The salient antecedents of boredom in formal English language learning

Abstract

Although research on boredom in second language (L2) learning contexts has garnered increasing attention, boredom as a negative emotion remains largely uncharted in EFL settings. Previous research has not thoroughly delved into specific categories of factors responsible for boredom in the English language classroom. Therefore, this study explores this construct, honing in on antecedents pertinent to learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. Adopting a quantitative approach, a comprehensive 35-item composite questionnaire was developed drawing on well-established models and theories of boredom to elicit responses from English majors (n = 310) at a university in Saudi Arabia. The data underwent rigorous statistical analysis employing various techniques. The principal components analysis reveals a constellation of five factors associated with the experience of L2 boredom: (1) Tedious task, (2) Irrelevant content, material, and task, (3) Task repetitiveness and a lack of output, (4) Content and task difficulty as well as divergence from learner needs, and (5) Monotonous and unsupportive content. Furthermore, the findings shed light on the effect of perceived L2 proficiency on the instigation of L2 boredom. This study concludes with pedagogical implications and potential avenues for research in this area.

Keywords:

• L2 learning
• boredom antecedents
• negative emotions
• English classroom
• EFL learners
• higher education

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Serafina Pastore, Senior Editor, Education, Psychology, Communication, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

Subjects:

• Higher Education
• Educational Psychology
• Language Teaching & Learning

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, there has been an increasing recognition within research of the impact of emotions on cognitive processes (Lantolf & Swain, 2019). Emotions, encompassing both negative and positive affective states, have been observed to exert profound effects on second language (L2) learners, shaping their attitudes and dispositions toward the language learning process (Resnik & Dewaele, 2020; Richards, 2022). As a result, the field of L2 research has witnessed a notable upsurge in interest dedicated to the exploration of emotions over the past thirty years (Dewaele & Li, 2020). In line with the recent advancements in emotion research, boredom has emerged as a distinct emotional state. Research in educational psychology has indicated that boredom, often characterized as a silent emotion (Li & Wei, 2023), is a pervasive phenomenon within educational contexts. This prevalent state has been shown to exert a detrimental impact on several factors associated with effective learning (Goetz et al., 2014; Pekrun et al., 2010).

The research on boredom in L2 learning is limited (Li & Dewaele, 2020; Zawodniak et al., 2021), and it remains an overlooked variable (Pawlak et al., 2022), as compared to other affective variables documented in the L2 literature. Consequently, there is a need for studies that delve into the underlying causes of this emotion, as such endeavors are not only justified but also highly encouraged (Li, 2021). To date, most previous studies investigating boredom in L2 contexts have primarily focused on identifying general antecedents associated with this emotional state. These antecedents encompass various factors, including content and task difficulty (under-challenging), repetitiveness and monotony, a mismatch between task demands and learners’ L2 proficiency (over-challenging), activities that lack relevance to learners’ expectations, time-consuming tasks, and learning materials overloaded with information (Cui et al., 2024; Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Li, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Nakamura et al., 2021; Pawlak et al., 2020a; 2020b). However, existing research has not explored the most salient factors that provoke boredom within the context of the English language classroom. Consequently, the findings from previous research have treated boredom antecedents as comparable in terms of their importance and intensity.

Therefore, there is a compelling need for a thorough exploration of the salient factors that trigger this emotion within the L2 classroom context. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the primary causes of boredom in formal L2 educational settings, it is crucial to investigate various categories of boredom antecedents. Such an endeavor can provide valuable insight for instructional practices aimed at mitigating this negative emotion and fostering more productive L2 learning outcomes. Thus, the current study aims to empirically investigate the salient antecedents of boredom in relation to English learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. In so doing, this research contributes to the research in L2 boredom, a field still in its infancy. Furthermore, this study aims to explore the potential influence of self-perceived L2 proficiency as a distal antecedent on the experience of boredom instigated by the specific attributes of L2 content, materials, and in-class tasks.

This study not only addresses gaps in the existing literature but also highlights the most prominent antecedents responsible for L2 boredom within the routine practices observed in formal English learning settings. In so doing, the current study offers insights to L2 researchers, shedding light on the crucial aspects of language learning environments that have a detrimental effect on learner motivation and active engagement in the learning process. Additionally, the implications of this study extend to instructional practices, fostering increased awareness among educators concerning the selection and design of learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. Recognizing the salient antecedents of L2 boredom enables educators to adapt their teaching methods and develop interventions and strategies aimed at cultivating a supportive and motivating English classroom environment.

2. Literature review

2.1. Boredom as an (academic) emotion

Literature, unsurprisingly, presents a perplexity pertinent to explicitly defining and unraveling the concept of boredom, owing to its multidimensional nature and inherent complexity (Putwain et al., 2018). Nonetheless, attempts have been made to disentangle boredom from other analogous emotions. For example, boredom can be conceptualized as an “affective indicator of unsuccessful attentional engagement in valued goal-congruent activity” (Westgate & Wilson, 2018, p. 670). Consequently, when individuals experience boredom, their involvement in an activity is hindered due to a lack of interest and/or ability.

In educational settings, boredom can be instigated by internal or external factors, which are referred to as trait-like or state-like boredom respectively. Trait boredom is characterized by a natural inclination to experience boredom persistently, while state boredom refers to a situated, context-specific, and fluctuating experience engendered by perceptions of the educational environment as lacking engaging and motivating attributes (Vogel-Walcutt et al., 2012). State boredom commonly manifests in learning contexts (Weinerman & Kenner, 2016), and can be evoked by the nature of learning content, materials, and poorly designed tasks that do not align with learners’ perceptions, expectations, or proficiency levels.

As a situated emotional state, boredom can temporarily hinder the learning process (Weinerman & Kenner, 2016). Consequently, this negative emotion is closely linked to disengagement, as it represents a challenge to sustained engagement or a manifestation of disengagement from an ongoing activity (Macklem, 2015). Boredom is a dynamic and fluctuating emotion that can overlap with other elements in L2 learning contexts (Larsen-Freeman, 2016). For instance, boredom is triggered when learning tasks lack meaningful attributes that are not relevant to learner life, and when combined with an absence of actual learning purpose, they lead to potential disengagement from these tasks (Chan et al., 2018). Therefore, it is suggested that effective endeavors to alleviate boredom in educational settings should consider efforts to reduce disengagement (Weinerman & Kenner, 2016). Despite being a prevalent academic emotion and a significant concern in current educational settings (Goetz et al., 2014), boredom has long been overlooked for various reasons, including teachers’ lack of cognizance of their role in evoking boredom, as they often attribute the behavior of bored learners to anxiety, inactivity, or type of personality (Macklem, 2015).

Recently, there has been a growing attention to emotions in foreign language learning research, including boredom as an academic emotion (Dewaele et al., 2023; Dewaele & Li, 2020; Li, 2021; Li & Wei, 2023). This attention has been associated with research findings, indicating that affective factors can play a significant negative or positive role in shaping the outcomes of L2 acquisition (MacIntyre & Vincze, 2017). Boredom is believed to have detrimental consequences on aspects related to an effective learning experience, including interest, motivation, engagement, learning performance, and outcomes (Daniels et al., 2015). Moreover, the existing body of research has documented the association between boredom and both actual and perceived achievement in the foreign language classroom (Dewaele et al., 2023).

2.2. Theories of boredom

State boredom can be explained by several models and theories that are categorized as either environmental, individual-related, or a combination of both, accounting for antecedents responsible for such an experience. First, the forced-effort model (Hill & Perkins, 1985) posits that boredom is instigated when learners are compelled to exert considerable cognitive effort on tasks that they find monotonous, uninteresting, and repetitive, while lacking opportunities for independent engagement in their own learning. These types of learning activities are often attributed to instructors’ control over task types that are accompanied with pre-determined guidelines for performance, leading to misaligning learners’ perceptions of tasks meaningfulness with those of instructors. Second, the under-stimulation model (Larson & Richards, 1991) highlights the connection between experiencing boredom and a dearth of stimulating learning environments, resulting in a lack of interest and motivation to actively engage in learning. This association can be attributed to multiple factors, including the presence of repetitive tasks, rote learning, and an absence of problem-solving activities. Furthermore, it can stem from tasks that fail to adequately challenge learners or align with their proficiency levels and individual needs. Third, the attentional theory of boredom proneness (LePera, 2011) asserts that boredom is primarily triggered by the difficulty of regulating and sustaining attention on a particular task. This difficulty can stem from learning activities that fail to align with learners’ expectations, lack appeal to their interests, or impose excessive cognitive demands (Mercer-Lynn et al., 2014). Consequently, sustaining attention becomes arduous, ultimately resulting in the experience of boredom. Fourth, the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010) suggests that the experience of emotions, including boredom, is contingent upon the appraisal of control and value attributed to a particular activity. Thus, learning tasks perceived as less meaningful or interesting, coupled with a sense of limited control can evoke boredom. Moreover, distal antecedents that are characterized as personal (e.g., perceived L2 proficiency) have indirect effects on the experience of boredom. These distal antecedents can be associated with appraisals of control and value that are characterized as proximal antecedents (Pekrun, 2006). Fifth, drawing upon the menton theory of engagement and boredom (Davies & Fortney, 2012), this negative emotional state can be evoked when the required mental energy (mentons) for cognitive processing is either excessively or deficiently utilized. Accordingly, learning activities that are overly demanding or perceived as under-challenging can trigger feelings of boredom.

While highlighting the intricate nature of boredom in educational contexts, the aforementioned models and theories exhibit interconnectedness and shared explanations. They converge on the idea that boredom emerges from a lack of engagement, stemming from uninteresting tasks, insufficient stimulation, misalignment with expectations, limited control, or unsuitable challenge levels. Each of these models and theories accentuates distinct factors contributing to boredom, such as effort, stimulation, attention, control, value, and mental energy. These factors can be influenced by instructional methods, learning content, materials, or tasks.

Moreover, these models and theories can complement and inform each other. For instance, the forced-effort model and under-stimulation model both address the role of task characteristics in boredom. The attentional theory of boredom proneness complements the forced-effort and under-stimulation models by highlighting the significance of attention regulation and the alignment of tasks with learners’ expectations. The control-value theory of achievement emotions encompasses facets of the other models and theories, underscoring the impact of appraisals of control and value in triggering boredom. The menton theory of engagement and boredom introduces an additional dimension by considering the optimal challenge level in learning activities.

2.3. L2 boredom studies

Recent research investigating L2 boredom has primarily focused on the Polish context, while a number studies have been conducted in the Asian context. Kruk and Zawodniak (2018) employed a qualitative approach to examine learner experience of boredom in practical English classes. The findings unveiled different antecedents, including under-challenging and repetitive learning tasks, a discrepancy between assigned tasks and learners’ L2 proficiency, and the imposition of tasks upon learners. In another study conducted by Pawlak et al. (2020a), which explored English majors, specific antecedents of boredom were identified, such as a high degree of monotony in certain classes and a lack of engaging topics.

Among the limited number of studies that have delved into the underlying factors contributing to boredom among advanced learners in the English classroom was Pawlak et al. (2020b). Their findings highlighted two fundamental factors: (1) disengagement, repetitiveness, and monotony, and (2) the absence of challenge and lack of satisfaction. Nonetheless, the categorization of items into factors was based on their loadings without explicitly considering the most significant boredom-inducing factors. Furthermore, a noteworthy distinction was observed between learners who achieved higher grades and those with lower grades concerning the first factor.

Drawing upon the control-value appraisals framework, Li (2021) probed into the antecedents of boredom among English students enrolled at a Chinese university. The study revealed that boredom was triggered in response to the absence of challenge resulting from repetitiveness, a lack of importance or meaningfulness in learning activities, and excessively over- or under-challenging activities. Additionally, a high level of perceived control was associated with a high level of boredom, while appraisal of intrinsic value emerged as the most influential determinant of boredom.

In another investigation conducted by Nakamura et al. (2021), antecedents of boredom were explored within the context of an English course at a Thai university. The study’s findings shed light on several factors associated with learners’ experience of boredom. These factors encompassed tasks difficulty, tasks requirements beyond learners’ L2 proficiency, input overload, negative appraisal of activities, activities that lacked relevance to learners’ desires and expectations, and instructions and content that proved challenging to comprehend.

Li et al. (2021) carried out a study exploring boredom among Chinese EFL learners. This investigation identified several antecedents contributing to the experience of boredom. The antecedents included time-consuming tasks, repetitive nature of activities, learning materials overloaded with information, the similarity of learning materials, and assignments that pose excessive challenges.

Cui et al. (2024) investigated the in-class boredom experienced by English majors in several courses. The findings revealed varying levels of this negative emotion. Specifically, higher levels of boredom were found to be associated with the teaching of content that was either excessively challenging or under-challenging, such as reading comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary. Conversely, lower levels of boredom were observed in relation to advanced listening activities. These lower levels were attributed to a few factors, including the provision of various listening materials.

3. Research inquiry

While psychology and educational psychology studies have contributed to our understanding of boredom, research specifically investigating this construct in L2 contexts is still in its nascent stage. Kruk and Zawodniak (2020) have emphasized the need for further research aimed at exploring L2 boredom across diverse educational settings. Consequently, there is a need for further explorations of this complex emotional state at both macro and micro levels. Moreover, Pawlak et al. (2020a) have argued that the inadequacy of well-designed measurement tools to assess L2 boredom poses a significant barrier hindering the understanding and mitigation of boredom within language learning contexts. They contend that the development of robust measurement instruments tailored specifically for L2 settings is crucial to advance the study of L2 boredom.

The existing body of research in this area has highlighted several gaps, including the utilization of inadequate sample sizes and the limited number of studies conducted in different EFL settings (Li, 2021). Moreover, other limitations in previous studies have heightened the multifaceted motivation behind the present study. First, some studies have blurred the distinction between trait-like and state-like boredom. In other words, the instruments used in these studies might not accurately identify situational antecedents of this emotional state but rather capture enduring feelings of boredom related to personality traits. It is impractical, if not impossible, for teachers to address all possible factors that can provoke boredom in the L2 classroom. This challenge arises not only from the presence of internal (e.g., trait-like boredom) or external factors beyond teachers’ control but also from the difficulty of mitigating the multitude of classroom-related antecedents reported in previous research. Therefore, one of the primary objectives of this study is to investigate the context-dependent antecedents of boredom associated with learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. In so doing, this research endeavors to shed light on the state-like antecedents of boredom in the English classroom.

Second, while the existing research has contributed valuable insights into the antecedents of L2 boredom, a notable limitation lies in the proclivity to treat these antecedents as equal in terms of their impact or intensity. This homogenous approach impedes the identification of salient antecedents of L2 boredom. Therefore, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the main factors contributing to this emotion in L2 educational contexts, it is pivotal to investigate various categories of relevant antecedents associated with routine practices within formal English learning settings. This endeavor holds the potential to offer valuable insights to L2 researchers, elucidating the most pertinent aspects of language learning environments that exert negative effects on learner motivation and engagement in the learning process. Moreover, this study can yield implications for instructional practices, fostering heightened recognition and informed decision-making regarding the selection and design of learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. Armed with an awareness of the salient antecedents of L2 boredom, educators can adapt teaching methods, devise interventions, and implement strategies that cultivate a supportive and motivating English classroom environment. As a result, this negative emotional state can be alleviated, paving the way for enhanced L2 learning outcomes.

Third, the potential role of self-perceived L2 proficiency in shaping the likelihood of experiencing boredom in the L2 classroom has been largely overlooked in previous research. By examining L2 boredom across different proficiency levels, this study not only addresses an observed limitation in the existing research but also aims to highlight the specific triggers of boredom that are associated with learner characteristics. This research objective holds potential in shedding light on the manifestation of this emotion throughout the L2 learning journey. Hence, these insights enable the tailoring of instructional practices to align with the specific interests, needs, and challenges of learners at different proficiency levels.

To this end, this study addresses two pertinent research questions:

1. What are the salient antecedents of boredom in relation to learning content, materials, and in-class tasks in the English classroom?

2. Does the experience of boredom associated with learning content, materials, and in-class tasks in the English classroom differ based on self-perceived L2 proficiency?

4. Methods

4.1. Research context and sample recruitment

In order to ensure the robustness of the research findings, this study aimed to elicit responses from a substantial sample size comprised of English majors enrolled in the English Department of a public university in Saudi Arabia. The sample consisted of 310 participants, of which 184 (59%) are males and 126 (41%) are females, whose age range was between 18 and 30 years (M = 22.05 years, SD = 1.623). Prior to enrolling in the English bachelor’s program, the participants had an average of eight years of English instruction within educational settings. Additionally, they successfully completed a mandatory four-month intensive English program before their enrolment. The undergraduate program, which typically spans four academic years, offers a comprehensive curriculum encompassing various aspects of English education, including language skills, linguistics, translation, and literature. The distribution of participants across academic years (Table 1) revealed a range of one to eight academic years (M = 3.71, SD = 1.356) for their university education. Furthermore, participants’ self-reported perceived L2 proficiency (Table 2) predominantly fell within the intermediate and advanced levels.

Table 1. Distribution of participants across academic years.

Academic Year	Number of Participants	Distribution of Participants (%)
First	5	2%
Second	40	13%
Third	111	36%
Fourth	88	28%
Fifth	41	13%
Sixth	10	3%
Seventh	6	2%
Eighth	9	3%

Table 2. Distribution of participants per proficiency levels.

Proficiency Level	Number of Participants	Distribution of Participants (%)
Low-Intermediate	20	6%
Intermediate	128	41%
Advanced	142	46%
Native-Like	20	6%

4.2. Research design and instrumentation

This study utilized a quantitative approach to data collection and analysis. In accordance with the recommendations put forth by Westgate and Wilson (2018), the author opted for employing a self-report instrument as the preferred method to investigate individuals’ emotional experiences. Therefore, a composite online questionnaire was used in this study. The questionnaire was designed by the author by drawing upon the aforementioned models and theories of boredom, complemented by an extensive review of the existing literature. In other words, the development of the questionnaire was guided by the key factors of boredom identified within these models and theories. As a result, the questionnaire items were clearly aligned with the well-established theoretical frameworks. Moreover, a rigorous evaluation was conducted on the measurement instruments employed in the existing research. This evaluation aimed to precisely pinpoint the relevant constructs and dimensions associated with L2 boredom. In so doing, both the strengths and limitations of these instruments could be identified. For instance, this evaluation facilitated the exploration of the antecedents that these instruments were specifically designed to investigate. In addition, it enabled the identification of potential sources of measurement error and bias that may be present in the existing instruments.

The questionnaire (Appendix A) encompassed a total of 35 items organized around three blocks, utilizing a five-point Likert scale (ranging from “strongly disagree” = 1 to “strongly agree” = 5). The first block (4 items) focused on gathering demographic information, which is followed by the second block that comprised 15 items pertinent to learning content and materials. Lastly, the third block consisted of 16 items which explored factors relevant to in-class tasks. A description elucidating the nature and objectives of the questionnaire was provided in the first section, ensuring the participants were adequately informed about the purpose of their involvement.

The questionnaire underwent a thorough validation process, conducted by two expert language instructors. Their comments and suggestions were carefully considered, resulting in refinements to the questionnaire. Subsequently, it was piloted to a large sample (n = 60) of participants, who were enrolled in the same program, to assess its internal consistency reliability. The analysis revealed satisfactory to high reliability, as evidenced by the Cronbach’s alphas for the three combined subsets (α = .908), the first (α = .756), second (α = .771), and third subset (α = .833). Given the satisfactory internal consistencies observed across all the questionnaire items, the data collected from the pilot sample were integrated into the final analysis. The scale analysis procedures were performed as follows: mean scores ranging from 1.00 to 2.60 (negative range) did not indicate the presence of boredom antecedents, mean scores ranging from 2.61 to 3.40 were considered neutral, and mean scores ranging from 3.41 to 5 (positive range) indicated boredom-provoking antecedents.

Prior to commencing data collection, the author obtained official approval from the English Department to facilitate participant recruitment. This approval granted access to students’ university email addresses, which were subsequently used to invite them to partake in the study. The participants were sent emails containing a hyperlink to the questionnaire, which was administered through the Google Forms platform. Deliberate consideration was given to the timing of questionnaire dissemination, with a purposeful choice made to align it with the concluding phase of an academic semester. This strategic decision was based on the understanding that investigating boredom during this particular timeframe would yield findings of heightened validity and contextual relevance, as compared to those obtained at the commencement or mid-point of a semester.

4.3. Data analysis

The close-ended data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed using SPSS v.24. In terms of the first research question, descriptive statistics were initially obtained (Appendix A). Subsequently, principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted to identify and categorize the most prominent boredom-provoking antecedents associated with learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. This variable reduction technique, a powerful data analysis tool (Jolliffe, 2014) and a widely used multivariate statistical technique, was utilized with a varimax rotation to facilitate the interpretability of the obtained results. It was employed to render smaller sets of underlying factors by grouping variables into relevant specific categories.

The assumptions for conducting PCA were rigorously assessed. First, the recommended sample size has to include a minimum of 300 participants, with each variable having 5 to 10 observations as a minimum requirement (Comrey & Lee, 1992). Second, the correlation needs to be greater than or equal to .30 to indicate a strong relationship among variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Third, as a rule of thumb for a sample size of 300 or more, factors loadings after rotation should be greater than or equal to .32 to signify statistical significance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Variables with loadings below this threshold were consequently excluded from the emerged factors. Fourth, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy should yield a value of .50 or higher, preferably greater than .70. Fifth, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity should indicate significance (p < .05) to justify the use of factor analysis based on high correlation among the target variables. The analysis revealed that the KMO test was .827 and Bartlett’s test was significant (p = .000). Sixth, the determinant should exceed .0001 to suggest mid-low collinearity. The analysis indicated that the determinant was 3.682, and the variable-related MSA values (anti-image correlation matrices) were larger than .50. Having met all the aforementioned assumptions, the data deemed suitable for conducting PCA.

Addressing the second research question, inferential statistics, specifically the independent sample t-test with effect size estimation according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, were employed to investigate the influence of the self-perceived L2 proficiency factor on L2 boredom. For the parametric test, the normality assumption was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. The results indicated violations of normality (p < .05). Nevertheless, given the robustness of the parametric test, especially when applied to large sample sizes (n = 310 in this study), the author proceeded with the analysis despite the observed violation of normality. To ensure a balanced representation of perceived proficiency levels, the sample was constructed by including only 87% of the respondents from the two predominant proficiency groups (intermediate and advanced). Additionally, 14 cases of participants were randomly excluded from the advanced proficiency group, resulting in a final sample size of 256 participants, with an equal distribution of 128 participants per group.

5. Findings

5.1. Salient antecedents of L2 boredom

PCA revealed nine extracted components that explain 62% of the total variance, as shown in the scree plot (Figure 1), with eigenvalues (explained variance measure) greater than 1.0. The factor loadings indicated adequate to high correlation between items and their respective factors, with higher loadings showing a stronger association with the relevant factors. However, four factors (6, 7, 8, and 9) were excluded due to their inclusion of only two variables, which is below the minimum requirement of three variables within a component that can represent a factor (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Figure 1. Scree plot.

The first factor (Table 3), with loadings greater than .610, encompasses four items (23, 24, 19, and 18), accounting for 9.21% of the total variance. These items are associated with tasks characterized by their quantity, lack of interest, time-consuming nature, and demanding effort. Hence, the factor was labeled as tedious task. The second factor comprises the largest number of variables (items 10, 11, 21, 20, 7, and 9), accounting for 9.19% of the total variance, with loadings greater than .560, except for items 7 and 9. The items within this factor pertain to the use of irrelevant, unnecessary, and uninteresting materials, as well as engagement in unnecessary tasks, involvement in tasks irrelevant to learner L2 needs, and content that has no relevance to real life. Consequently, this factor was labeled as irrelevant content, material, and task.

Table 3. Items loadings, extracted factors, and reliability of factors-related items (n = 310).

Antecedents	Loading*	Factor
It is boring when:		(Reliability coefficients)
23. I do many tasks in the same class.	.728	Tedious task
24. I do time-consuming tasks.	.687	(α = .763)
19. I do uninteresting tasks.	.679	9.21% of the total variance
18. I do tasks that require many steps to follow.	.611
10. Teacher uses irrelevant materials.	.748	Irrelevant content, material, and task (α =. 763) 9.19% of the total variance
11. Teacher uses unnecessary materials.	.720
21. I do unnecessary tasks.	.649
20. I do tasks irrelevant to my L2 needs.	.561
7. Content has no relevance to real life.	.479
9. Teacher uses uninteresting materials.	.382
26. I do similar tasks that lack variety.	.871	Task repetitiveness and a lack of output (α = .710) 7.86% of the total variance
27. I do similar tasks that lack novelty.	.823
25. I do tasks, such as listening or reading, irrelevant to L2 production.	.539
5. Content is very difficult to understand.	.749	Content and task difficulty and divergence from learner needs (α = .696) 7.84% of the total variance
16. I do difficult tasks beyond my proficiency level.	.705
8. Content has no relevance to my expectations.	.596
28. Tasks are imposed by teacher, not self-selected.	.410
3. Content lacks variety.	.772	Monotonous and unsupportive content (α = .620) 7.29% of the total variance
2. Content lacks novelty.	.662
1. Content is uninteresting.	.531
4. Content has little value for L2 development.	.509

*Listing is based on higher loadings.

The third factor demonstrates loadings greater than .822, except for item 25. This factor consists of only three variables (items 26, 27, and 25), accounting for 7.86% of the total variance. These variables are pertinent to engaging in receptive language tasks and the absence of variety and novelty in tasks. Thus, this factor was labeled as task repetitiveness and a lack of output.

The fourth factor exhibits loadings above .595, except for one variable (item 28), and encompasses four items (5, 16, 8, and 28), accounting for 7.84% of the total variance. These items are associated with the difficulty of content and tasks, content that deviates from learner expectations, and the absence of opportunities for students to self-select tasks. As a result, this factor was labeled as content and task difficulty and divergence from learner needs. The fifth factor comprises four items (3, 2, 1, and 4) that accounted for 7.29% of the total variance, with loadings above .508. These items revolve around content lacking variety and novelty, being uninteresting, and providing little value for L2 development. Hence, this factor was labeled as monotonous and unsupportive content.

5.2. Self-perceived L2 proficiency and boredom

The analysis (Table 4) suggests differences in the mean score of seven items (22%) within the positive-negative range. In terms of content, there is a significant difference between the intermediate and advanced groups in one boredom antecedent (item 5 with p < .05), with a small effect size (d = .25). That is, the intermediate group exhibits a higher level of agreement regarding the experience of boredom when encountering content that is very difficult to understand. Moreover, the intermediate group perceives content lacking relevance to real life (item 7) and learner expectations (item 8) as boredom-evoking (M = 3.59 and 3.41 respectively), while the advanced group has a neutral stance toward these antecedents (M = 3.38 and 3.16 respectively). Regarding materials, the only item where the intermediate and advanced groups have a different perception toward is item 15. That is, the intermediate group perceives overreliance on coursebooks as causing boredom (M = 3.48), whereas the advanced group maintains a neutral stance toward such overreliance (M = 3.23).

Table 4. Perceived L2 proficiency and boredom.

Learning Content Antecedents	Intermediate		Advanced		t	p	Cohen’s
It makes me feel bored when content:	M	SD	M	SD			d
5. Is very difficult to understand.	3.94*	1.266	3.61	1.293	2.051	.041	.25
7. Has no relevance to real life.	3.59	1.105	3.38	1.281
8. Has no relevance to my expectations.	3.41	1.133	3.16	1.258
Learning Materials Antecedents
I feel bored when teacher:
15. Excessively relies on coursebook.	3.48	1.322	3.23	1.389
In-class Tasks Antecedents
It is boring when I do:
16. Difficult tasks beyond my proficiency level.	4.02**	1.122	3.48	1.261	3.613	.000	.45
26. Similar tasks that lack variety.	3.55	1.033	3.33	1.073
31. Group tasks.	2.70	1.411	2.43	1.424

n = 256; n = 128 per group.

* Significant difference (p < .05). ** Significant difference (p < .01).

A single significant difference emerges between the intermediate and advanced groups in relation to in-class tasks, particularly in one boredom antecedent (item 16 with p < .01), with a small effect size (d = .45). Put differently, the intermediate group exhibits a higher level of agreement regarding the experience of boredom when engaged in difficult tasks beyond learners’ English proficiency levels. Furthermore, the analysis shows differences between the two groups’ perceptions toward items 26 and 31. That is, the intermediate group perceives tasks lacking variety as boredom-evoking (M = 3.55), while the advanced group maintains a neutral stance toward such tasks (M = 3.33). Additionally, the intermediate group has a neutral stance toward group tasks (M = 2.70), whereas the advanced group does not view group tasks as boredom-provoking (M = 2.43).

6. Discussion

6.1. Salient antecedents of L2 boredom

The present study reveals a constellation of five key factors that encompass salient antecedents of boredom within the context of learning content, materials, and in-class tasks in the L2 classroom context. These findings shed light on the sources of boredom experienced by L2 learners, which can ultimately contribute to their disengagement from learning activities (Macklem, 2015). The identified factors align with well-established models and theories of boredom. Moreover, these factors resonate partially with the findings of Pawlak et al. (2020b), proposing two factors elucidating the underlying structure of L2 boredom: (1) disengagement, repetitiveness, and monotony, and (2) absence of challenge and lack of satisfaction. Furthermore, the current study’s findings partially align with the findings of Li et al. (2021), specifically in relation to boredom antecedents associated with content, materials, and tasks.

The existing body of research on L2 boredom has predominantly focused on identifying the causes of this emotional state, but has often overlooked the most prominent antecedents. In contrast, the present study offers insights by elucidating the hierarchy of the most influential factors that provoke boredom, along with their associated antecedents that are related to learning content, materials, and in-class tasks. Among the extracted factors, poorly designed in-class tasks emerge as the most salient factor contributing to the experience of boredom. Notably, the first and third factors encompass antecedents that exclusively pertain to in-class tasks, while the second and fourth factors incorporate antecedents that are also associated with tasks.

This first and third factors align with several established theoretical frameworks of boredom, including the forced-effort model (Hill & Perkins, 1985), the under-stimulation model (Larson & Richards, 1991), and the attentional theory of boredom proneness (LePera, 2011). These frameworks suggest that feelings of boredom arise when students are compelled to exert considerable cognitive effort on tasks while lacking stimulating learning environments. The absence of stimulating environments is often a result of uninteresting, monotonous, and repetitive tasks. Consequently, maintaining sustained attention becomes challenging, leading to the experience of boredom. Inappropriately planned, selected, designed, and implemented tasks bear a substantial responsibility for evoking this negative emotional state. In terms of the third factor, it aligns with the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010). According to this theory, students’ negative appraisal of the value attributed to receptive learning tasks, at the expense of productive tasks, can instigate boredom (Kruk et al., 2021). These findings resonate with previous research on L2 boredom (e.g., Kruk et al., 2021; Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Li, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Pawlak et al., 2020b; Zawodniak et al., 2021) regarding the influential role of tasks in provoking boredom among L2 learners. Nevertheless, it is important to note that these findings partially diverge from previous research, which emphasized the effect of under-challenging tasks in instigating boredom. The absence of under-challenging tasks as a salient antecedent in the present study elucidates why this particular type of task was not encompassed within any of the five identified factors.

The second factor within the identified hierarchy encompasses three antecedents specifically related to learning materials. These antecedents highlight the critical role of uninteresting materials and materials that do not align with learners’ needs and expectations in eliciting feelings of boredom. This underscores the negative effect of inappropriate selection or design of learning materials. Moreover, this factor suggests the impact of the absence of content and tasks that align with learner needs and expectations on the experience of boredom. These findings align with the under-stimulation model (Larson & Richards, 1991), the attentional theory of boredom proneness (LePera, 2011), and the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010). According to these theoretical frameworks, boredom arises when there is a dearth of stimulating learning environments and activities, resulting in decreased interest and motivation to actively engage in the learning process. Consequently, sustaining attention becomes challenging, leading to a negative impact on learning. Furthermore, the utilization of content and tasks that do not cater to learner needs and expectations directly affects the value ascribed to them, thereby instigating boredom. These findings are consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Li et al., 2021) that have underscored the significant role of learning materials in evoking feelings of boredom within L2 contexts.

The fourth factor within the identified hierarchy encompasses four antecedents that are centered around the difficulty of content and tasks, content that deviates from learners’ expectations, and the absence of opportunities for students to self-select tasks. The factor aligns with the menton theory of engagement and boredom (Davies & Fortney, 2012), the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010), and the forced-effort model (Hill & Perkins, 1985). Put differently, boredom is evoked when the required mental energy (mentons) for cognitive processing is excessively utilized. This occurs when learners encounter content and tasks that are overly demanding, and a perceived lack of control over learning activities contributes to feelings of boredom. These findings support previous studies (e.g., Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Li, 2021; Li et al., 2021; Nakamura et al., 2021) that highlight the impact of over-challenging tasks and activities, beyond learners’ proficiency levels, on the experience of boredom. Moreover, boredom arises as a consequence of negative appraisal of the value attributed to such activities when they fail to match students’ expectations, aligning with the findings of Nakamura et al. (2021). Furthermore, in line with the forced-effort model (Hill & Perkins, 1985), when there is a lack of independent engagement in learning, boredom is triggered due to misalignment between learners’ perceptions of task meaningfulness and those of instructors. These findings are consistent with the research conducted by Kruk and Zawodniak (2018), which indicates the effect of teacher-imposed tasks on inducing boredom.

Regarding the fifth factor, four antecedents related to learning content have emerged, encompassing the absence of variety and novelty, uninteresting content, and content that provides little value for L2 development. This factor aligns with the under-stimulation model (Larson & Richards, 1991) and the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2010). That is, boredom arises as consequence of a lack of stimulating learning environments, resulting in diminished interest and motivation to actively engage in learning. Moreover, boredom is triggered when the value ascribed to learning content is perceived as minimal. These findings are consistent with previous studies that have emphasized the role of imposed topics and content lacking engaging attributes in evoking boredom among learners (Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018; Pawlak et al., 2020b). Additionally, these findings are in line with the research conducted by Li (2021), which highlights the significance of appraisal of intrinsic value as the most influential determinant of boredom.

The heightened proneness to boredom that is relevant to in-class tasks provides insights into the role of students within the classroom setting. In other words, when learners primarily assume a productive role, actively engaging in L2 tasks, as opposed to a more receptive role in content and materials, they appear to be more susceptible to experiencing boredom when involved in poorly designed tasks. In contrast, the antecedents associated with content, as reflected in the extracted factors, indicate that this variable holds a lesser prominence compared to materials and in-class tasks, as observed in factors 4 and 5. This implies that factors related to content have a relatively weaker effect on the instigation of boredom.

Upon examining the similarities and differences among the five extracted factors, several specific variables emerge as either common across certain factors or unique to particular factors. First, the variable of learner interest is consistently observed in four factors. This variable manifests in tasks (Factors 1 and 3), materials (Factor 2), and content (Factor 5). This highlights the strong relationship between learner interest in all aspects of the learning process and the likelihood of experiencing boredom. Second, the variable of irrelevance to individual needs and expectations is evident in four factors. This variable is emphasized in materials, tasks, and content (Factor 2), tasks (Factor 3), and content (Factor 4 and 5). This underscores the significant connection between boredom and the learner’s appraisal of intrinsic value attributed to different components utilized in the learning process (Li, 2021). Third, the variable of labor-intensive and time-consuming learning is exclusively observed in tasks within the first factor. This indicates the distinction in cognitive demands between engagement in tasks and involvement in learning materials and content. It highlights the unsuitability of tasks as the most influential factor contributing to L2 boredom. Lastly, the variable of difficulty is only found in content and tasks within the fourth factor. This suggests that over-challenging learning activities are prominent antecedents of boredom. However, they are perceived as less boredom-provoking compared to antecedents associated with labor-intensive and time-consuming tasks, as well as content, materials, and tasks that are irrelevant to individual needs and expectations.

6.2. The influence of self-perceived L2 proficiency on the experience of boredom

The factor of perceived L2 proficiency holds a certain degree of influence on L2 boredom. One could argue that the perception of proficiency in the target language serves as an indicator of academic achievement. With this assumption in mind, the observed influence in this study is in line with the findings of Pawlak et al. (2020b), reporting differences in the experience of boredom between high- and low-achieving L2 learners. This impact of perceived proficiency manifests in particular instances during classroom activities.

The disparities in perceived proficiency can be categorized into three distinct groups: (1) proficiency-based higher proneness to boredom versus proficiency-based lower proneness to boredom, (2) proficiency-based neutrality versus proficiency-based proneness to boredom, and (3) proficiency-based neutrality versus proficiency-based disinclination toward boredom. In the case of the first group, learners with intermediate proficiency demonstrate a higher susceptibility to experiencing boredom, particularly in relation to specific antecedents associated with content, materials, and tasks. Examples include content that is very difficult to understand or difficult tasks beyond learners’ English proficiency levels. For the second group, only learners with intermediate proficiency experience boredom. This occurs when the content lacks relevance to learners’ real life and fails to meet their expectations or when tasks lack variety. On the other hand, learners with advanced proficiency maintain a neutral stance in these situations. Regarding the third group, only learners with advanced proficiency do not experience boredom. This is evident, for example, in group tasks, while learners with intermediate proficiency maintain a neutral stance toward such tasks.

Plausible factors can elucidate the observed disparities in the experience of L2 boredom between intermediate and advanced students, such as language proficiency, cognitive load, relevance, and meaningfulness. In terms of language proficiency and cognitive load, intermediate students are in the process of developing their language skills, and encountering cognitively demanding content, materials, and tasks that exceed their abilities can contribute to a heightened likelihood of boredom. Conversely, advanced students, equipped with more efficient cognitive processing skills and higher proficiency, are capable of tackling complex content and tasks without experiencing excessive cognitive load, resulting in a low level of boredom. Regarding relevance and meaningfulness, intermediate students may find certain content or tasks lacking in relevance to their real-life needs and expectations. As they strive to establish connections between their L2 learning and practical application, encountering materials that do not align with their perceived relevance can engender higher levels of boredom. In contrast, advanced learners, possessing a clearer understanding of their L2 learning goals and the applicability of the content, perceive a heightened level of relevance. Consequently, advanced learners experience reduced levels of boredom.

Consistent with the findings of Li (2021), which indicate that English learners with higher proficiency are less prone to experiencing boredom, our study reveals that students with lower perceived proficiency exhibit a greater susceptibility to feelings of boredom. These findings highlight the fact that even students with high perceived proficiency, who are typically highly motivated, acknowledge certain aspects in the questionnaire that contribute to boredom. Thus, it becomes evident that students with advanced proficiency levels can also experience boredom due to poorly designed content, materials, or tasks (Li, 2021). This finding is not surprising, given that the extensive engagement of English majors in L2 learning enhances their understanding of the best practices, or lack thereof, in language learning (Alrajhi, 2020a). However, it remains unclear whether the lower level of boredom experienced by the advanced proficiency group stems from their self-directed efforts to mitigate this negative emotion in pursuit of success or from their awareness that L2 learning might entail activities that evoke boredom (Pawlak et al., 2020b).

7. Conclusion and implications

This study addresses a notable limitation in previous research on L2 boredom by identifying the salient antecedents that evoke this negative emotion. These antecedents coalesce within a constellation of five fundamental factors, which directly relate to learning content, materials, and in-class tasks in the English classroom. The emerged factors are: (1) tedious task, (2) irrelevant content, material, and task, (3) task repetitiveness and a lack of output, (4) content and task difficulty and divergence from learner needs, and (5) monotonous and unsupportive content. Additionally, this study highlights the effect of self-perceived L2 proficiency as a distal antecedent on the experience of boredom.

The findings have practical implications, offering guidance for curriculum development, instructional design, and teaching practices aimed at alleviating boredom in the English classroom. First, it is crucial to consider the variations across the five factors and their respective impact. These factors highlight the varying degrees of prominence exhibited by different variables. Notably, while tasks and materials have a stronger impact on the experience of boredom, content-related factors demonstrate relatively weaker effects. Consequently, educators and curriculum designers are encouraged to allocate their efforts accordingly, placing emphasis on the design of engaging tasks and materials, while considering the relevance and difficulty of the content.

Second, the variable of labor-intensive and time-consuming learning is specifically associated with tasks. In a similar vein, careful consideration must be given to the difficulty level of both content and tasks, taking into account students’ proficiency levels. Educators and curriculum designers should strive to strike a balance between the cognitive demands placed upon students and their language abilities. Providing content and tasks that are appropriately challenging and manageable, allowing students to maintain a sense of control, can foster active engagement and reduce boredom. Moreover, offering necessary support, scaffolding, a gradual progression in difficulty, and opportunities for personalization and choice can empower students to manage their cognitive load effectively, cultivating a sense of ownership and sustained engagement. In the contemporary digital age, a wide array of technology-based tools exists that can be effectively harnessed for various purposes to support language instruction and enhance learner engagement (Alrajhi, 2020b; 2023). Educators can utilize these tools to provide scaffolding and personalized learning experiences that enable students to learn at their own pace, thereby minimizing boredom. Furthermore, the integration of technology in L2 learning can establish a meaningful connection to learners’ real-life experiences, capitalizing on their daily use and affinity with technology in both educational and non-educational contexts.

Third, learner interest is found to be a pervasive factor contributing to boredom across various aspects of the learning process. To prevent under-stimulation and disengagement, it is crucial to avoid repetitive and monotonous tasks and incorporate diverse topics, activities, and resources to effectively minimize boredom. Additionally, the factor of unpredictability is suggested to serve as a means to reduce L2 boredom (Dewaele et al., 2023). Moreover, stimulating learning environments and activities that align with learners’ preferences play a pivotal role in heightening learner interest. For instance, collaborative tasks may be perceived by students as conducive to greater engagement. Educators should also consider innovative, interactive, and dynamic learning activities that benefit from the integration of technology into classroom routines. L2 learners often exhibit a receptiveness to utilizing new tools for English learning (Alrajhi, 2020c), making it advantageous to capitalize on recent advancement in the digital realm. For example, the availability of a variety of novel and stimulating learning environments, including artificial intelligence-based tools, presents promising opportunities for enhancing learner engagement (Alrajhi, 2024).

Fourth, the variable of irrelevance emerges as a significant factor influencing the experience of L2 boredom. Educators usually have predetermined learning objectives and plans regarding the use of specific content, materials, and tasks in the L2 classroom. Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider learners’ needs and expectations, as these factors can inform decision-making processes across all aspects of L2 learning. To achieve this, instructors are encouraged to actively seek feedback form learners regarding their interests and preferences, thus enabling instructional design to be adapted accordingly. Furthermore, fostering a sense of autonomy, intrinsic value, and agency among learners can greatly contribute to their perceptions of relevance and promote motivation, ultimately leading to enhanced achievement in L2 contexts. By empowering learners with a sense of control and ownership over their learning journey (Alrajhi, 2019), educators can cultivate an environment where learners perceive all aspects of learning as meaningful and personally significant. Additionally, instructors play a vital role in shaping learners’ perceptions of the importance and relevance of predetermined content, materials, and tasks. By raising awareness of the value and support that these components offer learners, instructors can enhance learners’ understanding of their purpose and applicability. This, in turn, fosters a stronger sense of relevance and motivation. Moreover, instructors can strike a balance between receptive and productive tasks, ensuring the provision of varied task types that are in line with the diverse needs and expectations of learners.

Fifth, educators and curriculum designers should consider the relation between the experience of L2 boredom and the proficiency levels of different learner groups. Learners with lower-level L2 skills are more susceptible to experiencing this negative emotion due to the complex interaction between their proficiency levels, cognitive demands, and the perceived relevance and meaningfulness of learning activities. Therefore, it is important to align the cognitive load present in the content and tasks with the proficiency levels of learners. Additionally, establishing meaningful connections between L2 learning and practical application is essential. This ensures that all aspects of the learning process are in harmony with learners’ perceived relevance and real-world applicability.

8. Limitations and future directions

This study, while contributing insights, is not without limitations. First, the analysis did not capture all potentially relevant variables that could impact the experience of L2 boredom in relation to learning content, materials and tasks, such as individual differences. The second limitation pertains to the characteristics of the sample, as the participants in this study represent a specific subset of L2 learners, namely university students. Consequently, the findings may not be generalized to other groups of learners. Recognizing the diversity of L2 learner populations, it is plausible that different constellations of underlying factors related to L2 boredom may emerge when considering alternative groups, such as learners at different educational levels or from different cultural backgrounds. Third, this study employed a quantitative approach, thereby focusing on identifying the factors influencing L2 boredom based on data collected at a specific point in time. While this approach facilitated the identification of salient antecedents, it does not capture the nuanced and fluctuating levels of boredom intensity experienced by learners. Boredom in L2 learning is a multifaceted phenomenon, which is influenced by various factors, that may change over time.

To further advance our understanding of L2 boredom in formal L2 learning contexts, a future line of studies may consider the role of unmeasured variables, such as individual differences, personality type, and motivation. Moreover, future studies may incorporate diverse samples to enhance the generalizability of findings, providing a more comprehensive understanding of how L2 boredom manifests across diverse learner populations in L2 classroom settings. Furthermore, employing a longitudinal approach utilizing qualitative and mixed methods can offer a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of boredom in L2 classroom routines. Finally, this study contributes a carefully-designed instrument for examining L2 boredom at a micro-level. Future research should endeavor to develop other micro-level instruments to examine the relation between boredom and other English classroom routines and activities. These instruments can be implemented through formal means including surveys or informal means such as conversations with learners.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Assim S. Alrajhi

Assim S. Alrajhi is an associate professor of applied linguistics in the Department of English Language and Literature, College of Languages and Humanities, at Qassim University in Saudi Arabia. His research interests include technology-enhanced language learning, L2 writing, and L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Appendix A

Descriptive statistics of L2 boredom antecedents (learning content, materials, and in-class tasks).

Table

	SA	A	N	D	SD	M	SD
	n	n	n	n	n
Antecedents	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)
It makes me feel bored when learning content:
1. Is uninteresting.	154	116	15	22	3	4.28	.918
	(50)	(37)	(5)	(7)	(1)
2. Lacks novelty.	77	118	53	54	8	3.65	1.109
	(25)	(38)	(17)	(17)	(3)
3. Lacks variety.	111	128	32	34	5	3.99	1.024
	(36)	(41)	(10)	(11)	(2)
4. Has little value for L2 development.	134	95	30	41	10	3.97	1.163
	(43)	(31)	(10)	(13)	(3)
5. Is very difficult to understand.	125	78	27	63	17	3.75	1.318
	(40)	(25)	(9)	(20)	(5)
6. Is very easy to understand.	23	36	31	123	97	2.24	1.221
	(7)	(12)	(10)	(40)	(31)
7. Has no relevance to real life.	75	92	64	58	21	3.46	1.232
	(24)	(30)	(21)	(19)	(7)
8. Has no relevance to my expectations.	60	82	70	76	22	3.26	1.226
	(19)	(26)	(23)	(24)	(7)
I feel bored when teacher:
9. Uses uninteresting materials.	102	120	38	38	12	3.85	1.127
	(33)	(39)	(12)	(12)	(4)
10. Uses irrelevant materials.	64	68	72	80	26	3.21	1.265
	(21)	(22)	(23)	(26)	(9)
11. Uses unnecessary materials.	92	86	65	49	18	3.60	1.226
	(30)	(28)	(21)	(16)	(6)
12. Use materials filled with information.	127	96	28	37	22	3.87	1.266
	(41)	(31)	(9)	(12)	(7)
13. Repeatedly uses the same materials.	62	73	64	85	26	3.19	1.270
	(20)	(23)	(21)	(27)	(8)
14. Excessively relies on online materials.	41	42	57	108	62	2.65	1.303
	(13)	(13)	(18)	(35)	(20)
15. Excessively relies on coursebook.	88	75	39	79	29	3.37	1.370
	(28)	(24)	(13)	(25)	(9)
It is boring when I do:
16. Difficult tasks beyond my proficiency level.	109	95	35	50	21	3.71	1.281
	(35)	(31)	(11)	(16)	(7)
17. Easy tasks below my proficiency level.	20	39	46	133	72	2.36	1.157
	(6)	(13)	(15)	(43)	(23)
18. Tasks that require many steps to follow.	83	81	66	56	24	3.46	1.271
	(27)	(26)	(21)	(18)	(8)
19. Uninteresting tasks.	86	125	43	45	11	3.74	1.120
	(28)	(40)	(14)	(14)	(3)
20. Tasks irrelevant to my L2 needs.	98	102	41	56	13	3.70	1.209
	(32)	(33)	(13)	(18)	(4)
21. Unnecessary tasks.	110	108	41	42	9	3.86	1.130
	(35)	(35)	(13)	(13)	(3)
22. Tasks with insufficient instructions.	177	90	18	19	6	4.33	.970
	(57)	(29)	(6)	(6)	(2)
23. Many tasks in the same class.	133	96	29	37	15	3.95	1.199
	(43)	(31)	(9)	(12)	(5)
24. Time-consuming tasks.	149	85	29	33	14	4.04	1.187
	(48)	(27)	(9)	(11)	(4)
25. Tasks, such as listening or reading, irrelevant to L2 production.	60	46	56	89	59	2.87	1.400
	(19)	(15)	(18)	(29)	(19)
26. Similar tasks that lack variety.	53	113	77	56	11	3.45	1.081
	(17)	(36)	(25)	(18)	(3)
27. Similar tasks that lack novelty.	63	126	59	51	11	3.58	1.094
	(20)	(41)	(19)	(16)	(3)
28. Tasks imposed by teacher, not self-selected.	48	69	60	102	31	3	1.255
	(15)	(22)	(19)	(33)	(10)
29. Individual tasks.	49	54	38	83	86	2.67	1.442
	(16)	(17)	(12)	(27)	(28)
30. Pair tasks.	44	35	47	97	87	2.52	1.376
	(14)	(11)	(15)	(31)	(28)
31. Group tasks.	58	30	48	86	88	2.63	1.458
	(19)	(10)	(15)	(28)	(28)