Home Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis
Article Open Access

Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis

  • Chengchen Li

    Chengchen Li is Professor at School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Her research interests include positive psychology, second language acquisition, L2 writing, task-based language teaching, and bilingualism and cognition. Her research has appeared in Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, System, among others.

     ORCID logo EMAIL logo     , Enhao Feng

    Enhao Feng is a PhD candidate at School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China. His research interests include positive psychology (motivation and emotion), second language acquisition, and L2 writing. His research has appeared in Learning and Individual Differences, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, Language Teaching Research, among others.

     ORCID logo     and Shaofeng Li

    Shaofeng Li is Professor at the Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China. His research interests include language aptitude, working memory, form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching and learning, corrective feedback, and research methods (including meta-analysis). His publications have appeared in Applied Linguistics, International Review of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Teaching Research, Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, among others.

     ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: March 27, 2025
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Applied Linguistics Review
From the journal Applied Linguistics Review Volume 16 Issue 5

Abstract

Research on boredom in second language acquisition has proliferated, with mixed findings on its links to L2 achievement. However, no meta-analysis has explored this correlation. The present meta-analysis examined their links based on 37 independent samples with 17,800 individual participants from 34 primary studies. A negative correlation was found with a medium effect size (r = −0.30, 95 % CI: −0.34, −0.27). Moderator analyses revealed varying effect sizes across different measures of boredom and achievement, types of achievement, educational levels, and age groups of participants. Our findings underscore that boredom exerts both short-term and long-term impairing effects on L2 learning, offering L2 teachers important insights for instructional design, classroom practices, and self-assessment. This study also suggests key directions for future research, including a granular conceptualization of boredom across varying timescales and levels of situational specificity, research design improvements, measurement enhancements, and exploration of diverse research contexts.

Keywords: meta-analysis; foreign language learning boredom; task boredom; foreign language writing emotions; trait boredom

1 Introduction

Boredom is prevalent in second and foreign language (L2) learning (Li 2021; Pawlak et al. 2020, 2022). Over the past five years, there has been increasing empirical interest in the question: “Does boredom impair L2 learning?” A proliferation of studies have explored the relationship between general boredom (e.g., foreign language learning boredom) and L2 achievement (Li et al. 2023a; Li et al. 2024a; Li and Wei 2023). Emerging research also investigates how skill-specific boredom (e.g., foreign language writing boredom) relates to particular L2 skills (Li et al. 2023b; Wang and Xu 2024) and how task-specific boredom affects task performance (Li 2024a, 2024b). Such investigations are important and contribute to a better understanding of the role of boredom in second language acquisition (SLA) and development. However, these studies have provided mixed findings, highlighting the need for a research synthesis to investigate the boredom-achievement links across studies and identify the variables that potentially moderate their links. One of the best methods for research synthesis is meta-analysis (Li 2010). Surprisingly, no meta-analysis has yet examined the L2 boredom-achievement correlation, despite the rapid growth of L2 boredom research and the widespread use of research synthesis in SLA.

This meta-analysis aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic investigation of the relationship between L2 boredom and language achievement, taking account of various moderating variables. Specifically, it seeks to consolidate findings from previous research while identifying new research questions and suggesting directions for future research and practice through a meta-analytic perspective.

2 Literature review

2.1 Boredom

Boredom is an unpleasant emotional experience characterized by disengagement, dissatisfaction, and a sense of stagnation arising from an inability or unwillingness to engage in meaningful mental or physical activity (Eastwood et al. 2012; Westgate 2020). The control-value theory posits that boredom, characterized by negative valence and low arousal, arises when an ongoing activity is perceived as either out of control or entirely under control and is deemed lacking in significance or worth (Acee et al. 2010; Pekrun 2006). Cognitive theories of boredom emphasize both attributions about the environment lacking opportunities for satisfying activity as well as the impaired ability to concentrate on the task at hand (Eastwood et al. 2012).

Boredom can be understood across different timescales, manifesting in two forms: state boredom and trait boredom (Hunter and Eastwood 2018; Mercer-Lynn et al. 2014). State boredom is temporary and tied to specific situations (Fahlman et al. 2013; Haager et al. 2018), while trait boredom is a long-term predisposition that persists across various contexts (Hunter et al. 2016; Struk et al. 2017). Furthermore, boredom within academic settings is posited to be specific to domains (subjects), skills, and situations (Pekrun 2006). This suggests that boredom can vary depending on the subject matter (e.g., math, L1, or L2), the particular skills required (e.g., L2 listening, reading, writing, or speaking), and the context in which learning or academic activities (e.g., L2 task) take place (e.g., in-class and out-of-class L2 learning) (Li et al. 2024a; Pawlak et al. 2022, 2024).

2.2 Boredom at three levels of situational specificity in L2 learning

Boredom had long been overlooked in SLA research until a recent body of studies (e.g., Kruk et al. 2021, 2023; Li 2021; Li and Dewaele 2020; Pawlak et al. 2020). It has been identified as the most prevalent emotion in L2 learning, along with anxiety and enjoyment (Dewaele et al. 2023b; Li et al. 2023a). Boredom deserves attention in SLA research for its association with a range of adverse emotional, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural outcomes, such as dissatisfaction, lack of purpose, impaired cognition (e.g., inability to focus, maintain attention, and process information in depth), demotivation, disengagement or pseudo-/superficial/procedural engagement, reduced self-regulatory and exploratory behaviours, and increased withdrawal behaviours (Kruk and Zawodniak 2018; Li 2021, Li et al. 2023a, 2024a). These debilitating effects may ultimately impair L2 performance and development (Li 2024b; Li et al. 2024b).

Relevant studies on boredom have been conducted at three levels of situational specificity: general, skill-specific, and task-specific (see Figure 1 adapted from Li 2024a). General boredom refers to long-term trait-like boredom proneness related to L2 in general (Li et al. 2024b). This type of boredom is situation-independent, relatively stable, and persists over a long period (Li et al. 2024b). An example is foreign language learning boredom (FLLB; Li et al. 2023a, 2024a; Kruk et al. 2022). Skill-specific boredom refers to long-term boredom dispositions associated with specific L2 skills, such as foreign language writing boredom (Li et al. 2023b). Task-specific boredom refers to a short-term and transient state of boredom that arises during a specific task (Li 2024b). In a recent study, Li (2024a) compared boredom at the three levels, finding that general FLLB, writing-specific boredom, and task-specific boredom were distinct from each other yet significantly correlated with each other.

Figure 1: Boredom at three levels of situational specificity in L2 learning (adapted from Li 2024a).
Figure 1:

Boredom at three levels of situational specificity in L2 learning (adapted from Li 2024a).

The literature shows a substantial focus on boredom at the general trait level and a growing interest in skill-specific trait boredom (e.g., writing-specific boredom; Li et al. 2023b; Wang and Xu 2024). However, research on state boredom at the task level is only beginning to emerge (task-specific boredom; Li 2024a).

2.3 The association between boredom and achievement in L2 learning

Empirical research has explored the connections between boredom and L2 achievement at three levels of situational specificity: predominantly at the general trait level, increasingly at the skill level, and just emerging at the task level (Dewaele et al. 2023a; Li 2024b; Li et al. 2024a; Zhao and Wang 2023). Such investigations are typically grounded in the control-value theory of achievement emotions, which posits that boredom and L2 achievement are mutually linked, either directly or indirectly, through other learner-internal and learner-external moderators over time (Pekrun 2006).

2.3.1 General boredom

Prior studies have extensively focused on general boredom related to L2 learning, typically termed FLLB, which persists over a long time. Most prior studies have found that general trait boredom negatively predicted L2 achievement, which is commonly assessed using scores from curriculum-based language course exams (mid-term/end-term exams), though effect sizes varied. For instance, Özsaray and Eren (2018) reported that boredom significantly negatively predicted English achievement in Turkish undergraduate students (β = −0.50, p < 0.05). Dewaele et al. (2023b) observed smaller negative predictive effects among Moroccan English learners at different educational levels (β = −0.14, p < 0.01). Similarly, Zhao and Wang (2023) found a small negative predictive effect on English-as-a-third-language and Chinese-as-a-second-language ethnic minority students in China (β = −0.17, p < 0.01). Li and Wei (2023) also found a small negative predictive effect among rural Chinese secondary students learning English, with the effect diminishing over time (first week: β = −0.14, p < 0.001; fifth week: β = −0.11, p < 0.001; ninth week: non-significant). Li et al. (2024a) replicated the negative links among 1,109 Chinese secondary EFL learners, revealing that FLLB consistently negatively predicted overall and skill-specific L2 achievement across measures (end-term English exam and international English proficiency test) and skills (listening, reading, writing, and vocabulary and grammar) (on overall achievement: β = −0.19, −0.23, p < 0.001; on achievement across the skills: 0.12 < β < 0.20, p < 0.001). Additionally, FLLB was reported to be negatively related to self-assessed L2 proficiency. For instance, Liu and Wang (2023) identified a small-to-medium negative predictive effect among secondary students from China (r = −0.28, p < 0.001). Li and Han (2022) reported a similar effect in an online Chinese EFL learning context at the tertiary level (β = −0.29, p < 0.001).

Conversely, some studies have found no significant predictive effects of FLLB on L2 achievement. Dewaele et al. (2023a) reported no significant effect among nternational students, and Tsang and Dewaele (2024), along with Yeung et al. (2023), found no significant effect among primary school EFL learners in Hong Kong. These mixed findings suggest that factors like age, educational levels, linguistic background (L1 and target L2), learning modes, and measures may moderate the relationship between general boredom and L2 achievement.

2.3.2 Skill-specific boredom

Research on L2 learner emotions has gradually shifted from a focus on general trait emotions in L2 learning to an emphasis on trait emotions in specific L2 skills (Li 2024b; Li et al. 2024b). The skill-specific approach is based on the argument that L2 learners’ emotional experiences (in terms of frequency and intensity, sources and outcomes) may vary across language skills due to distinct cognitive demands, linguistic objectives, social pressures, time constraints, levels of interactivity, transience, and opportunities for recursion (Li et al. 2023b, 2024b).

Regarding boredom at the skill-specific trait level, there is an emerging interest in L2 writing boredom (Li et al. 2023b; Solhi et al. 2024; Wang and Xu 2024). Li et al. (2023b) found boredom was among the most frequently experienced emotions, along with enjoyment and excitement, of secondary Chinese EFL students, conceptualizing boredom in the L2 writing context and developing and validating the Foreign Language Writing Boredom Scale. Additionally, Li et al. (2023b) confirmed the significant negative L2 writing boredom-achievement links across measures (writing section of an end-term exam, writing proficiency tests, and self-ratings of writing proficiency; 0.31 < r < 0.56, p < 0.001). A similar negative correlation was identified among Chinese college students (r = 0.24, p < 0.001; Wang and Xu 2024). In sharp contrast to the proliferation of research on general boredom in L2 learning and writing-specific anxiety, interest in writing-specific boredom is only beginning to emerge. Furthermore, little attention has been paid to trait boredom in other specific skills (e.g., listening or reading). Thus, the link between skill-specific boredom and each skill remains largely underexplored.

2.3.3 Task-specific boredom

Compared with general boredom and skill-specific boredom, little attention has been paid to task-specific boredom, which is transient, fleeting, and context-dependent and, therefore, may vary across different tasks due to the variations in task design and implementation (Li 2024b). In sharp contrast, a substantial body of research has explored the effects of task features (e.g., task complexity, planning, repetition, and topic familiarity), cognitive individual difference factors (e.g., working memory and aptitude), and anxiety on task performance in task-based language teaching (TBLT) literature (Ahmadian and Long 2021; Li et al. 2024c; Li 2024). However, regardless of how well a task is designed and implemented, learners may feel bored if the task is perceived as under-challenging, over-challenging, or repetitive, leading to disengagement and impaired task performance (Li 2021, 2024b). In two recent studies, Li et al. (2024c) and Li (2024b) highlighted the need to examine task-specific emotions and explored secondary Chinese students’ boredom in writing tasks with differing cognitive complexity, operationalized as different amount of reasoning demand and the number of elements in the task instructions. Task boredom negatively correlated with task performance in the simple group (r = −0.241, p < 0.01, N 1 = 206) but showed no significant correlation in the complex group (r = −0.116, p = 0.108, N 2 = 206). These findings suggest that the impact of task boredom on performance may be moderated by task factors such as task complexity.

In sum, studies examining the relationship between boredom and L2 achievement have yielded mixed results. These inconsistencies highlight the necessity of a meta-analysis to evaluate the overall link between boredom and L2 achievement systematically. Additionally, previous research has explored boredom at various levels of situational specificity and included learners of different ages, educational contexts, and nationalities. This variability could moderate the boredom-achievement link, warranting a moderator analysis to assess how these factors influence this relationship. Such a meta-analysis can provide a clearer understanding of L2 boredom and shed light on pedagogy and educational policy. Specifically, by identifying key moderators, educators and policymakers can target these factors to mitigate boredom’s negative effects.

2.3.4 Potential moderators of boredom effects

Scant research has examined the factors moderating the boredom-achievement link in L2 contexts despite relevant theoretical assumptions. For example, the control-value theory posits that the links between academic emotions, including boredom, and academic achievement can be moderated by a host of learner-internal or -external factors (Pekrun 2006). For this reason, such investigations are warranted because they can synthesize existing findings and identify overarching patterns. Based on this knowledge, we can better understand how various moderators influence the impact of boredom on L2 achievement, hence facilitating targeted interventions that address specific moderating factors, thereby improving L2 learners’ performance.

Prior literature suggests four categories of potential moderators, namely the situational specificity and timescale of boredom, the instrument measuring boredom, the participants, and learning modes (e.g., Cabello et al. 2016; Li 2024a; Li et al. 2024a, 2024b). The first category concerns the levels of specificity and the timescales to conceptualize boredom. In line with Figure 1, we identified three levels of boredom: general L2 boredom, skill-specific boredom, and task-specific boredom. This is a potential moderator of the boredom-achievement link for two reasons. Firstly, situational specificity may moderate the effect of boredom on L2 achievement. For example, general boredom may have different predictive effects on overall L2 achievement, skill-specific achievement (e.g., writing, listening, speaking, and reading), and task performance. Similarly, boredom in a specific writing task may predict task-specific performance more accurately than writing achievement in general or general L2 achievement (Li 2024a). Secondly, the timescale may also play a role in the boredom-achievement link. The short-term impact of task-specific boredom on task performance may differ from the long-term effect of general trait boredom on L2 achievement. It may take a certain period for boredom to impact achievement, and the effect of boredom may decline over time. For example, task length may be too short for boredom to show its effects, while long-term contexts may be too long for boredom to maintain its impact (Li and Wei 2023).

The second category was the instrument, including measures of boredom (e.g., scales adapted from general educational contexts or developed in specific L2 contexts), measures of achievement (e.g., course exams, international proficiency tests, or self-ratings), and types of achievement (e.g., general L2 achievement, achievement in specific skills, or performance in a particular task). For boredom measurement, it makes sense that scales adapted from a general educational context may fail to capture L2-specific features (such as communicative orientation), which could be predictive of L2 achievement. For achievement measures, compared to international proficiency tests, course examinations (e.g., end-term exams) are more closely tied to curriculum and thus learners’ academic experiences, including emotional ones (such as academic boredom) (Li et al. 2024a). For types of achievement, arguably, an individual’s general L2 boredom has distinctive predictive effects on achievement in different L2 skills, such as writing or speaking, due to distinct cognitive and linguistic demands, time constraints, levels of interactivity, and being self-paced (Li et al. 2024a, 2024b).

The third category encompasses participant-level variables, including age, gender, nationality, educational level, and linguistic background (L1 and target L2/FL). Firstly, age is a potential moderator since individuals’ emotional competence varies across different age groups (Cabello et al. 2016), and this variation correlates with achievement. Secondly, gender distribution may moderate the boredom-achievement link because gender can be a factor in shaping how individuals perceive and respond to emotions (Tamres et al. 2002). Thirdly, nationality may moderate the boredom-achievement relationship due to diverse educational systems that emphasize varying aspects, shaping learners’ motivational processes. For example, in China, where achievement is highly valued, students are extrinsically motivated to strive for success despite experiencing boredom in learning. Fourthly, the educational level may moderate the boredom-achievement relationship as students advance through the educational stages. Their cognitive abilities evolve, teaching focuses shift, and they encounter increasingly complex and structured curricula. These factors may influence their susceptibility to boredom and their coping strategies (Pekrun et al. 2010). Fifthly, learners’ linguistic background (L1 and target L2/FL) may be a moderator, as the linguistic distance between L1 and L2 can either facilitate or hinder the process of L2 learning, shaping different emotional experiences.

Lastly, the learning mode – whether online or in-person – may also act as a moderator. Students may respond differently to experiences of boredom in different learning modes due to multifaceted differences, including the nature of engagement between students and course materials and between students, teachers, and peers (Li and Han 2022; Li et al. 2024b).

3 This study

3.1 Research questions

  1. What is the relationship between boredom in L2 learning and L2 achievement?

  2. What factors moderate the relationship between boredom in L2 learning and L2 achievement?

4 Methods

4.1 Literature search

We conducted a systematic search to retrieve a comprehensive sample of studies. Both published and unpublished studies were included to minimise the risk of publication bias (Borenstein et al. 2010). First, we searched online databases, including Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Education Resources Information Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, to ensure a diverse and exhaustive collection of relevant studies (Vuogan and Li 2024). A combination of the following keywords was used: (1) “boredom”; (2) “outcome” or “achievement” or “performance” or “proficiency” or “attainment”; (3) “foreign language” or “second language” or “L2” or “FL.” Second, we manually searched journals categorised by Journal Citing Report into “Linguistics” and “Education & Educational Research” using the same keywords, including Computer Assisted Language Learning, System, Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. We also conducted ancestry chasing, mining the reference sections of primary studies and review articles to find relevant items (Li and Wang 2018). Finally, we contacted key researchers in the field to identify unpublished data and manuscripts.

4.2 Inclusion/exclusion criteria

To determine the relevance of each study to our research questions and its inclusion in the final sample, we assessed each document using the criteria below based on recommended meta-analytic practices in SLA (Li and Wang 2018; Plonsky et al. 2021):

  1. The study must simultaneously contain at least one measure of L2 boredom and one measure of L2 achievement.

  2. The study must report the relationship between L2 boredom and achievement in the form of correlation (r) or another statistic transformable into a correlation (e.g., t or F).

  3. The study must be written in English.

  4. Journal articles must be peer-reviewed.

  5. Master’s theses and PhD dissertations were included.

  6. If the same person authored a journal article and a thesis, their datasets were examined; if the datasets were the same, only the journal article was included; if not, both were included.

After applying these criteria, we retained a sample of 33 studies published between 2018 and 2024: 32 peer-reviewed journal articles and one master’s thesis. One study was excluded because of its inconsistent report of correlation coefficient. We also included two unpublished journal articles authored by Li (2024a, 2024b) because of their relevance to the present study. Therefore, the final sample included 34 studies.

4.3 Coding scheme

We developed a coding scheme to systematically capture each study’s characteristics in our sample (see Table 1), including seven broad categories: (1) bibliographic information, (2) research design, (3) sample characteristics, (4) learning mode, (5) situational specificity and timescale of boredom, (6) instrument, and (7) effect sizes. Two raters coded the studies independently, and the overall inter-coder reliability was satisfactory (Cohen’s κ = 0.91).

Table 1:

Coding scheme.

Category Variables
1. Bibliographic information Author (s)
Title of publication
Year of publication
Type of publication
2. Research design Experimental (Research involving the manipulation of variables to establish causal relationships)/observational (Research where variables are observed and measured without manipulation, focusing on associations and correlations)
Cross-sectional/longitudinal
3. Sample characteristics Sample size
Mean age
Gender distribution (gender ratio)
Nationality (China, Thailand, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, or mixed)
Educational level (primary school, junior secondary school, senior secondary school, college, or mixed [students from different educational levels])
L1 (Chinese, Arabic, or mixed)
Target L2/FLa (English, Chinese, or mixed L2s/FLs)
Learning context (learning an FL, L2, or mixed)
4. Learning modes L2 learning modes (online, in-person, or mixed)
5. Situational specificity and timescales of boredom General boredom (long-term boredom at the trait level regarding L2 learning in general)
Skill-specific boredom (long-term boredom at the trait level in specific L2 skills [listening, speaking, reading, and writing] and/or knowledge [e.g., vocabulary and grammar])
Task-specific boredom (short-term state boredom in a specific L2 task)
6. Instrument
Boredom Measure of boredom (Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale, Foreign Language Writing Scale, Achievement Emotions Questionnaire, Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale-Short Form)
Mean
SD
Reliability index (e.g., alpha, omega)
Reliability estimate
Achievement Measure of achievement (course examinations, self-ratings, international language proficiency test, Grade Point Average [GPA] of FL/L2, objective skill rating, task performance, or national proficiency testb)
Type of achievement (Skill-general, skill-specific [listening, reading, speaking, writing], knowledge-specific [vocabulary, pronunciation], or mixed)
Mean
SD
Reliability index (e.g., alpha, omega)
Reliability estimate
7. Effect sizes Reported effect size (r)

  1. aHere, L2 and FL were used differently. L2: A language learned after acquiring the learner’s L1, in a context where it is used as a primary means of communication alongside the learner’s L1. FL: A language learned after acquiring the learner’s L1, in a setting where it is not the primary means of communication. bA national proficiency test is a nationwide assessment designed to evaluate an individual’s proficiency in a language. It is administered by government agencies or national educational institutions. An example is the College English Test in China.

4.4 Analysis

First, we examined the publication bias of the sample by applying four tests, namely the classic fail-safe N test, Orwin’s fail-safe N test, Egger’s regression test, and the trim-and-fill diagnostics.

To address RQ1, which concerns the overall relationship between boredom and L2 achievement, a random effects model was used to calculate the aggregated correlation coefficients between FLLB and achievement, along with the 95 % confidence intervals. This model is suitable as it attributes variations in correlation coefficients to sampling errors and between-study differences, given the diverse regions, educational policies, learning environments, and learners of the studies included (Li et al. 2012). For studies with multiple correlations from the same sample, we averaged the effect sizes to create a single effect size per sample. However, correlations from independent samples within a study were analyzed separately (Li and Wang 2018).

To address RQ2, which asks whether the associations between boredom and L2 achievements were moderated by the methodological variation between the primary studies, we conducted moderator analyses with a random effects model, using Q tests for categorical variables and meta-regression for continuous variables. To ensure the reliability of results, subgroups with fewer than three effect sizes were excluded (Li and Wang 2018).

5 Results

A total of 34 primary studies (represented by k) were selected for this meta-analysis, involving 17,800 individual learners. Sample sizes ranged from 46 to 1,455 (M = 481.08, SD = 367.95), and a total of 37 independent samples (represented by N) and 61 effect sizes (r) (represented by n) were extracted from the included studies.

5.1 Publication bias

To check the representativeness of the samples, we conducted four different tests of publication bias, namely the classic fail-safe N test, Orwin’s fail-safe N test, Egger’s regression test, and the trim-and-fill diagnostics. First, the results of the classic fail-safe N test suggested that 8,220 additional studies would be needed to nullify the overall r obtained in our meta-analysis. Since this number is much larger than the 5k + 10 limit (i.e., 180; Rosenthal 1979), the risk of publication bias is minimal based on this analysis. Second, Orwin’s fail-safe N test suggested that an additional 123 studies with a mean correlation of zero are needed to trivialise the effect size to – 0.10. Since it is unlikely that our sample has missed so many studies, it is safe to say that the chances for publication were small. Third, the p value of Egger’s regression test was non-significant (p = 0.45), indicating the absence of publication bias (Egger et al. 1997). Finally, we conducted a trim-and-fill analysis of bias diagnostics. A funnel plot (Figure 2) was generated to evaluate the risk of publication bias visually. If the meta-analytic sample is biased, the funnel plot will be asymmetrical (Borenstein et al. 2010). Also, studies with great precision would be plotted at the top of the funnel, and studies with less precision would be displayed at the bottom of the funnel (Duval and Tweedie 2000). Hence, if studies concentrate at the bottom of the funnel, it is prone to publication bias. According to Figure 2, our study was not subject to publication bias, as most studies were located at the top of the funnel, and the distribution of the dots was largely symmetric.

Figure 2: The trim-and-fill funnel plot.
Figure 2:

The trim-and-fill funnel plot.

5.2 Study characteristics

The demographic information of the independent samples was first summarised, indicating that the majority were Chinese students (N = 27, 72.97 %), followed by students from a mix of different nations, Moroccan students, Iranian students, Turkish students and Thai students; their mean age was 17.31 years (SD = 5.07); most of their L1 was Chinese (N = 28, 75.68 %), followed by mixed L1s and Arabic; most of their FL/L2 was English (N = 32, 86.49 %), followed by mixed FLs/L2s, and Chinese. Additionally, most of the samples contained college students (N = 14, 37.84 %), followed by students from mixed educational levels, junior high school learners, senior high school students, and primary school students.

Concerning the research design, the majority of primary studies were observational (k = 33, 97.06 %) and cross-sectional (k = 30, 88.24 %). There was only one experimental and four longitudinal studies. Regarding the learning modes and context, most research focused on the in-person mode (k = 31, 91.18 %) and FL learning (k = 32, 94.12 %). Only three primary studies focused on the online mode, and two studies examined combinations of L2 and FL learners.

Concerning the situational specificity and timescale of boredom, most effect sizes were conceptualized at the general trait level (n = 51, 83.61 %). Only eight were assessed at the trait skill-specific level and two at the state task-specific level. Additionally, most samples focused on skill-general boredom (n = 51, 83.61 %), and eight examined writing boredom, one speaking boredom, and one reading boredom. Finally, the three most frequently used boredom scales were FLLBS (Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale) (Li et al. 2023a) (n = 25, 40.98 %); AEQ (Achievement Emotions Questionnaire) (Pekrun et al. 2011) (n = 17, 27.87 %); FLLBS-SF (Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale-Short Form) (Li et al. 2024a) (n = 12, 19.67 %).

Concerning the reporting practice of boredom instrument reliability, Cronbach’s α was the most reported reliability estimate (n = 60, 98.36 %), followed by McDonald’s ω and test-retest reliability. As Table 2 indicated, the mean of Cronbach’s α was 0.90 (SD = 0.06) for all the boredom scales. The FLLBS-SF (M α = 0.94) and FLLBS (M α = 0.94, SD = 0.03) demonstrated the highest reliability, followed by the AEQ (M α = 0.86, SD = 0.06).

Table 2:

Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of overall boredom measures and the three most popular scales.

Instruments n M SD Min Max Missing
All boredom measures combined 60 0.90 0.06 0.71 0.98 1
FLLBS 24 0.94 0.03 0.86 0.98 1
AEQ 17 0.86 0.06 0.71 0.94 0
FLLBS-SF 12 0.94 N/A 0.94 0.94 0

  1. FLLBS, Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale; AEQ, Achievement Emotions Questionnaire; FLLBS-SF, Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale-Short Form.

Furthermore, among various achievement measures, the majority used course examinations (e.g., end-term examinations) (n = 30, 49.18 %) followed by the international proficiency test (n = 11, 18.03 %), self-rated achievement (n = 9, 14.75 %), task performance (n = 4, 6.56 %), national proficiency test (n = 4, 6.56 %), GPA of FL/L2 (n = 2, 3.28 %), and objective skill rating (n = 1, 1.64 %).

Among various types of achievement, the majority examined skill-general language achievement (n = 36, 59.02 %), followed by writing achievement (n = 10, 16.39 %), reading achievement (n = 5, 8.20 %), speaking achievement (n = 3, 4.92 %) and mixed types of achievement (e.g., vocabulary and grammar; n = 3, 4.92 %), listening achievement (n = 2, 3.28 %), pronunciation achievement (n = 1, 1.64 %) and vocabulary achievement (n = 1, 1.64 %).

Concerning the reporting practice of achievement measure’s reliability, only 22 reliability estimates were reported, among which Cronbach’s α was the most reported reliability estimate (n = 21, 34.43 %), followed by Kendall’s coefficient. Table 3 summarises the overall Cronbach’s α estimates and those of the three most popular achievement measures, indicating that the mean of overall α was 0.89 (SD = 0.06). Among the three most popular measures, self-rated achievements appeared to have the highest reliability (M = 0.94), followed by course examination (M = 0.89, SD = 0.06) and international proficiency tests (M = 0.86, SD = 0.07).

Table 3:

Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α) of overall language achievement measures and the three most popular measures.

Instruments n M SD Min Max Missing
All achievement measures combined 21 0.89 0.06 0.77 0.97 40
Course examination 15 0.89 0.06 0.77 0.96 15
International proficiency test 5 0.86 0.07 0.78 0.97 6
Self-rated achievement 1 0.94 N/A 0.94 0.94 8

5.3 Effect size aggregation

RQ1 concerns the overall direction and magnitude of the relationship between FLLB and L2 achievement. To address this question, the weighted mean of all effect sizes (r) in our independent samples was calculated. The results showed a medium, significant negative correlation between boredom and L2 achievement (r = −0.30, 95 % CI: −0.34, −0.27).

5.4 Moderator analysis

To address RQ2, which concerns whether the boredom-achievement links were moderated by features of the primary studies, we investigated four groups of moderators: the situational specificity and timescale of boredom (i.e., whether boredom is conceptualized at the long-term trait general level and trait skill-specific level, or the short-term state task-specific level), the instrument, the participant, and the learning mode.

Table 4 displays the moderator analysis results of the situational specificity and timescale of boredom. Since task-specific boredom, and the speaking-specific boredom and reading-specific boredom at the skill-specific level had less than three effect sizes, they were excluded from the analysis. The results indicated that the boredom-achievement link did not differ across different levels of situational specificity and timescale of boredom, Q between = 0.41, p = 0.52. Additionally, the boredom-achievement link did not differ between skill-general and writing-specific boredom, Q between = 0.03, p = 0.86.

Table 4:

Results of moderator analyses: the situational specificity and timescale of boredom.

Moderator variable n r Lower 95 % CI Upper 95 % CI Q between
Situational specificity and timescale of boredom
Trait general boredom 51 −0.30 −0.34 −0.26 0.41
Skill-specific boredom 8 −0.34 −0.43 −0.24

Table 5 shows moderator analysis results at the instrument level. Boredom scale was found to significantly moderate the boredom-achievement link, Q between = 9.33, p < 0.05. Specifically, the Foreign Language Writing Boredom Scale showed the strongest correlation (r = −0.37, 95 % CI: −0.48, −0.25), and the FLLBS-SF showed the weakest links (r = −0.22, 95 % CI: −0.28, −0.16). A post-hoc Q test indicated that the difference between them was significant, Q between = 5.06, p < 0.05.

Table 5:

Results of moderator analyses: the instrument.

Moderator variable n r Lower 95 % CI Upper 95 % CI Q between
Boredom scale
FLLBS 25 −0.33 −0.40 −0.26 9.33*
FLLBS-SF 12 −0.22 −0.28 −0.16
Foreign Language Writing Boredom Scale 5 −0.37 −0.48 −0.25
AEQ 17 −0.32 −0.38 −0.27
Measure of achievement
Course examination 30 −0.27 −0.31 −0.22 14.69**
Self-rated achievement 9 −0.45 −0.54 −0.34
International proficiency test 11 −0.29 −0.34 −0.23
Task performance 4 −0.21 −0.27 −0.14
National proficiency test 4 −0.32 −0.47 −0.15
Type of achievement
Skill-general 36 −0.33 −0.38 −0.28 11.23*
Speaking 3 −0.34 −0.65 0.06
Writing 10 −0.24 −0.29 −0.19
Reading 5 −0.21 −0.26 −0.16
Mixed 3 −0.31 −0.57 0.00

  1. FLLBS, Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale; AEQ, Achievement Emotions Questionnaire; FLLBS-SF, Foreign Language Learning Boredom Scale-Short Form; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Measures of achievement significantly moderated the boredom-achievement relations, Q between = 14.69, p < 0.01. Specifically, the self-rated achievement had the strongest boredom-achievement correlations (r = −0.45, 95 % CI: −0.54, −0.34), and the task performance showed the weakest (r = −0.21, 95 % CI: −0.27, −0.14). A post hoc Q test indicated that the difference between them was significant, Q between = 15.59, p < 0.001.

Types of achievement significantly moderated the boredom-achievement link, Q between = 11.23, p < 0.05. Specifically, speaking achievement showed the strongest boredom-achievement links (r = −0.34, 95 % CI: −0.65, 0.06), and the reading achievement had the weakest (r = −0.21, 95 % CI: −0.26, −0.16). However, a post hoc Q test indicated that the difference between them was non-significant, Q between = 0.66, p = 0.42. Additional post hoc Q tests suggested that skill-general achievement (r = −0.33, 95 % CI: −0.38, −0.28) showed stronger correlations than writing achievement (r = −0.24, 95 % CI: −0.29, −0.19), Q between = 6.24, p < 0.05, and reading achievement, Q between = 10.11, p < 0.01.

Table 6 displays moderators at the levels of participants and learning mode. As the table indicated, only participants’ educational level moderated the boredom-achievement link, Q between = 13.65, p < 0.01. Specifically, students from mixed educational levels showed the strongest correlations (r = −0.39, 95 % CI: −0.47, −0.31) and the junior high school students had the weakest (r = −0.24, 95 % CI: −0.29, −0.19). A post hoc Q test indicated that the difference was significant, Q between = 9.97, p < 0.01.

Table 6:

Results of moderator analyses: the participant and learning modes.

Moderator variable n r Lower 95 % CI Upper 95 % CI Q between
Nationality
China 51 −0.29 −0.33 −0.25 0.00
Mixed 4 −0.29 −0.39 −0.18
Educational level
Primary 4 −0.29 −0.36 −0.21 13.65**
Junior high school 22 −0.24 −0.29 −0.19
Senior high school 7 −0.25 −0.31 −0.19
College 19 −0.37 −0.45 −0.27
Mixed 9 −0.39 −0.47 −0.31
Target L2/FL
English 57 −0.30 −0.34 −0.27 0.25
Chinese 3 −0.33 −0.43 −0.23
L1
Chinese 52 −0.30 −0.34 −0.26 0.01
Mixed 4 −0.29 −0.39 −0.18
Learning modes
In-person 53 −0.30 −0.33 −0.26 0.36
Online 8 −0.36 −0.53 −0.16

  1. **p < 0.01.

Learners’ nationality, target L2/FL, L1, and learning modes did not moderate the boredom-achievement link.

Since the gender distribution (gender ratio) and age were continuous variables, two meta-regressions were employed to detect whether they moderated the boredom-achievement relationship. Results indicated that gender distribution did not moderate the boredom-achievement link, Q model = 0.58, β = 0.001, p = 0.44. Age significantly moderated the boredom-achievement link (Figure 3), Q model = 6.03, β = −0.012, p < 0.05. Specifically, stronger boredom-achievement correlations were found among older learners.

Figure 3: Meta-regression: the effect of samples’ age on the boredom-achievement link.
Figure 3:

Meta-regression: the effect of samples’ age on the boredom-achievement link.

6 Discussion

The current study aimed to meta-analyze the correlations between boredom in L2 learning and L2 achievement, and explore the moderators of these relationships.

6.1 The correlations between boredom in L2 learning and L2 achievement

RQ1 is concerned with the overall relationship between L2 boredom and achievement. The results indicated that boredom was negatively related to achievement with a medium effect size (r = −0.30, 95 % CI: −0.34, −0.27), accounting for around 10 % variance in L2 achievement.

These meta-analytical results resonate with prior empirical studies (Li 2021, 2024b; Li et al. 2024a), underscoring the detrimental effect of boredom in L2 learning across various timescales, from individual tasks to semesters. This suggests that boredom not only undermines immediate task performance but also hinders long-term L2 learning outcomes. Boredom’s detrimental impact can be understood through theories such as the control-value theory (Pekrun 2006), cognitive perspectives (Acee et al. 2010; Pekrun 2006), as well as the conceptualizations of boredom in L2 contexts (Li et al. 2023a; Pawlak et al. 2020).

One general explanation is that boredom affects achievement by disrupting motivation, engagement, cognitive processing, and behaviours at different timescales, which are essential for effective language acquisition and proficiency development. Specifically, according to the control-value theory, boredom emerges when an activity is perceived as under complete control, lacking control, or lacking significance, leading to negative feelings and low arousal (Acee et al. 2010; Pekrun 2006). These perceptions can impair concentration and diminish engagement with the task at hand, as proposed by cognitive theories of boredom (Eastwood et al. 2012). Empirical studies in L2 research indicate that boredom is characterized by dissatisfaction, a sense of purposelessness, and cognitive impairments such as reduced focus, attention span, and depth of information processing (Li et al. 2023b; Pawlak et al. 2020). It also correlates with demotivation, disengagement, superficial engagement, decreased self-regulatory and exploratory behaviours, and increased withdrawal tendencies (Kruk and Zawodniak 2018; Li 2021; Li et al. 2023a, 2024a). These cumulative effects on motivation, cognition, engagement, and behaviour significantly hinder both immediate L2 task performance and long-term developmental progress (Li 2024b; Li et al. 2024c).

6.2 The moderators of the boredom-achievement link

To answer RQ2, we examined four categories of moderators, as shown below.

6.2.1 The situational specificity and timescale of boredom

Results indicated that the situational specificity and timescale of boredom did not moderate the boredom-achievement link. This further underscores the detrimental effect of boredom across various timescales, from task-specific boredom to long-term skill-specific boredom and long-term general boredom. It also highlights the measurement consistency between boredom and achievement across different timescales in the literature. Specifically, task-specific boredom has been studied in relation to task performance (e.g., Li 2024b), long-term boredom in specific L2 skills (e.g., writing boredom) has been examined with regard to writing achievement (e.g., Li et al. 2023b), and long-term general boredom has been explored in relation to overall L2 achievement (Li et al. 2024a).

6.2.2 The instrument

At the instrument level, we identified three significant moderators. Firstly, the tool used to measure achievement moderated the boredom-achievement link. Self-rated L2 proficiency exhibited the strongest correlation with boredom in L2 learning, whereas task performance showed the weakest correlation. This discrepancy can be attributed as follows. Self-rated L2 proficiency and boredom are both subjective self-judgments in nature. In contrast, task performance in our retrieved empirical study provides a more objective evaluation, utilizing systematic rating rubrics that consider language, organization, and content in assessing learners’ performance in language tasks (e.g., Li 2024b). Arguably, self-rated L2 proficiency and boredom are more closely intertwined as psychological perceptions are linked with L2, compared to task performance (Li et al. 2023a; Pekrun 2006).

Second, types of achievement moderated the boredom-achievement link. General L2 achievement showed stronger correlations with boredom in L2 learning than skill-specific achievements in writing and reading. One possible reason is that boredom in certain L2 skills, such as writing, was typically measured using scales originally developed for general educational contexts (e.g., Wang and Xu 2024). Consequently, the skill-specific boredom-achievement link appeared weaker than expected. In other words, if skill-specific boredom were measured using scales tailored to specific skills, the link might turn out to be stronger. Another possible reason is that general L2 achievement encompasses learners’ overall language performance in speaking, listening, reading, and writing, making it susceptible to boredom in any of these areas. In contrast, writing- and reading-specific achievements are only affected by boredom in their respective domains. Lastly, in writing and reading, learners can revisit and re-engage with the material (Li et al. 2024a). This indicates a weaker negative effect of boredom on achievement because learners can return to the text at their own pace, even after a momentary loss of interest.

Third, the measurement of boredom was found to be another moderator. Specifically, correlations measured with the Foreign Language Writing Boredom Scale showed the strongest associations, while those measured with the FLLBS-SF indicated the weakest connections. The specific link between boredom and achievement in writing contexts was stronger than the general link, suggesting that boredom exerted a more pronounced impact on L2 writing achievement compared to overall L2 achievement. This makes sense because general L2 achievement involves a complex interplay of variables across various skills (reading, listening, writing, and speaking), which may dilute the specific effects of boredom.

6.2.3 Participant and learning modes

At the participant level, we identified two significant moderators. First, educational level moderated the relationship between boredom and achievement. Specifically, this link was strongest among learners from mixed educational backgrounds and weakest among junior high school students. One possible explanation for the weaker link among junior high students is that their engagement with L2 persisted despite experiencing boredom, likely due to L2 being perceived as having higher educational and instrumental value, particularly in exam-oriented contexts like China, where a significant proportion of the samples were from (k = 51, 83.61 %). Second, age moderated the boredom-achievement link, with weaker correlations observed among younger L2 learners. This may be attributed to the tendency for younger individuals to be at lower educational levels. As explained earlier, learners at lower educational levels exhibited a weaker relationship between boredom and achievement, possibly due to the higher educational and instrumental value attached to L2, especially in exam-oriented contexts like China.

We found that learners’ nationality, linguistic backgrounds, learning modes, and gender did not moderate the boredom-achievement link. This may be attributed to the imbalanced distribution of these variables in previous research. Specifically, the majority of samples were obtained in China (k = 51, 83.61 %) and in-person contexts (k = 53, 86.89 %), focusing primarily on English learning (k = 57, 93.44 %) with Chinese as the L1 (k = 52, 85.25 %). This skewed distribution may have limited statistical power and hindered a comprehensive exploration of potential moderators. Finally, the non-significant gender effect on the boredom-achievement link highlights the cross-gender debilitating effect of boredom, despite that boredom levels may differ across gender.

7 Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research

Some pedagogical implications can be drawn from our general findings that boredom has both short-term and long-term impairing effects on task performance, skill-specific achievement (e.g., achievement in writing), and general L2 achievement. L2 teachers should prioritize addressing this subtle yet disruptive emotion by carefully considering, managing, and reflecting on influential factors in instructional design, classroom practices, and self-assessment. The moderator analysis also revealed two implications for teaching practice. First, the boredom-achievement link differs across measures of boredom and achievement, and types of achievement. This suggests that teachers should choose appropriate tools to measure boredom and achievement, ensuring they align with the specific goals and aspects of the assessment. Second, the analysis indicated that older students and those in higher or mixed educational levels are more vulnerable to the negative impact of boredom. Teachers should, therefore, focus on these groups by implementing strategies that reduce boredom, such as offering greater learning autonomy to decrease boredom (Feng et al. 2025). Intervention plans should be implemented at both the task level and over the long term, spanning across semesters and targeting both general L2 learning and specific L2 skills. This proactive approach is crucial for mitigating the impact of boredom and fostering enhanced learning outcomes in L2 education.

Despite the implications, this study has several limitations. First, we did not include research published in languages other than English. Second, due to the limited number of studies, some subgroups of moderators were not included in the present study. Given the limitations, future meta-analyses may expand the scope of literature inclusion and enrich the understanding of the boredom-achievement link in broader contexts. Specifically, researchers can include studies published in various languages, such as Chinese, Spanish, French, and Arabic, to capture a more diverse range of educational settings and cultural influences. Future empirical studies are also suggested to directly investigate more moderators to enhance understanding of the boredom-achievement link. Potential moderators include teacher’s instructional strategies, student’s beliefs, learning styles and strategies, cultural background, and educational context.

8 Conclusions

This meta-analysis aims to examine the relationship between L2 learning boredom and L2 achievement. Overall, boredom had a medium and negative correlation with L2 achievement, indicating the significant role of boredom in L2 learning. Their relationship varied across measures of achievement, types of achievement, boredom measures, and participants’ educational levels and ages. Our findings suggest directions for future research. Firstly, in terms of research design, the majority of studies have been observational and cross-sectional. Future research should prioritize experimental and longitudinal approaches to elucidate the causal and reciprocal relationship between boredom and achievement, as well as investigate the potential moderating effect of instructional methods on this link. Secondly, in conceptualizing boredom, previous studies have predominantly focused on the trait level, highlighting the need for attention to state boredom at meaningful timescales, particularly during specific language tasks. Thirdly, regarding achievement measures, future studies should integrate more objective linguistic metrics such as complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Lastly, we call for more inclusive research that encompasses diverse learner backgrounds from various countries (beyond China, Poland, and Iran), with distinct native languages (L1s), target L2s (beyond English), and diverse learning modes (beyond traditional in-person classroom settings).

Corresponding author: Chengchen Li, School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan Road, Minhang District, Shanghai, 200240, China, Email:

About the authors

Chengchen Li

Chengchen Li is Professor at School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Her research interests include positive psychology, second language acquisition, L2 writing, task-based language teaching, and bilingualism and cognition. Her research has appeared in Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, System, among others.

Enhao Feng

Enhao Feng is a PhD candidate at School of Foreign Languages, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China. His research interests include positive psychology (motivation and emotion), second language acquisition, and L2 writing. His research has appeared in Learning and Individual Differences, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, Language Teaching Research, among others.

Shaofeng Li

Shaofeng Li is Professor at the Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China. His research interests include language aptitude, working memory, form-focused instruction, task-based language teaching and learning, corrective feedback, and research methods (including meta-analysis). His publications have appeared in Applied Linguistics, International Review of Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Language Teaching Research, Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, System, among others.

  1. Author contributions: Chengchen Li: conceptualization and design; drafting–abstract, introduction, literature review, discussion, implication, conclusion; revision & editing; resources & project administration; funding acquisition. Enhao Feng: Design; data collection & processing; data analyses; drafting–methodology and results; revision & editing. Shaofeng Li: design; revision & editing.

References

Acee, Taylor W., Hyunjin Kim, Hyunjin J. Kim, Jung-In Kim, Hsiang-Ning R. Chu, Myoungsook Kim, YoonJung Cho & Frank W. Wicker & The Boredom Research Group. 2010. Academic boredom in under-and over-challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 35(1). 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Ahmadian, Mohammad Javad & Michael H. Long (eds.). 2021. The Cambridge Handbook of task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108868327Search in Google Scholar

Borenstein, Michael, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P. T. Higgins & Hannah R. Rothstein. 2010. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods 1(2). 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12.Search in Google Scholar

Cabello, Rosario, Maria A. Sorrel, Inmaculada Fernández-Pinto, Natalio Extremera & Pablo Fernández-Berrocal. 2016. Age and gender differences in ability emotional intelligence in adults: A cross-sectional study. Developmental Psychology 52(9). 1486–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000191.Search in Google Scholar

Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Elouise Botes & Samuel Greiff. 2023a. Sources and effects of foreign language enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom: A structural equation modeling approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45(2). 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000328.Search in Google Scholar

Dewaele, Jean-Marc, Elouise Botes & Rachid Meftah. 2023b. A three-body problem: The effects of foreign language anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom on academic achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 43. 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000016.Search in Google Scholar

Duval, Sue & Richard Tweedie. 2000. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56(2). 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.Search in Google Scholar

Eastwood, John D., Alexandra Frischen, Mark J. Fenske & Daniel Smilek. 2012. The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(5). 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044.Search in Google Scholar

Egger, Matthias, George D. Smith, Martin Schneider & Christoph Minder. 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109). 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.Search in Google Scholar

Fahlman, Shelley A., Kate B. Mercer-Lynn, David B. Flora & John D. Eastwood. 2013. Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment 20(1). 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111421303.Search in Google Scholar

Feng, Enhao, Xian Zhao & Huiyu Wang. 2025. Chinese EFL learners’ basic psychological needs satisfaction and foreign language emotions: a person-centered approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 63(1). 735–758. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0087.Search in Google Scholar

Haager, Julia S., Christian Kuhbandner & Reinhard Pekrun. 2018. To be bored or not to be bored—how task-related boredom influences creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior 52(4). 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.154.Search in Google Scholar

Hunter, Andrew & John D. Eastwood. 2018. Does state boredom cause failures of attention? Examining the relations between trait boredom, state boredom, and sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research 236(9). 2483–2492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4749-7.Search in Google Scholar

Hunter, Jennifer A., Eleenor H. Abraham, Andrew G. Hunter, Lauren C. Goldberg & John D. Eastwood. 2016. Personality and boredom proneness in the prediction of creativity and curiosity. Thinking Skills and Creativity 22. 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Kruk, Mariusz, Majid Elahi Shirvan, Miroslaw Pawlak, Tahereh Taherian & Elham Yazdanmehr. 2021. A longitudinal study of the subdomains of boredom in practical English language classes in an online setting: A factor of curves latent growth modeling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45(5). 1633–1647. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.2006404.Search in Google Scholar

Kruk, Mariusz, Mirosław Pawlak, Majid Elahi Shirvan, Tahereh Taherian & Elham Yazdanmehr. 2022. Potential sources of foreign language learning boredom: A Q methodology study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12(1). 37–58. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.3.Search in Google Scholar

Kruk, Mariusz, Mirosław Pawlak, Tahereh Taherian, Erkan Yüce, Majid Elahi Shirvan & Elyas Barabadi. 2023. When time matters: Mechanisms of change in a mediational model of foreign language playfulness and L2 learners’ emotions using latent change score mediation model. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 13(1). 39–69. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.37174.Search in Google Scholar

Kruk, Mariusz & Joanna Zawodniak. 2018. Boredom in practical English language classes: Insights from interview data. In Leszek Szymański, Joanna Zawodniak, Agnieszka Łobodziec & Marek Smoluk (eds.), Interdisciplinary views on the English language, literature and culture. Zielona Góra: Uniwersytet Zielonogórski.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen. 2021. A control-value theory approach to boredom in English class among university students in China. The Modern Language Journal 105(1). 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12693.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen. 2024a. Task-specific emotions in L2 writing: A control-value theory approach from a positive psychology perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 15(1). 73–103. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.43371.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen. 2024b. Task emotions, skill-specific emotions, and general L2 emotions: How do they contribute to task performance? System. Submitted.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2020. The predictive effects of trait emotional intelligence and online learning achievement perceptions on foreign language class boredom among Chinese university students. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 5. 33–44.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen, Jean-Marc Dewaele & Yanhong Hu. 2023a. Foreign language learning boredom: Conceptualization and measurement. Applied Linguistics Review 14(2). 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0124.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen, Enhao Feng, Xian Zhao & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2024a. Foreign language learning boredom: Refining its measurement and determining its role in language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 46(3). 893–920. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263124000366.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen & Ye Han. 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.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen, Wei Li & Guiying Jiang. 2024b. Emotions in second language learning: Retrospect and prospect. Modern Foreign Languages 1. 63–75.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen & Li Wei. 2023. Anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom in language learning amongst junior secondary students in rural China: How do they contribute to L2 achievement? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 45(1). 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000031.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen, Wei Li & Xiaojun Lu. 2023b. Contributions of foreign language writing emotions to writing achievement. System 116. 103074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103074.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Chengchen, Wei Li & Xiaojun Lu. 2024c. Task complexity and L2 writing performance of young learners: Contributions of cognitive and affective factors. The Modern Language Journal 108(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12954.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng. 2010. The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2). 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng. 2024. Theory, research, and practice: Chapter 1. Individual differences and task-based language teaching. In Shaofeng Li (ed.), Individual Differences and task-based Language Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1080/17501229.2024.2426069Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng, Natsuko Shintani & Rod Ellis. 2012. Doing meta-analysis in SLA: Practices, choices, and standards. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies 384(12). 1–17.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Shaofeng & Hong Wang. 2018. Traditional literature review and research synthesis. In Aek Phakiti, Peter De Costa, Luke Plonsky & Sue Starfield (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of applied linguistics research methodology. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Eerdemutu & Junju Wang. 2023. The effects of student and teacher variables on anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom among Chinese high school EFL learners. International Journal of Multilingualism 21(3). 1454–1475. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2023.2177653.Search in Google Scholar

Mercer-Lynn, Kimberley B., Rachel J. Bar & John D. Eastwood. 2014. Causes of boredom: The person, the situation, or both? Personality and Individual Differences 56(1). 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.034.Search in Google Scholar

Özsaray, Alev Elmali & Altay Eren. 2018. Achievement emotions, epistemic curiosity, and graded performance of undergraduate students in English preparatory classes. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies 8(1). 39–58. https://doi.org/10.31704/ijocis.2018.003.Search in Google Scholar

Pawlak, Mirosław, Joanna Zawodniak & Mariusz Kruk. 2020. Boredom in the Foreign Language classroom: A micro-perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-50769-5Search in Google Scholar

Pawlak, Mirosław, Mariusz Kruk, Kata Csizer & Joanna Zawodniak. 2024. Investigating in-class and after-class boredom among advanced learners of English: Intensity, interrelationships and learner profiles. Applied Linguistics Review 15(6). 2537–2564. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0150.Search in Google Scholar

Pawlak, Mirosław, Mariusz Kruk, Joanna Zawodniak & Sławomir Pasikowski. 2022. Examining the underlying structure of after-class boredom experienced by English majors. System 106. 102769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102769.Search in Google Scholar

Pekrun, Reinhard. 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.Search in Google Scholar

Pekrun, Reinhard, Thomas Goetz, Lisa M. Daniels, Robert H. Stupnisky & Raymond P. Perry. 2010. Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology 102(3). 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019243. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0019243.Search in Google Scholar

Pekrun, Reinhard, Thomas Goetz, Anne C. Frenzel, Petra Barchfeld & Raymond P. Perry. 2011. 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.Search in Google Scholar

Plonsky, Luke, Ekaterina Sudina & Yuhang Hu. 2021. Applying meta-analysis to research on bilingualism: An introduction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24(5). 819–824. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000760.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86(3). 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.Search in Google Scholar

Solhi, Mehdi, Derakhshan Ali, Mirosław Pawlak & Büşra Ünsal-Görkemoğlu. 2024. Exploring the interplay between EFL learners’ L2 writing boredom, writing motivation, and boredom coping strategies. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241239178.Search in Google Scholar

Struk, Andriy A., Jonathan S. A. Carriere, J. Allan Cheyne & James Danckert. 2017. A short boredom proneness scale: Development and psychometric properties. Assessment 24(3). 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115609996.Search in Google Scholar

Tamres, Lisa K., Janicki Denise & Vicki S. Helgeson. 2002. Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6(1). 2–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1.Search in Google Scholar

Tsang, Art & Jean-Marc Dewaele. 2024. The relationships between young FL learners’ classroom emotions (anxiety, boredom, & enjoyment), engagement, and FL proficiency. Applied Linguistics Review 15(5). 2015–2034. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0077.Search in Google Scholar

Vuogan, Alyssa & Shaofeng Li. 2024. A systematic review of meta-analyses in second language research: Current practices, issues, and recommendations. Applied Linguistics Review 15(4). 1621–1644. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0192.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Yabing & Jian Xu. 2024. A latent profile analysis of L2 writing emotions and their relations to writing buoyancy, motivation and proficiency. Applied Linguistics Review 15(5). 2277–2302. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0080.Search in Google Scholar

Westgate, Erin C. 2020. Why boredom is interesting. Current Directions in Psychological Science 29(1). 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884309.Search in Google Scholar

Yeung, Susanna Siu-sze, Art Tsang, William Wing Chung Lam & Tammy Sheung Ting Law. 2023. Maternal education, classroom emotions, and literacy outcomes among grade 3/4 EFL learners. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 46(2). 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2023.2187397.Search in Google Scholar

Zhao, Xian & Danping Wang. 2023. Grit, emotions, and their effects on ethnic minority students’ English language learning achievements: A structural equation modelling analysis. System 113. 102979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102979.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-08-17
Accepted: 2025-03-09
Published Online: 2025-03-27
Published in Print: 2025-09-25

© 2025 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ growth in knowledge of elements in argumentation and their writing performance
  4. Sustainability as a business opportunity: a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of sustainable finance discourse
  5. Follow-up contributions for collaboratively accomplishing peer feedback in video-mediated L2 interactions
  6. Leveraging mutually shared knowledge through translanguaging in EMI classrooms: combining multimodal conversation analysis with interpretative phenomenological analysis
  7. Thinking through “in-betweenness”: a conversation with Suresh Canagarajah on decolonizing language education and research in South Asia
  8. Using the L1 to disambiguate L2 vocabulary: examining the effects on learning burden and decay with Chinese learners of English
  9. I can do it: a positive psychology perspective on the development of self-efficacy in the EFL context
  10. Integrating antiracist pedagogy in a Korean EFL classroom: a participatory approach to racial awareness and critical education
  11. Scholarly discourse: the growth of English for Research Publication Purposes
  12. Enhancing second language motivation and facilitating vocabulary acquisition in an EFL classroom through translanguaging practices
  13. Expandability and temporality in translanguaging spaces: a space-centred systematic observation of Kongish Daily
  14. “Working out” the longitudinal development and factors that influence phrasal verb knowledge for study-abroad learners in the UK
  15. Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions
  16. Refusing gifts in Chinese: a linguistic analysis integrating interaction ritual, expressions and speech acts
  17. Translanguaging as an emotional assessment practice: unveiling Chinese EFL students’ perceptions and experiences
  18. The relationship between oral expression, gesture and sign language in objectification of mathematical concepts; hard of hearing student example
  19. Review Article
  20. Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis
  21. Research Article
  22. Unraveling the local tapestry: exploring English language learning motivations in Taiwan’s unique cultural landscape
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0266
Keywords for this article
meta-analysis; foreign language learning boredom; task boredom; foreign language writing emotions; trait boredom
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ growth in knowledge of elements in argumentation and their writing performance
  4. Sustainability as a business opportunity: a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of sustainable finance discourse
  5. Follow-up contributions for collaboratively accomplishing peer feedback in video-mediated L2 interactions
  6. Leveraging mutually shared knowledge through translanguaging in EMI classrooms: combining multimodal conversation analysis with interpretative phenomenological analysis
  7. Thinking through “in-betweenness”: a conversation with Suresh Canagarajah on decolonizing language education and research in South Asia
  8. Using the L1 to disambiguate L2 vocabulary: examining the effects on learning burden and decay with Chinese learners of English
  9. I can do it: a positive psychology perspective on the development of self-efficacy in the EFL context
  10. Integrating antiracist pedagogy in a Korean EFL classroom: a participatory approach to racial awareness and critical education
  11. Scholarly discourse: the growth of English for Research Publication Purposes
  12. Enhancing second language motivation and facilitating vocabulary acquisition in an EFL classroom through translanguaging practices
  13. Expandability and temporality in translanguaging spaces: a space-centred systematic observation of Kongish Daily
  14. “Working out” the longitudinal development and factors that influence phrasal verb knowledge for study-abroad learners in the UK
  15. Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions
  16. Refusing gifts in Chinese: a linguistic analysis integrating interaction ritual, expressions and speech acts
  17. Translanguaging as an emotional assessment practice: unveiling Chinese EFL students’ perceptions and experiences
  18. The relationship between oral expression, gesture and sign language in objectification of mathematical concepts; hard of hearing student example
  19. Review Article
  20. Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis
  21. Research Article
  22. Unraveling the local tapestry: exploring English language learning motivations in Taiwan’s unique cultural landscape
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 19.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2024-0266/html
Scroll to top button