Investigating the interrelationship among academic emotions, classroom engagement, and self-efficacy in the context of EFL learning in smart classrooms in China

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the current study.

Table 1. Questionnaire items and corresponding observed variables for each latent variable.

	Variable label	Items
Positive Emotions	PE1	I can participate in the class and feel very relaxed.
	PE2	I hope to do well in English class.
	PE3	In English class, I am capable of answering the teacher’s questions calmly.
	PE4	In English class, I am very happy to learn and complete the task together with my classmates.
	PE5	My mind is at ease when I attend a foreign language course.
	PE6	English class always makes me feel very excited.
Negative Emotions	NE1	The English course is challenging, and I struggle to comprehend the material and keep up with the pace, which causes significant anxiety to me.
	NE2	It makes me nervous to have to speak in English in class.
	NE3	The English class can sometimes cause me to feel depressed.
	NE4	I am extremely upset at the thought of not being able to correctly answer the teacher’s questions in English class.
Classroom Engagement	CE1	My mind does not wander easily during English class and I think carefully when studying.
	CE2	In English class, I am willing to actively answer the teacher’s questions.
	CE3	I am willing to participate in class discussion in English class.
	CE4	When I learn some new knowledge in English class, I feel a great sense of excitement.
Self-efficacy	SE1	I can feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction in English learning.
	SE2	I have a clear understanding and evaluation of my performance in English learning.
	SE3	I have a strong command over my performance in foreign language classes.

Table 2. Construct validity test.

	Positive Emotions	Negative Emotions	Classroom Engagement	Self-efficacy
Cronbach’s α	0.924	0.790	0.889	0.917
KMO	0.921	0.780	0.835	0.758

Figure 2. SEM model.

Table 3. Key fitting parameters of the SEM model.

	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI	NFI
Fitting result	2.88	0.068	0.046	0.958	0.950	0.938
Standard level	<3	<0.08	<0.06	>0.90	>0.90	>0.90

Table 4. Fitting results of the SEM model.

Path		Standard coefficient	CI1 (Lower limit)	CI2 (Upper limit)	P
Direct effects	PE→CE	0.83	.737	.903	0.000
	NE→CE	0.06	−0.028	.162	0.191
	PE→SE	0.36	0.175	.571	0.000
	CE→SE	0.54	0.330	.722	0.000
	NE→SE	0.10	0.039	.180	0.001
Indirect effects	PE→CE→SE	0.45	.290	.621	0.000
	NE→CE→SE	0.03	−0.012	.101	0.165

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.