Next Article in Journal
Centering Identity and Multilingualism in Educational Leadership Preparation Programs
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Rubric-Guided Peer Review and Self-Assessment in an Engineering Math University Course
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci15111434
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance: A Comparative Study Between Chinese Middle School and College Students

by
Meihua Liu
1,*,
Qian Wu
2,* and
Yihan Wang
3
1
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Tsinghua University, Qinghuayuan, Haidian District, Beijing 100084, China
2
School of Foreign Languages, Tianjin University of Science and Technology, Binhai New Area, Tianjin 300222, China
3
School of Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(11), 1434; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111434
Submission received: 1 September 2025 / Revised: 17 October 2025 / Accepted: 22 October 2025 / Published: 24 October 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examined the differences in the levels of and relations between achievement emotions, emotion regulation and English performance between Chinese middle school and university students. The participants were 347 8th graders and 460 s-year university students in Xi’an, Northwestern China, who, respectively, took an English test and answered questionnaires on achievement emotions, emotion regulation and background information. Correlational and regression analyses of the test scores and survey data revealed four major findings. (1) Most middle school and university students experienced medium to high positive emotions but low negative emotions and reported a low to medium use of emotion regulation. Yet, middle school students had significantly lower levels of anger and boredom, worse English performance and greater overall emotion regulation than university students did. (2) Middle school students had greater predictive power of both positive and negative emotions on English performance. (3) University students had greater predictive power of emotion regulation on the emotions. (4) Both middle school and university students’ cognitive reappraisal powerfully positively predicted their English performance, and middle school students’ expressive suppression strongly negatively predicted the latter. Hence, suggestions for second/foreign language instructors and learners are discussed.

1. Introduction

Achievement emotions and emotion regulation (ER) have become central themes in educational psychology, offering critical insights into how affective experiences shape learning outcomes, academic performance and student well-being.
According to the control–value theory (CVT) of achievement emotions, achievement emotions are affective states tied to academic activities or outcomes, which can be positive or negative (Pekrun, 2006). These emotions emerge as a result of control–value appraisals and are context-dependent, arising in settings such as classrooms, exams or self-study (Pekrun et al., 2017). To measure achievement emotions in these settings, Pekrun et al. (2011) designed the 232-item Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ), which has been used or adapted in different studies related to the learning of different subjects like math, language and physics (e.g., Goets et al., 2010; Pekrun et al., 2019, 2023; Putwain et al., 2018; Simonton & Garn, 2020; Yu et al., 2022). These studies have generally revealed close links between control–value appraisals, achievement emotions and academic achievements, supporting the belief in CVT. Even so, CVT has not been much applied in L2 (second/foreign language) settings (Shao et al., 2019).
Concurrently, emotion regulation, which refers to various strategies utilized to influence an individual’s emotional experiences (Gross, 1998), plays an essential role in regulating emotions and fostering emotional well-being (Chang et al., 2023; Pekrun, 2024; T. Zhao & Lian, 2024). For example, Chang et al. (2023) found that emotion regulation regulated young students’ emotions and fostered their well-being. Nevertheless, such studies in L2 learning are rather limited, justifying more research on the relationships between learners’ emotions, emotion regulation and L2 achievements (T. Zhao & Lian, 2024).
Moreover, as reviewed below, there is a dearth of studies examining the differences in achievement emotions, emotion regulation and their relations with academic achievements between young and adult learners (Jerrim, 2022). Middle schools and universities are two critical stages for personal development, demonstrating different emotional and psychological characteristics. As early adolescents, middle school students are still developing emotional regulation skills, while university students are young adults with more developed executive functioning. University students normally have more academic freedom and responsibility, yet they may face higher academic stakes, while middle school students are often in more structured and supportive learning environments. All these can influence their emotions and how they regulate their emotions. Understanding what emotions middle school and university students experience and how they regulate their emotions can help promote better developmental outcomes (Shi & Sun, 2025). Hence, the present study aimed to add new evidence to the existing literature by examining differences between Chinese middle school and university EFL (English as a foreign language) students in the levels of and relations between achievement emotions, emotion regulation and English performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions

The control–value theory (CVT) of achievement emotions, proposed by Pekrun (2006, 2024; Pekrun & Perry, 2014), links emotions with academic achievements. The fundamental concept of this theory is achievement emotions, which refer to affective arousal related directly to individuals’ perceptions of control over and personal value of achievement activities (e.g., feeling joyful or bored) or achievement outcomes (e.g., pride or shame related to success or failure) (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun & Stephens, 2010). Achievement emotions can be positive (e.g., enjoyment, hope and pride) and negative (e.g., anxiety, anger and boredom). This theory posits that students with high levels of negative affect may perform worse in high-stake exams and those with high levels of positive emotions tend to perform better in such exams. This is because negative emotions may reduce individuals’ cognitive resources, resulting in decreased attention span and lowered motivation (Humensky et al., 2010), which may lead to shallow processing of input (Pekrun et al., 2017). To measure these emotions in three different academic settings (e.g., classroom instruction, taking tests and doing homework), Pekrun et al. (2011) developed the 232-item Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ), which has been used or adapted in different studies in relation to the learning of different subjects like math, language and physics (e.g., Bieg et al., 2013; Goets et al., 2010; Pekrun, 2018; Pekrun et al., 2019, 2023; Simonton & Garn, 2020; Yu et al., 2022).
According to CVT, achievement emotions emerge from appraisals of control (perceived ability to influence outcomes) and value (subjective importance of tasks or results) (Pekrun et al., 2007; Tze et al., 2022). For example, a student who feels competent (high control) and values mastering a language (high value) may experience enjoyment during vocabulary drills. Conversely, low control over grammar rules coupled with high stakes (negative value) may trigger anxiety. Meanwhile, achievement emotions are influenced by individual and social antecedents such as age, gender and education level (Pekrun et al., 2007, 2023).

2.2. Achievement Emotions and L2 Achievements

CVT has been widely applauded in education and psychology and AEQ has been adapted in different areas like math (e.g., Bieleke et al., 2023; Moreira et al., 2018; Pekrun et al., 2019, 2023), physics (e.g., Bieg et al., 2013; Fierro-Suero et al., 2020) and experimental sciences (Macías León et al., 2022). CVT posits that achievement emotions are closely related to academic achievements, which has also been supported by empirical research (e.g., Davari et al., 2022; Mega et al., 2014; Pekrun et al., 2017; Shao et al., 2020). These studies found that positive emotions like enjoyment and pride generally correlated with higher academic achievements, while negative emotions like anxiety and boredom related to lower academic achievements.
CVT has not been much applied in research on second language acquisition (Shao et al., 2019). Only in the recent decade has AEQ been adapted and validated to fit L2 learning contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2025; B. Li & Li, 2024; C. Li, 2021; C. Li et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2020, 2023; Starkey-Perret et al., 2018; Teng & Pan, 2024). Additionally, instruments like interviews and self-developed questionnaires have been used in research guided by CVT (e.g., Jerrim, 2022; Yu et al., 2022). The results of these studies generally aligned with the CVT’s assumed link between achievement emotions and academic achievements. For example, using Programme for International Student Assessment data collected from 4800 pupils, Jerrim (2022) examined the relations between 15-year-olds’ positive affect, negative affect, fear of failure and grades in high-stakes examinations. The study revealed moderate positive associations between low levels of positive affect and low examination grades but no link between high levels positive emotions and high examination grades or a substantive link between negative affect or fear of failure and examination scores. Thus, this study provided limited evidence to support a close relation between teenagers’ emotions and high-stake test performance. Teng and Pan (2024) validated an adapted AEQ by collecting data from 371 Chinese EFL students with intermediate to upper-intermediate English proficiency. This study revealed significant predictive effects of hope, hopelessness and boredom on English performance and uncovered that different achievement emotions have a joint and synergistic function in affecting academic performance. Chen et al. (2025) validated the short form of the AEQ for Foreign Language Classrooms measuring eight achievement emotions: enjoyment, hope, pride, anger, anxiety, boredom, hopelessness, and shame, by collecting data from 1063 Chinese university EFL students. Then, the questionnaire was administered to 202 students, which showed that negative emotions were more predictive of achievement than positive emotions, and that hope was the most influential predictor of the positive emotions.
Probably because the research contexts varied, and/or the focus of the adapted AEQ differed, the reviewed studies revealed mixed results regarding the effects of different emotions on L2 achievement. Consequently, more research is called for to examine the roles of achievement emotions in L2 learning.

2.3. Emotion Regulation

General psychology views emotion regulation as a multi-component process involving goals, strategies and outcomes, with various strategies employed to influence an individual’s emotional experiences, including intensity, duration and expression of the emotions (Gross, 1998). This dynamic and malleable process involves individuals managing their affective states towards adaptive outcomes (Suri & Gross, 2016). Gross’s (2015) process model distinguishes between antecedent-focused strategies (e.g., cognitive reappraisal, situation selection) and response-focused strategies (e.g., expressive suppression). Cognitive reappraisal—reframing an emotional stimulus—is often adaptive, whereas suppression is linked to psychological costs such as increased stress (Gross, 2015).
Empirical research reveals a link between emotion regulation, achievement emotions and academic outcomes (e.g., Bakır-Yalçın & Usluel, 2023; Chang et al., 2023; Forsblom et al., 2022). For example, students who reappraise exams as opportunities for growth report lower anxiety and higher resilience (Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2015). T. Zhao et al. (2021) examined 239 Chinese graduate students in fully remote courses and found that cognitive reappraisal bolstered perceived control and indirectly lowered anxiety, while expressive suppression had the opposite effect. They also found that perceived control mediated these relationships. These results showed that positive reappraisal could reshape learners’ perceptions of control and value and then enhance positive emotions and self-regulated learning. Bakır-Yalçın and Usluel (2023) surveyed 1450 pre-service teachers in Turkey and found that in online learning environments, reappraisal strategies effectively reduced anxiety and frustration and that suppression strategies tended to exacerbate negative affect and indirectly harmed performance. Enguídanos et al. (2023) analyzed data from 2183 university students and found that effective emotion regulation mitigated negative emotions such as hopelessness and enhanced positive emotions like satisfaction and enjoyment. They also found that emotional regulation strategies significantly moderated the relationship between academic emotions and dropout ideation. Pop et al.’s (2025) meta-analysis of 81 studies (115 effect sizes) on anger and emotion regulation strategies revealed consistent positive associations between anger and avoidance, rumination and suppression, and consistent negative associations between anger and both acceptance and reappraisal. Shi and Sun (2025) explored emotion regulation strategies, well-being and academic engagement among 298 senior high school and 306 college EFL learners. They found that both groups used cognitive reappraisal but college students used expressive suppression more frequently.
The results of the above reviewed studies underscore the multifaceted role of emotion regulation strategies in monitoring students’ emotions and academic success, warranting the necessity of more research on emotion regulation. Moreover, few such studies were conducted in L2 settings, which justifies the focus of the present research.

3. Research Questions

Although many studies on emotions in L2 learning are available, CVT has not been much applied in L2 settings (Shao et al., 2019). While research has demonstrated the role of emotion regulation strategies in regulating emotions and academic achievements, limited studies have explored the relationships between learners’ emotions, emotion regulation and academic achievements in L2 contexts (Machin et al., 2020; T. Zhao & Lian, 2024). Moreover, few studies have examined the differences in achievement emotions, emotion regulation and their relations with academic achievements between young and adult learners. Middle school and university students generally demonstrate different emotional and psychological characteristics as they are at two critical stages of their personal development. Understanding how they use emotion regulation strategies and how the strategies affect academic achievements can help better design and scaffold teaching and learning and promote better developmental outcomes (Shi & Sun, 2025). Consequently, this inquiry sought to examine differences in the levels of and relations between achievement emotions, emotion regulation and English test performance between Chinese middle school and university EFL students by addressing the following four questions:
(1)
What are the differences in levels of achievement emotions, emotion regulation and English performance between middle school and university students?
(2)
What are the differences in achievement emotions’ relations with English performance between middle school and university students?
(3)
What are the differences in emotion regulation’s relations with achievement emotions between middle school and university students?
(4)
What are the differences in emotion regulation’s relations with English performance between middle school and university students?

4. Research Design

4.1. Context and the Participants

The participants in the present study were 347 8th graders and 460 s-year university students in Xi’an, Shanxi province in Northwestern China. In this middle school, English was a compulsory course, as specified by the China Ministry of Education. Students in this school took an English lesson of 50 min every day, six times per week, covering reading, listening and speaking, grammar and writing. This was mainly because the English exam of the Senior High School Entrance Examination (SHSEE-E) to be administered to 9th graders had four major parts: Listening (30 points), writing (15 points), vocabulary and grammar (15 points), and reading of different types (e.g., completing sentences, task-oriented reading, completing a dialogue, etc.) (60 points). After permissions from the students, their parents and teachers were obtained, random sampling was adopted to recruit students to answer questionnaires, which resulted in 347 (173 male and 174 female) participants. With an age range of 12 to 15 (mean = 13.24, SD = 0.44), the students generally started to study English in grade 3 and self-rated English competence as 5.36 (SD = 1.897) on the scale of 1 (very poor) to 10 (nativelike).
With an average age of 19.33 (SD = 0.64) and an age range of 18–22, the 460 (266 male and 194 female) university students majored in different areas, including mathematics, computer science, civil engineering, law and psychology. They self-rated their overall English proficiency as 5.23 (SD = 1.73) on the scale of 1 (very poor) to 10 (nativelike). To graduate timely, university non-English majors have to take the College English Test band 4 (CET-4), which is a nation-wide, standardized exit and proficiency test, prepared by a group of well-known experts in English language teaching and research. The test covers speaking, listening, reading and writing. Administered twice a year, students can take it any time during their four years in college. In addition, they have to take the English test of Graduate Entrance Examination if they plan to apply for postgraduate programs at home or GRE or IELTS if they plan to study for postgraduate programs abroad.
In both middle school and university English language classrooms, teaching and learning were generally exam-oriented, covering all four aspects (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing) of the language. To develop different skills, teachers often adopted a combination of different strategies in class, depending on what was taught and practiced.

4.2. Instruments

The questionnaires utilized in the present research comprised a 5-item background questionnaire for collecting demographic information such as gender and age, the 63-item Achievement Emotion Scale and the 10-item Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. The 5-point Achievement Emotion Scale was adapted from that used in Shao et al. (2020) to fit classroom learning in the present research. Thus, exam-oriented items in the original scales were changed to be course- or classroom-oriented items in the present study.
Achievement Emotions Questionnaire: Intending to survey students’ emotions in English class, this 63-item Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) involved both positive (i.e., enjoyment, hope and pride) and negative emotions (i.e., anger, boredom, anxiety, shame and hopelessness) related to English learning. It had 10-item enjoyment, 6-item hope, 7-item pride, 8-item anger, 8-item anxiety, 8-item shame, 8-item hopelessness, and 8-item boredom. The higher an emotion score, the higher level of that specific emotion in English class.
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire: This 7-point Likert questionnaire (ERQ) was adopted from that in Gross and John (2003), covering two demotion regulation strategies: 6-item cognitive reappraisal (ERQ1) and 4-item expressive suppression (ERQ2) (Gross & John, 2003). The higher the ERQ score, the greater regulation over emotions.
Table 1 presents reliability scores and sample items of the scales, which shows that all the scales were highly reliable for both middle school students (a = 0.732~0.954) and university students (a = 0.817~0.981) in the present research.
English performance: The participants’ English performance was measured by their final-term English exams, which were prepared by teachers teaching the same course, reviewed and approved by the teaching faculty of the respective school. The exam for 8th graders had four parts and lasted for 100 min: grammar and vocabulary (15 points), close test (20 points), writing (10 points) and reading of different types (55 points). The exam for second-year university students also had four parts and lasted for 100 min: vocabulary and grammar (20 points), Chinese–English translation (15 min), reading comprehension (50 min) and writing (15 min).

4.3. Data Collection and Analysis

After obtaining the ethical approval (No.: THU-04-2024-42), this study was conducted in the last week of the fall term. Immediately after the students finished their final-term English exam, they completed the questionnaires in Chinese in about 15 min as well as a consent form for participation and publication. All participation was voluntary.
Data were analyzed via SPSS 26. Reliability, means and standard deviations were computed first. Then, independent sample t-test was run to explore differences in levels of achievement emotions, emotion regulation and test performance between middle school and university students. Correlation analysis and linear regression analysis (stepwise) were subsequently conducted to examine the relationships between the measured variables, the results of which were compared to identify differences between middle school and university students.

5. Results

5.1. Differences in Levels of Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations (SD), skewness and kurtosis values of the measured variables. Skewness and kurtosis values demonstrated that the data for each scale was normally distributed.
As shown in Table 2, middle school students scored 3.64 (SD = 0.80) on enjoyment, 3.43 (SD = 0.98) on hope, 3.55 (SD = 0.90) on pride, 2.10 (SD = 0.92) on anger, 2.62 (SD = 1.02) on anxiety, 2.45 (SD = 1.14) on shame, 2.05 (SD = 1.07) on hopelessness, and 1.96 (SD = 1.05) on boredom, well above or below the scale midpoint 3. These findings indicated that most middle school students experienced medium to high positive emotions of enjoyment, hope and pride but low negative emotions of anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom. Of all the emotions, they reported the lowest level of boredom and highest level of enjoyment. In addition, they scored 4.92 (SD = 1.24) on ERQ1, 3.98 (SD = 1.50) on ERQ2 and 4.54 (SD = 1.07) on ERQ, around or above the scale midpoint 4, indicating that the middle school participants had a low use of expressive suppression (ERQ2) and a medium use of cognitive reappraisal (ERQ1) and overall emotion regulation (ERQ).
Concurrently, university students scored 3.56 (SD = 0.88) on enjoyment, 3.56 (SD = 0.92) on hope, 3.66 (SD = 0.88) on pride, 2.42 (SD = 0.97) on anger, 2.56 (SD = 0.94) on anxiety, 2.38 (SD = 1.01) on shame, 2.16 (SD = 1.05) on hopelessness and 2.15 (SD = 1.03) on boredom, well above or below the scale midpoint 3. These findings indicated that most university students experienced medium to high positive emotions of enjoyment, hope and pride but low negative emotions of anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom. Of all the emotions, they scored the highest on pride and the lowest on boredom. Moreover, they scored 4.87 (SD = 1.22) on ERQ1, 4.09 (SD = 1.27) on ERQ2 and 4.08 (SD = 0.98) on ERQ, slightly or well above the scale midpoint 4, indicating that university students had a medium level of cognitive reappraisal (ERQ1) and a low to medium level of expressive suppression (ERQ2) and overall emotion regulation (ERQ).
Table 2 also demonstrates that middle school and university students scored 65.28 (SD = 20.79) and 75.74 (SD = 9.68) in their final-term English exam, respectively, indicating that they both were intermediate learners of English at their respective educational level.
Comparison of the scores indicated that middle school students scored lower than university students in hope, pride, anger, hopelessness, boredom, ERQ2 and English performance, but higher on enjoyment, anxiety, shame, cognitive reappraisal and ERQ. Independent sample t-test results showed that significant differences existed in anger (t = −4.39, p = 0.000), boredom (t = −2.53, p = 0.012), ERQ (t = 6.22, p = 0.000) and English performance (t = −8.16, p = 0.000), with a small to medium effect size (d = 0.183~0.645). Namely, middle school students had significantly lower levels of anger and boredom and lower scores in the final-term English exam than university students did. Yet, they had significantly greater overall emotion regulation.

5.2. Differences in Correlations Between Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance

Table 3 reports the correlations between the measured variables for middle school and university students. As shown in Table 3, for middle school students, all positive emotions were significantly positively related to each other (r = 0.710~0.780, p < 0.001), ERQ1 (r = 0.329~0.344, p < 0.001) and ERQ (r = 0.225~0.244, p < 0.001) and inversely to negative emotions (r = −0.523~−0.229, p < 0.001). All negative emotions were highly positively correlated with each other (r = 0.502~0.763, p < 0.001) and were inversely related to ERQ2 (r = 0.178~0.252, p < 0.001). Hopelessness (r = −0.131, p < 0.05) and boredom (r = −0.169, p < 0.01) were significantly negatively related to ERQ1 as well. All ERQ scales significantly positively correlated with each other (r = 0.264~0.842, p < 0.001). Furthermore, positive emotions and ERQ1 were all significantly positively related to English performance (r = 0.161~0.460, p < 0.01), while negative emotions and ERQ2 were all significantly inversely related to the latter (r = −0.395~−0.150, p < 0.01). Alternatively, the higher level of a positive emotion/emotion regulation, the better the English performance; the higher level of a negative emotion, the worse the English performance.
For university students, all positive emotions were significantly positively related to each other (r = 0.852~0.908, p < 0.001) and ERQ scales (r = 0.113~0.494, p < 0.001) and inversely to negative emotions (r = −0.377~−0.200, p < 0.001). All negative emotions were highly positively correlated with each other (r = 0.516~0.897, p < 0.001) and ERQ2 (r = 0.153~0.339, p < 0.001). Anger (r = −0.163, p < 0.001), hopelessness (r = −0.160, p < 0.01) and boredom (r = −0.143, p < 0.01) were significantly negatively related to ERQ1; anxiety (r = 0.129, p < 0.01) and shame (r = 0.170, p < 0.001) were significantly positively related to ERQ as well. Furthermore, ERQ scales were highly positively related to each other (r = 0.508~0.891, p < 0.001); positive emotions and ERQ1 were significantly positively related to English performance (r = 0.154~0.226, p < 0.001), while negative emotions all significantly inversely correlated with the latter (r = −0.263~−0.167, p < 0.001).
Comparison of the coefficients revealed large differences in the power of the coefficients between the two samples. University students generally had higher coefficients between positive emotions (difference ≅ 0.15 r) and between positive emotions and ERQ scales (difference ≅ 0.1 r). Middle school students had higher coefficients between negative emotions with a difference of around (difference ≅ −0.29–−0.15 r). Middle school students had higher coefficients between positive emotions and negative emotions (difference ≅ −0.1–−0.15 r), between positive emotions and English performance (difference ≅ 0.2–0.25 r), between negative emotions and English performance (difference ≅ −0.05–−0.15 r) and between ERQ2 and English performance (difference ≅ 0.15 r).

5.3. Differences in Achievement Emotions’ Predictive Power on English Performance

To examine achievement emotions’ predictive effects on English performance, regression analysis was run on middle school and university students, with achievement emotions being independent variables and English performance being the dependent variable, respectively. The results are reported in Table 4.
As reported in Table 4, for middle school students, all positive emotions positively significantly predicted English performance (ß = 0.354~0.460, t = 7.03~9.63, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 15.3%, 20.9% and 12.3% of the total variance in English performance, respectively. All negative emotions significantly negatively predicted English performance (ß = −0.395~−0.215, t = −7.98~−4.09, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 4.3%, 11.6%, 8.4%, 15.3% and 7.6% of the total variance in English performance, respectively. For university students, all positive emotions positively significantly predicted English performance (ß = 0.154~0.226, t = 3.34~4.97, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 2.4%, 4.3% and 5.1% of the total variance in English performance, respectively. All negative emotions significantly negatively predicted English performance (ß = −0.263~−0.167, t = −5.83~−3.63, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 2.8%, 3.6%, 2.8%, 6.9% and 5.3% of the total variance in English performance, respectively.
Comparison of the numbers in Table 4 revealed large differences in achievement emotions’ predictive power on English performance between middle school and university students. Middle school students had greater predictive power of positive emotions on English performance (difference ≅ 0.13~0.23 β) and greater predictive power of negative emotions on English performance (difference ≅ −0.13~−0.05 β). The effect size of the predictive power for middle school students was generally small to medium (f2 = 0.044~0.181), while that for university students was small (f2 = 0.025~0.074).

5.4. Differences in Emotion Regulation’s Predictive Power on Achievement Emotions and English Performance

To examine emotion regulation’s predictive effects on achievement emotions and English performance, regression analysis was run on middle school and university students, with ERQ scales being independent variables and the other measured variables being the dependent variable, respectively. The results are reported in Table 5.
As reported in Table 5, for middle school students, ERQ1 (ß = 0.329~0.344, t = 6.48~6.81, p ≤ 0.001) significantly positively predicted positive emotions, accounting for 10.6%, 11.6% and 11.5% of the total variance in enjoyment, hope and pride, respectively. It significantly negatively predicted anger (ß = −0.188, t = −3.55, p ≤ 0.001), hopelessness (ß = −0.131, t = −2.45, p = 0.015) and boredom (ß = −0.169, t = −3.19, p = 0.002), accounting for 3.2%, 1.4% and 2.6% of the total variance in anger, hopelessness and boredom, respectively. ERQ2 significantly positively predicted all negative emotions except for anger (ß = 0.178~0.252, t = 3.52~4.84, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 3.5%, 6.1%, 5.1% and 2.9% of the total variance in anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom, respectively. ERQ significantly positively predicted positive emotions (ß = 0.225~0.244, t = 4.29~4.66, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 4.8%, 4.9% and 5.7% of the total variance in enjoyment, hope and pride, respectively. Meanwhile, ERQ1 significantly positively predicted English performance (ß = 0.161, t = 3.02, p = 0.003) while ERQ2 significantly negatively predicted the latter (ß = −0.150, t = −2.82, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 2.6% and 2.3% of the total variance in English performance, respectively.
For university students, ERQ1 significantly positively predicted positive emotion (ß = 0.434~0.494, t = 10.32~12.15, p ≤ 0.001) s, accounting for 20.2%, 18.9% and 24.4% of the total variance in enjoyment, hope and pride, respectively. It significantly negatively predicted anger (ß = −0.163, t = −3.53, p ≤ 0.001), hopelessness (ß = −0.160, t = −3.46, p = 0.001) and boredom (ß = −0.143, t = −3.09, p = 0.002), accounting for 2.6%, 2.5% and 2% of the total variance in anger, hopelessness and boredom, respectively. ERQ2 significantly positively predicted enjoyment (ß = 0.153, t = 3.32, p = 0.001), pride (ß = 0.113, t = 2.43, p = 0.015) and all negative emotions except for anger (ß = 0.153~0.339, t = 3.31~7.72, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 2.3%, 1.3%, 2.3%, 7.6%, 11.5%, 4.7% and 4.7% of the total variance in enjoyment, pride, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom, respectively. ERQ significantly positively predicted positive emotions (ß = 0.323~0.374, t = 7.32~8.62, p ≤ 0.001), anxiety (ß = 0.129, t = 2.78, p = 0.006) and shame (ß = 0.170, t = 3.70, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 13.4%, 10.5%, 14%, 1.7% and 2.9% of the total variance in enjoyment, hope, pride, anxiety and shame, respectively. Meanwhile, ERQ1 significantly positively predicted English performance (ß = 0.162, t = 3.52, p ≤ 0.001), accounting for 2.6% of its total variance.
Comparison of the numbers revealed big differences in emotion regulation’s predictive power on achievement emotions and English performance between middle school and university students. University students had greater predictive power of all ERQ scales on positive emotions (difference ≅ 0.1~0.15 β), greater predictive power of ERQ2 on negative emotions (difference ≅ 0.05~0.08 β) and greater predictive power of ERQ on anxiety, shame and English performance (difference ≅ 0.06~0.1 β). Middle school students had greater predictive power of ERQ2 on English performance (difference ≅ 0.13 β), while ERQ1’s predictive power on English performance was similar for both samples. In addition, the effect size of ERQ1’s predictive power on positive emotions for university students was generally medium (f2 = 0.233~0.323 > 0.15), while that for middle school students was generally small yet to the upper end (f2 = 0.119~0.131 < 0.15). The effect size of ERQ’s predictive power on university students’ enjoyment and pride was medium yet to the lower end (f2 = 0.155~0.163 > 0.15) and was small but to the upper end for hope (f2 = 0.117 > 0.02), while that for middle school students was generally small and to the lower end (f2 = 0.05~0.06 > 0.02).

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Differences in Levels of Achievement Emotions and Emotion Regulation

As found in the present study, both middle school and university students experienced medium to high positive emotions of enjoyment, hope and pride (mean ≈ 3.5) but low negative emotions of anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness and boredom (mean ≈ 1.96–2.65), largely similar to the findings in many existing studies (e.g., Dewaele et al., 2022, 2024; Liu & Hong, 2021; Liu et al., 2024; X. Zhao & Wang, 2023), except that students in many studies often reported a medium to high level of anxiety (e.g., Jiang & Dewaele, 2019; C. Li & Han, 2022). These findings indicated that the English courses for both middle school and university students generally met students’ needs and expectations. Of all the emotions, middle school students reported the lowest level of boredom and highest level of enjoyment, and university students scored the highest on pride and the lowest on boredom. Meanwhile, university students reported a slightly higher level of negative emotions. Independent t-tests revealed that they had significantly greater levels of anger and boredom. This might be attributed to the following reasons: (a) the primary focus for middle school students might be to go to an ideal high school, so they were concerned with studying English well and getting high scores in English exams; (b) middle school students tended to regulate their emotions more as they confronted greater pressure; (c) university English courses were too challenging or too easy for the students to feel bored; and (d) university students did not face highly pressuring English exams as middle schools did and thus experienced more emotions which might be triggered by different learner-internal and external reasons in English class.
This study also found that middle school participants used cognitive reappraisal (ERQ1) more frequently but expressive suppression (ERQ2) less frequently than university students did, partially consistent with the finding in Shi and Sun (2025). Although no significant difference occurred in the use of ERQ1 and ERQ2, coupled with their levels of positive and negative emotions, these findings were different from the finding in Lennarz et al. (2019) that adolescents employed suppression, distraction and rumination strategies more frequently when their negative emotions were high and the acceptance strategy when their negative emotions were low. Yet they generally aligned with the finding in the many current studies that adults adopt reappraisal more often when emotional intensity is low(er) (Blanke et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2020). This partially explained why middle school reported significantly greater use of overall emotion regulation in the present study. Nevertheless, since limited research on emotion regulation in L2 learning is available, more empirical support is warranted for better understanding of the findings.

6.2. Differences in Achievement Emotions’ Predictive Power on English Performance

Correlation analysis showed that for both middle school and university students, positive emotions were all significantly positively related to English performance while negative emotions were all significantly inversely related to the latter, with a small to medium effect size. Regression analyses indicated that for both middle school and university students, all positive emotions significantly positively while all negative emotions significantly negatively predicted English performance. Largely consistent with the finding in many current studies (e.g., Camacho-Morles et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2025; B. Li & Li, 2024; C. Li, 2021; C. Li et al., 2023; Shao et al., 2023; Teng & Pan, 2024), these findings further confirm the belief in CVT that achievement emotions are critical in shaping academic success (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun & Perry, 2014), implying the universality of CVT in both young and adult learners.
Further examination uncovered that middle school students had higher coefficients between positive emotions and English performance and between negative emotions and English performance. They had greater predictive power of both positive and negative emotions on English performance as well. These findings suggested that achievement emotions played a more important role in influencing middle school students’ English performance. This was mainly because middle school students are in a crucial stage of emotional and cognitive development, making them more emotionally responsive to academic experiences. Achievement emotions can significantly impact their motivation and effort to study English: positive emotions (e.g., enjoyment, hope and pride) can enhance intrinsic motivation and persistence, while negative emotions (e.g., shame and anxiety) may decrease motivation or lead to avoidance behaviors (Pekrun, 2006, 2024).

6.3. Differences in Emotion Regulation’s Predictive Power on Achievement Emotions

This study also found that all positive emotions were significantly positively related to middle school students’ ERQ1 and ERQ. They were significantly positively related to university students’ ERQ scales. Concurrently, for both groups, all negative emotions were significantly inversely related to ERQ2. Middle school students’ hopelessness and boredom were significantly negatively related to ERQ1 as well. University students’ anger, hopelessness and boredom were significantly negatively related to ERQ1, while their anxiety and shame were significantly positively related to ERQ.
Regression analyses demonstrated that, for both middle school and university students, ERQ1 and ERQ significantly positively predicted positive emotions. University students’ ERQ2 significantly positively predicted enjoyment and pride. Meanwhile, both samples’ ERQ1 significantly negatively predicted anger, hopelessness and boredom. Middle school students’ ERQ2 significantly positively predicted all negative emotions except for anger. University students’ ERQ2 significantly positively predicted all negative emotions except for anger. Their ERQ significantly positively predicted anxiety and shame.
On the one hand, these findings partially support those in T. Zhao et al. (2021), Bakır-Yalçın and Usluel (2023) and Enguídanos et al. (2023). This might be because emotion regulation, especially cognitive reappraisal, could help boost students’ perceived control and value of their English learning, which led to enhanced positive emotions and lowered negative emotions, as discussed in CVT and found in T. Zhao et al. (2021). On the other hand, these findings revealed complex relationships between emotion regulation and academic achievements in L2 learning, which deserves more and continuous research.

6.4. Differences in Emotion Regulation’s Predictive Power on English Performance

Correlation analyses revealed that both middle school and university students’ ERQ1 (cognitive reappraisal) was significantly positively related to their English performance with a small to medium effect size. Middle school students’ ERQ2 (expressive suppression) was significantly inversely related to their English performance with a small effect size. Regression analyses showed that both samples’ ERQ1 significantly positively predicted English performance and middle school students’ ERQ2 significantly negatively predicted the latter. Partially consistent with the findings in Bakır-Yalçın and Usluel (2023), these findings indicated the influence of emotion regulation on academic performance, which needs more empirical evidence considering the availability of limited research on emotion regulation in relation to L2 learning outcomes.
Comparison of the values presented in Table 4 and Table 5 indicated that university students had greater predictive power of all ERQ scales on positive emotions, greater predictive power of ERQ2 on negative emotions and greater predictive power of ERQ on anxiety and shame. Middle school students had greater predictive power of ERQ2 on English performance, while ERQ1’s predictive power on English performance was similar for both samples. These differences might be attributed to the following reasons: university students had stronger emotions, more conscious use of expressive suppression or greater perceived control and value of English learning. Although these potential reasons need to be validated in further research, the differences indicated different working mechanisms underlying young and adult learners’ emotion regulation and achievement emotions.

7. Implications

The findings of the present study highlight the importance of achievement emotions in influencing L2 performance and the importance of emotion regulation in impacting achievement emotions and L2 performance for both young and adult learners. They also demonstrate that the underlying mechanisms work differently for young and adult learners, implying the necessity of organizing L2 teaching differently to them.
Since emotions are important to both middle school and university students, it is necessary to inform both L2 instructors and learners of various emotions and their roles in L2 learning by reading relevant literature, attending seminars and lectures on emotions and sharing emotions experienced during the process of L2 learning. Being aware of different emotions, it is possible to discuss what triggers the emotions and think of strategies to bolster positive emotions and reduce negative emotions. For example, students can set goals, check their progress and appraise their progress regularly to be in control of their learning (Hawrot, 2024). It is also helpful for them to learn emotion regulation strategies and regulate their emotions when necessary to stay positive and proactive towards L2 learning, which proved to be valuable in young people in Chang et al. (2023).
For middle school students, it is important for instructors to be friendly and supportive and to make the teaching interesting and meaningful. This can be done in different ways, for example, being empathetic by sharing emotions in L2 classrooms and tests, connecting exam-oriented teaching to daily life, encouraging different views on the same topic and so on. Hence, students may feel happy, comfortable and interested in L2 class, as discussed in Jerrim (2022). Meanwhile, reducing expressive suppression apropos may help them regulate their emotions (e.g., laughing and crying when they want to), leading to emotional well-being and better academic outcomes. In addition to these, providing different kinds of feedback, including real-time feedback provided by chatbots, may help university students reduce negative emotions like anxiety (Tempelaar et al., 2020). Promoting cognitive appraisal and introducing more discussion on career-related issues in class may also be conducive to them. In a word, it is beneficial to organize training and practice to address middle school and university students’ needs, respectively, so that their long-term success and well-being can be fostered and enhanced (Shi & Sun, 2025).
The present inquiry explored the differences in levels of and relations between achievement emotions, emotion regulation and English achievement between Chinese middle school and university EFL students, revealing insights on the working mechanisms for young and adult learners and their L2 learning. Since the participants came from specific schools, a larger and more diverse population might add diversity and generalizability to the findings, which warrants more research on the issues in various contexts. In addition, the tests for middle school and university students covered different components, which might impact the participants’ performance. Hence, future research should be more cautious about selecting or developing more proper tests so that the results can be more comparable. Moreover, the present study focused on two emotion regulation strategies—cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, while other strategies were not examined, which should be the focus of future research to better understand the effects of more emotion regulation strategies. Furthermore, as discussed in Petrova and Gross (2023), interpersonal emotion regulation may be useful, especially in collaborative learning, and thus is worthy of investigation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, M.L.; investigation and data curation, Q.W.; formal analysis, Y.W.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, Q.W. and Y.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Science and Technology Ethic Committee (Humanities, Social Sciences and Engineering) of Tsinghua University (protocol code TUH-04-2024-42 and date of 27 May 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Each participant signed a written consent form to participate in the study and publish the results. All participation was voluntary.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bakır-Yalçın, E., & Usluel, Y. K. (2023). Investigating the antecedents of engagement in online learning: Do achievement emotions matter? Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 3759–3791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ben-Eliyahu, A., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2015). Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition and Learning, 10(1), 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bieg, M., Goetz, T., & Hubbard, K. (2013). Can I master it and does it matter? An intraindividual analysis on control-value antecedents of trait and state academic emotions. Learning & Individual Differences, 28(4), 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bieleke, M., Goetz, T., Yanagida, T., Botes, E., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2023). Measuring emotions in mathematics: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire—Mathematics (AEQ-M). ZDM Mathematics Education, 55, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Blanke, E. S., Bellingtier, J. A., Riediger, M., & Brose, A. (2021). When and how to regulate: Everyday emotion-regulation strategy use and stressor intensity. Affective Science, 3, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Camacho-Morles, J., Slemp, G. R., Pekrun, R., Loderer, K., Hou, H., & Oades, L. G. (2021). Activity achievement emotions and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 1051–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chang, S., Vaingankar, J. A., Seow, E., Samari, E., Chua, Y. C., Luo, N., Verma, S., & Subramaniam, M. (2023). Understanding emotion regulation strategies among youths: A qualitative study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 40(1), 44–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, N., Li, Y., & Hui, A. N. (2025). Exploring foreign language classroom emotions and their impact on achievement in China: Validating the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire—Short form and resupply. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 100158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davari, H., Karami, H., Nourzadeh, S., & Iranmehr, A. (2022). Examining the validity of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire for measuring more emotions in the foreign language classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(8), 701–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dewaele, J. M., Albakistani, A., & Ahmed, I. K. (2022). Is flow possible in the emergency remote teaching foreign language classroom? Education Sciences, 12(7), 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dewaele, J. M., Albakistani, A., & Ahmed, I. K. (2024). Levels of foreign language enjoyment, anxiety and boredom in emergency remote teaching and in in-person classes. The Language Learning Journal, 52(1), 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Enguídanos, D., Aroztegui, J., Iglesias-Soilán, M., Sánchez-San-José, I., & Fernández, J. (2023). Academic emotions and regulation strategies: Interaction with higher education dropout ideation. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fierro-Suero, S., Almagro, B. J., & Sáenz-López, P. (2020). Validation of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire for Physical Education (AEQ-PE). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17, 4560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Forsblom, A., Pekrun, R., Loderer, K., & Peixoto, F. (2022). Cognitive appraisals, achievement emotions, and students’ math achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 346–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Goets, T., Frenzel, A. C., Stger, H., & Hall, N. C. (2010). Antecedents of everyday positive emotions: An experience sampling analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 34(1), 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hawrot, A. (2024). Changes in control and value appraisals predict changes in learning enjoyment: A four-wave analysis among lower secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 231–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Humensky, J., Kuwabara, S., Fogel, J., Wells, C., Goodwin, B., & Van Voorhees, B. (2010). Adolescents with depressive symptoms and their challenges with learning in school. The Journal of School Nursing, 26(5), 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jerrim, J. (2022). The power of positive emotions? The link between young people’s positive and negative affect and performance in high-stakes examinations. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(3), 310–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jiang, Y., & Dewaele, J. M. (2019). How unique is the foreign language classroom enjoyment and anxiety of Chinese EFL learners? System, 82, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lennarz, H. K., Hollenstein, T., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kuntsche, E., & Granic, I. (2019). Emotion regulation in action: Use, selection, and success of emotion regulation in adolescents’ daily lives. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, B., & Li, C. (2024). Achievement goals and emotions of Chinese EFL students: A control-value theory approach. System, 123, 103335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, C. (2021). A control-value theory approach to boredom in English classes among university students in China. The Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 317–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, C., & Han, Y. (2022). The predictive effects of foreign language anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom on learning outcomes in online English classrooms. Modern Foreign Languages, 45(2), 207–219. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, C., Pawlak, M., & Kruk, M. (2023). Achievement emotions and control-value appraisals in foreign language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(2), 364–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, M., & Hong, M. (2021). English language classroom anxiety and enjoyment in Chinese young learners. Sage Open, 11(4), 21582440211047550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, M., Wu, X., & Yang, F. (2024). Emotions in English language classrooms among Chinese top university students. Scientific Reports, 14, 20081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Machin, S., McNally, S., & Ruiz-Valenzuela, J. (2020). Entry through the narrow door: The costs of just failing high stakes exams. Journal of Public Economics, 190, 104224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Macías León, K., de Las Heras Pérez, M. Á., Romero Fernández, R., González Castanedo, Y., & Sáenz-López, P. (2022). Validation of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire for experimental science education (AEQ-S). Behavioral Science, 12(12), 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. 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), 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mehta, A., Formanowicz, M., Uusberg, A., Uusberg, H., Gross, J. J., & Suri, G. (2020). The regulation of recurrent negative emotion in the aftermath of a lost election. Cognition and Emotion, 34, 848–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moreira, P., Cunha, D., & Inman, R. A. (2018). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Mathematics (AEQ-M) in adolescents: Factorial structure, measurement invariance and convergent validity with personality. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(6), 750–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pekrun, R. (2018). Control-value theory: A social-cognitive approach to achievement emotions. In G. A. D. Liem, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Big theories revisited 2: A volume of research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (pp. 162–190). Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pekrun, R. (2024). Control-value theory: From achievement emotion to a general theory of human emotions. Educational Psychology Review, 36(3), 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pekrun, R., Frenzei, A. C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2007). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: An integrative approach to emotions in education. In P. A. Schutz, & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 13–36). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T. (2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Longitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Development, 88(5), 1653–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pekrun, R., Marsh, H. W., Elliot, A. J., Stockinger, K., Perry, R. P., Vogl, E., Goetz, T., van Tilburg, W. A. P., Lüdtke, O., & Vispoel, W. P. (2023). A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(1), 145–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., Marsh, H. W., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2019). Happy fish in little ponds: Testing a reference group model of achievement and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 166–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pekrun, R., & Perry, R. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun, & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120–141). Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  45. Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2010). Achievement emotions: A control-value approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Petrova, K., & Gross, J. J. (2023). The future of emotion regulation research: Broadening our field of view. Affective Science, 4, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pop, G. V., Nechita, D. M., Miu, A. C., & Szentágotai-Tătar, A. (2025). Anger and emotion regulation strategies: A meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 15, 6931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Putwain, D. W., Reinhard, P., Nicholson, L. J., Wendy, S., Sandra, B., & Marsh, H. W. (2018). Control-value appraisals, enjoyment, and boredom in mathematics: A longitudinal latent interaction analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1339–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shao, K., Pekrun, R., Marsh, H. W., & Loderer, K. (2020). Control-value appraisals, achievement emotions, and foreign language performance: A latent interaction analysis. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shao, K., Pekrun, R., & Nicholson, L. J. (2019). Emotions in classroom language learning: What can we learn from achievement emotion research? System, 86, 102121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shao, K., Stockinger, K., Marsh, H. W., & Pekrun, R. (2023). Applying control-value theory for examining multiple emotions in L2 classrooms: Validating the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire-Second Language Learning. Language Teaching Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shi, H., & Sun, W. (2025). Exploring emotional regulation, well-being, and academic engagement: A comparative study among Chinese high school and college EFL learners. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 98, 101773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Simonton, K. L., & Garn, A. C. (2020). Control–value theory of achievement emotions: A closer look at student value appraisals and enjoyment. Learning and Individual Differences, 81, 101910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Starkey-Perret, R., Deledalle, A., Jeoffrion, C., & Rowe, C. (2018). Measuring the impact of teaching approaches on achievement-related emotions: The use of the achievement emotions questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 446–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Suri, G., & Gross, J. J. (2016). Emotion regulation. In Handbook of emotions (pp. 453–466). Guilford Publications. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tempelaar, D., Rienties, B., Nguyen, Q., & Giesbers, B. (2020). Learning analytics for. understanding the learning process: The value of log data and discursive data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 7(2), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Teng, L. S., & Pan, J. (2024). Achievement emotions in online language learning: Domain-specific components and interactions with self-regulation strategies and language performance. Applied Linguistics, xx, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tze, V., Parker, P., & Sukovieff, A. (2022). Control-value theory of achievement emotions and Its relevance to school psychology. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 37(1), 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yu, W., Wu, H., & Zhao, W. (2022). A qualitative analysis of control-value appraisals, positive achievement emotions, and EFL performance in a Chinese senior high school context. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 986684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhao, T., Fu, Z., Lian, X., Ye, L., & Huang, W. (2021). Exploring emotion regulation and perceived control as antecedents of anxiety and its consequences during COVID-19 full remote learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 675910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Zhao, T., & Lian, X. (2024). Competitive psychological climate and foreign language anxiety in junior high school learners in China: Roles of control-value appraisals, and cognitive reappraisal. Language Teaching Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, X., & Wang, D. (2023). The role of enjoyment and boredom in shaping English language achievement among ethnic minority learners. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(3), 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Basic characteristics of the scales.
Table 1. Basic characteristics of the scales.
MeasureNo. of ItemsMiddle School Students
(N = 347)		University Students
(N = 460)		Item Example
ReliabilityItem-Total CorrelationReliabilityItem-Total Correlation
Enjoyment100.9130.6850.9650.840I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in my English course.
Hope60.9190.7480.9620.880The thought of achieving my learning objectives inspires me.
Pride70.8870.6740.9560.846When I solve a difficult problem in my English study, my heart beats with pride.
Anger80.9280.7310.9530.825I get annoyed about having to study English.
Anxiety80.9170.7030.9390.783When I can’t keep up with my English study it makes me fearful.
Shame80.9380.7750.9590.845I feel embarrassed about not being able to fully explain the course materials to others.
Hopelessness80.9540.8270.9810.922My lack of confidence makes me exhausted before I even start.
Boredom80.9520.8440.9810.920Because I’m bored I have no desire to learn.
ERQ160.8070.5670.9140.759When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about.
ERQ240.7320.5230.8170.640I control my emotions by not expressing them.
ERQ100.7790.4490.8950.643I keep my emotions to myself.
Notes: ERQ1 = cognitive reappraisal; ERQ2 = expressive suppression; ERQ = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire.
Table 2. Means, SDs and t-test results of the measured variables.
Table 2. Means, SDs and t-test results of the measured variables.
MeasureMiddle School Students (N = 347)University Students (N = 460)t-Test Results
Mean/SDSkewness/KurtosisMean/SDSkewness/KurtosistpCohen’s d
Enjoyment3.64/0.80−0.488/0.3623.56/0.88−0.221/0.050−1.260.207/
Hope3.43/0.98−0.232/−0.4023.56/0.92−0.254/−0.088−1.770.077/
Pride3.55/0.90−0.343/−0.0233.66/0.88−0.200/−0.293−1.640.101/
Anger2.10/0.920.664/−0.1092.42/0.970.435/−0.073−4.39 **0.0000.339
Anxiety2.62/1.020.109/−0.7342.56/0.940.065/−0.3891.020.307/
Shame2.45/1.140.378/−0.9572.38/1.010.241/−0.5900.7280.467/
Hopelessness2.05/1.070.869/−0.1572.16/1.050.563/−0.426−1.330.184/
Boredom1.96/1.051.082/0.4602.15/1.030.566/−0.373−2.53 *0.0120.183
ERQ14.92/1.24−0.456/0.0324.87/1.22−0.265/0.2530.6370.525/
ERQ23.98/1.500.059/−0.7114.09/1.270.031/0.211−1.020.309/
ERQ4.54/1.07−0.142/0.3134.08/0.98−0.135/1.026.22 **0.0000.448
EP65.28/20.79−0.794/−0.31575.74/9.68−0.698/1.572−8.16 **0.0000.645
Notes: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; ERQ1 = cognitive reappraisal; ERQ2 = expressive suppression; ERQ = emotion regulation; EP = English performance; d ≈ 0.2 = small effect, d ≈ 0.5 = medium effect, d ≈ 0.8 = large effect (Cohen, 1988).
Table 3. Correlations between the measured variables for middle school and university students.
Table 3. Correlations between the measured variables for middle school and university students.
23456789101112
Middle school students (N = 347)
1 Enjoyment0.754 **0.710 **−0.523 **−0.341 **−0.229 **−0.424 **−0.519 **0.329 **−0.0060.225 **0.394 **
2 Hope10.780 **−0.523 **−0.477 **−0.378 **−0.521 **−0.480 **0.344 **−0.0180.228 **0.460 **
3 Pride 1−0.392 **−0.317 **−0.267 **−0.391 **−0.403 **0.343 **0.0100.244 **0.354 **
4 Anger 10.661 **0.502 **0.694 **0.754 **−0.188 **0.099−0.075−0.215 **
5 Anxiety 10.717 **0.710 **0.542 **−0.1050.186 **0.032−0.345 **
6 Shame 10.691 **0.466 **−0.1030.252 **0.070−0.295 **
7 Hopelessness 10.763 **−0.131 *0.232 **0.039−0.395 **
8 Boredom 1−0.169 **0.178 **−0.018−0.281 **
9 ERQ1 10.264 **0.842 **0.161 **
10 ERQ2 10.743 **−0.150 **
11 ERQ 10.027
12 L2 performance 1
University students (N = 460)
1 Enjoyment0.902 **0.852 **−0.370 **−0.215 **−0.200 **−0.393 **−0.460 **0.449 **0.153 **0.366 **0.154 **
2 Hope10.908 **−0.377 **−0.302 **−0.294 **−0.476 **−0.503 **0.434 **0.0910.323 **0.208 **
3 Pride 1−0.320 **−0.260 **−0.272 **−0.452 **−0.444 **0.494 **0.113 **0.374 **0.226 **
4 Anger 10.653 **0.516 **0.645 **0.689 **−0.163 **0.153 **−0.024−0.167 **
5 Anxiety 10.812 **0.737 **0.659 **−0.0200.275 **0.129 **−0.189 **
6 Shame 10.778 **0.669 **0.0060.339 **0.170 **−0.168 **
7 Hopelessness 10.897 **−0.160 **0.217 **0.007−0.263 **
8 Boredom 1−0.143 **0.216 **0.017−0.230 **
9 ERQ1 10.508 **0.891 **0.162 **
10 ERQ2 10.836 **−0.020
11 ERQ 10.089
12 L2 performance 1
Notes: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; r ≈ 0.1 = small effect, r ≈ 0.3 = medium effect, r ≈ 0.5 = large effect (Cohen, 1988).
Table 4. Achievement emotions’ predictive effects on English achievement.
Table 4. Achievement emotions’ predictive effects on English achievement.
EPEnjoymentHopePrideAngerAnxietyShameHopelessnessBoredom
Middle school students (N = 347)β0.3940.4600.354−0.215−0.345−0.295−0.395−0.281
t7.96 **9.64 **7.03 **−4.09 **−6.82 **−5.73 **−7.98 **−5.44 **
p0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
VIF1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
f20.1810.2640.140.0440.1310.0920.1810.082
University
Students
(N = 460)		β0.1540.2080.226−0.167−0.189−0.168−0.263−0.230
t3.34 **4.54 **4.97 **−3.63 **−4.13 **−3.64 **−5.83 **−5.05 **
p0.0010.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
VIF1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
f20.0250.0450.0530.0290.0370.0290.0740.056
Notes: ** p < 0.01; EP = English performance, f2 ≥ 0.02 = small effect, f2 ≥ 0.15 = medium effect, f2 ≥ 0.35 = large effect (Cohen, 1988).
Table 5. Emotion regulation’s predictive effects on achievement emotions and English performance.
Table 5. Emotion regulation’s predictive effects on achievement emotions and English performance.
Middle School (N = 347)ERQ1ERQ2ERQ
βtpVIFf2βtpVIFf2βtpVIFf2
Enjoyment0.3296.48 **0.0001.0000.119−0.006−0.1100.9121.000/0.2254.29 **0.0001.0000.05
Hope0.3446.81 **0.0001.0000.131−0.018−0.3400.7341.000/0.2284.36 **0.0001.0000.052
Pride0.3436.79 **0.0001.0000.12990.0100.1810.8561.000/0.2444.66 **0.0001.0000.06
Anger −0.188−3.55 **0.0001.0000.0330.0991.850.0651.000/−0.075−1.390.1651.000/
Anxiety−0.105−1.960.0511.000/0.1863.52 **0.0001.0000.0360.0320.5860.5581.000/
Shame −0.103−1.930.0551.000/0.2524.84 **0.0001.0000.0650.0701.300.1961.000/
Hopelessness−0.131−2.45 *0.0151.0000.0140.2324.42 **0.0001.0000.0540.0390.7250.4691.000/
Boredom−0.169−3.19 **0.0021.0000.0270.1783.53 **0.0011.0000.03−0.018−0.3310.7411.000/
EP0.1613.02 **0.0031.0000.027−0.150−2.82 **0.0051.0000.0240.0270.5090.6111.000/
University (N = 460)ERQ1ERQ2ERQ
βtpVIFf2βtpVIFf2βtpVIFf2
Enjoyment0.44910.76 **0.0001.0000.2530.1533.32 **0.0011.0000.0240.3668.41 **0.0001.0000.155
Hope0.43410.32 **0.0001.0000.2330.0911.960.0511.000/0.3237.32 **0.0001.0000.117
Pride0.49412.15 **0.0001.0000.3230.1132.43 *0.0151.0000.0130.3748.62 **0.0001.0000.163
Anger −0.163−3.53 **0.0001.0000.0270.1533.31 **0.0011.0000.024−0.024−0.5080.6121.000/
Anxiety−0.020−0.4370.6621.000/0.2756.13 **0.0001.0000.0820.1292.78 **0.0061.0000.017
Shame 0.0060.1220.9031.000/0.3397.72 **0.0001.0000.12990.1703.70 **0.0001.0000.03
Hopelessness−0.160−3.46 **0.0011.0000.0260.2174.76 **0.0001.0000.0490.0070.1480.8831.000/
Boredom−0.143−3.09 **0.0021.0000.020.2164.73 **0.0001.0000.0490.0170.3740.7081.000/
EP0.1623.52 **0.0001.0000.027−0.020−0.4370.6621.000/0.0891.920.0561.000/
Notes: ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; EP = English performance; M = middle school; U = university, f2 ≥ 0.02 = small effect, f2 ≥ 0.15 = medium effect, f2 ≥ 0.35 = large effect (Cohen, 1988).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, M.; Wu, Q.; Wang, Y. Exploring Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance: A Comparative Study Between Chinese Middle School and College Students. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111434

AMA Style

Liu M, Wu Q, Wang Y. Exploring Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance: A Comparative Study Between Chinese Middle School and College Students. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(11):1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111434

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Meihua, Qian Wu, and Yihan Wang. 2025. "Exploring Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance: A Comparative Study Between Chinese Middle School and College Students" Education Sciences 15, no. 11: 1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111434

APA Style

Liu, M., Wu, Q., & Wang, Y. (2025). Exploring Achievement Emotions, Emotion Regulation and English Performance: A Comparative Study Between Chinese Middle School and College Students. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1434. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111434

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop