Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00293-1(2024) 14:21

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

RESEARCH

Tapping the alphabets of learning‑oriented
assessment: self‑assessment, classroom
climate, mindsets, trait emotional intelligence,
and academic engagement are in focus
Ehsan Namaziandost1*, Hossein Kargar Behbahani2*   and Tahereh Heydarnejad3*Correspondence:e.namazi75@yahoo.com;
namazian-e@ajums.ac.ir;
hossein_july1993@yahoo.com
1
Department of General
Courses, Ahvaz Jundishapur
University of Medical Sciences,Ahvaz, Iran2
Department of Foreign
Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz
University, Shiraz, Iran3
Department of English
Language, Faculty of Literatureand Humanities, University
of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran

Abstract
This study investigates the role of self-assessment (SA), classroom climate (CC), and psychological variables in learning-oriented assessment (LOA) within English as a foreign
language (EFL) education. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, data was collected
through surveys and semi-structured interviews from EFL learners and instructors. Findings reveal that SA plays a pivotal role in promoting learner autonomy, self-regulated
learning, and academic engagement (AE). By actively involving students in the assessment process and providing opportunities for reflection and feedback, educators
can empower learners to take ownership of their learning journey and enhance theiroverall learning outcomes. Moreover, the study underscores the importance of creating a supportive CC characterized by mutual respect, collaboration, and inclusivity.
Positive teacher-student relationships and inclusive learning environments contributesignificantly to students’ academic and socioemotional development. Additionally,
the study highlights the influence of psychological variables such as growth mindset
and emotional intelligence (EI) on student learning outcomes. Learners who adopt
a growth-oriented mindset and possess high levels of EI are more likely to perseverein the face of challenges and actively engage in the learning process. The implicationsof this study suggest the importance of adopting a holistic approach to assessment
and instruction in EFL education, with stakeholders urged to incorporate strategies
to promote SA, create supportive CC, and foster psychological variables for enhanced
student learning and well-being.
Keywords: Academic engagement, Classroom climate, Learning-oriented assessment,
Mindsets, Self-assessment, Trait emotional intelligence

Introduction
An alternative approach to assessment known as LOA emphasizes assessment that is
integrated with the learning process and focuses on scaffolding provided by the evaluator through facilitative feedback, both immediate and focused on learning improvement (Hamp-Lyons, 2017). LOA is often used interchangeably with assessment forlearning (AFL), an instructional strategy that involves learners in the learning process,© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permitsuse, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

offers feedback to enhance their language performance, promotes autonomy, and clarifies learning objectives (Ali, 2013; Lee & Coniam, 2013). In essence, LOA places priority
on assessment that is intertwined with learning activities in EFL/ESL classrooms, where
discussions revolve around theories of teaching and learning, including what should belearned, how it should be assessed, and how students’ progress should be evaluated (AlAbri et al., 2024; Watkins et al., 2005).
SA, which could be regarded as an instance of LOA, involves a range of psychologicalattributes including self-efficacy, consciousness, emotional resilience, and locus of control (Judge et al., 1997; Yan et al., 2023). Essentially, SA entails critically evaluating one’s
own behaviors, attitudes, or performance (Bachman & Palmer, 2010; Yan & Carless,2022), emphasizing the importance of instructing students on how to gauge their own
progress. Andrade (2019) further elaborates on SA, emphasizing its focus on competencies such as metacognitive knowledge, supervision, and self-regulated learning. Participation in self-evaluation activities enables students to develop critical thinking skills andmake informed decisions, thereby strengthening their ability to overcome educational
challenges (Heydarnejad et al., 2022). External influences such as grades and feedback
from instructors, along with internal factors like consciousness and goal setting, significantly influence the development of SA (Bourke & Mentis, 2013).
As a feature that could facilitate learning within educational contexts, CC has emerged
as a cohesive concept illustrating how various learning encounters combine and accumulate to shape academic, behavioral, and socioemotional outcomes in children andadolescents (Chapman et al., 2013; Hattie, 2009; Wang et al., 2020a, 2020b). Numerous
countries have prioritized enhancing CC and dynamics as a key objective of educational
reform efforts, reflecting a global consensus on its significance in fostering school quality
and the academic and psychological well-being of children (Wang & Degol, 2016; Wanget al., 2020a, 2020b). Viewed from a bioecological standpoint, CC encompasses various
dimensions, including the structure and organization of the classroom setting, instructional methods, disciplinary practices, curriculum content, and interpersonal relationships among students and between students and teachers (Jones et al., 2008; Wang &Degol, 2016). These dimensions constitute a set of proximal processes that can mediateor moderate the impact of external contexts, such as family and neighborhood, on children’s outcomes. While these processes are interconnected, they each capture essential
aspects of children’s learning environments and exert distinct influences on their academic and psychosocial development (Wang et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Learners’ mindset could also affect learning gains. Dweck (1999) investigated thedisparity in students’ attitudes toward learning challenging tasks, observing thatsome embraced difficulty while others were anxious or reluctant. She formulated
the concept of mindset, delineating a continuum from fixed to growth mindsets.
This spectrum illustrates how individuals may hold different mindsets—fixed or
growth—across various aspects of their lives. For instance, a student may exhibit afixed mindset regarding academic tasks while maintaining a growth mindset in sports
like baseball. Those with a fixed mindset believe intelligence to be immutable (Dweck,
1999, 2006; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Typically, individuals with a fixed mindset interpret failures, whether academic or otherwise, as indicative of their intelligence. Furthermore, the combination of effort exertion and subsequent failure is particularly

Page 2 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

discouraging for fixed-mindset individuals, leading them to attribute their shortcomings solely to perceived intelligence deficits (Dweck, 2006).
Trait emotional intelligence (EI) denotes a collection of self-perceptions associated with emotions positioned within the lower echelons of personality structures(Kumar & Tankha, 2023) and evaluated through the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire (Petrides et al., 2007). It distinguishes itself as the exclusive operational
definition in its field recognizing the inherent subjectivity embedded in emotional
encounters (Petrides, 2010). Additionally, studies propose that the facets of trait EI
resemble personality traits rather than competencies, cognitive abilities, or enablers.
This assertion is bolstered by evidence suggesting that the same genetic components
influencing individual disparities in the Big Five personality traits also impact variations in trait EI (Vernon et al., 2008).
As another key construct of this study, the notion of AE encompasses the degree andduration of students’ involvement in classroom tasks and activities (Meng & Zhang,2023; Sharma & Bhaumik, 2013). AE serves as an expression of student motivation, providing the impetus and enthusiasm for academic pursuit and achievement (Fredricks
et al., 2004; Hu & Wang, 2023). Participation in language acquisition fosters the development of various competencies, which serves as the ultimate goal (Teng et al., 2022).
It is widely acknowledged that the concept of AE is dynamic, constantly evolving, andinfluenced by a multitude of internal and external factors (Shu, 2022). To clarify further,it has been acknowledged that various phenomenological, personal, and instructional
factors play a crucial role in determining the level of AE among EFL students (Sharma& Bhaumik, 2013). According to the research findings, social media and technology may
impact the level of engagement students exhibit in L2 classrooms (Ritonga et al., 2023).
In EFL education, the effectiveness of LOA remains a critical area of inquiry. This
study seeks to address the multifaceted influence of SA and CC on EFL learners’
mindsets, trait EI, and AE within the LOA framework. Despite the acknowledged
importance of SA and CC in fostering a conducive learning environment, there isa paucity of research examining their specific impacts on psychological factors andAE among EFL learners. By delving into these interrelated aspects, this study aims tocontribute to a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics at play within the EFL
classroom context. Furthermore, investigating EFL learners’ attitudes toward SA andCC within the LOA framework will provide valuable insights into their perceptions
and experiences, thereby informing pedagogical practices and curriculum development in EFL settings. This study not only addresses gaps in the existing literature but
also has practical implications for educators and policymakers striving to enhance
the quality of EFL instruction and promote student success. Therefore, the following
research questions are addressed in this study:
1. Does EFL learners’ self-assessment influence the state of mindsets, trait emotional
intelligence, and academic engagement in LOA?
2. Does EFL learners’ classroom climate influence the state of mindsets, trait emotional
intelligence, and academic e‌ ngagement in LOA?
3. What is EFL learners’ attitudes toward self-assessment and classroom climate in
LOA?

Page 3 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

This study can hold significant implications for both theory and practice in the fieldof EFL education. By investigating the influence of SA and CC on EFL learners’ mindsets, trait EI, and AE within the framework of LOA, this research contributes to a deeper
understanding of the complex dynamics shaping students’ learning experiences. The
findings of this study can inform educators and policymakers about effective strategies
for enhancing student motivation, self-regulation, and overall academic achievement in
EFL classrooms. Furthermore, by exploring EFL learners’ attitudes toward SA and CC
within the LOA framework, this study offers valuable insights into students’ perceptions and experiences, thereby guiding the development of student-centered pedagogical approaches and curriculum design. Ultimately, the outcomes of this research havethe potential to improve the quality of EFL instruction, promote student success, andfoster a supportive learning environment conducive to the holistic development of EFL
learners.

Literature review
Theoretical framework
Learning‑oriented assessment

LOA is fundamentally defined as an assessment method focused on gathering and analyzing performance evidence to inform decisions for ongoing language enhancement(Al-Abri et al., 2024; Purpura, 2004). It is recognized for its capacity to promote student learning and support instructional scaffolding (Ploegh et al., 2009). Moreover, LOA
serves as a formative assessment approach that adapts to the changing needs of learners,
addresses pertinent learning objectives, and aids students in attaining these objectives,
thereby fostering and facilitating effective teaching and learning (Carless, 2007).
LOA is primarily distinguished from assessment of learning (AOL), which primarily
centers on using assessment outcomes to form judgments about student learning foradministrative purposes (Wiliam, 2001). In AOL, learners’ current achievements andfuture potentials are evaluated against established and customized learning standards,
objectives, and criteria, often serving reporting purposes. Conversely, LOA prioritizes
the enhancement of both learning and teaching processes (Earl, 2003). LOA facilitates
the identification of students’ strengths and weaknesses to enhance learning and assist
educators in adjusting teaching objectives and methods. Within LOA, students transition from passive participants to active contributors throughout the entire assessment
cycle (Gardner, 2006).
Black and Wiliam (1998) demonstrated significant advancements in student learning outcomes when educators shifted their focus toward utilizing assessment to support and enhance the learning process. As emphasized by Carless (2007), summative
assessment often carries negative connotations and adverse effects within the educational landscape. However, it is believed that LOA has the potential to alleviate some of
the tensions surrounding testing and evaluation. In contrast to AOL, which is typicallydesigned for ranking purposes and confirming competency, LOA encourages educatorsand students to offer supportive feedback to improve learning and teaching practices.
This form of assessment proves truly beneficial when the results are thoughtfully utilized to enhance instruction and address learning needs (Black et al., 2004). According

Page 4 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

to Black and Wiliam (1998), the primary objective of LOA is to leverage assessment topromote student learning.
Jones (2010) outlines four essential tenets of LOA, all centered around the learner.
Initially, educators should take into account learners’ existing and past levels of understanding. Second, it is imperative to encourage learners’ active engagement in learning
endeavors. Third, learners should grasp the significance of the learning journey and theobjectives they are actively striving to achieve; they should possess a thorough understanding of the criteria upon which the entire assessment is founded. Lastly, the incorporation of self and peer assessment within the classroom setting allows students toattain a more holistic comprehension of the requirements and methods for enhancing
their academic performance.
Self‑assessment

Andrade and Valtcheva (2009) characterize SA as a process wherein students gather
information regarding their performance or progress, compare it against explicitly
stated criteria, goals, or standards, and continuously revise. This delineation underscores
its formative nature for evaluation and emphasizes that SA extends beyond the mere
assignment of a numerical score. The primary purpose of engaging in SA is to enhancelearning and achievement, promote self-management and control, and regulate one’s
own learning. They identify three fundamental elements of SA: firstly, the availability of
rubrics to both students and evaluators. There should be a transparent process of consultation and mutual agreement between teachers and learners to establish a clear description and comprehensive understanding of rubrics and rating criteria well in advance of
the assessment process. Second, students should engage in critical reflection individually, utilizing the scoring rubrics. Third, students refine their work based on feedback
obtained from the initial revision.
Mahlberg (2015) discovered that classes incorporating SA demonstrated higher levels of self-regulation, leading to a significant increase in students’ purposeful and independent engagement in extensive study. According to Segers et al. (2006), SA in writing
encompasses any techniques or tasks wherein writers evaluate and revise their own writing regularly. Similarly, Rezai et al. (2022) explored the potential of SA, noting a notable
increase in students’ awareness accompanied by heightened motivation. Consequently,
writers improve their skills and develop the necessary competence for future writing
endeavors. To facilitate learners in SA, students must acquire the ability to monitor theentire performance process, including the end product and the steps involved in achieving it, as each step holds equal importance.
Classroom climate

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model proposes that human development unfolds withininterconnected contexts, where proximal processes play a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ experiences, thoughts, emotions, and actions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
These proximal processes, occurring within daily and prolonged interactions, are recognized as the most influential factors in development (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Examining these processes within the classroom setting is insightful, given that classrooms
serve as unique developmental environments characterized by instructional, social,

Page 5 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

and organizational dynamics (Wang et al., 2020a, 2020b). It is through the interactions
between students and teachers that the CC fosters the growth of children’s and adolescents’ academic, socioemotional, and behavioral skills.
Viewed through a bioecological lens, the CC encompasses various facets, including thearrangement and structure of the learning environment, teaching methodologies, disciplinary strategies, and curriculum implementation, along with the interpersonal dynamics among students, peers, and educators (Jones et al., 2008; Wang & Degol, 2016). Theseelements collectively constitute a series of immediate processes that can either mediateor moderate the impact of external factors (e.g., family or community environments) on
children’s outcomes. While interconnected, these processes differ in how they capture
crucial aspects of the learning environment and shape children’s academic and socioemotional development. Despite a lack of unanimous agreement on the definition ofCC, its multifaceted nature has been extensively explored in scholarly literature.
Initial studies on CC primarily focused on teaching methodologies, analyzing the
distribution of teacher interactions with students, such as the proportion of teacherled activities compared to student-initiated activities (Anderson, 1939; Withall, 1949).
Subsequent research expanded to encompass the management and arrangement of theclassroom environment (Fraser et al., 1982; Trickett & Moos, 1973; Walberg, 1968). For
instance, Trickett and Moos (1973) underscored the socio-psychological aspects of secondary school classrooms, conceptualizing the classroom as a dynamic system comprising teaching methods, task attributes, clarity of rules, and overall orderliness.
Recent conceptualizations of CC have shifted toward examining interactions between
students and teachers within the classroom, highlighting the diverse nature of CC (Danielson, 2011; Leff et al., 2011). For instance, Jones et al. (2008) suggested that both teaching methodologies and teacher-student rapport contribute to the overall quality of theclassroom’s instructional and emotional environments, which subsequently influence
students’ outcomes. In 2009, Klieme and colleagues outlined three fundamental dimensions of instructional or classroom quality, encompassing cognitive engagement, teacher
assistance, and classroom governance. Similarly, Pianta and Hamre (2009) introduced aframework for classroom quality, elucidating how the structure and dynamics of teacherstudent interactions impact child development, with a focus on instructional assistance,emotional support, and classroom management.
Undoubtedly, CC is a multifaceted construct, complicated further by the diversity ofoperational conceptualizations proposed by researchers. Nevertheless, these conceptualizations consistently underscore three fundamental components of teacher-student
interactions: instructional support, socioemotional support, and classroom organizationand management. While these dimensions may be termed differently in various theoretical frameworks and research findings, they align with several prominent models (Fauthet al., 2014; Wang et al., 2020a, 2020b). Within each of these dimensions lie specific indicators of classroom interactions that are predictive of outcomes for students (Klieme
et al., 2009; Miller & Wang, 2019; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Wang & Holcombe, 2010).
MindsetDweck (1999) explored the variation in students’ attitudes toward tackling challenging tasks, noting that while some embraced difficulty, others felt anxious or hesitant.

Page 6 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

She introduced the concept of mindset, outlining a spectrum from fixed to growthmindsets. This continuum illustrates how individuals may adopt different mindsets—
fixed or growth—across various aspects of their lives. For example, a student might
adopt a fixed mindset toward academic tasks while maintaining a growth mindset in
activities like sports such as baseball. Those with a fixed mindset perceive intelligence
as unchangeable (Dweck, 1999, 2006; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Typically, individuals
with a fixed mindset interpret failures, whether academic or otherwise, as reflectiveof their intelligence. Moreover, the combination of effort and subsequent failure isparticularly disheartening for those with a fixed mindset, leading them to attribute
their failures solely to perceived deficits in intelligence (Dweck, 2006).
Individuals holding a fixed mindset typically disregard helpful feedback and perceive their peers’ success as intimidating (Saunders, 2013). They often attribute theirfailures to external factors. For example, when facing a test failure, those with a fixed
mindset might attribute it to their teachers, stating, “They didn’t cover that,” or “Thatwasn’t in the study materials.” Consequently, individuals with a fixed mindset tend to
attribute their failures not to their own lack of ability or effort, but rather to external
circumstances (Dweck, 2006).
Conversely, individuals with a growth mindset held the belief that intelligence wasadaptable and could be developed, viewing failure as an opportunity for learning andgrowth. Emphasizing the importance of effort allowed those with a growth mindset tosee setbacks as motivational factors propelling them forward in their learning journey(Blackwell et al., 2007; Plaks & Stecher, 2007). Over time, their persistence and determination led to eventual success (Dweck, 1999, 2006). Additionally, individuals witha growth mindset actively sought and utilized constructive feedback to enhance theirlearning and benefited from observing the success of others (Saunders, 2013). Evenin the face of negative feedback, Dweck (2006) observed improvements among thosewith a growth mindset. Unlike their fixed mindset counterparts, they did not attribute
failures to external factors and instead focused on ways to enhance their performancein subsequent assessments. Notably, simply boosting students’ self-esteem throughpraise did not necessarily enhance their motivation or academic achievement. Dweck(2006) noted that feedback from teachers could significantly influence students’ selfperception, motivation, and academic performance. Moreover, excessive praise might
be interpreted as underestimating students’ capabilities and potential for further
accomplishment (Dweck, 1999).
Hartmann (2013) proposed that students in special education settings often exhibited a more fixed mindset compared to their peers without special needs. Individuals
requiring special education support, particularly those with specific learning disabilities, demonstrated lower levels of academic achievement compared to their typicalcounterparts (Frederickson, Simmonds, Evans, & Soulsby, 2007). These students frequently encountered failure or unsatisfactory grades as part of their academic experiences (Hartmann, 2013). Consequently, when educators or parents emphasized
students’ accomplishments as a measure of success, these students inferred that they
were also judged based on their failures. Consequently, they tended to focus moreon their performance rather than on the process of acquiring knowledge (Hartmann,2013).

Page 7 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Trait emotional intelligence

Trait EI encompasses an individual’s self-perceived ability to understand and manage
emotions in various situations. It represents a form of intelligence that goes beyond cognitive abilities, enabling adaptability and flexibility, particularly in social contexts, which
are crucial for personal growth and overall well-being. Therefore, trait EI appears toplay a significant role in improving individuals’ quality of life across multiple domains,
including health, well-being, and personal and professional adjustment (Di Fabio &Kenny, 2016; Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2014; Martins et al., 2010). For instance, research has
consistently linked trait EI with happiness in young adults (Badri et al., 2021), leadership effectiveness (Walter et al., 2011), work engagement (Akhtar et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Schutte & Loi, 2014), and fostering positive relationships among colleagues(Huang et al., 2019). Moreover, trait EI serves as a reliable predictor of positive mental health, reduced cortisol levels during stress, and effective coping with challenging
situations. Additionally, it promotes prosocial behavior in schoolchildren and enhances
academic performance, highlighting its relevance in education and youth development.
By influencing academic success and related factors across various educational levels,
trait EI equips students to navigate academic challenges and maintain good health. Consequently, it emerges as a valuable asset for college students in building resilience andeffectively managing life’s stressors.
Academic engagement

Engagement is a complex concept that encompasses various dimensions, influencing
learners’ motivation, cognition, behavior, and emotions (Robinson & Hullinger, 2008;
Sharma & Bhaumik, 2013). In education, engagement has been examined from multiple
perspectives, including school engagement, study engagement, student course engagement, and teacher engagement (Deng et al., 2022; Fredricks et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2022).
Various models and theories have been proposed to conceptualize engagement, with themodels developed by Fredricks et al. (2004) and Schaufeli et al. (2002) being widely recognized and utilized in empirical research due to their reliability and applicability acrossdifferent contexts.
The model of engagement proposed by Fredricks et al. (2004) defines engagement as
a dynamic and adaptable construct encompassing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional
dimensions, which they argue are interconnected. Meanwhile, according to Schaufeli
et al. (2002), engagement comprises absorption, vigor, and dedication. While these models assess different facets of student engagement, they both underscore the significanceof engagement in students’ AE. Within these frameworks, cognitive engagement andenthusiasm are characterized by students’ active participation in school-related activities
and their eagerness to learn (Rezai et al., 2022; Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014).
Moreover, Fredricks et al. (2004) and Schaufeli et al. (2002) posit that AE enhances students’ resilience, persistence, and positive attitudes toward learning.
Over the years, AE has been extensively investigated, with numerous empirical studies
highlighting its impact on learners’ well-being. For example, Alonso-Tapia et al. (2022)
observed a positive correlation between AE and motivation, self-efficacy, emotion, selfregulation, and satisfaction (cited in Riswanto et al., 2022). Hosseinmardi et al. (2022)
identified reciprocal relationships between AE, school engagement, and motivation.

Page 8 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Similarly, Amerstorfer and Freiin von Münster-Kistner (2021) explored the factors influencing AE, suggesting that it is influenced by personal attributes, teacher characteristics,
teaching methodologies, peer interactions, and the learning environment. They argued
that cognitive, metacognitive, affective, social, task-related, and language-related factors
play a role in shaping AE. In a recent study conducted by Namaziandost et al. (2023), themediating role of emotion regulation in fostering engagement, self-efficacy, and anger
among higher education students was confirmed. They concluded that effective emotion
regulation contributes to a sense of engagement and self-efficacy among university students, enabling them to better manage and control their emotional responses, including
anger.
In EFL education, the effectiveness of LOA remains a crucial area of exploration. LOA,
characterized by its focus on facilitating learning and instructional scaffolding, stands incontrast to traditional AOL methods, prioritizing student learning over administrative
judgment (Ploegh et al., 2009; Purpura, 2004; Wiliam, 2001). Despite its potential to alleviate tensions surrounding assessment and enhance student learning outcomes, the specific impacts of SA and CC within the LOA framework remain relatively underexplored.
SA, a formative evaluation process aimed at promoting learning and self-regulation,
has been recognized for its potential to enhance student engagement and self-regulated
learning (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Mahlberg, 2015). Additionally, CC, encompassing various dimensions of the learning environment and teacher-student interactions,plays a crucial role in shaping students’ academic and socioemotional development(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Jones et al., 2008). Moreover, factors such as mindset,
trait EI, and AE have been identified as key psychological variables influencing student
learning outcomes (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016; Dweck, 1999; Fredricks et al., 2004). Therefore, understanding the interplay between SA, CC, and these psychological variables
within the LOA framework is essential for informing effective pedagogical practices andenhancing student learning experiences in EFL settings.

MethodParticipants and procedures involved

The current study employed convenience sampling to conduct a survey of 218 EFL
university students from Iran (Khorasan Razavi and Khuzestan Provinces), of which
97 were male and 121 were female. The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 25 years old,
and their academic subjects included teaching English as a foreign language and English literature at the BA level. A portion of their academic classes were conducted virtually (i.e., English grammar, reading strategies, advanced writing, and study skills). Data
was gathered via an online survey conducted over a period of 5 months in 2023. The
survey had a response rate of 79.25% and no data loss occurred due to the design ofthe electronic tests. To complete the data analysis, as the first step, the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov test (K-ST) was applied to verify the normality of the data. The results of (K-ST)
reflected that the data was not normally distributed. The data was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), with Smart
PLS serving as an appropriate modeling strategy for analyzing non-normal data. Furthermore, to triangulate the data, qualitative method (i.e., semi-structured interview)
was applied. These interviews served as a valuable methodological approach to gaining

Page 9 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

in-depth insights into the perspectives and experiences of EFL students regarding SA
practices and the CC. In the online survey, a section was included to invite the students
who were eager to participate in following semi-structured interviews. Twenty-two students were questioned, and the resulting data were meticulously transcribed to assure
the accuracy and authenticity of the participants’ responses. Following that, a thoroughthematic analysis was conducted to identify major themes and patterns arising from theinterview data. Thematic analysis facilitated the systematic exploration of participants’narratives, allowing for the identification of recurring topics, concepts, and discourses
related to SA and CC in the context of LOA. This methodological approach provided
a rich and nuanced understanding of EFL learners’ perceptions and attitudes, shedding
light on their experiences within the learning environment. By delving into the intricacies of students’ perspectives through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis,
this study aimed to contribute valuable insights to the existing literature on SA and CC
in LOA within the EFL context.

MeasureThe CSAQ, created and validated by Judge et al. (2003), was utilized to evaluate the core
self-evaluations of university students. This measure consists of 12 items rated on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The ratings
on this scale varied between 12 and 60. High scores on this scale indicated a favorable
SA, while low numbers indicated an unfavorable SA. The current investigation foundthat the dependability of CSAQ was 0.788, indicating a satisfactory level of reliability.
Three dimensions—teacher academic assistance, teacher emotional support, andclassroom mutual respect—were included in the instrument that Joe et al. (2017) createdto gauge participants’ perceptions of the classroom environment. A 5-point Likert scale
was used by participants to score the nine aspects, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree.” It is noteworthy to emphasize that the dependability of all three of these subscales is acceptable in this research.
The Language Mindsets Inventory (Lou & Noels, 2017) was used to evaluate thegrowth attitude of the participants. Lou and Noels (2017) developed an 18-item measure to assess the presence of a growth or fixed mindset in language acquisition. This
questionnaire had three sub-constructs: general language intelligence beliefs, second
language aptitude beliefs, and age sensitivity views about language acquisition. The participants were instructed to provide responses to all the topics using a Likert scale stylewith five points, ranging from 1 (indicating severe disagreement) to 5 (indicating strong
agreement). The sub-constructs’ respective Cronbach’s alphas in the current researchwere 0.855, 0.862, and 0.842.
The trait EI scale consists of 153 items, and the short form (Petrides et al., 2004)
employed in this study is a shortened version with 30 items. The four components ofemotional intelligence, sociability, emotionality, self-control, and well-being are measured on a 7-point Likert scale in both formats. Numerous research, including ones donein a variety of foreign language contexts like Chinese EFL settings, have shown that the
short form’s dependability is good (Li et al., 2022). The Cronbach’s report for the present
research was 0.844, indicating a satisfactory level of dependability.

Page 10 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 11 of 30

The SInAPSi AE Scale was developed and verified by Freda et al. (2021) to assess andmeasure the level of active involvement and inclusion of university students. This instrument consists of six aspects measured on a 5-point Likert scale as outlined below: The
survey includes six sections: (1) university value and sense of belonging, (2) perceptionof the capability to persist in the university choice, (3) value of university course, (4)engagement with university professors, (5) engagement with university peers, and (6)relationships between university and relational net. The present research yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.872, indicating a satisfactory level of dependability.

Results
The outcomes of the data screening evaluation and the rigorous statistical analysis arepresented in this section. Table 1 displays the findings of the descriptive statistics.
To determine if the study components had a normal distribution, the K-MT test was
performed. Table 2 presents the results of the testing.
The hypothesis that the study variables are normally distributed is disproved as theanalysis’s confidence level for each component is less than 0.05. By using Smart PLS software to analyze the structural equations, the research claims are put to the test. Convergent, divergent, content, and construct validity have all been evaluated in order to provethe measuring instrument’s validity.
To determine content validity, which refers to the degree to which assessment indicators correspond with current research, we administered a survey to four EFL instructors.
Indicators that demonstrate appropriate factor structures for evaluating the structures
being studied in the model are deemed to have strong construct validity (Table 3). This
Table 1 Descriptive statistics
N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. deviation

Self-assessment

218

12

60

40.014

10.583Teacher’s academic assistance

218

3

15

10.2292.917

Teacher’s emotional support

218

3

15

9.784

3.131

Classroom’s mutual respect

218

3

15

9.890

2.881

Classroom climate

218

9

45

29.904

7.974

General language intelligence beliefs

218

6

30

20.271

5.783

Second language aptitude beliefs

218

6

30

20.7945.658

Age sensitivity beliefs about language learning

218

7

30

19.1565.427

Growth mindset

218

19

90

60.22014.778

Emotionality

218

23

54

36.367

6.849

Self-control

218

28

56

47.812

5.514

Sociability

218

16

35

23.482

4.248

Well-being

218

25

47

33.628

5.669

Trait emotional intelligence

218

112

192

141.289

12.727

University value

218

8

30

21.651

5.295

Perception of the capability

218

4

20

13.624

3.512

Value of university course

218

13

35

26.601

5.225

Engagement with teachers

218

6

20

14.032

3.249

Engagement with peers

218

9

25

16.748

3.995

Relationships between academic net

218

3

15

10.7483.202

Academic engagement

218

49

145

103.404

20.577

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 12 of 30

Table 2 K-MT results
Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z

Asymp.
Sig.
(2-tailed)

Self-assessment

1.834

0.004

Teacher’s academic assistance

1.810

0.003

Teacher’s emotional support

1.881

0.002

Classroom’s mutual respect

2.535

0.000

Classroom climate

1.753

0.020

General language intelligence beliefs

1.755

0.038

Second language aptitude beliefs

2.095

0.000

Age sensitivity beliefs about language learning

1.613

0.011

Growth mindset

1.990

0.028

Emotionality

1.642

0.009

Self-control

1.589

0.019

Sociability

2.495

0.000

Well-being

1.907

0.001

Trait emotional intelligence

2.864

0.000

University value

1.729

0.010

Perception of the capability

1.407

0.038

Value of university course

1.424

0.035

Engagement with teachers

1.932

0.001

Engagement with peers

2.321

0.000

Relationships between academic net

2.157

0.000

Academic engagement

1.937

0.001

attribute assists to authenticate the precision and importance of the indications. In orderto analyze this occurrence, t values were used to finish this section. When the indicatorsin the research model have a value greater than 1.96, they may be used to evaluate thedimensions being examined with a confidence level of 95%.
Convergent validity pertains to the need for a substantial connection between theindicators of each concept. As stated by reference Fornell and Larcker (1981), a minimum average variance extracted (AVE) of 0.5 is necessary to show convergent validity.
When the coefficients are above 0.7, it signifies that the questionnaire is reliable. Table 4
presents a thorough analysis of the convergent validity and reliability outcomes of themeasuring instrument.
Divergent validity is the third validity metric in the PLS approach. Acceptable divergent validity shows that a concept in the model has a stronger relationship with its indicators than with other concepts. Fornell and Larker (1981) define divergent validity as
when AVE for each construct exceeds the shared variance between that construct andthe others, suggesting that the square root of AVE is larger than the correlation coefficients (Table 5). To provide sufficient divergent validity, the numbers in the major diameter (AVE root) must be higher than their corresponding values.
√
GOF = 0.676 ∗ 0.593 = 0.633
According to Table 6, a GOF score of 0.633 suggests a good fit to the model, withscores of 0.01 classed as weak, 0.25 as medium, and 0.36 as strong (Tenenhaus et al.,

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 13 of 30

Table 3 Construct validity check
Constructs
Self-assessment

Classroom climate

Self-assessment

Teacher’s academic assistance

Teacher’s emotional support

Classroom’s mutual respect

Growth mindset

General language intelligence beliefs

Second language aptitude beliefs

Questions Original sample T-statistics
s1

0.650

13.082s2

0.769

23.893

s3

0.507

6.059

s4

0.893

44.623s5

0.697

15.891

s6

0.569

7.199

s7

0.534

6.497

s8

0.735

15.926s9

0.805

26.864s10

0.779

23.261s11

0.831

34.537s12

0.782

24.998c1

0.853

36.450c2

0.877

42.918c3

0.843

35.476c4

0.835

38.183c5

0.849

37.015c6

0.841

36.173c7

0.851

35.138c8

0.883

44.845

c9

0.575

7.561

g1

0.786

23.925g2

0.848

39.173g3

0.839

28.643g4

0.844

36.920g5

0.815

29.270g6

0.728

20.678g7

0.751

18.906g8

0.857

45.262g9

0.732

17.122g10

0.781

26.482g11

0.817

23.133g12

0.812

33.738Age sensitivity beliefs about language g13
learning
g14

0.714

21.421

0.677

17.958g15

0.742

17.001g16

0.800

24.525g17

0.738

20.088g18

0.731

19.801Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 14 of 30

Table 3 (continued)
Constructs
Trait emotional intelligence Emotionality

Self-control

Sociability

Well-being

Questions Original sample T-statistics
t1

0.744

21.838t2

0.739

20.836t3

0.795

31.921t4

0.694

18.694t5

0.707

21.824t6

0.686

14.531t7

0.601

10.294t8

0.897

40.690t9

0.608

11.699t10

0.794

31.150t11

0.658

14.046t12

0.719

23.075t13

0.795

32.107t14

0.813

42.041t15

0.740

21.597t16

0.566

11.926t17

0.631

13.423t18

0.718

21.763t19

0.814

31.640t20

0.885

34.504t21

0.643

13.602t22

0.698

16.143t23

0.742

22.146t24

0.684

14.558t25

0.865

32.127t26

0.786

24.501t27

0.633

11.263t28

0.717

20.596t29

0.689

16.214t30

0.567

10.489

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 15 of 30

Table 3 (continued)

Academic engagement

Constructs

Questions Original sample T-statistics

University value

a1

Perception of the capability

Value of university course

Engagement with teachers

Engagement with peers

Relationships between academic net

0.757

21.995a2

0.651

11.785a3

0.828

37.009a4

0.874

60.143a5

0.826

36.206a6

0.714

17.583a7

0.773

26.660a8

0.684

16.641a9

0.859

34.094a10

0.798

26.709a11

0.796

25.584a12

0.754

21.424a13

0.673

11.261

a14

0.619

9.259

a15

0.796

49.690a16

0.780

39.185

a17

0.594

8.246

a18

0.778

25.320a19

0.784

26.714a20

0.706

15.804a21

0.692

18.163a22

0.816

23.908a23

0.738

12.034a24

0.798

39.084a25

0.717

19.337a26

0.685

12.403a27

0.865

53.894a28

0.917

90.118a29

0.903

61.4842004). Subsequently, the correlation between internal and external latent variables isinvestigated. T-statistics are used to evaluate the impact of each independent variable
on the dependent variables. If the statistic exceeds 1.96 or falls below − 1.96, it indicates support for the hypothesis.
Figures 1 and 2, as shown in Table 7, thoroughly evaluate the strength and reliability of the causal relationships between the variables being studied. The study foundthat SA had a substantial and advantageous effect on GM (β = 0.454, t = 7.082), TEI(β = 0.463, t = 8.694), and AE (β = 0.384, t = 4.665). Moreover, the study found that

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 16 of 30

Table 4 Convergent validity and reliability of instruments
Constructs

Average variance Composite
extracted (AVE)reliability

Self-assessment

Self-assessment

0.512

0.891

Classroom climate

Teacher’s academic assistance

0.736

0.893

Teacher’s emotional support

0.708

0.879

Classroom’s mutual respect

0.612

0.821

Total

0.685

0.917

General language intelligence beliefs

0.658

0.920

Second language aptitude beliefs

0.628

0.910

Age sensitivity beliefs about language learning

0.540

0.875

Total

0.609

0.943

Emotionality

0.544

0.769

Self-control

0.514

0.871

Sociability

0.544

0.864

Well-being

0.507

0.806

Total

0.527

0.876

University value

0.607

0.902

Perception of the capability

0.610

0.862

Value of university course

0.519

0.874

Engagement with teachers

0.549

0.829

Engagement with peers

0.566

0.815

Relationships between academic net

0.802

0.924

Total

0.574

0.951

Growth mindset

Trait emotional intelligence

Academic engagement

Table 5 Assessing divergent validity and correlation coefficients among research variables
Self-assessment Classroom
climateGrowth mindset Traitemotional
intelligence

Self-assessment

0.715

Classroom climate

0.558**

0.828

Growth mindset

0.677**

0.812**

0.780

Trait emotional
intelligence

0.689**

0.624**

0.477**

0.726

Academic engagement

0.546**

0.751**

0.508**

0.621****

Academic
engagement

0.758**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 6 Fit indices of the first model
Q2

R2

Growth mindset

0.294

0.667

Trait emotional intelligence

0.235

0.510

Academic engagement

0.245

0.602

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 17 of 30

Fig. 1 Path and factor coefficients of the first research modelFig. 2 T values of the first research model

Table 7 Analyzing the connections between variables (initial model)
Paths
Self-assessment
Self-assessment
Self-assessment
Classroom climate
Classroom climate
Classroom climate

Path coefficient
→

→

→

→

→

→

T-statistics

Test results

Growth mindset

0.454

7.082

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence

0.463

8.694

Supported

Academic engagement

0.384

4.665

Supported

Growth mindset

0.740

21.221

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence

0.517

11.017

Supported

Academic engagement

0.633

15.069SupportedNamaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Page 18 of 30

Table 8 Fit indices of the second model
Q2

R2

Growth mindset

0.375

0.692

Trait emotional intelligence

0.242

0.513

Academic engagement

0.268

0.637

Table 9 Analyzing the connections between variables (second model)
Paths
Self-assessment
Self-assessment
Self-assessment
Teacher’s academic assistance
Teacher’s academic assistance
Teacher’s academic assistance
Teacher’s emotional support
Teacher’s emotional support
Teacher’s emotional support
Classroom’s mutual respect
Classroom’s mutual respect
Classroom’s mutual respect

Path coefficient T-statistics Test results
→

→

→

→

→

→

→

→

→

→

→

→

0.454

6.512

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence 0.463

Growth mindset

7.998

Supported

Academic engagement

0.384

4.771

Supported

Growth mindset

0.710

20.792

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence 0.511

12.263

Supported

Academic engagement

0.692

17.247

Supported

Growth mindset

0.773

24.216

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence 0.547

13.778Supported

Academic engagement

0.654

16.151

Supported

Growth mindset

0.754

24.101

Supported

Trait emotional intelligence 0.494

8.382

Supported

Academic engagement

14.890Supported

0.589

GM (β = 0.740, t = 21.221), TEI (β = 0.517, t = 11.017), and AE (β = 0.633, t = 15.069)
were all significantly and favorably impacted by CC.
√
GOF = 0.663 ∗ 0.614 = 0.638
The model’s fit is evaluated using GOF scores. A GOF score of 0.638 indicates ahigh degree of fit (Table 8). Next, the link between internal and external latent variables is examined. Following this stage, T-statistics (Table 9) are used to calculate
the impact of each independent variable on the dependent variables.
This section provides detailed explanations of the current correlations among
latent variables in model 2, as shown by the coefficients reported in Table 9
and Figs. 3 and 4. There is a notable correlation between SA and GM (β = 0.454,
t = 6.512), TEI (β = 0.463, t = 7.998), and AE (β = 0.384, t = 4.771) in the second
model. In addition, the research revealed that teacher’s academic assistance hada substantial and positive effect on GM (β = 0.710, t = 20.792), TEI (β = 0.511,
t = 12.263), and AE (β = 0.692, t = 17.247). According to the outcomes, GM(β = 0.773, t = 24.216), TEI (β = 0.547, t = 13.778), and AE (β = 0.654, t = 16.151)
were all observed to be significantly and positively affected by teacher’s emotional
support. Furthermore, with regard to the findings of the research, it was discovered that GM (β = 0.754, t = 24.101), TEI (β = 0.494, t = 8.382), and AE (β = 0.589,
t = 14.890) were all substantially and favorably influenced by classroom’s mutual
respect.

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Fig. 3 Path and factor coefficients of the second research model

EFL learners’ attitudes toward self‑assessment and classroom climate in LOA

The semi-structured interviews provided rich insights into the attitudes of EFL
learners toward SA practices within the LOA framework. A nuanced understanding emerged, reflecting diverse perspectives and experiences among the participants.
Many participants expressed a positive outlook toward SA, highlighting its multifaceted benefits in promoting learner autonomy, self-regulation, and deeper engagement with the learning process. Participants appreciated the opportunity to actively
participate in assessing their own learning progress, emphasizing the empowerment
and ownership it afforded them over their educational journey. Moreover, SA wasperceived as a valuable tool for enhancing metacognitive awareness, as participants
described how it encouraged them to reflect critically on their learning strategies,
strengths, and areas for improvement.
Conversely, the interviews also revealed a subset of participants who harbored reservations or apprehensions toward SA. Some expressed concerns about the reliability and validity of SA judgments, questioning their ability to accurately evaluate theirown performance without biased perceptions. This skepticism stemmed from uncertainties regarding the consistency of assessment criteria and the potential influenceof personal biases or misconceptions. Additionally, participants highlighted the needfor clear guidance and support from educators to facilitate effective SA practices, suggesting a desire for structured frameworks and feedback mechanisms to enhance thecredibility and utility of SA processes.

Page 19 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Fig. 4 T values of the second research model

The interviews yielded diverse perspectives on the CC experienced by EFL learners, illuminating the multifaceted nature of the learning environment and its impact
on student engagement and well-being. Participants described a spectrum of CC,
ranging from highly supportive and conducive to learning to challenging or even
detrimental to students’ academic experiences. Those who described positive CC
emphasized the importance of teacher-student relationships characterized by mutual
respect, trust, and open communication. These participants highlighted the role ofsupportive pedagogical practices, collaborative learning opportunities, and inclusiveclassroom dynamics in fostering a sense of belonging and motivation among students.
Conversely, participants who reported challenges related to CC identified various
factors contributing to their perceived difficulties. These included instances of perceived favoritism or bias in teacher-student interactions, where some students felt
marginalized or overlooked in classroom discussions or assessment processes. Additionally, disruptive peer behavior, lack of classroom organization, and insufficient
instructional support were cited as barriers to creating a conducive learning environment. Participants underscored the importance of addressing these challenges to cultivate a positive and inclusive CC that promotes student engagement, participation,
and academic success.
Overall, semi-structured interviews yielded several themes regarding EFL learners’
attitudes toward SA and CC:

Page 20 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

1. Empowerment through self-assessment: Participants expressed a theme of empowerment through SA, highlighting how the practice enabled them to take ownershipof their learning process. They described feeling more engaged and motivated when
given the opportunity to evaluate their own progress and identify areas for improvement independently.
2. Challenges in self-assessment accuracy: A recurring theme among participants was
the challenge of accurately assessing their own performance. Many expressed concerns about the subjective nature of SA and the difficulty in objectively evaluating
their work without external benchmarks or feedback from peers and educators.
3. Need for clear assessment criteria: Participants emphasized the importance of clear
assessment criteria and guidelines to support effective SA practices. They expresseda desire for transparent rubrics and examples to help them understand expectations
and evaluate their work more confidently.
4. Impact of feedback on self-assessment: The role of feedback emerged as a significant theme in participants’ attitudes toward SA. They highlighted the importance oftimely and constructive feedback in facilitating their learning and guiding their SA
process.
5. Perceptions of classroom climate: Participants discussed their perceptions of the CC,
describing environments that ranged from supportive and inclusive to challenging
and stressful. Themes related to teacher-student relationships, peer interactions, andinstructional practices emerged as influential factors shaping their classroom experiences.
6. Positive teacher-student relationships: Participants identified positive teacher-student relationships as essential components of a conducive CC. They emphasized theimportance of approachable and supportive educators who fostered trust, respect,and open communication in the classroom.
7. Importance of inclusive learning environments: Inclusive learning environments
emerged as a key theme, with participants expressing the need for classrooms thatwelcomed diversity and accommodated various learning styles and abilities. Theyemphasized the importance of feeling valued and included in classroom discussions
and activities.
8. Challenges with classroom dynamics: Some participants described challenges
related to classroom dynamics, including disruptive behavior, unequal participation,and perceived favoritism. These themes underscored the impact of peer interactions
and classroom management strategies on students’ perceptions of the learning environment.
9. Desire for engagement and participation: Participants expressed a desire for engaging and participatory learning experiences, highlighting the importance of interactive activities, collaborative projects, and student-centered pedagogies in promoting
their engagement and motivation.
10. Call for supportive learning environments: Overall, participants emphasized theneed for supportive learning environments that fostered autonomy, collaboration,
and academic growth. They called for educators to prioritize creating inclusive classrooms where all students felt valued, respected, and empowered to succeed.

Page 21 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

These themes provide insights into the attitudes and experiences of EFL learners
regarding SA and CC within the LOA framework. They highlight the complex interplay
between individual perceptions, instructional practices, and the broader learning environment in shaping students’ learning experiences and outcomes.

Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate EFL learners’ attitudes toward SA practices andCC within the framework of LOA. By employing a mixed-methods approach that integrated quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews,
this research sought to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay
between individual perceptions, instructional practices, and the learning environment.
The study employed SEM to analyze the relationships between key variables, including SA, CC, emotional intelligence, and academic engagement. SEM allowed for theexamination of complex interrelations among latent variables and provided insights into
the underlying mechanisms driving students’ attitudes and behaviors in the educational
context. The findings revealed significant and positive associations between SA, CC,emotional intelligence, and AE, highlighting the importance of these factors in shaping
students’ learning experiences and outcomes.
One of the central themes that emerged from both the quantitative analysis and qualitative interviews was the theme of empowerment through SA. EFL learners expressed apositive outlook toward SA, highlighting its role in promoting learner autonomy, selfregulation, and deeper engagement with the learning process. The findings suggest thatwhen students are actively involved in assessing their own learning progress, they feel
more motivated and empowered to take ownership of their educational journey. Thisaligns with previous research highlighting the benefits of learner-centered approaches
in fostering a sense of agency and responsibility among students (Nicol & MacfarlaneDick, 2006).
Despite the perceived benefits of SA, participants also voiced concerns about the accuracy and reliability of SA judgments. This theme underscores the challenges inherentin evaluating one’s own performance without external benchmarks or feedback mechanisms. The findings suggest a need for structured frameworks, clear assessment criteria,
and guidance from educators to enhance the credibility and utility of SA practices.
The qualitative insights from the semi-structured interviews shed light on the diverse
perceptions of CC experienced by EFL learners. Positive CC characterized by supportive
teacher-student relationships, inclusive pedagogical practices, and collaborative learning
opportunities were associated with higher levels of student engagement and well-being.
In contrast, challenges related to classroom dynamics, perceived bias or favoritism, anddisruptive peer behavior were identified as barriers to creating a conducive learning
environment. These findings underscore the critical role of CC in shaping students’ attitudes, motivation, and academic experiences (Wentzel et al., 2010).
The findings of the current study resonate with the theoretical underpinnings of LOA
as delineated in the literature. LOA, characterized by its emphasis on enhancing student learning and supporting instructional scaffolding, offers a paradigm shift from traditional AOL methods, prioritizing student development over administrative judgment(Purpura, 2004; Wiliam, 2001). Our study aligns with previous research demonstrating

Page 22 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

the potential of LOA to alleviate tensions surrounding assessment and foster student
engagement and achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Carless, 2007).
The findings regarding SA corroborate existing literature emphasizing its formative
nature and its role in promoting self-regulated learning and AE (Andrade & Valtcheva,
2009; Mahlberg, 2015). Our study revealed that EFL learners perceived SA as a valuable
tool for enhancing metacognitive awareness and promoting ownership of the learning
process. This aligns with Jones’ (2010) assertion that SA fosters active student participation and a deeper understanding of learning objectives and assessment criteria. Moreover, the incorporation of SA within the LOA framework empowers students to monitor
their progress and make informed adjustments to their learning strategies, thereby promoting continuous improvement (Rezai et al., 2022).
The multifaceted nature of CC, encompassing instructional, social, and organizational
dynamics, emerged as a critical factor influencing students’ academic and socioemotional development (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Jones et al., 2008). Consistent withprior research, our study found that positive CC characterized by supportive teacherstudent relationships and inclusive pedagogical practices were associated with higher
levels of student engagement and well-being (Danielson, 2011; Pianta & Hamre, 2009).
Conversely, challenges related to classroom dynamics and perceived biases or favoritism
were identified as barriers to creating conducive learning environments, highlighting theimportance of addressing these issues to promote student success (Wang et al., 2020a,
2020b).
In addition to SA and CC, our study examined the influence of psychological variables such as mindset, trait EI, and AE on student learning outcomes. Consistent with
Dweck’s (1999) theory of mindset, our findings suggest that students’ beliefs about intelligence play a significant role in shaping their motivation, persistence, and response to
feedback. Those with a growth mindset were more likely to embrace challenges, seek
feedback, and adopt adaptive learning strategies, contributing to their academic success(Plaks & Stecher, 2007). Similarly, trait EI emerged as a key predictor of positive academic outcomes, highlighting the importance of EI in promoting resilience, well-being,
and effective coping with academic stressors (Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016). Moreover, AE,
characterized by active participation, enthusiasm, and persistence in learning activities,
was positively associated with student motivation, self-efficacy, and satisfaction (Fredricks et al., 2004; Hosseinmardi et al., 2022).
The novelty of this study lies in its comprehensive examination of the interrelationships between SA, CC, psychological variables, and academic outcomes within thecontext of LOA in EFL settings. While previous research has explored these constructs
individually, this study integrates them within a unified theoretical framework, shedding light on their collective impact on student learning experiences and outcomes.
By adopting a multidimensional approach, this study moves beyond traditional assessment paradigms and explores the dynamic interactions between pedagogical practices,
socioemotional factors, and cognitive processes in EFL education. Additionally, thisstudy contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the importance of fostering
supportive CC and promoting psychological variables such as growth mindset and EIin enhancing student engagement, well-being, and academic success. Through its holistic perspective and methodological rigor, this study provides valuable insights into the

Page 23 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

complexities of student learning within the LOA framework, offering practical implications for educators and policymakers seeking to optimize teaching and assessment practices in EFL contexts.
This study contributes to the existing body of literature by integrating quantitative
analysis with qualitative insights from semi-structured interviews, offering a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between individual perceptions,
instructional practices, and the learning environment in the context of EFL education.
Furthermore, by examining the influence of psychological variables such as mindset andemotional intelligence on student learning outcomes within the LOA framework, thisstudy extends our understanding of the factors that shape student engagement, motivation, and academic success in EFL settings. Additionally, the study underscores theimportance of adopting a holistic approach to assessment and instruction, highlighting
the interrelationships between pedagogical practices, socioemotional factors, and cognitive processes in language learning. By elucidating these dynamics, the study provides
valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers seeking to optimize teaching and assessment practices and promote the holistic development of EFL learners.

Implications of the study

For language teachers, this study offers valuable insights into the implementation ofeffective assessment practices within EFL classrooms. By embracing the principles of
LOA, teachers can transcend the traditional role of assessors and become facilitatorsof student learning journeys. Encouraging SA not only empowers learners to monitor
their own progress but also fosters autonomy and self-regulated learning. To capitalizeon these insights, teachers can design instructional activities that integrate SA opportunities, allowing students to reflect on their learning experiences and make informed
adjustments. Additionally, cultivating a supportive CC is paramount. Teachers can nurture positive teacher-student relationships, foster inclusive classroom dynamics, andenhance student engagement by implementing strategies such as cooperative learningand peer support mechanisms. Furthermore, by incorporating techniques to promote
psychological variables like growth mindset and EI, teachers can create a holistic learning environment that nurtures students’ academic and socioemotional development,
thereby facilitating improved learning outcomes.
For language learners, the implications of this study are twofold. Firstly, learners
can leverage a deeper understanding of the assessment process to become active participants in their learning journey. Embracing SA practices empowers learners to takeownership of their progress, fostering metacognitive awareness and adaptive learning
strategies. Moreover, insights into fostering a supportive CC environment enable learners to advocate for inclusive and nurturing learning environments where they feel valued
and motivated to engage actively. Understanding the influence of psychological variables
such as growth mindset and EI equips learners with invaluable tools to overcome challenges and persist in their language learning endeavors. By cultivating a growth-oriented
mindset and enhancing emotional self-awareness, learners can navigate the complexitiesof language acquisition more effectively, ultimately becoming self-directed and resilient
learners capable of thriving in diverse educational settings.

Page 24 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

For materials developers, this study underscores the importance of aligning instructional materials with the principles of LOA and promoting student-centered approaches
to language learning. Developers can play a pivotal role in facilitating effective learning experiences by designing materials that integrate SA opportunities and reflection
exercises. Incorporating elements that foster a positive CC, such as cooperative learning tasks and culturally inclusive content, can enhance student engagement and createa supportive learning environment. Additionally, materials developers can contributeto the promotion of psychological variables like growth mindset and EI by embedding
content that encourages learners to adopt adaptive learning strategies and develop emotional self-regulation skills. By aligning materials with the holistic nature of language
learning and assessment, developers can enhance the quality and effectiveness of language learning resources, thereby facilitating improved learning outcomes for language
learners.
For policymakers, this study underscores the importance of incorporating principlesof LOA into educational policies and frameworks. Recognizing the value of assessment
as a tool for promoting student learning, policymakers can advocate for policies that prioritize formative assessment approaches over summative ones. Moreover, policymakers
can support initiatives aimed at creating inclusive and supportive learning environments by allocating resources for professional development opportunities for educators.
Additionally, policymakers can promote research and initiatives focused on fostering
psychological variables such as growth mindset and EI in educational settings, thereby
contributing to the holistic development of learners. By aligning policies with the principles of LOA and supporting evidence-based practices, policymakers can facilitate
the creation of educational systems that empower learners to thrive in the twenty-first
century.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has explored the interplay between SA, CC, psychological variables, and learning outcomes within the context of LOA in EFL education. Through arigorous analysis of data gathered from surveys and interviews, several key findings haveemerged. Firstly, the study revealed the significant impact of SA on promoting learnerautonomy, self-regulated learning, and AE among EFL students. By actively involving
students in the assessment process and providing opportunities for reflection and feedback, educators can empower learners to take ownership of their learning journey andenhance their overall learning outcomes. Additionally, the study highlighted the importance of creating a supportive CC characterized by mutual respect, collaboration, andinclusivity. Such environments not only foster positive teacher-student relationships but
also contribute to students’ academic and socioemotional development.
Furthermore, the study shed light on the influence of psychological variables suchas growth mindset and EI on student learning outcomes. Learners who adopt a
growth-oriented mindset and possess high levels of emotional intelligence are more
likely to persevere in the face of challenges, seek feedback, and actively engage in thelearning process. By cultivating these psychological attributes, educators can help
students develop the resilience and adaptive skills necessary for success in language
learning and beyond. Overall, the findings of this study underscore the importance

Page 25 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

of adopting a holistic approach to assessment and instruction that takes into accountnot only students’ academic performance but also their psychological well-being andsocioemotional development.
The significance of adopting a holistic approach to assessment and instruction in
EFL education cannot be overstated. By recognizing the interconnectedness of various factors influencing student learning outcomes, stakeholders can foster environments that promote not only academic achievement but also holistic development.
Embracing LOA allows educators to shift from traditional assessment paradigms
toward student-centered approaches that prioritize individual growth and empowerment. Integrating SA, fostering a supportive CC, and promoting psychological variables like growth mindset and EI are essential components of this holistic approach.
Moreover, evidence-based practices serve as the foundation for informed decisionmaking and effective pedagogy. Therefore, stakeholders must prioritize researchdriven strategies and interventions that have been demonstrated to enhance student
learning experiences and outcomes. By embracing evidence-based practices andchampioning a holistic approach to assessment and instruction, stakeholders can create learning environments that nurture the diverse needs and potentials of EFL learners, ultimately fostering their success in the globalized world.
Moving forward, it is imperative for educators, materials developers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in EFL education to heed the implications of this study.
By embracing the principles of LOA and incorporating strategies to promote SA,
create supportive CC, and foster psychological variables, stakeholders can enhance
the quality of English language teaching and learning experiences. Moreover, future
research endeavors should continue to explore the complex dynamics of assessment,
CC, and psychological factors in EFL education, with a focus on identifying effective
pedagogical practices and interventions to support student learning and well-being.
By working collaboratively and remaining committed to evidence-based approaches,
stakeholders can collectively contribute to the advancement of EFL education and thecultivation of successful language learners in diverse educational contexts.
While this study provides valuable insights into the dynamics of SA, CC, and psychological variables in EFL education, several limitations should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the sample primarily consisted of university students from Iran, limiting thegeneralizability of the findings to other cultural and educational contexts. Additionally, the reliance on convenience sampling may have introduced sampling bias, affecting the representativeness of the sample. Furthermore, the study’s statistical analysis
precludes causal inferences and longitudinal analysis of the relationships between
variables. Suggestions for further research include conducting longitudinal studies to explore the long-term effects of SA and CC on student outcomes, as well as
investigating the influence of cultural factors on these relationships. Additionally,
comparative studies across different educational settings and age groups could provide valuable insights into the universality of the observed patterns. Finally, qualitative research exploring students’ perceptions and experiences in greater depth could
enrich our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the observed associations.

Page 26 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Abbreviations
SA	Self-assessment
CC	Classroom climate
LOA	Learning-oriented assessment
EFL	English as a foreign language
AE	Academic engagement
EI	Emotional intelligence
AFL	Assessment for learning
AOL	Assessment of learning
CDI	Curriculum Development Institute
K-ST	Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
CFA	Confirmatory factor analysis
SEM	Structural equation modeling
CSAQ	Core of Self-assessments Questionnaire
AVE	Average variance extracted
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
All authors had adequate and equal contributions.
Authors’ information
Ehsan Namaziandost is currently a lecturer at Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences and Islamic Azad
University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran. He got his Ph.D. in TEFL at Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran. His main interests ofresearch are CALL, AI, TEFL, SLA, Educational Psychology, Positive Psychology, Motivation and Anxiety, EFL Teaching and
Learning, Language Learning and Technology, Teaching Language Skills, and Language Learning Strategies. His research
papers and articles have been published in different international journals. He is a member of the editorial boards ofmany international journals such as the Journal of Language and Education, International Journal of Language Education, Studies in English Language and Education (SiELE), PLOS ONE, and CALL-EJ. Ehsan is an Associate editor in PLOS
ONE, Social Sciences & Humanities Open (SSHO), and CALL-EJ. Ehsan is an international reviewer who has done morethan 6000 reviews and handled more than 4000 papers as an editor, up to now.
Hossein Kargar Behbahani is a PhD student in TEFL at Shiraz University. With a demonstrated passion for research, his
scholarship has thus far appeared in national and international journals including Computer Assisted Language Learning,
MEXTESOL Journal, and TESL Quarterly. Hossein’s main areas of interest lie in Psycholinguistics, Individual Differences in
Language Learning, Second Language Acquisition, and (Computerized) Dynamic Assessment.
Tahereh Heydarnejad is currently teaching at the Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Gonabad, Gonabad, Iran. She got her Ph.D. in TEFL from Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran. Her
main interests of research are Educational Psychology, Language Education, and Educational Technology. Her research
papers and articles have been published in different international journals. Tahereh is an international reviewer who did
abundant reviews for different journals.
Funding
This study did not receive any funding.
Availability of data and materials
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Competing interests
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Received: 6 May 2024 Accepted: 3 June 2024

References
Akhtar, R., Boustani, L., Tsivrikos, D., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2015). The engageable personality: personality and trait EI as
predictors of work engagement. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 44–49.
Alonso-Tapia, J., & Ruiz-Díaz, M. (2022). Student, teacher, and school factors predicting differences in classroom climate: A
multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 94, 102115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​lindif.​2022.​102115.
Al-Abri, A., Ranjbaran Madiseh, F., & Morady Moghaddam, M. (2024). Exploring learning-oriented assessment in enhancing students’ lexical fluency through MALL. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40299-​024-​00832-7
Ali, H. I. H. (2013). In search of implementing learning-oriented assessment in an EFL setting. World Journal of English
Language, 3(4), 11–28.
Anderson, H. H. (1939). The measurement of domination and of socially integrative behavior in teachers’ contacts withchildren. Child Development, 10, 73–89.

Page 27 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​3389/​feduc.​2019.​00087
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.
Amerstorfer, C. M., & Freiin von Münster-Kistner, C. (2021). Student perceptions of academic engagement andstudent-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 713057. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2021.​713057
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Badri, S. K. Z., Kong, M. Y., Yunus, W. M., & W. M. A., Nordin, N. A., & Yap, W. M. (2021). Trait emotional intelligence andhappiness of young adults: The mediating role of perfectionism. International Journal of Environmental Researchand Public Health, 18(20), 10800.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol.
3, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, sixth edition – Volume 1: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). Wiley.
Bourke, R., & Mentis, M. (2013). Self-assessment as a process for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
17(8), 854–867.
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across anadolescent transition: a longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in
the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,5(1), 7–74.
Carless, D. (2007). Learning-oriented assessment: Conceptual bases and practical implications. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 57–66.
Chapman, R., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., & Shochet, L. (2013). School-based programs for increasing connectedness andreducing risk behaviour: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 95–114.
Danielson, C. (2011). The Framework for teaching evaluation instrument 2011 Edition. https://​ospi.​k12.​wa.​us/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​2023-​08/​danie​lson-​frame​work-​teach​ing-​evalu​ation-​instr​ument-​2011.​pdf.
Deng, J., Heydarnejad, T., & Farhangi, F. (2022). Delving into the relationship between teacher emotion regulation,
self-efficacy, engagement, and anger: a focus on English as a foreign language teachers. Frontiers in Psychology,
13, 1019984. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2022.​10199​84
Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2016). Promoting well-being: the contribution of emotional intelligence. Frontiers in
Psychology, 7, 211375. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2016.​01182
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014). Promoting individual resources: the challenge of trait emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 19–23.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House Publishing Group.
Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment for learning; Assessment as learning: Changing practices means changing beliefs. Retrieved
July 29, 2019, from https://​wlts.​edb.​hkedc​ity.​net/​filem​anager/​file/​AandL​2chap​ter/​A&​L2_​(1)%​20Lor​na.​pdf
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Buttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school:
Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for learning environment inventory LEI and my class inventory MCI. Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology.
Freda, M. F., Raffaele, D. L. P., Esposito, G., Ragozini, G., & Testa, I. (2021). A new measure for the assessment of theuniversity engagement: The SInAPSi academic engagement scale (SAES). Current Psychology, 1-17. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s12144-​021-​02189-2.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8578.​2007.​00463.x.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the concept, state of theevidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning; a compelling conceptualization. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment andLearning. SAGE Publications Ltd, p. 197–204.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (2017). Language assessment literacy for language learning-oriented assessment. Papers in Language
Testing and Assessment, 6(1), 88–111.
Hartmann, G. M. (2013). The relationship between mindset and students with specific learning disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt State University). Retrieved from http://​humbo​ldtds​pace.​calst​ate.​edu/​bitst​ream/​handle/​
2148/​1654/​hartm​ann_​gretc​hen_m_​Fa2013.​pdf;​seque​nce=1
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Heydarnejad, T., Ibrahim, K. A. A. A., Abdelrasheed, N. S. G., & Rezvani, E. (2022). The effect of academic emotion
regulation on EFL learners’ core of self-assessment and academic buoyancy: a structural equation modeling.
Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​022-​00207-z
Hosseinmardi, A. A., Ghorban Shiroodi, S., Zarbakhshbahri, M. R., & Tizdast, T. (2022). The relationship of academic
engagement, school engagement and school belonging with academic achievement by mediated the academic achievement motivation in male students. Sociology of Education, 7(2), 178–189.
Huang, H., Liu, L., Yang, S., Cui, X., Zhang, J., & Wu, H. (2019). Effects of job conditions, occupational stress, and emotional intelligence on chronic fatigue among Chinese nurses: A cross-sectional study. Psychology Research andBehavior Management, 351–360.

Page 28 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Hu, L., & Wang, Y. (2023). The predicting role of EFL teachers’ immediacy behaviors in students’ willingness to communicate and academic engagement. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 318. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40359-​023-​01378-x
Joe, H. K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: a study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning andIndividual Differences, 53, 133–144.
Jones, J. (2010). The role of assessment for learning in the management of primary to secondary transition: Implications
for language teachers. Language Learning Journal, 35(2), 175–191.
Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., & Aber, J. L. (2008). Classroom settings as targets of intervention and research. In M. Shinn & H.
Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 58–79).
Oxford University Press.
Judge, T. A., Ereza, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoreson, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale (CSAs): Development of a measure.
Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects if teaching and learning in Swiss andGerman mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching andlearning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
Kumar, V. V., & Tankha, G. (2023). Association between the big five and trait emotional intelligence among college students. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 915–925. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2147/​prbm.​s4000​58.
Lee, I., & Coniam, D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examinationdriven system in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 34–50.
Leff, S. S., Thomas, D. E., Shapiro, E. S., Paskewich, B., Wilson, K., Necowitz-Hoffman, B., & Jawad, A. F. (2011). Developing andvalidating a new classroom climate observation assessment tool. Journal of School Violence, 10, 165–184.
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2017). Measuring language mindsets and modeling their relations with goal orientations andemotional and behavioral responses in failure situations. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 214–243.
Li, P.-S., Hsieh, C.-J., Tallutondok, E. B., Shih, Y.-L., & Liu, C.-Y. (2022). Development and Assessment of the validity andreliability of the short-form Life Satisfaction Index (LSI-SF) among the elderly population. Journal of Personalized
Medicine, 12(5), 709. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jpm12​050709.
Mahlberg, J. (2015). Formative self-assessment college classes improves self-regulation and retention in first/second-year
community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39(8), 772–783.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 554–564.
Meng, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2023). The influence of academic self-efficacy on university students’ academic performance: themediating effect of academic engagement. Sustainability, 15(7), 5767.
Miller, R. S., & Wang, M. T. (2019). Cultivating adolescents’ academic identity: ascertaining the mediating effects ofmotivational beliefs between classroom practices and mathematics identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48,
2038–2050.
Mueller, C., & Dweck, C. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 33–52.
Namaziandost, E., Heydarnejad, T., & Rezai, A. (2023). Iranian EFL teachers’ reflective teaching, emotion regulation, andimmunity: examining possible relationships. Current Psychology, 42(3), 2294–2309.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles
of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://​www.​tandf​online.​com/​doi/​abs/​10.​
1080/​03075​07060​05720​90.
Petrides, K. V. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence theory. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 136–139.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic performanceand deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 277–293.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British
Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289.
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.
Plaks, J. E., & Stecher, K. (2007). Unexpected improvement, decline, and stasis: a prediction confidence perspective on
achievement success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 667.
Ploegh, K., Tillema, H. H., & Segers, M. S. (2009). In search of quality criteria in peer assessment practices. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2–3), 102–109.
Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Rahimi, S. (2022). Developmental potential of self-assessment reports for high school students’ writing skills: A qualitative study. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (formerly Journal of Teaching
Language Skills), 41(2), 163–203.
Ritonga, M., Shaban, A. A., Al-Rashidi, A. H., & Chilani, N. (2023). Engagement in on-line language assessment: Are testtaking skills, self-assessment, resilience, and autonomy critical? Language Testing in Asia, 13(1), 25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1186/​s40468-​023-​00236-2
Riswanto, Heydarnejad, T., Saberi Dehkordi, E., & Parmadi, B. (2022). Learning-oriented assessment in the classroom:
the contribution of self-assessment and critical thinking to EFL learners’ academic engagement and self-esteem.
Language Testing in Asia, 12(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s40468-​022-​00210-4.
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: student engagement in online learning.
Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–108.
Saunders, S. A. (2013). The impact of a growth mindset intervention on the reading achievement of at-risk adolescent students.
Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A
two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

Page 29 of 30

Namaziandost et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:21

Schutte, N. S., & Loi, N. M. (2014). Connections between emotional intelligence and workplace flourishing. Personality andIndividual Differences, 66, 134–139.
Segers, M. R., Dochy, F. & Cascallar, E. (2006). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching andlearning and the role of new modes of assessment. In Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities andstandards (pp.1–12). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sharma, B. R., & Bhaumik, P. K. (2013). Student engagement and its predictors: an exploratory study in an Indian businessschool. Global Business Review, 14(1), 25–42.
Shu, K. (2022). Teachers’ commitment and self-efficacy as predictors of work engagement and well-being. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13, 850204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2022.​850204
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S., & Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004). A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural equation modelling.
In Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting, 1(2);739–742.
Teng, C., Heydarnejad, T., Hasan, M. K., Omar, A., & Sarabani, L. (2022). Mobile assisted language learning in learning English through social networking tools: an account of Instagram feed-based tasks on learning grammar and attitude
among English as a foreign language learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1012004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​
2022.​10120​04
Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1973). Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 93–102.
Tuominen-Soini, H., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2014). Schoolwork engagement and burnout among Finnish high school students
and young adults: Profiles, progressions, and educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 649.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Schermer, J. A., & Petrides, K. (2008). Phenotypic and genetic associations between the big fiveand trait emotional intelligence. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11(5), 524–530.
Walberg, H. J. (1968). Structural and affective aspects of classroom climate. Psychology in the Schools, 5, 247–253.
Walter, F., Cole, M. S., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence: Sine qua non of leadership or folderol? Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 25(1), 45–59.
Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 315–352.
Wang, M. T., Degol, J. L., Amemiya, J., Parr, A., & Guo, J. (2020a). Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 57, 100912. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dr.​2020.​100912
Wang, M. T., Hofkens, T. L., & Ye, F. (2020b). Classroom quality and adolescent learning in mathematics: A multi-method,
multi-informant perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1, 1–16.
Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of classroom environment, school engagement, and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 633–662.
Watkins, D., Dahlin, B., & Ekholm, M. (2005). Awareness of the backwash effect of assessment: a phenomenographic studyof the views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers. Instructional Science, 33(4), 283–309.
Wentzel, K. R., Battle, A., Russell, S. L., & Looney, L. B. (2010). Social supports from teachers and peers as predictors ofacademic and social motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(3), 193–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
cedps​ych.​2010.​03.​002.
Wiliam, D. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. Curriculum and Assessment,
5, 165–181.
Withall, J. (1949). The development of a technique for the measurement of social-emotional climate in classrooms. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 17, 347–361.
Xu, L., Naserpour, A., Rezai, A., Namaziandost, E., & Azizi, Z. (2022). Exploring EFL learners’ metaphorical conceptions oflanguage learning: a multimodal analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(2), 323–339.
Yan, Z., & Carless, D. (2022). Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1116–1128. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02602​938.​2021.​20014​31
Yan, Z., Panadero, E., Wang, X., & Zhan, Y. (2023). A systematic review on students’ perceptions of self-assessment: usefulness and factors influencing implementation. Educational Psychology Review, 35(3), 81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10648-​023-​09799-1

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 30 of 30