
task involving the discussion of jobs that are the most valuable to society (S1) resulted
in total disappearance of the experience of boredom and this situation was maintained
until the end of the listening task (L) in which the participants were requested to listen
to people discussing their occupations and answer comprehension questions (minutes
50–65). This was followed by a one-point increase in the intensity of boredom when
the students started to converse about the most and the least interesting jobs (S2)
(minute 70). Subsequently, this negative emotion disappeared completely at the end
of the class, when the last beep was sounded and the last measurement was taken.
S13 was the most bored member of Group 1 in Class 1. His overall self-reported
boredom level equaled 5.71 on the 1–7 scale and can thus be regarded as rather high.
The student also manifested variations in his experience of this negative emotion
throughout the class in question, with frequent ups and downs in his self-ratings,
which is evidenced in the overall value of standard deviation amounting to 1.38,
being the highest in the entire group. In more specific terms, S13 felt extremely bored
after the first ten minutes of the class which focused on going over the homework
assignment and discussing organizational matters (see Fig. 4.7). His self-reported
level of boredom fell quite noticeably at the end of the vocabulary activity (V) (a
self-rating of 4.00 in minute 15), but then it started to increase during the grammar
exercises (G1, G2 and G3) concerning the language of cause and effect and reached
its highest level at the start of the reading task (R) (a self-rating of 7 in minute 30).
This was followed by a one-point drop and a one-point rise, with the intensity of
boredom leveling off until the end of the reading task (a rating of 7.00 in minute 45).
The student started to exhibit less boredom during the speaking task (S1) devoted
to the topic of jobs most valuable to society (a self-rating of 5.00 in minute 50) and
the intensity of boredom remained at the same level for the first several minutes of
the listening task (L) (a self-rating of 5.00 in minute 55). The rest of the listening
task was perceived by the student as extremely boring, as evident in his self-rating
of boredom which reached its maximum value on the grid (7.00 in minutes 60 and
65). The intensity of boredom fell quite dramatically during the speaking task (S2)
in which the participants were requested to work in pairs and carry out conversations
about the most and the least interesting jobs (a difference of 4.00 in self-ratings
between minutes 65 and 75) (see Fig. 4.7).
S2 was the least bored member of Group 1 during Class 2 (M = 1.50, SD =
0.65). The learner experienced a small dose of boredom in the first 15 min devoted
to commenting on organizational issues and providing feedback on the results of a
64 4 Findings of the Study
language test (see Fig. 4.8). She reported feeling no boredom during the speaking task
(S1), which involved a short discussion about inventions in minutes 20–25, but started
to experience this negative emotion in the initial minutes of the reading activity about
“unsuccessful” inventions (R + S) (a self-rating of 2.00 in minute 30). The intensity
of boredom then decreased to the minimum level on the grid and stabilized at this
level throughout the follow-up discussion of the “unsuccessful” inventions as well
as the subsequent vocabulary activities dealing with a set of adjectives (V1 and V2)
(minutes 35–50). This was followed by a small increase in boredom (a self-rating
of 2.00 in minute 55) during the listening task (L) which focused on things people
could not live without and was followed by a series of questions. This low level of
boredom was maintained during the rest of the activity and also at the outset of the
grammar exercise (G), that is, until minute 60. Afterwards, the feeling of boredom
disappeared during the performance of a grammar activity (G) that dealt with modal
verbs (minutes 65–70). The last five minutes of the class, dedicated to the completion
of a speaking task (S2) in which the students tried to sell an invention, witnessed
a rather sudden and unexpected increase in the student’s experience of boredom (a
self-rating of 3.00 in minute 75).
As indicated above, S10, on the whole, reported the highest level of boredom in
Class 2 (M = 3.21), but this experience was also subject to major fluctuations, as
shown in the pretty high standard deviation value (1.58). As illustrated in Fig. 4.8,
the student displayed a sudden rise in his experience of boredom at the end of the
organizational part of the class when the teacher finished discussing the outcomes of
the language test (a difference of 3.00 between minutes 10–15). This was followed by
a sudden drop in the self-reported intensity of boredom somewhere in the middle of
the speaking activity performed in dyads and devoted to discussing inventions (S1) (a
self-rating of 1.00 in minute 20). Although a one-point increase in his boredom level
could be observed at the time of the next measurement (minute 25), the low level
of boredom (a self-rating of 2.00) was maintained during the next activity which
concerned reading and talking about “unsuccessful” inventions (R + S) (minutes
25–40). The subsequent vocabulary activities (V1 and V2) and the listening task (L)
gave rise to quite a sharp increase in the intensity of boredom over the next 15 min,
with the outcome that it reached its apex (a self-rating of 6.00) in minute 55. This
was followed by a steady decrease in his experience of boredom during the final
grammar (G) and speaking activities (S2), with a difference of four points between
minutes 55 and 75 (see Fig. 4.8).
The students’ post hoc evaluations of Class 1 and Class 2 in both groups can be
hypothesized as an additional factor influencing the occurrence of boredom as well
as the observed fluctuations in this respect. The evaluations for Group 1 are included
in Table 4.6, where the participants’ responses on the sematic differential scale (e.g.,
interesting vs. boring) were converted into values on a 7-point Likert scale. As can
Table 4.6 Participants’ evaluation of Class 1 and Class 2 in Group 1
meaningless dull—exciting useless—useful unsatisfying—satisfying usual—unusual unappealing—appealing monotonous—absorbing Overall
– meaningful
Class M 5.18 4.82 5.36 4.73 2.36 5.00 3.91 4.48
1
SD 1.47 1.17 1.12 1.27 1.29 1.10 1.38 1.04
Class M 4.56 5.67 4.78 5.67 3.11 5.11 4.67 4.79
2
SD 1.59 0.87 1.64 1.00 1.90 1.62 1.94 0.87
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1
65
66 4 Findings of the Study
be seen from these data, on the whole, Class 2 was viewed by the participants as less
boring (M = 4.79) than Class 1 (M = 4.48), with the difference in the means between
the two classes equaling 0.31. It should be pointed out, however, that this difference
was marginal and, not surprisingly, failed to reach significance (p > 0.05). With
respect to the specific dimensions of the evaluations, on the one hand, the students
viewed Class 1 as useful (M = 5.36), meaningful (M = 5.18) and appealing (M =
5.00) but, on the other hand, they regarded it as pretty usual (M = 2.36). In contrast,
Class 2 tended to be described as exciting, satisfying (both M = 5.67) and appealing
(M = 5.11) but, again, quite usual (M = 3.11). It is also worth drawing attention
to the fact that the standard deviation values were higher for Class 1 (SD = 1.04)
when compared with Class 2 (0.87), with the difference of 0.17. Even though this
difference was relatively small, it still indicates that the participants differed in their
evaluation of the specific dimensions according to which the class was assessed.
The patterns of individual variation with respect to the post hoc evaluations of
classes taught in Group 1 become more transparent when we relate them to the self-
ratings of boredom provided by specific students. Since it does not seem warranted
to include in this analysis all the students who participated in both classes, such
examination will be confined here to the individuals who demonstrated the lowest
and highest overall mean values of boredom, that is, yet again, S9 and S13 in Class
1 as well as S2 and S10 in Class 2. For S9, who manifested the least boredom,
the evaluation of Class 1 equaled 5.43 (SD = 1.27) and was the second highest in
the group (see Table 4.7). As illustrated in Fig. 4.9, he found the entire class and the
activities it included to be highly meaningful, pretty useful, satisfying and absorbing,
but, mirroring the tendency revealed for the whole group, also quite usual. As for S13,
for whom the feeling of boredom was the most acute, his overall assessment of the
4.3 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 1 67
meaningless – meaningful
Level of boredom
5
dull – exciting
useless – useful
4
unsatisfying – satisfying
usual – unusual
3 unappealing – appealing
monotonous – absorbing
2
1
S1 S3 S4 S5 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13
Fig. 4.9 Individual students’ evaluations of Class 1 (sematic differential scale converted into a
7-point Likert scale)
class amounted to 3.43, which was the second lowest score in Group 1. The relatively
high value of standard deviation, which stood at 2.57, testifies to the existence of
considerable inconsistency in his perceptions of Class 1 (see Table 4.7). To be more
precise, even though the participant found the class to be highly monotonous, usual
and quite unsatisfying, he also viewed it as very meaningful and appealing, showing
that such disparate assessments are not mutually exclusive (see Fig. 4.9).
When it comes to Class 2, S2’s overall evaluation of this class amounted to 5.43,
which represents one of the moderate scores among the members of Group 1. This
finding is admittedly somewhat surprising in view of the fact that this participant
self-reported the lowest intensity of boredom in this class. Interestingly, the relatively
high value of the standard deviation (SD = 1.81) indicated substantial variation in
the learner’s opinions about the content of the class, the tasks and activities used as
well as its overall progress. More specifically, she considered the class to be, on the
one hand, very meaningful, unusual, exciting, satisfying and absorbing, but, on the
other hand, regarded it as rather usual, again sharing the overall sentiments of the
other members of the group (see Fig. 4.10). As regards S10, his overall evaluation of
Class 2 equaled 3.43 points, being the second lowest mean score among his group
members, a finding that was predictable to some extent, given that he proved to be
the most bored in it. His assessment of the class under investigation was also far from
unidimensional, as visible in a pretty high general value of the standard deviation
(SD = 1.51). As can be seen in Fig. 4.10, in the view of the participant, the class
was useless and usual; however, which is not easy to explain, it was simultaneously
exciting and fairly satisfying.
68 4 Findings of the Study
5 meaningless – meaningful
Level of boredom
dull – exciting
useless – useful
4
unsatisfying – satisfying
usual – unusual
3 unappealing – appealing
monotonous – absorbing
1
S1 S2 S5 S6 S7 S8 S10 S11 S12
Fig. 4.10 Individual students’ evaluation of Class 2 (sematic differential scale converted into a
7-point Likert scale)
Similar to the organization of Sect. 4.3, which focused on the results of quantitative
analysis for Group 1, the following subsections are devoted to presenting Group 2’s
overall variations in the intensity of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2, fluctuations in
the experience of boredom in the two classes under investigation, the ways in which
this negative emotion altered for individual participants and the students’ post hoc
evaluations of the classes in question. As was the case in Sect. 4.3, the results are the
product of quantitative analysis.
Table 4.8 includes numerical data related to the mean and standard deviation values
of boredom and Fig. 4.11 graphically shows the levels of boredom in Group 2 for
Class 1 and Class 2, both in general and at 5-min intervals. As can be seen from these
two data sources, the students experienced more boredom in Class 1 (M = 2.78)
than in Class 2 (M = 2.02). This difference between the two classes was sizable,
amounting to 0.76; it is thus not surprising that it reached statistical significance (p
= 0.002) and the effect size was moderate (r = 0.59). The students also manifested
some variation in their experience of boredom in the two class but it was rather low,
as evident in the overall standard deviation values (see Table 4.8). The fluctuations
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 2 69
Table 4.8 Means, standard deviations, statistically significant differences and effect sizes for self-
ratings on the boredom grid in Class 1 and Class 2 taught in Group 2
Minutes M (SD) Statistical significance between minutes (Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Test)
Class 1 10 2.71 (2.06) No statistically significant differences found
15 2.00 (1.41)
20 2.29 (1.38)
25 2.86 (1.35)
30 2.57 (1.51)
35 2.29 (1.38)
40 3.00 (0.82)
45 3.14 (1.68)
50 2.86 (1.86)
55 3.00 (1.73)
60 3.00 (2.31)
65 3.14 (1.95)
70 3.00 (2.08)
75 3.00 (2.38)
Class 2 10 2.25 (1.16) 50 ↔ 60 (Z = 2.121, p = 0.034, r = 0.53)
15 2.13 (1.13) 50 ↔ 65 (Z = 2.121, p = 0.034, r = 0.53)
20 2.38 (1.06)
25 2.00 (0.53)
30 2.00 (0.76)
35 2.13 (0.35)
40 1.88 (0.83)
45 1.75 (0.71)
50 1.50 (0.53)
55 1.88 (1.13)
60 2.25 (1.04)
65 2.25 (1.04)
2.00 (1.31)
1.88 (1.13)
Overall Class 1 2.78 (0.36) Class 1 ↔ Class 2 (Z = 3.111, p = 0.002, r = 0.59)
Class 2 2.02 (0.23)
in the boredom levels were slightly more visible in Class 1, which is evident in the
fact that the lowest mean self-rating of boredom intensity equaled 2.00 (minute 15),
while the highest amounted to 3.14 (minute 45 and minute 65), with a difference
of 1.14. It should be noted, however, that the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test did not
find these differences to be statistically significant (p > 0.05). As for Class 2, the
70 4 Findings of the Study
Class 1 Class 2
7
6
Level of boredom
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.11 Changes in the self-reported levels of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 for Group 2
lowest level of boredom was detected in minute 50 (a self-rating of 1.50) and the
highest could be observed in minute 20 (a self-rating of 2.38). The difference in the
self-reported means amounted to 0.88 but, as was the case in Class 1, failed to reach
statistical significance (p > 0.05).
When it comes to the overall patterns of boredom in the two classes, the analysis
provided evidence for the existence of differences as well (see Fig. 4.11). The reported
experience of boredom in the first half of Class 1, that is from minute 10 to minute 40,
can be characterized as quite dynamic in view of the fact that it was subject to much
more abrupt changes (e.g., a change of 0.86 from minute 15 to minute 25, a change
of 0.57 from minute 25 to minute 35) than the intensity of this negative emotion in
the second part of the class (i.e., minutes 45–75) which can be described as pretty
stable, with the reported levels of boredom oscillating around the value of 3.00. As
regards Class 2, the students reported being more bored in the first twenty minutes
and in minutes 60–65, but the self-reported values barely exceeded 2.00 in both cases.
By contrast, the participants started to experience less boredom somewhere in the
middle of the class (i.e., minute 40), with an upward trend starting to set in again in
minute 50, which was followed by a steady fall from minute 65. On the whole, it is
clear that while the patterns of boredom overlapped to some extent until minute 20, a
gap appeared thereafter, which was largely maintained until the end of the respective
classes.
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 2 71
As was the case with Group 1, the aim of the present subsection is to examine
the changes in the self-reported levels of boredom as a function of the tasks and
activities planned for the two classes under investigation. As illustrated in Fig. 4.12,
the members of Group 2 were slightly bored in the initial minutes of Class 1 devoted
to some introductory issues and provision of feedback on a homework assignment (O
= organization, a mean self-rating of 2.71 in minute 10). The vocabulary activity (V)
consisting in filling out gaps in pairs of sentences resulted in a drop in the intensity
of this negative emotion (a change of 0.71 from minute 10 to minute 15) but the
mean boredom levels subsequently started to rise during an activity (G1 = grammar)
requiring the students to read the text which contained phrases used to indicate the
relationships of cause and effect (a self-rating of 2.29 in minute 20), and to complete
the text with appropriate words (G2 = grammar, 2.86, minute 25). This trend was
carried over to the initial phase of the subsequent activity (G3) in which the students
were instructed to listen to an actor and select words and expressions related to the
language of cause and effect (the mean self-rating of 2.86 in minute 25). However, as
the task was in progress, the students reported experiencing less and less boredom,
with its level still being on the decrease in the first few minutes of the subsequent
reading activity (R) involving reading the text about “work experience program”
(the mean self-rating of 2.29 in minute 35). Somewhere in the middle of this task the
participants reported a substantial increase in the intensity of boredom (a change of
0.71 from minute 35 to minute 40), followed by a less pronounced one at the end of
Fig. 4.12 Changes in the level of boredom reported in Class 1 in Group 2. Note O = organization,
V = vocabulary, G = grammar, R = reading, S = speaking, L = listening, C = conclusion
72 4 Findings of the Study
the task (a change of 0.14 from minute 40 to minute 45). In the speaking activity (S1)
that followed, in which the students were requested to talk about jobs that are most
valuable to society, a slight drop in the experience of boredom could be observed
(a change of 0.28 from minute 45 to minute 50). The mean self-ratings of boredom
then increased slightly, only to level off and remain at the same level (i.e., 3.00) for
the remaining consecutive measurements (i.e., minutes 55, 60, 70 and 75), with the
exception of minute 65 where a slight rise was detected (a change of 0.14 from minute
60 to minute 65). These rather low and stable boredom levels were recorded during
listening (L) and speaking (S2) activities when the participants were familiarized with
the stories of people talking about their jobs, answered comprehension questions,
and were then requested to talk about the most and the least interesting jobs (see
Fig. 4.12).
When it comes to Class 2, the first phase (O = organization), approximately ten
minutes in length, which was dedicated to the presentation of the aims to be achieved,
the language tasks and activities to be covered, and the provision of feedback on the
language test, witnessed a low level of boredom, barely exceeding the mean value
of 2.00 (see Fig. 4.13). Subsequently, the reported experience of boredom decreased
and increased slightly in minute 15 (the mean self-rating of 2.13) and minute 20 (the
mean self-rating of 2.38), respectively, when the students were engaged in performing
a speaking activity (S1) (i.e., discussing inventions in pairs). This was followed by
a 0.38 decrease at the start of reading short texts about “unsuccessful” inventions
(R + S). The reported level of boredom did not change during the follow-up task
in which the participants talked about these inventions, although a slight rise was
detected towards the end of this task (R + S, the mean self-rating of 2.13 in minute
35). The activities encompassing vocabulary practice (V1 and V2) (i.e., grouping
adjectives into positive and negative and selecting the best adjectives to be used in
a set of sentences) resulted in a continuous decrease in the experience of boredom
(mean self-ratings of 1.88 in minute 40 and 1.75 in minute 45, respectively). The
beginning of the listening activity (L) in which the students were asked to listen to a
radio program where anonymous individuals were discussing things they could not
manage without brought about the lowest level of boredom (the mean self-rating of
1.50 in minute 50). However, two increases in the levels of boredom were reported
when the listening task was in progress (a change of 0.33 from minute 50 to minute
55) and when the students were required to answer questions related to the task
(a change of 0.37 from minute 55 to minute 60). This boredom level (the mean
self-rating of 2.25) did not change during the following grammar activity (G), which
consisted in guessing the correct meaning of modal verbs and using them to complete
a set of sentences, and then it kept falling during a role-play activity (S2) in which
the participants’ task was to sell an invention (a change of 0.37 from minute 65 to
minute 75).
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 2
Fig. 4.13 Changes in the level of boredom reported in Class 2 in Group 2. Note O = organization, V = vocabulary, G = grammar, R = reading, S = speaking,
L = listening, C = conclusion
73
74 4 Findings of the Study
Table 4.9 includes the mean and standard deviation values of self-reported boredom
intensity for the students in Group 2 in Class 1 and Class 2, whereas Figs. 4.14
and 4.15 diagrammatically show the levels of boredom for individual students for
the14 times when self-ratings were indicated on the boredom grid in response to
a beep. As can be seen from these data, the learners differed quite considerably in
their experience of boredom in the course of the two classes. For example, the mean
value for individual participants in Class 1 and Class 2 ranged from 1.29 to 5.43
6
Level of boredom
5 S2
S3
4 S5
S6
3 S7
S8
2 S9
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.14 Changes in the level of boredom for individual members of Group 2 in Class 1, with a
particular focus on S7 and S2
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 2 75
5 S1
Level of boredom
S3
S4
4
S5
S6
3 S7
S8
S10
2
1
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Minutes
Fig. 4.15 Changes in the level of boredom for individual members of Group 2 in Class 2, with a
particular focus on S10, S1 and S5
boredom was reported from this point on until the very end of the class (i.e., during
listening (L) and speaking (S2) tasks) (see Fig. 4.14).
As regards S2, his overall self-reported boredom level was the highest of all the
members of Group 1 and equaled 5.43. The participant also manifested some vari-
ation in his experience of this negative emotion throughout the class, as evident in
the standard deviation value which equaled to 0.85. As can be seen in Fig. 4.14, the
student felt very bored after the first ten minutes of the class (i.e., providing feed-
back on the homework assignment plus organizational issues). Afterwards, however,
his reported intensity of this emotion dropped by one point after the vocabulary
activity (V) (i.e., completing sentences with correct words) and the self-rating of
5.00 persisted throughout the following grammar activities (G1, G2 and G3) (i.e.,
completing a text with the words of cause and effect and identifying words and
expressions of this kind used by an actor in a listening activity). The student’s level
of boredom dropped by one point during reading a text concerning work experience
program (R) (a self-rating of 4.00 in minute 35) only to rise again by two points when
the students were asked to answer some questions related to the text (a self-rating of
6.00 in minute 45). The high self-reported experience of boredom remained constant
during the following speaking task (S1) (i.e., talking about jobs most beneficial to
society), which was performed in pairs. This was followed by a one-point decrease
and then one-point increase of boredom in the first half of the listening task (L)
(minute 55 and minute 60, respectively). This high level of boredom persisted until
the end of this activity (a self-rating of 6.00 in minute 70). The speaking task (S2)
performed in dyads at the end of the class (i.e., discussing the most and the least
interesting jobs) turned out to be the most conducive to experiencing boredom for
this student, since the self-rating reached the maximum level of 7.00 in minute 75.
Of all the members of Group 2 who participated in Class 2, S10 experienced the
least boredom overall and his self-reported levels of this academic emotion were not
subject to major fluctuations, as evident in the mean and standard deviations values
(M = 1.14, SD = 0.36). In fact, the student reported being only slightly bored in
the initial phase of reading the texts about “unsuccessful” inventions (a self-rating
of 2.00 in minute 25) as well as towards the end of the speaking component of this
task (R + S), which involved discussing the inventions with a peer (a self-rating of
2.00 in minute 35) (see Fig. 4.15).
In view of the fact that two individuals, that is, S1 and S5, both manifested the
highest levels of boredom in Class 2, the self-ratings for both of them will be examined
in some detail. As can be seen in Fig. 4.15, S1 was not particularly interested in the
phase of the class devoted to checking homework and commenting on organizational
issues (a self-rating of 3.00 in minute 10). The intensity of boredom was even higher
after the next five minutes when the second measurement was taken (a self-rating of
4.00 in minute 15) but it fell rather abruptly by two points in minute 20 to remain
at this level (a self-rating of 2.00) for the next 15 min (minute 35). This was the
time when the students started to talk about inventions (S1) (i.e., the first speaking
activity), read the text about “unsuccessful” inventions and then talked about them in
pairs (R + S). The first and second vocabulary activities (V1 and V2), in which the
students dealt with adjectives, resulted in a one-point increase in boredom intensity
4.4 Self-reported Boredom Levels and Class Evaluations in Group 2 77
(a self-rating of 3.00 in minute 40 and minute 45). Following this, once again, the
student’s level of boredom dropped by one point (a self-rating of 2.00 in minute 50),
and leveled off for the next ten minutes dedicated to listening to a radio program
about people talking about the things that they regarded as the most important for
them and answering comprehension questions (L). The subsequent grammar exercise
focusing on modal verbs (G) turned out to be boredom-inducing since the intensity of
this negative emotion started to grow and this trend held until the end of the exercise
(a self-rating of 4.00 in minute 70). This relatively high level of boredom did not
change during the last activity in which the students were asked to work in pairs and
try to sell an invention (S2) (see Fig. 4.15). When it comes to S5, the intensity of
boredom grew pretty quickly during the first activity, namely the conversation about
inventions performed in pairs (S1) (a change in self-rating from 2.00 to 4.00 from
minute 10 to minute 20). Subsequently, however, it started to fall when the students
were asked to read about “unsuccessful” inventions and discuss their merits in pairs
(R + S) (a change in self-rating from 4.00 to 2.00 in minutes 20–35). This level
of boredom was maintained during the vocabulary activities concerning the usage
of adjectives (V1 and V2) (i.e., grouping them into positive and negative as well
as completing sentences with them) and the initial phase of the listening task (L)
(minutes 35–50). This was followed by a sharp two-point increase in the intensity
of boredom and a period of stability until the end of the grammar exercise related to
modal verbs (G) (minute 65). The speaking activity focused on selling an invention
(S2), which the students were asked to carry out in pairs and which was planned for
the end of the class, triggered a substantial decrease in the student’s experience of
boredom that in fact reached its minimum level (a change of four points from minute
65 to minute 75) (see Fig. 4.15).
meaningless – meaningful
Level of boredom
5
dull – exciting
useless – useful
4
unsatisfying – satisfying
usual – unusual
3 unappealing – appealing
monotonous – absorbing
2
1
S2 S3 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Fig. 4.16 Individual students’ evaluation of Class 1 (sematic differential scale converted into a
7-point Likert scale)
to note that the total value of standard deviations for Class 1 equaled 1.34 but it
amounted to 0.24 for Class 2. This indicates that the students differed a great deal in
their assessments of the classes under investigation (see Table 4.10).
As was the case with Group 1, it is only feasible at this juncture to examine the
evaluations of selected students in detail. For this reason, the focus here will be on
S7 and S2, who reported the lowest and highest overall intensity of boredom in Class
1, and S10, who was the least bored in Class 2 and S1 and S5, who both experienced
the most boredom in Class 2. In general, S7 evaluated Class 1 overall positively (M
= 5.29) but the high value of the standard deviation (SD = 2.14) shows that she
was not entirely unanimous in her assessment in terms of all the dimensions of the
semantic differential scale. This is because, for example, she saw the class as highly
meaningful and useful but, at the same time, perceived it as extremely usual (see
Fig. 4.16). As far as S2 is concerned, he was not very positive about Class 1 (M =
3.71) and there was considerable inconsistency in how he evaluated this class (SD =
1.38) with regard to the different components of the sematic differential scale. More
specifically, S2 judged the class as very usual and pretty monotonous but also found
it to be quite meaningful and useful (see Fig. 4.16).
As far as Class 2 is concerned, S10 was very positive (it was the second highest
score in Group 2; see Table 4.11) and unanimous in his evaluations on different
dimensions of the sematic differential scale (M = 6.29, SD = 0.76). This is evident
in the fact that he regarded the class as highly exciting, satisfying, absorbing and quite
unusual (see Fig. 4.17). Conversely, S1 and S5 were evidently less positive about the
class in question (M = 3.86 and M = 5.29, respectively) and pretty uniform in their
assessments of Class 2 (SD = 0.69 and SD = 0.76, respectively). As can be seen in
Fig. 4.17, S1 found the class rather meaningless and dull but moderately meaningful
80 4 Findings of the Study
meaningless – meaningful
Level of boredom
5
dull – exciting
useless – useful
4
unsatisfying – satisfying
usual – unusual
3 unappealing – appealing
monotonous – absorbing
1
S1 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S10
Fig. 4.17 Individual students’ evaluation of Class 2 (sematic differential scale converted into a
7-point Likert scale)
and S5 regarded the class in question as mostly meaningful, useful and satisfying
but not very appealing.
4.5 Factors Responsible for Changes in the Levels … 81
The qualitative analysis of the data gathered by means of the narratives completed
towards the end of each class as well as interviews with four volunteers revealed
several factors responsible for the experience of boredom during the classes as well
as the changes in the intensity of this experience. The application of the analytical
procedures described in Sect. 3.6 of Chap. 3 allowed grouping these influences
into two broad categories: (1) classes and language activities and (2) other. Each
category, in turn, included several subcategories. When it comes to the first category, it
encompassed the following five themes: (1) monotony and repetitiveness, (2) under-
or over-challenging language activities, (3) inactivity, (4) subject matter and (5)
lack of interaction. As regards the second category (i.e., other), it included three
subcategories: (1) self , (2) non-language related issues and (3) other courses. These
categories are described and exemplified with relevant excerpts below.
Other
There were only seven responses in total which represented the category of other.
More specifically, four responses were related to the students’ own incapability to
concentrate and a personality trait (“I’m not an enthusiastic person”), which can be
regarded as representing the subcategory of self . In connection with this, it is also
interesting to note that one participant openly pointed to her unique characteristics
as an individual who tended to experience more boredom in the first phase of a
class typically devoted to organizational issues as well as towards the end of a class
when she was inclined to think more intensely about issues related to after-the-
class activities. The student also commented on her own perception of listening
tasks, describing them as “overall tedious” for her. As for another two answers, they
indicated the influence of weather conditions or missing their daily dose of caffeine
on their “bored” frame of mind, justifications which fall into the subcategory of
non-language related issues. Finally, one individual explicitly blamed “the workload
related to other courses” for her increased experience of boredom in the classes under
investigation, a boredom-inducing factor falling into the last subcategory (i.e., the
subcategory of other courses). Such issues are exemplified by the following excerpts:
• I experience the most boredom in listening tasks, because I often don’t catch
all the words and I can’t focus on listening tasks. This means that I stop paying
attention to them and I start to get bored.
• Well, sometimes if I just don’t drink a cup of coffee, for example, or have little
less energy during the day, it’s hard for me to focus (…)
• I experience a lot of boredom not because of the classes but because of fatigue
caused by the workload and the amount of material I have to cover due to the end
of the semester and the upcoming examination session.
• The beginning of classes (…) the introductory part of the classes is so boring for
me. It’s because this is about what classes are going to be (…) after that there is
this part when I stat to focus so this level of boredom is low (…) listening is also
very tiring, so after listening it’s like having a break (…) and in the end you are
somehow distracted then because you know that it will be over soon (…)
4.6 Discussion
Although the fluctuations in the levels of boredom and the causes of these fluctuations
among advanced learners have been investigated in several studies conducted by
the present authors (e.g., Kruk, 2016b; Kruk, 2019; Pawlak, Kruk, & Zawodniak,
2020; Zawodniak & Kruk, 2018b), the study reported below adopted a design that
has not been previously employed. More specifically, it examined the experience
of boredom in two groups of participants that followed the same lesson plans in
the course of two consecutive classes, which allowed the researchers to keep some
of the variables constant (e.g., themes discussed, tasks and activities used), thus
placing different factors shaping this negative emotion in sharper focus. Keeping
84 4 Findings of the Study
this in mind, an attempt is made in the present section to address the four research
questions formulated for the purpose of the present study (see Chap. 3, Sect. 3.2).
The RQs are addressed one by one in the light of obtained empirical evidence and
this is followed by the presentation of the limitations of the current research project.
This RQ can primarily be addressed on the basis of the outcomes of the quantitative
analysis of the students’ self-ratings of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 in both groups
as well as, to some extent, the participants’ post hoc evaluations of these classes. On
the whole, as the indications of boredom at 5-minute intervals were made on a 7-point
Likert scale, the fact that the means ranged from 3.13 in Class 1 taught in Group 1
to 2.02 in Class 2 carried out in Group 2 clearly demonstrates that the intensity of
this negative academic emotion can be regarded as mostly moderate or low. After
all, the highest mean value of the self-ratings (i.e., 3.13) did not even reach the mid-
point on the scale, which indicates that the classes were overall quite engaging and
involving. Obviously, one cannot entirely exclude the possibility that the participants
might have been reluctant to openly admit that the things they were asked to do in
class were boredom-inducing in front of the teacher who acted in the capacity of a
researcher (i.e., one of the present authors). Therefore, their self-ratings could have
been affected by the Hawthorne effect, a danger that always has to be reckoned with
when conducting research in real classrooms and, to some extent inevitably, the price
to be paid for ensuring high ecological validity that cannot be achieved in laboratory
conditions.
Although the participants in both groups followed exactly the same lesson plans,
they were requested to work with identical resources, tasks and activities, and, not
less importantly, they had the same instructor, the overall self-reported boredom
levels differed considerably in Group 1 and Group 2. To be more precise, the average
experience of this negative emotion turned out to be higher in both classes in Group
1 than in Group 2, with the caveat that only in the case of Class 1 did the difference
in the mean self-ratings (0.35) reach statistical significance but even here the effect
size proved to be small (r = 0.38). Moreover, substantial differences were revealed
between specific measurement points between the two groups in both classes, but they
proved significant only for Class 2. Still, it is surely an intriguing finding that such
disparities should have been uncovered in the performance of an identical reading
activity (i.e., “the work experience program”), a speaking task done in pairs (i.e.,
discussing inventions), or a listening activity (i.e., concerning things people could
not do without). Another interesting observation is that higher levels of boredom,
revealed in the means for both the entire class and also for multiple measurement
points, often tended to go hand in hand with a smaller degree of individual variation,
4.6 Discussion 85
as indicated by lower SD values. This might imply that, when the intensity of boredom
begins to grow, the experience does not apply in equal measure to all students, which
may be related to their perceptions of specific classes, resources, activities or tasks
but also to individual differences (IDs) (e.g., personality, learning styles, learning
strategies, motivation, anxiety but also working memory; see e.g., Biedroń & Pawlak,
2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Pawlak, 2017, 2020a). This point will be elaborated
upon below when addressing RQs dealing with individual students’ trajectories in
experiencing boredom.
The comparison of the levels of boredom in Group 1 and Group 2 in Class 1 and
Class 2 can be augmented and enriched by the analysis of the post hoc evaluations
of these classes by participants on a semantic differential scale. This, as will be
recalled, was converted into a 7-point Likert scale, whereby a positive adjective, such
as meaningful was accorded a higher score and a negative one, such as meaningless,
lower. The outcomes of this analysis lend support to the findings based on the mean
self-ratings of boredom, as, once again, the classes taught to Group 2 turned out to
be more favorably assessed by the students (M = 4.65 and M = 5.31) than those in
Group 1 (M = 4.48 and M = 4.79), even though the differences may have proved
to be statistically insignificant. Moreover, the evaluations of the specific dimensions
of these classes also quite clearly indicated that the students in Group 2 were more
positive about the instructional activities included than those in Group 1, with the
exception of usual/unusual and monotonous/absorbing categories for Class 1. If we
assume, which is quite logical, that the more positive opinions about different aspects
of the classes under investigation in these groups correspond to lower intensity of
the experience of boredom, these results can be regarded as corroborating the mean
self-reported indications provided above, thus showing that the students in Group 1
tended to be more likely to be afflicted by this negative emotion.
These findings are not easy to interpret in the context of previous research for
the reason that no prior study has attempted to investigate the levels of boredom
in groups that followed exactly the same lesson plans. Obviously, some empirical
evidence is available demonstrating that the intensity of boredom has a tendency
to change from one class to the next (e.g., Kruk, 2016a, 2016b, 2019; Zawodniak
& Kruk, 2018b) and similar findings have been reported with respect to other ID
variables, such as motivation (e.g., Pawlak, 2012; Pawlak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak,
2018; Waninge, Dörnyei, & de Bot, 2014) as well as willingness to communicate
(e.g., Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017; Pawlak et al., 2016). In all of these
empirical investigations, however, comparisons were made between classes that had
disparate foci, relied on different resources, and comprised different tasks and activ-
ities, which made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the contribution
of internal and external factors to shaping the experience of boredom. In the present
study, however, the research design makes it possible to gain clearer insights into,
on the one hand, the role of specific aspects of the classes in question (i.e., task,
activity, the mode of organization) and, on the other hand, the characteristics of the
students, which could have impinged on the self-reported intensity of boredom. This
is because, all things being equal (e.g., topic, task, mode, instructor), it becomes more
straightforward to identify the components of integrated English classes that are more
86 4 Findings of the Study
The analysis showed convincingly that the experience of boredom is subject to fluc-
tuations, both between classes and within the confines of a single class. It is clear, for
example, that Class 1 proved to be more boredom-inducing than Class 2 for students
in both groups, with differences in the mean self-ratings oscillating around 0.80,
being significant and of moderate magnitude. This overall trend seems to indicate that
there was something about the content, organization and progression of these classes
that may have trumped the potential impact of individual student profiles. When we
examine the two lesson plans, three explanations immediately come to mind: (1) the
discussion of inventions could have been proved to be more involving than the some-
what mundane topic of jobs or success, not least because the students could have
actually learned something new (knowledge- and language-wise) and this could have
piqued their curiosity, (2) Class 1 was much more focused on grammar, particularly
the language of cause and effect, whereas Class 2 included more speaking tasks and
there was greater emphasis on vocabulary, perhaps such that was more varied and
unknown to the students (i.e., related to inventions rather than the world of work),
and (3) Class 1 may have been more monotonous because of the inclusion in its plan
a lengthy reading activity that spanned 17 min. Obviously, one cannot entirely rule
out the possibility that the levels of boredom were affected by the students’ disposi-
tion on the days when Class 1 and Class 2 were conducted (e.g., an upcoming test
in another course or even the weather), or that group dynamics were different for
one reason or another, but this scenario is unlikely in view of the fact that the same
tendency was observed in the two groups.
Fluctuations in the levels of boredom were also uncovered at a much smaller
timescale, that which was constituted by the self-ratings of boredom at 5-min intervals
when the classes were in progress. For one thing, many differences were observed
between the consecutive measurements, both those preceding and following each
other and those taken during different phases of the classes under investigation, with
some of them reaching significance. For instance, in Group 1, such a substantial
difference was detected in Class 1 at the end of the reading task in minute 45 and a
speaking task about jobs perceived as the most and least interesting in minute 50, the
4.6 Discussion 87
intensity of boredom being lower in the latter case. In Group 2 in Class 2, in turn,
the level of boredom at the beginning of the listening activity in minute 50 proved
to be significantly lower than that reported in the grammar exercise on model verbs
in minutes 60 and 65. Second, when these ups and downs in real-time indications of
boredom are examined in terms of what transpired in the four classes in both groups
at specific points in time, some general tendencies can be pinpointed. In particular, it
seems that much depended on the activity being completed, its focus, repetitiveness,
and the amount of time dedicated to it. On the whole, it was performance of speaking
tasks, especially those carried out in dyads, that could be associated with, sometimes
quite substantial, drops in the intensity of boredom, while grammar activities tended
to amplify this negative emotion, which corroborates to some extent one justification
for why Class 1 (i.e., more grammar-focused) was viewed as producing more tedium
and thus more disengagement, than Class 2 (i.e., more speaking-focused). The feeling
of boredom was also fueled by the inclusion of reading activities, specifically such
that were too long, as well as, to some extent, listening tasks. It would also appear
that boredom was more likely to set in when the students were requested to work
individually than when they had the opportunity to interact with their peers, not only
in pairs but also as the whole class. Even though the specific levels of boredom may
have varied at particular points in time, these tendencies by and large overlapped in
both groups. One thought-provoking difference was related to vocabulary exercises
which seemed to amplify the intensity of boredom in Group 1 but had the opposite
effect in Group 2. Since the students did not comment on this issue in the narratives
or interviews, it can only be hypothesized that the members of Group 1 were already
familiar with the adjectives taught in Class 2, they found the format of the activity
monotonous, or the situation was simply the corollary of their general tendency to
manifest heightened boredom levels.
Moving on to more common patterns that were observed in the classes conducted
for the purpose of this study in Group 1 and Group 2, the analysis also allows making
several general observations. Some of these patterns are closely tied to the nature of
the activities and tasks selected and the ways in which they were implemented and
have already been discussed above. In addition, it is evident in all the four classes
that although the initial indications of boredom may have varied, the intensity of this
emotion tended to decline when the participants were actually asked to do something
concrete. This quite clearly speaks to the fact that issues related to the organization
of the class, the provision of feedback on homework assignments or the discussion of
the results of a test were quite unlikely to boost students’ engagement. In most cases,
a greater or smaller drop in the intensity of boredom also occurred at the end of the
class, which may be more indicative of the relief that it was coming to a close and the
anticipation of a break rather than the specific task or activity being concluded. As
was mentioned above in response to RQ 1, even a cursory look at the trajectories of
boredom shows that both the occurrence and extent of the increases and decreases in
the self-reported levels of boredom were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2, which
suggests a greater impact of individual variation among the students when the overall
intensity of this academic emotion is higher. What should also be pointed out is that,
despite certain negligible dissimilarities, the pattern of boredom for Class 1 in Group
88 4 Findings of the Study
1 for the most part mirrors that in Group 2, although the mean self-ratings were higher
for most measurements, the only exceptions being the start of the listening activity
in minute 55 and the speaking activity in minutes 70 and 75. By contrast, in Class 2,
the trajectories differed considerably between the two groups and there were a few
occasions on which the self-ratings in Group 2 exceeded those in Group 2, such as
when the students were discussing inventions (minutes 20–25) or towards the end,
when another speaking activity was in progress (minutes 65–75). While it is not easy
to explain this finding, it should be recalled that the intensity of boredom in Group
2 was overall lower, which reduced the scope of possible decreases and it remained
quite stable as well. Also, since the degree of individual variation in Group 1 was
higher, it can be assumed that the perceptions of just a few individuals may have
disproportionately influenced these self-ratings.
Yet again, it is not easy to relate the findings to the results of other studies because
of the unique design in which two groups following the same lesson plans were
compared. Still, the outcomes certainly add to the body of empirical evidence which
shows that boredom tends to be in a state of flux over different timescales, both those
representing minutes and those reflecting weeks or even months (e.g., Kruk, 2016a,
2016b, 2019; Kruk & Zawodniak, 2020; Pawlak, Kruk, Zawodniak, & Pasikowski,
2020; Zawodniak & Kruk, 2018a). They are also in line with the empirical evidence
indicating that a host of ID factors, such as motivation, anxiety, willingness to
communicate, or language learning strategies, are apt to change, whether such studies
have been undertaken in naturally-occurring classes or under laboratory conditions
(e.g., Cohen & Wang, 2018; Kruk, 2018, 2019; MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011; MacIn-
tyre & Serroul, 2015; Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017; Pawlak, 2012; Pawlak
et al., 2016). It is also noteworthy that the patterns of boredom identified in the present
study were much less pronounced than those revealed in investigations of willingness
to communicate, the flip side of boredom to some extent, such as those by Pawlak
et al. (2016) and Mystkowska-Wiertelak and Pawlak (2017).
While the mean patterns of the intensity of boredom identified on the basis of the
students’ self-ratings for an entire class or for specific points in time during this
class are surely illuminating, they tend to mask or at least blur what is happening
on an individual level. This observation clearly also applies to the four classes under
investigation in Group 1 and Group 2, which is evidenced by the fact that mean self-
ratings for individual participants fell sometimes considerably above or below the
group means. For example, in the case of Class 1, the intensity of boredom for the 13
participants in Group 1 ranged from 1.57 to 5.71, with the overall mean of 3.13, and
for the 10 participants in Group 2, it varied from 1.29 to 5.43, with the mean calculated
for the group as a whole standing at 2.78. While, due to lower levels of boredom,
4.6 Discussion 89
these disparities were smaller for Class 2, even a cursory look at the data indicates that
the trajectories for individual students did not really match. Interestingly, such inter-
individual variation was accompanied by quite substantial intra-individual changes
for many students, which is visible from the values of standard deviation and suggests
that some participants tended to be more prone to boredom than others, irrespective
of what might have transpired during the class. Additional evidence for the fact
that the experience of boredom may have been at least to some extent idiosyncratic
comes from the post hoc evaluations of the classes on the semantic differential scale,
in which the students varied, at times quite considerably, in their assessments, and,
at the same time, they oftentimes judged the copositive dimensions of a particular
class differently. This latter finding is insightful in and of itself because it indicates
that, for example, a class that might be perceived as meaningful, exciting, useful
and appealing, can simultaneously be regarded as quite usual. On the other hand, a
class that may be seen as satisfying does not have to be particularly absorbing. All
of this only goes on to show that, as was pointed out in Chapter One, boredom is a
multidimensional construct which is an outcome of a constellation of influences.
As it was neither feasible nor warranted to meticulously examine individual trajec-
tories of the experience of boredom for all the participants, such an analysis was
confined to selected five students in both groups, those whose mean self-ratings of
the intensity of boredom in Class 1 and Class 2 were the lowest (i.e., S9 and S2 in
Group 1, and S7 and S10 in Group 2), and the highest (S13 and S10 in Group 1, and
S2, S1 and S5 in Group 2). What should also be emphasized at this juncture is that, as
was the case with overall comparisons of the means (see RQ1), the boredom levels
reported by these participants by and large mirrored the evaluations they provided at
the end of the class. In line with the general trends, some of the aspects of the classes
were assessed higher than others and the dimension usual/unusual typically received
lower scores. Looking more closely into the characteristics of these students obtained
through the background questionnaire, we can see that participants manifesting the
lowest intensity of boredom comprised one female and one male in each class, they
had been learning English for 12–15 years, and three out of four received a 4.00 on
the final examination and this is how they self-evaluated their TL proficiency, the
only exception being S10 in Group 2 for whom these values equaled 3.00 in both
cases. When it comes to the students exhibiting the most boredom, four out of five
were male, their experience in learning English also ranged from 12 to 15 years but
it was mainly 14 years or longer, and their TL mastery was somewhat lower and
more varied, with S1, however, being one of three with highest grades on the end-
of-the-year examination in both groups. It is certainly not easy to point to general
tendencies on the basis of these characteristics, although, overall, it would seem that
the experience of boredom may be more acute for males and for lower-proficiency
students. These assumptions, however, can only be tentative in view of the fact that
the students’ perceptions could have been impacted by a host of external and internal
variables, and in particular a variety of ID factors (e.g., beliefs, personalities, learning
styles, learning strategies).
When we examine the fluctuations of boredom intensity for the participants
singled out for the current analysis in terms of the tasks and activities included
90 4 Findings of the Study
in the four classes in question as well as the ways in which these classes were orga-
nized, somewhat more consistent patterns emerge. For one thing, even though there
are obvious differences at some measurement times and, the periods of stability may
differ, and the rises and falls may be at times more pronounced, it is interesting to
note that, for most of these students, the trajectories of boredom by and large mirror
those for the class as a whole, which indicates that these extreme cases are to some
extent archetypical for Group 1 and Group 2. In other words, the changes in boredom
intensity, albeit on a greater or lesser scale, occurred at similar measurement points
to the group as a whole, being triggered by the completion of similar tasks and
activities or the ways in which they were implemented. For example, even though
S9 and S13 in Group 2 constituted two extremes with respect to the self-reported
levels of boredom in Class 1, the intensity of this negative emotion began to climb
during the lengthy reading task and started to fall on its completion when the focus
was shifted to the speaking task devoted to discussing jobs deemed valuable to the
society. Similarly, S2 in the same group experienced very little boredom in Class 2
but this experience began to increase during the listening task and grammar exercise,
thereby being similar to the overall pattern. At the same time, however, there were
also deviations from the general trend, as is evident in the fact that in Group 1 S2’s
reported intensity of boredom shot up during the performance of a speaking activity
(i.e., selling inventions) at the end of Class 2, which clearly contradicts the general
pattern, whereas in Group 2 S10’s boredom increased in minute 25 when its overall
mean started to drop, or that this feeling basically disappeared from the middle of
the class onwards, which is inconsistent with the behavior of the group as a whole.
Second, it is also possible to draw some conclusions by examining the situations in
which the intensity of boredom differed the most between those reporting its overall
highest and lowest levels. For example, it could be hypothesized that more passive
tasks such as listening may be more likely to induce boredom for individuals who are
on the whole more inclined to manifest this negative emotion throughout the class,
perhaps because they are expected to perform them individually, which might inten-
sify disengagement. Similar assumptions could be ventured about activities squarely
focused on grammar, which may not be inherently engaging, or even speaking tasks,
some of which might presumably pose an excessive cognitive or linguistic challenge.
It should be stressed, however, that these explanations are somewhat speculative and
should thus be taken with circumspection since, as explained above, the participants’
individual trajectories must be seen as an outcome of an array of variables for which
no empirical evidence was collected in this study.
In a word, the analysis provided evidence for considerable variation in the
experience of boredom, both between and within individuals and, very tentatively,
suggested that gender, proficiency, task type or classroom arrangement may be among
factors responsible. Findings of this kind by and large corroborate the results of
research projects examining boredom in L2 classes, such as those by Kruk (2019),
Pawlak, et al. (2020a, 2020), and Zawodniak and Kruk (2018). In fact, the present
discussion echoes to some extent the assessment offered Pawlak et al. (2020, p. 16),
who write: “that group patterns may often be acutely different from the individual
trajectories of boredom self-reported by students and that such trajectories are shaped
4.6 Discussion 91
The discussion of this last research question strives in a sense to pull all the threads
together by drawing upon what has been said above in regard to the levels of boredom
and their fluctuations at both the general and individual levels, as well as the analysis
of the interviews and narratives, also attempting to relate the findings to previous
research and relevant theoretical positions. As can be seen from the analysis of the
self-ratings on the boredom grid and evaluations of the four classes taught in Group
1 and Group 2, which, it should be stressed one more time, focused on the same
themes and followed exactly the same lesson plans, this negative emotion tended
to be amplified when mundane, well-known topics were reintroduced, in activities
placing emphasis on receptive skills, particularly reading, especially when excessive
time was allotted to their performance. Heightened experience of boredom was also
associated with repetitive grammar exercises, initial phases of the classes, activities
that were completed individually, as well as gender and attainment, with males repre-
senting lower proficiency levels being more susceptible. By contrast, speaking tasks,
especially those that involved pair work and provided opportunities to get to know
new, interesting information and develop TL resources, some vocabulary activities
as well as greater variety and good pacing were more conducive to lower levels of
boredom. As shown in Chapter Three, all of these factors fall into one of the two
broad categories identified in the interviews with the four selected students and the
narrative responses to the last part of the in-class boredom questionnaire, that is,
classes and language activities. They are also to a greater or lesser extent connected
with one or more of the five specific subcategories: (1) monotony and repetitive-
ness, as indicated by contribution of the format of the activities (e.g., in the case of
reading or listening), the materials employed (e.g., photocopies of coursebooks), or
the topics covered (i.e., jobs and success), (2) under- or over-challenging language
activities, which could be exemplified for some participants by having to respond
to predictable and overly easy listening comprehension questions or, conversely, to
perform a speaking task for which they may not have known requisite vocabulary,
(3) inactivity, which set in when finishing a task way ahead of others, as could have
been the case with the lengthy reading task in Class 1, (4) subject matter, which
can be conceived broadly as the leading theme of a class (e.g., the world of work)
or more narrowly as the contents of the tasks and exercises performed, and (5) lack
92 4 Findings of the Study
4.6.5 Limitations
Although the findings of the study surely contribute to our understanding of how the
intensity of boredom changes in naturally-occurring classes at advanced proficiency
levels as well as shedding light on the causes of such changes, the research project,
like any other, is not free from a number of limitations. First, achieving ecological
validity (e.g., Peng, 2014) inevitably comes at the price of reduced control over a
number of variables. This is because while it is possible to keep some things constant,
such as the content, format and procedures of the classes under investigation in this
study, there are many others that are bound to remain unpredictable because intact
groups comprise students with wide-ranging individual profiles which differently
respond to contextual factors and interact with them in unpredictable ways. Second,
due to logistical reasons (e.g., class schedule, constraints of time and space), it was
not feasible to interview all of the participants or to examine in depth their trajec-
tories of self-reported boredom vis a vis the activities and tasks completed in the
classroom. Third, although different studies have availed themselves of this kind
of methodology, it could be argued that having to respond to regular beeps may
change the ways in which a class would normally proceed, which can jeopardize the
validity of the collected data. Fourth, no information was gathered concerning indi-
vidual characteristics of the students, such as their beliefs about how integrated skills
classes should be conducted, personality, learning styles, language learning strate-
gies, motivation, anxiety or willingness to communicate, even though such data could
have shed invaluable light on the intensity of boredom. Fifth, while the study differs
from previous empirical investigations in that it examined patterns of boredom in two
distinct groups taught according to identical lesson plans, a question could be posed
as to the extent to which it genuinely furthers our understanding of this concept.
After all, while the role of some influences may have become more transparent (e.g.,
task types or the amount of time dedicated to specific activities), we are still left
with a number of bits and pieces that are difficult to be put together to produce a
complete, picture of this negative emotion and its changes. Sixth, no information was
obtained on more general predispositions of participants regarding boredom, both
94 4 Findings of the Study
in general and in practical English classes, which points to some weaknesses of the
macro-perspective when applied in isolation. These considerations will definitely
need to be heeded in future research projects focusing on boredom, an issue that will
be elaborated upon in the conclusion.
4.7 Conclusion
The present chapter was devoted to reporting the findings of the study conducted
among 23 Polish university students which sought to explore the nature of boredom
in the course of four regularly-scheduled classes and uncover causes responsible for
its fluctuations. Its strengths lie in the fact that it was conducted in real classrooms,
rather than under laboratory conditions, and that the classes in two groups followed
identical lesson plans, which allowed greater insights into the role of other class
components in inducing boredom. It was shown, among other things, that not only
did boredom levels alter substantially from one class to the next, but also that they
were subject to change within a single class or the tasks and activities it included.
Moreover, the results revealed that average group data may often be insufficient to
detect the changes in boredom levels within individuals. The analysis also confirmed,
yet again, that the experience of boredom is an outcome of a complex interaction of
internal and external variables that may be subject to change over times. This surely
goes to show that boredom is yet another piece of a jigsaw puzzle of the intricate
interplay of influences shaping classroom interactions as well as the opportunities
for learning and teaching that arise in the classroom. Clearly, the study is not without
weaknesses which will offer a basis for the consideration of directions for future
research in the concluding part of the book. The conclusion will also use the results
reported above as a point of departure for making some tentative suggestions on how
the experience of boredom can be prevented and combatted in the L2 classroom.
Chapter 5
Conclusions, Directions for Future
Research and Pedagogical Implications
and repetitiveness, the chance to interact with others, the stage of the class or some
individual characteristics and dispositions. It was also revealed that the individual
trajectories of boredom may often considerably deviate from patterns charted for
entire groups, and they were affected differently by a host of internal and external
variables.
Even though the research project provided surely invaluable insights into the expe-
rience of boredom in the course of naturally-occurring classes at advanced levels,
thus augmenting the existing empirical evidence in this respect, it is not exempt
from some weaknesses and is limited in some respects. Therefore, there is a clear
need for further empirical investigations of boredom, such that would adopt different
perspectives and draw on a variety of theoretical positions. As regards the micro-
perspective, it is important, for example, to conduct studies that would be longitudinal
in nature, spanning the period of a semester or an entire academic year, as well as
using more detailed information about participants, related in particular to a range
of ID factors, such as motivation, willingness to communicate, personality, learning
style or the use of language learning strategies. Such in-depth knowledge of the
individual profiles of the students would without doubt help us better understand
the emergence of boredom and changes it undergoes over time. Equally impor-
tantly, if we want to avoid a situation in which successive studies carried out with
different groups in different contexts leave us numerous insights which are diffi-
cult to connect and interpret, it might make sense to use the same lesson plan with
many groups, which would allow detailed statistical analyses, perhaps also taking
into account some student and teacher characteristics. When it comes to the macro-
perspective, it is necessary to design valid and reliable research instruments that
would allow us to tap into boredom in different contexts, a good example being the
development of the Boredom in Practical English Language Classes Questionnaire
– Revised (Pawlak et al., 2020). Armed with such tools, researchers could gather
data about the experience of boredom and other ID variables from large samples,
which could enable a better understanding of the antecedents of this emotion as well
as offering a basis for developing models predicting its role in the process of L2
learning and determining its links to attainment. Irrespective of whether the micro-
or macro-perspective is embraced, research on boredom could also seek to shed
light on this complex academic emotion in terms of various theoretical perspectives,
both those emanating from educational psychology and SLA (control-value theory,
CDST, sociocultural theory, etc.). The important caveat, though, is that no single
theory, model or hypothesis should be perceived as offering the best explanation of
why people are inclined to feel bored and what causes them to experience it with
different intensity as the time passes. Another interesting line of inquiry could be
comparing the experience of boredom in the case of different additional languages
that an individual might be learning since it is clear that different motives or strategies
in the learning of L2, L3 or L4 could have a bearing on how this negative emotion
manifests itself. As is the case with other ID variables, it is also warranted to probe
deeper to see how boredom is affected by different TL skills and subsystems, an
issue that can be approached from a micro-perspective but could be much better
understood if skill-specific scales were developed.
5 Conclusions, Directions for Future Research and Pedagogical … 97
The findings of the study reported in the empirical chapter of this book allow
making some pedagogical recommendations, which, however, should be viewed with
circumspection until more corroborating empirical evidence is forthcoming. First, it
would seem that, whenever possible more emphasis should be placed on speaking
skills, particularly in tasks that allow unfettered interaction among learners which
are performed in groups and involve topics that create opportunities for learning new
things, both in terms of content and language. Second, even if the emphasis has to
be laid on skills and subsystems that are inherently more conducive to boredom,
it is crucial to that they are made more interesting by choosing an engaging topic,
reducing monotony and repetitiveness, and planning classes in such a way that such
activities or tasks are not lumped together in a specific part of a class or, even worse,
occupy most of the available time. After all, grammar activities do not have to always
follow the same format, they could encourage the use of the TL features taught in
communication, they can be contextualized and based on interesting materials, and
they can be dispersed over time. Third, timing seems to be of pivotal importance since
having students work on the same activity for lengthy periods of time, particularly if
it is not highly captivating or is performed individually (e.g., reading) may inevitably
raise the intensity of boredom for some students. Even when this happens, teachers
should be ready to terminate the task if signs of boredom from many students become
transparent but also make sure that it is followed by a much more engaging task, thus
capitalizing on what has been described as searching boredom (Goetz et al., 2014;
see Sect. 1.4.2. in Chapter 1). Fourth, it is of crucial significance to plan tasks and
activities that pose an appropriate level of challenge for students, irrespective of skills
or subsystems that they may be intended to hone. In fact, as shown in the present
study, having to do things that are over- or under-challenging was reported by students
as a factor intensifying their boredom and there are grounds to assume that difficulty
has to be interpreted not only in linguistic but also in cognitive terms as contents
included in different tasks and the degree of processing information required.
We are confident that the book will provide an important point of reference for
anybody interested in the experience of boredom in the process of L2 teaching and
learning, be they theorists, researchers, materials designers or practitioners. On the
one hand, the overview of previous research and the investigation conducted for the
present volume may inspire further research endeavors which are urgently needed to
expand our understanding of this emotion. On the other hand, the insights obtained
from the analysis of the data may be important for better planning classes at advanced
levels and improving the resources that are employed during such classes. While there
has always been a gap between research and teaching practice, the study of boredom
surely has the potential to bring the two worlds closer together with the intention of
increasing the effectiveness of L2 instruction.
Appendix A
Year of study: ……
Group: ……
What grade did you receive on the end-of-the-year examinaƟon in English?. ………………
How do you assess your English proficiency on a scale from 2 (fail) to 5 (very good)? ……
Name .......................................................................
Group ......................................................................
Date ........................................................................
Part II
Please fill out the grid below indicating the level of your boredom at a particular
moment in response to a beep. Please use a scale from 1 (not bored at all) to 7 (very
bored).
Boredom level
Appendix B
Appendix B 103
Part III
What do you think of the class? Please mark your responses with an x in between
one of the seven spaces which best represents your feelings of the class.
Part IV
Please write a few sentences related to the experience of boredom during the class.
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
Appendix C
Acee, T. W., Kim, H., Kim, H. J., Kim, J., Chu, H. R., Kim, M., … Riekenberg, J. J. (2010). Academic
boredom in under- and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
35(1), 17–27.
Ally, M. (2008). What is wrong with current theorizations of ‘boredom’? Acta Academica, 40(3),
35–66.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anshel, M. H. (1991). A survey of elite athletes on the perceived causes of using banned drugs in
sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 283–310.
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Murray, W. E., & Swinson, R. P. (1998). Psychometric
properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical
groups and community sample. Psychological Assessment, 2, 176–181.
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school:
Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the School, 45,
369–386.
Arsenio, W. F., & Loria, S. (2014). Coping with negative emotions: Connections with adolescents’
academic performance and stress. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175(1), 76–90.
Aubrey, S. (2017). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions of inter- and
intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 661–692.
Baker, R. S., D’Mello, S. K., Rodrigo, M. T., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Better to be frustrated
than bored: The incidence, persistence, and impact of learners’ cognitive-affective states during
interactions with three different computer-based learning environments. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 68(4), 223–241.
Barbalet, J. M. (1999). Boredom and social meaning. British Journal of Sociology, 50, 631–646.
Barnett, L. A., & Klitzing, S. W. (2006). Boredom in free time: Relationships with personality,
affect, and motivation for different gender, racial, and ethnic student groups. Leisure Science, 28,
223–244.
Baudelaire, C. (2012). Selected poems from “Flowers of evil” (W. Fowlie, Trans.). Mineola, NY:
Dover Publications. (Original work published 1857).
Beerman, C., & Cornjäger, H. (2011). Die Rolle der Fachtwerteschätzung für Freude, Langewile und
Angst im Fach Französisch: Eine memhrebenenanalytische Längsschnittstudie über die Sekun-
darstufe I unter Verwendung von Piecewise Growth Modellen. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen
Fremdsprachenunterricht, 16(2), 18–34.
Belton, T., & Priyadharshini, E. (2007). Boredom and schooling: A cross-disciplinary exploration.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 37, 579–595.
Bench, S. W., & Lench, H. C. (2013). On the function of boredom. Behavioral Science, 3(3),
459–472.
Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’
emotions during homework in mathematics: Testing a theoretical model of antecedents and
achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 25–35.
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the
foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the L2 learning experience, the Cinderella
of the L2 motivational self system. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1),
19–30.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York:
Routledge.
Dumančić, D. (2018). Investigating boredom among EFL teachers. ExELL (Explorations in English
Language and Linguistics), 6(1), 57–80.
Eastwood, J. D., Cavaliere, C., Fahlman, S. A., & Eastwood, A. E. (2007). A desire for desires:
Boredom and its relation to alexithymia. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6), 1035–
1045.
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining
boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 482–495.
Eliot, T. S. (1961). The waste land. Walnut Creek, CA: Swan’s Fine Books.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
Fahlman, S. A. (2009). Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ottawa: York University.
Farmer, R. F., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of
a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17.
Feldman, C., & Kuyken, W. (2019). Mindfulness: Ancient wisdom meets modern psychology. New
York: Guilford Press.
Fenichel, O. (1934). Zur Psychologie der Langeweile (On the psychology of boredom). Imago, 20,
270–281.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 97–131). Springer Science + Business Media.
Fisher, C. D. (1993). Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 46(3), 395–417.
Frankl, V. E. (1962). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy: A newly revised
and enlarged edition of from death-camp to existentialism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
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.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Perceived learning environment and students’
emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruc-
tion, 17, 478–493.
Furner, J. M., & Gonzalez-DeHass, A. (2011). How do students’ mastery and performance goals
relate to math anxiety? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,
7(4), 227–242.
Gana, K., Deletang, B., & Metais, L. (2000). Is boredom proneness associated with introspective-
ness? Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 28, 499–504.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
Goetz, T., Cronjaeger, H., Frenzel, A. C., Lüdtke, O., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Academic self-
concept and emotion relations: Domain specificity and age effects. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 35(1), 44–58.
110 References
Kim, S. H. (2013). The representations of boredom in T. S. Eliot’s “The waste land”. Journal of T.
S. Eliot Society of Korea, 23(1), 175–195.
Kruk, M. (2016a). Investigating the changing nature of boredom in the English language classroom:
Results of a study. In A. Dłutek & D. Pietrzak (Eds.), Nowy wymiar filologii (pp. 252–263). Płock:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły Zawodowej w Płocku.
Kruk, M. (2016b). Variations in motivation, anxiety and boredom in learning English in second life.
The EUROCALL Review, 23(1), 25–39.
Kruk, M. (2018). Changes in foreign language anxiety: A classroom perspective. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 31–57.
Kruk, M. (2019). Dynamicity of perceived willingness to communicate, motivation, boredom and
anxiety in second life: The case of two advanced learners of English. Computer Assisted Language
Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1677722
Kruk, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2017). Nuda a praktyczna nauka j˛ezyka angielskiego (Boredom in
practical English language classes). Neofilolog, 49(1), 115–131.
Kruk, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2018). Boredom in practical English language classes: Insights from
interview data. In L. Szymański, J. Zawodniak, A. Łobodziec, & M. Smoluk (Eds.), Interdis-
ciplinary views on the English language, literature and culture (pp. 177–191). Zielona Góra:
Uniwersytet Zielonogórski.
Kruk, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2020). A comparative study of the experience of boredom in the L2
and L3 classroom. English Teaching & Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00056-0
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and
autonomous learning bevavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275–299.
Kuh, G. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal
of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
Kuh, G. D., Klinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned Report for the National Symposium
on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Washington, DC:
National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Kuhn, R. (1976). The demon of noontide: Ennui in western literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Labang, O. C. (2010). The horrors of a disconnected existence: Frustration, despair and alienation
in the poetry of T. S. Eliot. Wenshan Review of Literature and Culture, 3(2), 33–51.
Lam, S., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H., & Lui, Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a
contextual model. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research
on student engagement (pp. 403–419). New York: Springer.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 377–393.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2007). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Larson, R. W., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools
versus blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99(4), 418–433.
Leary, M. R., Rogers, P. A., Canfield, R. W., & Coe, C. (1986). Boredom in interpersonal encounters:
Antecedents and social implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 968–975.
LePera, N. (2011). Relationships between boredom proneness, mindfulness, anxiety, depression
and substance use. The New Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 15–25.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2016). Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate:
Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32,
149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Mercer, S. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 153–172.
112 References
MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-
avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry
(Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). Bristol: 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.
Macklem, G. L. (2015). Boredom in the classroom: Addressing student motivation, self-regulation,
and engagement in learning. New York: Springer.
Maddi, S. R. (1970). The search for meaning. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page (Eds.), The Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 134–183). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning strategies, profi-
ciency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System, 35,
338–352.
Mahatmya, D., Lohman, B. J., Matjasko, J. L., & Farb, A. F. (2012). Engagement across develop-
mental periods. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 45–63). New York, NY: Springer.
Malkovsky, E., Merrifield, C., Goldberg, Y., & Danckert, J. (2012). Exploring the relationship
between boredom and sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research, 221(1), 59–67.
Mann, S., & Robinson, A. (2009). Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contrib-
utors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students. British Educational
Research Journal, 35(2), 243–258.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-description questionnaire (SDQ) II: A theoretical and empirical basis
for the measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescent self-concept: An interim test manual
and a research monograph. Macarthur, New South Wales: University of Western Sydney.
Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., Bobis, J., Way, J., & Vellar, R. (2012). Switching on and switching off
in mathematics: An ecological study of future intent and disengagement among middle school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 1–18.
Martin, M., Sadlo, G., & Stew, G. (2006). The phenomenon of boredom. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 193–211.
Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A
meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123–163.
Mattern, R. A. (2005). College students’ goal orientation and achievement. International Journal
of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(1), 27–32.
McLeod, C. R., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1991). The relationship between self-actualisation and boredom
proneness. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 137–146.
Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging students in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, S., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 153–172.
Mercer-Lynn, K. B., Hunter, J. A., & Eastwood, J. D. (2013). Is trait boredom redundant? Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 897–916.
Mikulas, W. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1993). The essence of boredom. The Psychological Record,
43, 3–12.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed second
language acquisition: Combining a macro- and micro-perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. M. (2010). What to do when feeling bored? Students’ strategies
for coping with boredom. Learning & Individual Differences, 20(6), 626–638.
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 49–59.
Neu, J. (1998). Boring from within: Endogenous versus reactive boredom. In W. F. Flack & J. D.
Laird (Eds.), Emotions in psychopathology: Theory and research (pp. 158–170). London: Oxford
University Press.
References 113
Newberry, A. L., & Duncan, R. D. (2001). Roles of boredom and life goals in juvenile delinquency.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 527–541.
O’Brien, W. (2014). Boredom. Analysis, 74(2), 236–244.
O’Connor, D. (1967). The phenomena of boredom. Journal of Existentialism, 7, 381–399.
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement
process in foreign language learning. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128
Palm, H., Poveda, M. F., & Harutyanyan, L. (2018). Attending boredom in the foreign language
learning classroom: Approaches, challenges and solutions. In M. Simons & T. F. H. Smits (Eds.),
Language education and emotions (pp. 30–37). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
Pascal, B. (1958). Pensées (W. F. Trotter, Trans.). New York: E. P. Dutton. (Original work published
1670).
Patall, E. A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522–534.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Pawlak, M. (2012). The dynamic nature of motivation in language learning: A classroom perspective.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 249–278.
Pawlak, M. (2017). Overview of learner individual differences and their mediating effects on the
process and outcome of interaction. In L. Gurzynski-Weiss (Ed.), Expanding individual difference
research in the interaction approach: Investigating learners, instructors, and other interlocutors
(pp. 19–40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pawlak, M. (2020a). Individual differences and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin
(Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 121–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pawlak, M. (2020b). Grammar and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.),
Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 219–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawlak, M., Kruk, M., & Zawodniak, J. (2020). Investigating individual trajectories in experiencing
boredom in the language classroom: The case of 11 Polish students of English. Language Teaching
Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/132168820914004
Pawlak, M., Kruk, M., Zawodniak, J., & Pasikowski, S. (2020). Investigating factors responsible
for boredom in English classes: The case of advanced learners. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.system.2020.102259
Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom
willingness to communicate: A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20, 654–671.
Pawlak, M., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2018). Tracing the motivational trajectories in learning
English as a foreign language: The case of two English majors. In M. Pawlak & A. Mystkowska-
Wiertelak (Eds.), Challenges of second and foreign language education in a globalized world:
Studies in honor of Krystyna Droździał-Szelest (pp. 185–208). Springer Nature, Cham.
Pawlak, M., Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2020a). Individual trajectories of boredom in learning
English as a foreign language at the university level: Insights from three students’ self-reported
experience. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.
2020.1767108
Pawlak, M., Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2020b). The neglected emotion of in teaching English
to advanced learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.
12302.
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT
Journal, 51(2), 144–156.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries,
and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4),
315–341.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achieve-
ment settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected
emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549.
114 References
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions
in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated
learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 91–106.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire-mathematics
(AEQ-M): User’s manual. University of Munich: Department of Psychology.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S.
L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement
(pp. 259–282). Springer: NY, New York.
Peng, J. E. (2014). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL university classroom: An
ecological perspective. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action
control in college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
776–789.
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the age
of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research.
Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
Plonsky L. & Sudina E. (in press). Language-specific grit, achievement, and anxiety among L2 and
L3 learners in Russia. Modern Language Journal.
Plucker, J. A., Robinson, N. M., Greenspon, T. S., Feldhusen, J. F., McCoach, D. B., & Subotnik,
R. F. (2004). It’s not how the pond makes you feel, but rather how high you can jump. American
Psychologist, 59, 268–269.
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effect on academic
self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451–472.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Sakai, H., & Kikuchi, K. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System, 37,
57–69.
Schopenhauer, A. (2008). The world as will and representation (Vol. 1). (R. E., Aquila in
collaboration with D. Carus, Trans.). New York: Longman. (Original work published 1819).
Schreck, M. K. (2011). You’ve got to reach them to teach them: Hard facts about the soft skills of
student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Seneca, L. (1917). Epistles (Vols. IV–VI. Loeb Classical Library). (R. M. Gummere, Trans.).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sharp, J. G., Hemmings, B., Kay, R., Murphy, B., & Elliott, S. (2017). Academic boredom among
students in higher education: A mixed-methods exploration of characteristics, contributors and
consequences. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5), 657–677.
Shaw, S. M., Caldwell, L. L., & Kleiber, D. A. (1996). Boredom, stress and social control in the
daily activities of adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 274–292.
Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York:
Springer.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring
student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 1–13.
Skinner, E. (2016). Engagement and disaffection as central to processes of motivational resilience
and development. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school
(pp. 145–168). New York: Routledge.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009). Engagement and
disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In K.
References 115
R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). New York:
Routledge.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement
and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional partic-
ipation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69,
493–525.
Smith, C. V., & Cardaciotto, L. (2011). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of
active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
11(1), 53–61.
Sommers, J., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2000). Boredom proneness: Its relationship to psychological and
physical-health symptoms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(1), 149–155.
Spacks, P. M. (1995). Boredom: The literary history of a state of mind. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language
Awareness, 18, 242–258.
Tidwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on early school departures. Adolescence,
23(92), 939–954.
Todman, M. (2003). Boredom and psychotic disorders: Cognitive and motivational issues.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 66(2), 146–167.
Toohey, P. (2011). Boredom: A lively history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tulis, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2013). Students’ motivational and emotional experiences and their
relationship to persistence during academic challenge in mathematics and reading. Learning and
Individual Differences, 27, 35–46.
Turner, J. E., & Husman, J. (2008). Emotional and cognitive self-regulation following academic
shame. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 138–173.
van Tilburg, W. A. P., & Igou, E. R. (2011). On boredom and social identity. Personality and Social
Psychologu Bulletin, 37(12), 1679–1691.
Veiga, F. H., Reeve, J., Wentzel, K., & Robu, V. (2014). Assessing students’ engagement: A review
of instruments with psychometric qualities. In F. H. Veiga (Ed.), First International conference of
student engagement at school: Perspectives from psychology and education (pp. 38–57). Lisbon,
Portugal: Instituto do Educaçaoda Universidade de Lisboa.
Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the literature. The Journal
of Psychology, 137, 569–601.
Vodanovich, S. J., & Rupp, D. E. (1999). Are procrastinators prone to boredom? Social Behavior
and Personality, 27, 11–16.
Vogel-Walcutt, J., Fiorella, L., Carper, T., & Schatz, S. (2012). The definition, assessment, and
mitigation of state boredom within educational settings: A comprehensive review. Educational
Psychology Review, 24(1), 89–111.
Waninge, F., Dörnyei, Z., & De Bot, K. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language learning: Change,
stability, and context. Modern Language Journal, 98, 704–723.
Wegner, L., Flisher, A. J., Chikobvu, P., Lombard, C., & King, G. (2008). Leisure boredom and
high school dropout in Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Adolescence, 3, 421–431.
Weinerman, J., & Kenner, C. (2016). Boredom: That which shall not be named. Journal of
Developmental Education, 40(1), 18–23.
Weir, K. (2013, July/August). Never a dull moment: Things get interesting when psychologists take
a closer look at boredom. Monitor on Psychology, 44(7), 54.
Wild, K.-P., & Schiefele, U. (1994). Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur
und Reliabi litlit eines neuen Fragebogens (Learning strategies of university students: Factor
structure and reliability of a new questionnaire). Zeitschrifi für Differentielle und Diagllostische
Psychologie, 15, 185–200.
Williams, B. (1973). The Makropulos case: Reflections on the tedium of immortality. In Problems
of the elf: Philosophical papers 1956–1972 (pp. 82–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621253.008
116 References
Wolters, C. A., & Taylor, D. J. (2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engage-
ment. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
engagement (pp. 635–651). New York, NY: Springer.
Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M., D’Mello, S., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., Spitzer, B. J., & Duckworth,
A. L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic
self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 559–580.
Zawodniak, J., Kruk, M., & Chumas, J. (2017). Towards conceptualizing boredom as an emotion
in the EFL academic context. Konin Language Studies, 5(4), 425–441.
Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2018a). Porównawcze studium doświadczania nudy w nauce j˛ezyków
drugiego i trzeciego (A comparative study of the experience of boredom in L2 and L3 acquisition).
Applied Linguistics Papers, 25(3), 149–163.
Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2018b). Wpływ świata wirtualnego ‘Second Life’ na zmiany w poziomie
motywacji, l˛eku j˛ezykowego i doświadczenia nudy u studentów filologii angielskiej (The impact
of Second Life on changes in levels of L2 motivation, language anxiety and boredom among
students of English philology). Neofilolog, 50(1), 65–85.
Zawodniak, J., & Kruk, M. (2019). Retrospektywne studium nudy doświadczanej podczas nauki
j˛ezyków angielskiego i niemieckiego (A retrospective study of boredom in learning English
and German). In M. Woźnicka, A. Stolarczyk-Gembiak, & M. Trojszczak (Eds.), Zbliżenia 5:
J˛ezykoznawstwo – Literaturoznawstwo – Literaturoznawstwo – Translatologia (pp. 215–228).
Konin: Wydawnictwo Państwowej Wyższej Szkoły w Koninie.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis
of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated
learning: From teaching to self-regulated practice (pp. 1–19). New York: Guilford Press.