446

British Journal of Educational Psychology (2018), 88, 446–464

© 2017 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Measuring the impact of teaching approaches on

achievement-related emotions: The use of the
Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
Rebecca Starkey-Perret1, Aurore Deledalle2* ,
Christine Jeoffrion2 and Charlotte Rowe3
1
CRINI-EA 1162, University of Nantes, France
2
Faculty of Psychology, LPPL-EA 4638, University of Nantes, France
3
Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research (CEDAR), University
of Warwick, UK

Background. This study focuses on achievement emotions in a context of foreign

language acquisition in a French-speaking population.
Aims. Firstly, the reliability and construct validity of the Achievement Emotion
Questionnaire were examined; the second aim was to compare the effectiveness of
two teaching approaches, classical and task-based learning and teaching (TBLT) on
students’ emotions over time.
Sample. This study involves 299 participants.
Methods. Achievement Emotions were rated with a self-administrated questionnaire at
the beginning of the academic year and at its end.
Results. To verify the psychometric aim, a series of confirmatory factor analyses were
computed and showed that the original multifactorial structure proposed by Pekrun et al.
(2010) had the best fit. For the second aim, the results showed that all of the achievement
emotions reduced in intensity over the school year (apart from boredom) and this
reduction is higher for the anxiety level of pupils in 6th grade with TBLT.
Conclusions. Implications for further research and educational practice are discussed.

How do students experience academic situations? What are they feeling during tests and
examinations? Do these emotions have a beneficial or detrimental effect on academic
achievement? How can we have an effect on these emotions? In the field of educational
psychology, the control-value theory is the most relevant paradigm to describe and
explain these achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006).

Achievement emotions and the control-value theory

Academic situations generate a range of positive and negative emotions, which can in turn
have a profound impact on students’ learning and academic achievement (Christenson,
Reschly, & Wylie, 2012; Zeidner, 1998). The emotions generated in goal-oriented

*Correspondence should be addressed to Aurore Deledalle, University of Nantes, Chemin de la Censive du Tertre – BP 81227,
44312 Nantes Cedex 3, France (email: Aurore.Deledalle@univ-nantes.fr).

DOI:10.1111/bjep.12193
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 447

situations, such as academic contexts, are known as achievement emotions. Achievement

emotions can be studied within a variety of contexts from competitive sport (Dewar &
Kavussanu, 2012; Puente-D
ıaz, 2013) to personal goal setting (Rabideau, 2005), and the
focus of the current study is achievement emotions experienced in the foreign language
classroom. While the role of anxiety is well documented in educational research (see
Pekrun et al., 2004), interest in other achievement-related emotions within academic
settings has emerged more recently (Linnenbrink, 2006; Linnenbrink-Garcia & Pekrun,
2011; Mega, Ronconi, & De Beni, 2014). Students can feel a wide variety of achievement-
related emotions, for example, hope in anticipation of success, joy or pride after success,
and shame associated with failure. Emotions can also vary according to the temporality of
the situation, such as before, during, or after learning-related activities (tests, examina-
tions, homework, etc.). Therefore, achievement emotions could be defined as ‘emotions
that are directly linked to achievement activities or achievement outcomes’ (Pekrun,
Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry, 2010; p. 37). To account for various achievement-
related situations, achievement emotions could be separated into three categories:
class-, learning-, and test-related emotions.
These achievement-related emotions, as in the case of more general emotions, can be
described as systems of interrelated affective, motivational, cognitive, and physiological
processes (e.g., Scherer, 1984). For example, anxiety can provoke feelings of unease
(affective component), worrying and intrusive thoughts (cognitive component), and
avoidance coping behaviours (see Pekrun et al., 2004). Moreover, these emotions, just
like any others, are categorized according to their valence (positive or negative) and to the
degree of activation implied (i.e., their intensity or arousal). Students can indeed
experience positive achievement emotions such as relief, enjoyment, or negative
emotions like hopelessness and disappointment; these emotions can vary in their
intensity, from boredom (low degree of activation) to anger (high degree of activation), for
example (Peterson, Brown, & Jun, 2015). Emotions enjoyment, pride, anger, anxiety,
shame, hopelessness, and boredom are considered to have a strong impact on learners’
motivation, learning, academic performance, identity development, and even general
health (Schutz & Pekrun, 2007). According to Pekrun et al. (2010, p. 36), ‘ theoretically
grounded measurement instruments are needed to analyse their functions and origins,
and to assess these emotions in educational practice’.
To model the relationships between these emotions and academic achievement
Pekrun developed the control-value theory (2006), based mainly on assumptions from
expectancy-value theories of emotions (Turner & Schallert, 2001; Wigfield & Eccles,
2000), transactional approaches (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987), and attributional theories
(Weiner, 1985). In this theoretical framework, achievement emotions are described as
two forms: activity emotions, which are generated by the intrinsic qualities of the
academic activity, and outcome emotions, which relate to the result of the activity, be that
success or failure.
The control-value theory considers that achievement emotions are induced when the
individual feels in control of academic activities or outcomes. This idea is similar to the
concept of self-efficacy developed by Bandura (1977) and followed up in the field of
education by ‘academic control’ (e.g., Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, & Pelletier, 2001).
Furthermore, these activities or outcomes should be subjectively important for the
individual to satisfy the second dimension of the theory. For example, a student can feel
enjoyment in completing a homework task if he/she feels sufficiently competent and if
this task is important for him/her (Pekrun et al., 2010).
448 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

The emotions assessed by the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ, enjoy-

ment, pride, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom) have indeed been shown
to relate to processes involved in learning such as study interest, motivation to attend class
and study, actual effort put into study, and even the cognitive and metacognitive strategies
of learning (Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005, p. 6). It has been noted that enjoyment and
pride are likely to stimulate learners to further invest in their academic pursuits whereas
anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom lead learners to disengage from the learning
process and the academic situation at hand.
Many studies show the relationships between achievement emotions and academic
achievement (Lam, Chen, Zhang, & Liang, 2015; Mega et al., 2014; Niculescu et al.,
2015), so it is therefore necessary to consider them in developing pedagogical orientation.
In fact, some teaching approaches highlight the construction of knowledge by the student
and so offer them a greater perception of control and value.

Teaching approaches and achievement emotions

Two approaches have been studied in this research to examine the impact of pedagogical
design on achievement emotions. The first approach, which we have called the ‘classical’
approach in the context of this study, focuses on top-down teaching and does not offer
much opportunity for construction of knowledge by the learner. On the contrary, the
second approach, the task-based approach, is grounded in socioconstructivist theories of
teaching and learning (see Palincsar, 1998) and, as such, provides many opportunities for
students to take control of the learning processes and construct their own knowledge.
The classical approach is in fact a combination of various approaches, methodologies,
and methods in language teaching and learning, which are commonly found in English as a
foreign language (EFL) classrooms in France today. Within this approach, we often find
elements, especially in textbook exercises, of audio-lingualism, a methodology for
language learning rooted in behaviourist theories of psychology, in which automatic
stimulus–response associations are favoured through the use of multiple gap-fill exercises.
The underlying assumption about language in this methodology is that ‘language is a set of
habits’ (Zainuddin, Yahya, Morales-Jones, & Ariza, 2011; p. 65). Research in second
language acquisition (SLA) has shown that this methodology enables learners to recite
rules and dialogue, but does not effectively enable them to communicate in the target
language (Macaro & Masterman, 2006).
Combined with elements of audio-lingualism, the most common teaching format
included in the classical approach to EFL in France, is known as Presentation, Practice,
Production (PPP) in which a grammatical structure is presented to the learners by the
teacher, in the form of a rule (presentation). The rule is then applied to a restricted set of
exercises over which the teacher has strict control of the students’ utterances or writing
(practice). This may take the form of a question–response session in which the teacher
asks the students a question requiring them to answer using the grammatical structure at
hand during which he/she closely monitors their utterances for accuracy. Once the
teacher feels that the learners have sufficiently understood the structure, he/she sets up an
activity which will allow them to use the language in a more communicative context,
during which the teacher gives minimal or no assistance (production). The classical
approach, combining audio-lingualism and PPP is a teacher-centred approach and as such,
does not give the learners control over their learning. Additionally, it does not provide
sufficient opportunity for learners to build a procedural, system of language knowledge,
leading to more automatized processes of language use (Ellis, 2002).
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 449

The recommended teaching methodology in France (Ministere de l’
education

nationale, 2005), but not necessarily the most widely used, is task-based learning and
teaching or TBLT, as it aligns with current research in SLA. Bygate, Skehan, and Swain
(2001) succinctly define ‘a task’ as ‘an activity which requires learners to use language,
with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’ (in Ellis, 2003, p. 5). According to Ellis
(2003, pp. 9-10), a task is characterized by six critical features: (1) it is a work plan; (2) it
involves a primary focus on meaning; (3) it involves real-world processes of language use;
(4) it can involve any of the language skills; (5) it engages cognitive processes such as
selecting, classifying, ordering, and evaluation information; and (6) it has a communica-
tive outcome. Willis and Willis (2007) add a 7th critical feature: It must engage the
learners’ interest.
In order to enable the cognitive processes involved in task completion and to allow
learners to develop higher order skills (Watkins, Carnell, Lodge, Wagner, & Whalley,
2002), a TBLT classroom must question and transform traditional teacher roles. In the
classic French approach, ‘foreign language classes can often be very teacher directed
and a transmission approach dominates’ (McAllister, Narcy-Combes, & Starkey-Perret,
2012, p. 320). In such contexts, the teacher’s role is ‘controller’, ‘organizer’, and
‘assessor’ (Samuda, 2009, p. 380), and, perhaps, sole provider of knowledge. However,
in the TBLT approach, the teacher is no longer at the centre of the learning situation,
but is placed alongside the learners in order to assist them and support their
construction of knowledge in interaction. This allows space for the four dimensions of
effective classroom learning as described by Watkins et al. (2002) to occur: active
learning, collaborative learning, learner responsibility, and learning about learning. The
perspective is ‘democratic and learner-centred’ (Hampel, 2006, p. 12) rather than
hierarchical and transmissive. The teacher adopts many roles in the TBLT approach
such as ‘monitor’, ‘language adviser’, ‘chairperson’ depending on the various stages of
the task cycle (Willis & Willis, 2009).
Hence, in the TBLT approach, we see a clear shift in teachers’ roles, with much more
control being handed over to the learner. This shift in control and the requirement that the
learners be interested in the tasks at hand in the TBLT approach have led us to ask the
question as to whether or not the use of TBLT rather than a classical approach could have a
measurable impact on learners’ achievement emotions related to English as a foreign
language.

Aims of the study

Building from the findings in SLA research and educational psychology, we wished to
investigate the achievement emotions of French urban middle school students linked to
learning English as a foreign language. The choice of sample and subject matter stem from
two observations that have been made: a known problem with dropout or total
disengagement with academic pursuit in urban settings (Carraud, 2006; Dubet, 2008;
Duru-Bellat, 2006) and difficulties with effective language teaching, as a generally
transmissive approach to language teaching, such as the one described in the classical
approach, still dominate in France (Starkey-Perret, 2011, 2013).
If the research in classroom SLA has made a strong case for the use of TBLT or other
task-based approaches in which more control is given to the students, this does not
necessarily mean it will be accepted by the learners. This is why we would like to
investigate the impact of the chosen methodology on the achievement emotions of the
learners. The aims of this study are therefore twofold:
450 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

1. Adapt and explore some psychometric properties of a short version of The

Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) within a French-speaking population
with regard to English learning as a foreign language.
2. Study the effect of different teaching approaches (Classical vs. TBLT) on achievement
emotions in the middle school setting.

Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 299 pupils (145 females, 152 males, and two of unreported sex)
from a French urban middle school. The age of the learners ranged from 10 years old to
17 years old (M = 12.81, SD = 1.31).
French middle schools have four year groups: 6th level (aged 11–12; N = 72), 5th level
(aged 12–13; N = 71), 4th level (aged 13–14; N = 77), and 3rd level (aged 14–15; N = 79).
However, it must be noted that it is not unusual in France to repeat or skip a school year,
thus leading to discrepancies in ages within year groups.
We have chosen an urban middle school because these are the establishments which
are generally the most difficult for in-service teachers, which often creates a team-
building, research dynamic in which the teachers more often seek help or ideas from one
another (Carraud, 2006) and from outside researchers (Kherroubi & Rochex, 2004). It
would be pertinent if further research were carried out in a more privileged school to
compare results.

Procedure
Participants completed the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Foreign Language
(AEQ-FL) in September (at the beginning of the school year, T1) and again in the following
June (at the end of the school year, T2). Questionnaires were distributed by the English
teachers and were filled in within the classroom environment. It was made clear that all
responses would be anonymous.
All four English teachers at the school agreed to participate in the study, two using a
classical approach (N = 144) and two using a TBLT approach (N = 145). The distribution
of classes by teachers is presented in Table 1.
The pedagogical approaches were determined through interviews with the teachers,
by studying the manual used by the teachers opting for a classical approach and by
classroom observation and study of pedagogical materials for those using a TBLT
approach, as they do not use a manual. During the interviews carried out with the teachers
involved in the study, it was agreed that they would not change their approach over the
course of the year. Consistency in the approach used was verified periodically through
classroom observation, interviews, email exchanges, and study of pedagogical materials.

Table 1. Distribution of classes by teacher

Pedagogical approach 6th level (N) 5th level (N) 4th level (N) 3rd level (N)

Teacher 1 – TBLT 1 (17) 2 (35) 1 (20) _

Teacher 2 – TBLT 1 (17) 2 (36) _ 2 (41)
Teacher 3 – Classical 2 (38) _ 2 (37) 1 (20)
Teacher 4 – Classical _ _ 1 (20) 1 (18)
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 451

One tricky variable to deal with was student–teacher rapport. Generally speaking, some
teachers, independently of the teaching methodology they follow, naturally foster better
student rapport than others. Furthermore, student–teacher rapport is dynamic and
difficult for the outside researcher to control over the course of a school year. In this study,
classroom observation and interviews did not indicate that the teachers of the TBLT
approach nor of the classical approach had a particularly better rapport with learners than
the others. Classroom observation confirmed the dynamic nature of student–teacher
rapport. For the class of Cinqui eme, all pupils followed a TBLT approach and were
therefore not included in the analyses comparing the two approaches.

Measures
We based our questionnaire on a shortened version of the AEQ, the AEQ-M (Frenzel, Thrash,
Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007), which specifically focuses on achievement emotions in
Mathematics. This version of the AEQ seemed particularly pertinent for adaptation to
foreign languages as these two disciplines often trigger similar emotions, especially anxiety
as seen by extensive research in math-related anxiety (e.g., Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010;
Goetz, Bieg, L€udtke, Pekrun, & Hall, 2013; Hyde, Fennema, Ryan, Frost, & Hopp, 1990) and
foreign-language classroom anxiety (e.g., D€ ornyei, 2005; MacIntyre, 1999; Oxford, 1999).
The AEQ-M went through a rigorous translation–back translation process, as recommended
by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, and Ferraz (2000). We then adapted the AEQ-M by
removing all references to Mathematics and replacing them with English, the foreign
language (FL) targeted in this study. For each item, the participant must give a response on a
5-point Likert scale from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’.
The final questionnaire contains sixty items and concerns seven emotions (from six to
15 items per emotion): enjoyment, pride, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and
boredom, each measured in three contexts; in class-, learning- and test-related experi-
ences. They are then further divided into three temporal situations: before, during, and
after. For example, an item can look at anxiety before (temporal situation) an examination
(context of achievement emotion), for example, I’m so scared of my English assignments
that I would rather not start them, or another emotion, for example, Pride after an
examination: I am proud of how well I have done on the English test.

Data analysis
Because the AEQ-FL was created for this study, the first part of the results section provides
some information on the psychometric qualities of the scale (step 1): descriptive statistics
were provided in order to present the distribution of the different scales and confirmatory
factor analyses were computed with AMOS.17 to show the relevance of the different
dimensions. Results for this step are generated from the data collected in September (Time
1). After that, the hypothesis about the effect of teaching approaches on achievement
emotions was tested (step 2).

Results
Step 1: Validation of the AEQ-FL (French version)
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas (Cronbach, 1951) are given in Table 2
for each emotion evaluated by the AEQ-FL. The reliability is good with all alpha values
452 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the scales of the AEQ-FL

Scale M SD a

Enjoyment 31.60 9.41 .87

Pride 21.62 5.59 .80
Anger 19.49 8.55 .87
Anxiety 35.72 12.79 .88
Shame 17.39 7.08 .80
Hopelessness 13.61 6.39 .85
Boredom 13.24 6.55 .87

above the cut-off of .80 (Table 2). The category response frequencies for the items are
available in Table S1 (Table 3).
Descriptive statistics were also computed for each emotion in the three pedagogical
contexts: class, learning, or test related. The distribution of these scales is close to the
normality with skewness indices smaller than |1|, except for anxiety during class which
presents a positive asymmetry. Standard deviations are higher than 1, showing a large
range of responses. Homogeneity indices (alpha) are less satisfactory but must be
considered with caution because of the small number of items for each scale.
Finally, the correlations between the different scales were calculated (Table 4). They
are all statistically significant and range from medium to high. As expected, positive
emotions (Enjoyment, Pride) are negatively correlated with negative emotions (Anger,
Anxiety, Shame, Hopelessness).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the scales of the AEQ-FL

No. of items Range M SD Skewness a

Class-related emotions
Enjoyment 4 4–20 13.38 4.48 0.33 .86
Pride 2 2–10 6.92 2.19 0.25 .70
Anger 4 4–20 8.03 4.02 0.98 .76
Anxiety 4 4–20 7.61 3.68 1.24 .74
Shame 3 3–15 6.94 3.33 0.62 .67
Boredom 3 3–15 6.22 3.41 0.92 .79
Learning-related emotions
Enjoyment 3 3–15 8.57 3.20 0.21 .59
Pride 2 2–10 7.25 2.29 0.58 .56
Anger 3 3–15 6.57 3.42 0.89 .75
Anxiety 4 4–20 8.36 3.96 0.92 .72
Shame 3 3–15 6.39 2.74 0.65 .46
Boredom 3 3–15 7.01 3.65 0.70 .77
Test-related emotions
Enjoyment 3 3–15 9.65 3.22 0.11 .64
Pride 2 2–10 7.45 2.39 0.77 .78
Anger 2 2–10 4.88 2.41 0.54 .60
Anxiety 7 7–35 19.75 7.64 0.22 .85
Shame 2 2–10 4.06 2.36 0.94 .66
Hopelessness 6 6–30 13.61 6.39 0.76 .85
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 453

Table 4. Correlations between achievement-related emotions

Enjoyment Pride Anger Anxiety Shame Hopelessness

Enjoyment
Pride .75***
Anger .56*** .44***
Anxiety .39*** .33*** .71***
Shame .29*** .33*** .61*** .79***
Hopelessness .41*** .43*** .72*** .84*** .80***
Boredom .61*** .48*** .81*** .54*** .42*** .55***

Note. ***p < .001.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In order to verify the plausibility of the factorial model of the AEQ-FL, several confirmatory
factor analyses (CFA) were conducted according to the analysis plan of validity adopted
for the AEQ (Pekrun et al., 2010). In this process, different models were constructed and
successively tested to compare fit indices. All these models are estimated by the
maximum-likelihood (LM) method. In order to identify these models, the first indicator of
each latent variable have a factor loading fixed to 1.
Model 1 is unidimensional: all emotions are related to a single latent variable labelled
‘positive or negative emotion’ (Figure 1). Model 2 distinguishes a one-order model with
seven correlated latent variables, which are the seven emotions evaluated in the AEQ-FL
(Figure 2). Model 3 splits the scales according to the context (class, learning, test) rather
than emotions (Figure 3). Finally, Model 4 articulates the emotions within the three
contexts, in correlating error measurement according to the context implied by the scale
(Figure 4).
The comparison of these different models is based on the analysis of different fit
indices: v², whose value must be as low as possible, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the
comparative fit index (CFI), both of which aim to be >.90 and the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) which should be lower than .08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
The results indicate that Model 4 fits better than the other three, with the lowest v², and
satisfactory values for GFI and CFI (Table 5). The RMSEA is greater than the cut-off, but is
nevertheless the lowest of the four models.

Known-group validity: Gender differences

In order to verify the known-group validity (Netemeyer, Bearden, & Sharma, 2003), means
for achievement emotions for females were compared to those of males. If the scale is
valid, that is, is a good measure of achievement emotions, we should observe well-known
distinctions established in the scientific literature about the differences in these emotions
between males and females (Frenzel, Pekrun, & Goetz, 2007).
The results presented in Table 6 indicate that females feel more shame (M = 18.83,
SD = 7.14) and hopelessness (M = 14.38, SD = 6.63) than males (M = 15.98, SD = 6.78;
M = 12.78, SD = 6.05); contrary to boredom, which is higher for males (M = 14.19,
SD = 6.60) than for females (M = 12.18, SD = 6.38), this corroborates the literature on
gender differences (Frenzel, Pekrun, et al., 2007; Frenzel, Thrash, et al., 2007).
454 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

1
C_ENJOYMENT e1

1
C_PRIDE e2

1
C_ANGER e3

1
C_ANXIETY e4

1 1
C_SHAME e5

1
C_BOREDOM e6

1
L_ENJOYMENT e7

1
L_PRIDE e8

1
L_ANGER e9

1
Positive vs negative emotion L_ANXIETY e10

1
L_SHAME e11

1
L_BOREDOM e12

1
T_ENJOYMENT e13

1
T_PRIDE e14

1
T_ANXIETY e15

1
T_ANGER e16

1
T_SHAME e17

1
T_HOPELESSNESS e18

Figure 1. Single-factor model (Model 1). Note. C = Class; L = Learning; T = Test.

Evolution of achievement emotions over the school year

In addition to the previous analyses, we also sought to describe the trends of emotional
intensity over time. For these analyses, the group was composed of both TBLT and
Classical pupils from all year groups. All of the achievement emotions studied reduced in
intensity over the school year apart from boredom, which increased, t (298) = -.037,
p < .05. The two positive emotions that were studied, enjoyment, t (298) = 3.74,
p < .001, and pride, t (298) = 3.16, p < .01, showed a significant reduction. For the
negative emotions, anger, t (298) = 3.74, p < .01, anxiety, t (298) = 3.22, p < .05, shame,
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 455

1
C_ENJOYMENT e1
1 1
C_PRIDE e2
1
C_ANGER e3
Enjoyment_VL 1 1
C_ANXIETY e4
1
1 C_SHAME e5
Pride_VL 1
C_BOREDOM e6
1 1
L_ENJOYMENT e7
1
Anger_VL L_PRIDE e8
1
1
L_ANGER e9
1
Anxiety_VL L_ANXIETY e10
1
1 L_SHAME e11
1
Shame_VL L_BOREDOM e12
1
1 T_ENJOYMENT e13
1
T_PRIDE e14
Hopelessness_VL
1
T_ANXIETY e15
0.85 1
T_ANGER e16
Boredom_VL 1
T_SHAME e17
1
T_HOPELESSNESS e18

Figure 2. Emotions as latent variables (Model 2). Note. C = Class; L = Learning; T = Test.

t (298) = 2.30, p < .05, and hopelessness, t (298) = 2.04, p < .05, all decreased
significantly between T1 and T2 (Table 7).

Step 2: Effect of teaching methods

The second step of the results analysis aims to compare achievement emotions according
to the teaching methods: classical versus TBLT approach. A two-way ANCOVA was
performed with time as factor 1 (within subject comparison), teaching approach as factor
2 (between subjects comparison), and class level as covariate, to controlling this variable.
Results are presented in Table 8. ANCOVA was conducted successively for each emotion.

Enjoyment
The first ANCOVA [within subject factor: time, between-subject factor: teaching
approach, covariate: class level] revealed a main effect of time F (1, 222) = 15.23,
p < .001, g2p = .062 and no interaction between teaching approach and time
F (1, 222) = 0.22, p = .884, g2p = .01.
456 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

1
C_ENJOYMENT e1

1 1
C_PRIDE e2
1
C_ANGER e3
Class 1
C_ANXIETY e4
1
C_SHAME e5
1
C_BOREDOM e6
1
L_ENJOYMENT e7

1 1
L_PRIDE e8
1
L_ANGER e9
Learning 1
L_ANXIETY e10
1
L_SHAME e11
1
L_BOREDOM e12
1
T_ENJOYMENT e13
1 1
T_PRIDE e14
1
Test T_ANXIETY e15
1
T_ANGER e16
1
T_SHAME e17
1
T_HOPELESSNESS e18

Figure 3. Model with situations as latent factors (Model 3). Note. C = Class; L = Learning; T = Test.

Pride
As before, the ANCOVA conducted on pride achievement emotion showed a main effect
of time F (1, 222) = 7.46, p = .007, g2p = .033 and no interaction between teaching
approach and time F (1, 222) = 0.69, p = .407, g2p = .003.

Anger
The ANCOVA conducted on anger revealed a main effect of time F (1, 222) = 4.20,
p = .042, g2p = .02, no interaction effect between time and teaching approach,
F (1, 222) = 0.04, p = .836, g2p = .01.

Anxiety
ANCOVA conducted on anxiety showed a main effect of time F (1, 222) = 14.24,
p < .001, g2p = .06 and no interaction between teaching approach and time
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 457

1
C_ENJOYMENT e1
1
1 C_PRIDE e2
1
C_ANGER e3
Enjoyment_VL 1 1
C_ANXIETY e4
1
1 C_SHAME e5
Pride_VL 1
C_BOREDOM e6
1 1
L_ENJOYMENT e7
1
Anger_VL L_PRIDE e8
1
1
L_ANGER e9
1
Anxiety_VL L_ANXIETY e10
1
1 L_SHAME e11
1
Shame_VL L_BOREDOM e12
1
1 T_ENJOYMENT e13
1
T_PRIDE e14
Hopelessness_VL
1
T_ANXIETY e15
1
0.85 T_ANGER e16
Boredom_VL 1
T_SHAME e17
1
T_HOPELESSNESS e18

Figure 4. Two-facet model (Model 4). Note. C = Class; L = Learning; T = Test.

Table 5. Comparison of models obtained by Confirmatory Factor Analysis

v² (df) GFI CFI RMSEA

Model 1 1367.405 (135) .545 .665 .175

Model 2 502.620 (115) .842 .894 .106
Model 3 1246.608 (132) .577 .697 .168
Model 4 247.607 (71) .919 .952 .091

F (1, 222) = 2.01, p = .16, g2p = .01. We observed nevertheless the near-significant interaction
effect between teaching approach, time and class level, F (2, 222) = 2.754, p = .066,
g2p = .024. Post-hoc comparison (LSD) revealed that, globally anxiety decreases between time 1
and time 2, but this decrease is largely much greater for 6th level pupils (p = .01).

Shame
ANCOVA revealed a main effect of time F (1, 222) = 8.80, p = .003, g2p = .038 and no
interaction between teaching approach and time F (1, 222) = 1.96, p = .163, g2p = .009.

Hopelessness
ANCOVA shows a main effect of time F (1, 222) = 4.38, p = .038, g2p = .02 and no
interaction between teaching approach and time F (1, 222) = 1.40, p = .238, g2p = .006.
458 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

Table 6. Achievement emotions according to gender

Sex

Female (T1) Male (T1)

M SD M SD t (295)

Enjoyment 32.13 9.52 31.09 9.26 0.96

Pride 21.73 5.82 21.54 5.39 0.30
Anger 19.15 8.51 19.69 8.60 0.55
Anxiety 36.70 12.14 34.64 13.36 1.39
Shame 18.83 7.14 15.98 6.78 3.53***
Hopelessness 14.38 6.63 12.78 6.05 2.17*
Boredom 12.18 6.38 14.19 6.60 2.65**

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 7. Evolution of achievement emotions over the school year

Time
T1 T2

M SD M SD t (298)

Enjoyment 31.60 9.41 30.12 8.81 3.74***

Pride 21.62 5.60 20.75 5.51 3.16**
Anger 19.49 8.56 18.60 7.44 2.29**
Anxiety 35.72 12.80 33.71 11.59 3.22*
Shame 17.39 7.08 16.70 7.15 2.30*
Hopelessness 13.61 6.39 13.01 5.89 2.04*
Boredom 13.24 6.55 13.36 6.29 0.37*

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Boredom
For this variable, we did not find any significant effect; the main effect of time is not
significant, F (1, 222) = 0.10, p = .749, interaction effect between time and teaching
approach is not significant, F (1, 222) = 1.96, p = .159, nor the interaction between
teaching approach and class level, F (2, 222) = 2,17, p = .12.

Discussion
The two aims of this study were to adapt and explore some psychometric properties of the
AEQ-FL and to study the effect of different teaching approaches on learners’ achievement
emotions by level of study. For the first objective, confirmatory factor analyses carried out
showed the relevance of the different dimensions of the AEQ-FL. Additionally, known-
group validity was verified, hence confirming the link between the literature and the
present research. Concerning the second objective, effect of teaching methodologies on
achievement emotions, we note that all of the achievement emotions studied reduced in
intensity over the school year apart from boredom, which increased. When we compare
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 459

Table 8. Achievement emotions by Time and Learning Approach for each Class level

Time

T1 T2
TBLT Classical TBLT Classical

Enjoyment
6th level 34.18 (7.68) 37.44 (7.68) 30.80 (11.75) 35.34 (7.54)
4th level 31.11 (8.69) 30.63 (8.44) 29.83 (10.05) 29.51 (7.20)
3rd level 30.47 (9.08) 26.84 (8.91) 29.37 (8.07) 25.02 (8.07)
Pride
6th level 22.70 (5.16) 24.91 (4.42) 21.58 (5.49) 23.45 (4.62)
4th level 21.82 (6.00) 20.48 (5.27) 21.36 (5.80) 18.69 (5.15)
3rd level 21.32 (5.30) 18.64 (6.38) 20.95 (4.93) 18.24 (6.02)
Anger
6th level 20.30 (10.33) 17.65 (8.21) 18.72 (8.27) 16.49 (6.23)
4th level 17.24 (7.36) 18.71 (8.26) 16.84 (6.62) 18.06 (6.55)
3rd level 19.23 (8.49) 20.34 (7.49) 18.63 (7.86) 18.98 (7.12)
Anxiety
6th level 41.75 (14.91) 31.87 (10.21) 35.45 (10.69) 32.58 (10.06)
4th level 32.21 (12.95) 34.59 (12.02) 30.72 (9.63) 33.00 (11.30)
3rd level 35.78 (13.46) 36.55 (11.09) 31.89 (10.75) 32.13 (11.32)
Shame
6th level 19.28 (7.98) 15.32 (5.61) 16.54 (5.95) 15.20 (6.56)
4th level 14.43 (5.27) 18.09 (7.72) 13.44 (5.56) 17.65 (7.59)
3rd level 16.90 (6.73) 17.53 (5.79) 16.11 (6.36) 16.56 (7.43)
Hopelessness
6th level 14.89 (6.96) 11.82 (5.63) 14.55 (5.95) 12.11 (5.78)
4th level 11.90 (4.98) 13.19 (6.06) 10.58 (4.25) 13.70 (5.93)
3rd level 13.31 (5.78) 14.21 (5.80) 11.65 (5.01) 12.48 (5.58)
Boredom
6th level 13.28 (8.27) 10.98 (5.50) 12.93 (7.48) 11.89 (6.91)
4th level 12.90 (6.22) 12.97 (6.00) 11.56 (5.29) 12.87 (4.93)
3rd level 12.89 (6.52) 14.53 (5.45) 13.11 (5.71) 15.75 (6.39)

achievement emotions between Time 1 and Time 2 by teaching approach, we found a

near-significant effect for anxiety in that the decrease in anxiety during the year was higher
with the TBLT approach.
Some comments could be made about these results and employed methodology. First,
for the primary analysis, even if we identified the same best fitting model like Pekrun et al.
(2010), we recognize that chosen cut-offs are relatively lenient (GFI and CFI > .90,
RMSEA < .10). Furthermore, we could also wonder about the relevance of confirmatory
factor analysis to justify the use of sum scores, because we consider that subjects with
higher sum scores also have higher latent scores, which implies observed ordering scores
between subjects is the same as latent scores. Some possibilities exist to reduce this bias,
in particular isotonic Partial Credit Model, which justifies the use of the sum scores as
scoring rule for ordinal measurement (Ligtvoet, 2012).
Concerning the second objective, we noted a global decrease in the intensity of
achievement emotions. This phenomenon could be explained in two different ways. This
460 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

amortization effect could possibly be put down to the habituation experienced over time,
with pupils facing the unknown at the beginning of the school year and thus having higher
intensity of emotions at T1. We could also invoke a statistical explanation due to
regression towards the mean, which is a serious threat to internal validity as we would like
to study a change (Nesselroade, Stigler, & Baltes, 1980). Independently of the teaching
approach, Classical versus TBLT, positive emotions in these urban middle school pupils
decreased over the year and boredom increased at the end of the year. We recall that this
research was conducted in a middle school situated in an underprivileged area and it
would be interesting to compare our results with those from a more privileged school. We
were advised that some of the participants had French as a second language, thus having
already encountered previous foreign language learning experiences, albeit in immersion.
Many factors are involved in adolescent education, such as a general rejection of teachers
and the school/academic system as a necessary part of identity construction as
documented by sociologists in the French context (Dubet, 2008; Dubet & Martucelli,
1996). In this case, training teachers to use pedagogy which encourages learners to take
control of their learning and to construct their own knowledge (i.e., TBLT) should be
paired with helping them learn how to foster positive learning environments and good
student–teacher rapport.
Another finding is the difficulty to determine a differentiated effect of teaching
approach on achievement emotions during the school year. We just find a difference in
favour of the TBLT method for the level of anxiety. For this study, we choose to evaluate
achievement emotions for different school grades, because there are many differences
between those groups such as maturity, knowledge of the academic institution, degree of
previous exposure to the target language, etc. The most unbiased results are those of the
6th level (the youngest class) pupils as they have no prior exposure to either pedagogical
approach (foreign language teaching starts in 6th level). TBLT was effective in curbing the
decrease in positive emotions and decreasing negative emotions over the year, thus
providing further evidence for the control-value theory and its relation with TBLT. It can
also be noted that pupils exposed to the TBLT approach had much higher levels of anxiety
at the beginning of the year (T1), indicating that the approach may initially generate
anxiety due to its striking difference from the familiar transmissive approaches more
commonly found in French education. The consideration of several year levels offers this
study a better external validity, but, in counterpart, it was more difficult to highlight a
teaching approach effect due to the varieties of pupil’s profiles.
It is also important to note that the rapport that teachers foster with learners may play
an important role, whatever the pedagogical approach taken. Although attempts have
been made to deal with this, the personality of the teacher and more generally, the
dynamic nature of the classroom environment pose limits on the interpretative value of
the results. It is regrettable that the research design employed in this research does not
allow to perfectly control the teacher effect and we could recommend for further study to
take into account this variable. Further research could focus on examining these links
between pedagogy, achievement emotions, and learning outcomes more closely.
Furthermore, further studies could focus on collecting feedback from pupils regarding
their experiences of the teaching and learning situation with the assigned teacher,
therefore allowing a more robust understanding of the links between the pedagogical
approach and the achievement emotions experienced and to more easily pinpoint the
extraneous variables.
In spite of its limits, this research has shown that the AEQ-FL is a valid instrument for
exploring learners’ achievement emotions related to foreign language learning in various
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 461

classroom environments. It has shown that a TBLT approach sometimes offering learners
more control over the learning environment and possibility to construct their own
knowledge is able to curb negative achievement emotions, and, for learners familiar with
the approach, engenders higher levels of positive onset achievement emotions. Drawing
from these results recommendations can be made for a two-pronged teacher-training
focusing both on pedagogy and on teacher – student rapport in order to further foster
positive achievement emotions in learners.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of
cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 3186–3191. https://doi.org/
10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Carraud, F. (2006). Apprendre et enseigner en ZEP. In C. Alain (Ed.), Savary, Apprendre et enseigner
en “milieux difficiles” (pp. 31–43). Paris, France: INRP.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on student
engagement. New York, NY: Springer.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3),
297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dewar, A. J., & Kavussanu, M. (2012). Achievement goals and emotions in team sport athletes. Sport,
Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028692
D€ornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Wahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dubet, F. (2008). Faits d’ ecole [Facts about school]. Paris, France: Editions de l’Ecole des hautes

etudes en sciences sociales.
Dubet, F., & Martuccelli, D. (1996). Les parents et l’
ecole: Classes populaires et classes moyennes.
Lien social et Politiques, 35, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.7202/005092ar
Duru-Bellat, M. (2006). L’inflation scolaire: Les d eritocracie [academic inflation:
esillusions de la m
the disillusionment of meritocracy]. Paris, France: Editions du Seuil/La r

epublique des id
ees.
Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In S.
Fotos & E. Hinkel (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Crossnational patterns of gender differences in
mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0018053
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics—A “hopeless” issue? A control-
value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 22(4), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173468
Frenzel, A. C., Thrash, T. M., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Achievement emotions in Germany and
China: A cross-cultural validation of the Academic Emotions Questionnaire-Mathematics (AEQ-
M). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 302–309.
Goetz, T., Bieg, M., L€ udtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Hall, N. C. (2013). Do girls really experience more
anxiety in mathematics? Psychological Science, 24(10), 2079–2087.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and
learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCall, 18(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0958344006000711
462 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., Ryan, M., Frost, L. A., & Hopp, C. (1990). Gender comparisons of
mathematics attitudes and affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–
324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00022.x
Kherroubi, M., & Rochex, J. Y. (2004). La recherche en
education et les ZEP en France. 2.
Apprentissages et exercice professionnel en ZEP: R
esultats, analyses, interpr
etations [Research
in French Urban Education. Professional activities and learning in urban schools: Results,
analyses and interpretations]. Revue francßaise de p edagogie [French Review of Pedagogy], 146
(1), 115–190.
Lam, U. F., Chen, W. W., Zhang, J., & Liang, T. (2015). It feels good to learn where I belong: School
belonging, academic emotions, and academic achievement in adolescents. School Psychology
International, 36, 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034315589649
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169.
Ligtvoet, R. (2012). An isotonic partial credit model for ordering subjects on the basis of their sum
scores. Psychometrika, 77(3), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-012-9272-6
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2006). Emotion research in education: Theoretical and methodological
perspectives on the integration of affect, motivation, and cognition. Educational Psychology
Review, 18, 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9028-x
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Pekrun, R. (2011). Students’ emotions and academic engagement:
Introduction to the special issue. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 1–3. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.11.004
Macaro, E., & Masterman, L. (2006). Does intensive explicit grammar instruction make all the
difference? Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1191/
1362168806lr197oa
MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D. J.
Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning (pp. 24–45). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.
McAllister, J., Narcy-Combes, M.-F., & Starkey-Perret, R. (2012). Language teachers’ perceptions of a
task-based learning programme in a French University. In A. Shehadeh & C. A. Coombe (Eds.),
Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts: Research and implementation
(pp. 313–342). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-
regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 106(1), 121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546
Ministere de l’
education nationale (2005). Programme des colleges: Langues vivantes
etrangeres au
palier 1 Anglais. Bulletin Officiel hors s
erie, n°6.
Nesselroade, J. R., Stigler, S. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1980). Regression toward the mean and the study of
change. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.622
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and
applications. London, UK: Sage.
Niculescu, A. C., Tempelaar, D., Leppink, J., Dailey-Hebert, A., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2015).
Feelings and performance in the first year at university: Learning-related emotions as predictors
of achievement outcomes in mathematics and statistics. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 13, 431–462. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.37.15012
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in
language learning (pp. 58–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review
of Psychology, 49, 345–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.345
 Teaching approaches and achievement emotions 463

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Measuring emotions in
students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ).
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.
2010.10.002
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Academic achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ).
User’s manual. Munich, Germany: Department of Psychology, University of Munich, Germany.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004). Beyond
test anxiety: Development and validation of the test emotions questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety,
Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 17(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10615800412331303847
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action control
in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.776
Peterson, E. R., Brown, G. T., & Jun, M. C. (2015). Achievement emotions in higher education: A
diary study exploring emotions across an assessment event. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 42, 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.05.002
Puente-D
ıaz, R. (2013). Achievement goals and emotions. The Journal of Psychology, 147(3), 245–
259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2012.683893
Rabideau, S. T. (2005). Effects of Achievement Motivation on Behavior. SAPA Project Papers.
Retrieved from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/rabideau.html
Samuda, V. (2009). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The
role of the teacher. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language
teaching: A reader (pp. 379–400). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach.
Approaches to Emotion, 2293, 317.
Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (Eds.). (2007). Educational psychology series. Emotion in education. San
Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Starkey-Perret, R. (2011). Posture des enseignants de L2 dans le secondaire: r
esultats d’une enqu^ete
par questionnaire [L2 teachers’ postures in secondary schools: Results of a questionnaire study].
Les Langues Modernes [The Modern Languages], 2, 75–84.
Starkey-Perret, R. (2013). Repr
esentations des enseignants sur leur m
etier et acquisition de L2 de la
part des apprenants: Quels liens peuvent ^etre
etablis? [Teachers’ representations of their
profession and learners’ L2 acquisition: What links can be established?] Les Cahiers de l’Acedle
[The Notebooks of Acedle], 10(1), 195–221. https://doi.org/10.4000/rdlc.1563
Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy–value relationships of shame reactions and shame
resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.93.2.320
Watkins, C., Carnell, E., Lodge, C., Wagner, P., & Whalley, C. (2002). Effective learning. Research
Matters. Bulletin of the National School Improvement Network, 17.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-Value Theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Some questions and answers. The
Language Teacher, 33(3), 3–8.
Zainuddin, H., Yahya, N., Morales-Jones, C., & Ariza, E. N. W. (2011). Fundamentals of teaching
English to speakers of other languages in K-12 mainstream classrooms (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York, NY: Plenum.
464 Rebecca Starkey-Perret et al.

Received 14 October 2016; revised version received 1 September 2017

Supporting Information
The following supporting information may be found in the online edition of the article:
Table S1. Frequencies for each item by range for the AEQ Questionnaire.