Language Learners’ Perceived Competence in the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus

Language Learners’ Perceived Competence in the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Language Learners’ Perceived Competence in the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus Steve T. Fukuda, Tomohiro Masuda, Christopher J. Pope, Hiroshi Sakata This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Autonomy-supportive environments are vital in fostering learning motivation, a core feature of the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus (GAS). Based on the self-determination theory framework, learning motivation is maintained by satisfying the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Previous research has shown the GAS to satisfy students’ needs for autonomy and relatedness. However, the need for competence remains underexamined. This study explored whether student perceptions of their competence, namely perceived competence, could be enhanced with a better understanding of how languages are learned prior to actual language learning. Additionally, because of the temporal nature of psychological needs, we also explored whether retention of this lecture content would be necessary to sustain the satisfaction of the need for competence throughout the course. Two groups of university EFL students participated in a GAS course that started with these lectures. In the lectures, one group used clickers as an intervention for retention of lecture content, whereas the other group did not. Survey and test results, collected at three points during the 15-week course, showed that while lectures positively influenced perceived competence at the beginning of a course, the overall language learning experience in the GAS after lectures most likely had a more significant impact on perceived competence. Need for Competence Retention of Learning Self-Determination Theory Student Response Systems University EFL Context 1 Introduction 1.1 Language Learning Motivation Language learning motivation is a critical factor in successful second language acquisition, particularly in contexts where learners face external pressures such as examinations or mandatory course requirements. Fostering sustainable motivation remains a challenge in many educational environments, particularly in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting like Japan. Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a comprehensive theory of human motivation, has provided valuable insights into how learning motivation can be fostered by satisfying the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ) in EFL environments (Noels, et al., 2000 ). Autonomy refers to the perception of choice and volition in learning, competence involves the feeling of efficacy in achieving language tasks, and relatedness refers to the sense of connection and support from others. According to SDT, learning motivation exists on a continuum from intrinsic motivation (e.g., learning for its own sake) to extrinsic motivation (e.g., learning driven by external rewards or pressures) (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ), and in autonomy-supportive learning environments where the three basic needs are met, learners are more likely to internalize their motivation, moving from extrinsic forms of motivation to being more intrinsically motivated to learn (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ). Numerous studies have demonstrated that autonomy-supportive environments, which allow learners to make meaningful choices about their learning, are particularly effective in internalizing motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ). Similarly, relatedness has been linked to increased motivation and engagement in language learning (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994 ). However, the role of competence, defined as the learner’s perceived ability to successfully complete language tasks, remains underexplored in many contexts. Albeit Li and colleagues ( 2005 ) argue that competence is a strong predictor of achievement and recommend focusing on experiences that build learners’ confidence in their abilities. Research in language learning motivation dates to the seminal work of Gardner and Lambert ( 1959 ), who emphasized the importance of integrative and instrumental orientations in ESL contexts. Afterwards, SDT emerged as a powerful framework for understanding motivation in EFL contexts (Noels et al., 2000 ; Dornyei & Ushioda, 2011). Despite the theoretical advancements offered by SDT, however, the practical application of these concepts in EFL classrooms remains underexplored, especially in terms of the basic need for competence. Prior research on language learning motivation has often emphasized autonomy as the strongest predictor of motivation. However, in the school context where it is difficult to gain full autonomy in learning, Hiromori ( 2006 ) argues that satisfying the need for competence and relatedness are more important. It was argued that as Japanese learners perceive themselves as more competent in their language learning through small achievements (e.g., test scores), their learning motivation gradually shifts towards more intrinsic forms of language learning motivation. 1.2 Guided-Autonomy Syllabus The Guided-Autonomy Syllabus (GAS) for university EFL learners aims to foster intrinsic motivation gradually by satisfying the three basic psychological needs. The GAS is structured into three distinct phases, each progressively granting students more autonomy while ensuring consistent guidance from instructors and peers. The syllabus design and the activities within each phase are grounded in previous research and has been empirically validated to satisfy the needs for autonomy (Fukuda, Sakata, & Takeuchi, 2011 ) and relatedness (Fukuda, Sakata, & Pope, 2015 ) in connection to Phase 3 and Phase 2 of the GAS. 1.2.1 Phase 1 (Weeks 1–5): Teacher-Centered Introduction and Goal Setting In the first phase of the syllabus, the classroom is largely teacher-centered. The primary goal during this phase is to introduce students to the foreign language learning process, as well as self-regulated learning strategies. In the first two lessons, students learn about the foreign language learning process (Appendix 1), where they learn about topics in language acquisition, such as the Silent Period, the importance of comprehensive input and interaction. This knowledge is meant to deepen student understanding of how languages are learned, equipping students with the tools to make informed decisions about their own language learning. At the same time, students begin to set personal learning goals and create their first semester-long learning plans, a process that is guided through teacher feedback and peer collaboration. Goal-setting templates are provided, and students engage in discussions about realistic expectations, available resources, and potential challenges. This structured process ensures that students are not left to navigate self-study entirely on their own from the beginning, but rather are given concrete frameworks for planning and reflection. 1.2.2 Phase 2 (Weeks 6–10): Guided Learning and Feedback In the second phase, students begin to take more control over their learning, executing their self-designed weekly study plans. While students have greater freedom to pursue their own learning goals, autonomy is guided in terms of regular assignments and feedback from both the teacher and peers. For example, students submit weekly learning logs detailing their progress, challenges, and reflections on their study plans. These logs are reviewed by the instructor, who provides formative feedback on learning and provides advice on how to refine learning strategies or adjust goals. Peer feedback is also integral during this phase, as students are encouraged to share their experiences and offer suggestions to one another during class discussions. Additionally, activities are provided to address issues that arise during this semi-autonomous phase, such as dealing with procrastination, revising study plans, or using effective self-assessment tools as needs arise. These activities help ensure that students stay on track with their goals and continue to develop their language skills in a structured manner. 1.2.3 Phase 3 (Weeks 11–15): More Autonomous Learning In the final phase of the syllabus, students take full responsibility for their learning. They implement their learning plans with minimal teacher intervention, using class time for independent language practice and personal study projects. This phase is designed to allow students to experience true autonomy while still having access to guidance when needed. However, the autonomy in this phase is still guided by the structured learning plans students have developed over the course of the semester. While students are not required to check in with the instructor as frequently, they are encouraged to reflect on their learning and adjust their goals as necessary. The end-of-course reflection involves creating ongoing learning plans for future language study, ensuring that students are equipped to continue their autonomous learning beyond the classroom. 1.2.4 Previous Studies in Guided-Autonomy Previous studies in the GAS have been shown to effectively guide students’ language learning while fostering intrinsic motivation. For instance, Fukuda et al. ( 2011 ) found that students were more motivated to learn when they were given autonomy over their study plans but received continuous feedback on their progress. This form of guided autonomy allowed students to feel in control of their learning while maintaining a clear structure to follow satisfying the need for autonomy. A follow-up study by Fukuda, Sakata, and Pope ( 2015 ) showed that relatedness was satisfied through peer feedback and collaboration also played a key role in guiding students’ autonomous learning. For example, during weekly peer-review sessions, students discussed their progress with classmates, which helped reinforce accountability and provided a sense of community, further guiding their self-directed efforts. While previous studies have examined the role of autonomy and relatedness in GAS, existing research on GAS has not directly investigated how the syllabus supports learners in satisfying their needs for competence in language learning. This study attempted to fill this gap by examining whether a better understanding of the language learning process, as described in Phase 1, before actual language learning could from Phase 2 satisfy the learner’s need for competence. 2 Literature Review 2.1 Fostering Perceived Competence in Language Learning Competence in SDT refers to the feeling of effectiveness and mastery in carrying out a task, and it is closely tied to the individual’s perceived experience of achieving success and being capable in their learning endeavors. Competence is not the objective ability to perform a task but the subjective sense of efficacy. In the SDT framework, competence is deeply intertwined with the concept of intrinsic motivation, which is the more competent a learner perceives themselves as the more likely they are to become intrinsically motivated to engage in and persist with a learning task (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009 ). In other words, it is how the learner perceives his or her competence that satisfies this need and ultimately influences learning motivation. This perceived competence refers to the learner’s self-assessed belief in their ability to learn a language or successfully complete a language learning task. This need is central to the learning process because a learner’s perception of their own competence significantly impacts their motivation, persistence, and eventual success (Deci & Ryan, 1985 ). Importantly, perceived competence does not reflect an objective measure of language proficiency; rather, it reflects the learner’s internal belief in their ability to handle language learning or any language learning task they encounter. Perceived competence often drives behavior more strongly than actual competence. Students who believe they are competent are more likely to engage fully and persist in the face of challenges, even if their actual ability is not yet fully developed (Rodgers et al., 2014 ). In a classroom setting, a student with high perceived competence may attempt more difficult tasks, believing they can succeed, whereas a student with low perceived competence might avoid challenging tasks, regardless of their actual ability (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ). This makes perceived competence a crucial element in fostering long-term success in language learning as well (e.g., Liu, 2013 ). The more students feel capable of succeeding in their language learning endeavors, the more likely they are to stay engaged and ultimately achieve their goals. Several studies have confirmed that perceived competence is a strong predictor of language learning achievement. For instance, Li et al. ( 2005 ) found that perceived competence was closely linked to students' academic performance, as learners with higher perceived competence were more likely to engage with tasks, leading to greater achievement. More recently, Hirosawa et al. ( 2023 ) examined the relationship between confidence in language learning from the SDT perspective in Japanese EFL classrooms. The findings revealed that students with stronger perceptions of competence showed greater academic achievement, reinforcing the idea that perceived competence is fundamental to sustained language learning. Research has also emphasized that perceived competence is not a static trait but rather a dynamic, context-dependent construct that fluctuates based on task difficulty, learning conditions, and time (Steel et al., 2018 ). Studies have shown that learners may feel competent in one situation but experience a drop in perceived competence when encountering a more challenging task or a new learning environment (Vallerand & Losier, 1999 ). This situational and temporal dependency of perceived competence highlights the need for ongoing reinforcement to sustain confidence in language learning. Without continued support and feedback, students who initially feel competent may experience declines in motivation as they encounter increasingly complex linguistic challenges, such as students taking control of their language learning for the first time. Research suggests that the ability to recall and apply learned material reinforces students’ perception of their competence, contributing to sustained motivation (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ). Conversely, poor retention can erode perceived competence, as students may feel they are failing to make progress, even if they have engaged meaningfully with prior instruction (Lantz & Stawiski, 2014 ). This underscores the importance of retention of content learned to maintain perceived competence to support learners in their learning endeavors. 2.1.1 Perceived Competence in the GAS The hypothesis of the study was that lectures on how languages are learned could foster students' perceived competence by helping them understand the language learning processes. Research by Wenden ( 1986 ) showed that when learners become more aware of their own learning processes, they developed more effective approaches to studying, leading to increased motivation to continue learning. Thus, by understanding the language learning process better, learners can develop realistic expectations and have a clearer grasp of potential challenges, which in turn helps sustain their motivation throughout the learning journey (Oxford & Crookall, 1989 ). For instance, awareness of the common influences and difficulties at various stages of language learning process can aid learners in appreciating the importance of phenomena such as the Silent Period or the role of making mistakes in language acquisition (See Appendix). For instance, in the context of a EFL writing course, Fukuda ( 2014 ) found that deepening student understanding of the process of learning how to write in a foreign language positively impacted their ability and increased their learning motivation. Similarly, in the first and second weeks of the GAS, lectures in language learning are delivered with the intention of satisfying the need for competence. However, the effectiveness of these lectures in achieving this goal has not yet been empirically tested. Unpublished student evaluations and informal feedback suggested that students felt more competent in their language learning as a result of these lectures, this has not been objectively measured. Additionally, from personal communications with GAS instructors, although students appear engaged during the course, informal questioning revealed that many students struggled to retain the content of the lectures as the course progressed and after completion of the course. 2.3 Retention of Lecture Content Research suggests that the use of ICT tools can significantly enhance student engagement with the learning content which ultimately influences learning outcomes (Roschelle et al., 2004 ). One such tool is the student response system, commonly referred to as clickers. These handheld devices, equipped with keypads, allow students to respond to instructors’ questions in real time, with their responses simultaneously displayed on a screen for collective review. Clickers have been found to be particularly effective in facilitating learning, especially in larger classroom settings (Caldwell, 2007 ). Caldwell’s meta-analysis on the use of clickers across various educational levels highlights their role in promoting student achievement. In most cases, teachers pose two to five questions in a typical 50-minute lecture to foster interaction, assess student understanding, and guide classroom discussions. Clickers are especially valuable in environments where students may be hesitant to speak up or ask questions due to fear of making mistakes or feeling embarrassed (Freeman, Blayney, & Ginns, 2006 ; Leung, 2020 ). For instance, Liu et al. ( 2019 ) found that the use of clickers in English grammar classes increased student confidence by promoting greater participation in classroom activities. Clickers also enable teachers to tailor lessons based on student responses, making discussions more engaging and relevant to the learners. After submitting their answers, students are more invested in the subsequent discussion, paying closer attention and feeling more psychologically involved in the lesson (Wit, 2003 ). Moreover, clicker responses allow students to recognize that they are not alone in their misconceptions, which can enhance their psychological stability and encourage more active participation (Knight & Wood, 2005 ). In terms of content retention, Lantz and Stawiski ( 2014 ) found that students using clickers exhibited better retention of lecture material two days later compared to a control group without clickers. Similarly, Shapiro and Gordon ( 2012 ) demonstrated that clickers promoted higher retention of factual knowledge, even after controlling for repetition. Their findings align with the testing effect, however, which posits that testing knowledge, rather than merely restudying, enhances long-term retention (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ). In another longitudinal study, Crossgrove and Curran ( 2008 ) showed that clickers improved content retention for up to four months, with significant performance gains observed in biology students, particularly non-majors. Although some critics argue that the effectiveness of clickers may stem from the novelty effect, Chien et al. ( 2016 ) contend that clicker-integrated instruction is supported by robust empirical evidence. Shapiro and Gordon ( 2012 ) further explored this argument in a university psychology course, concluding that the benefits of clickers likely stemmed from the testing effect rather than mere novelty. Similarly, in the mathematics classroom, Wang et al. ( 2014 ) found that clickers enhanced long-term memory retention. In the context of EFL classrooms, clickers have been shown to aid in vocabulary retention and enhance student satisfaction, as evidenced in studies from China (Zhonggen, 2014 ) and Turkey (Celik & Baran, 2022). Zhonggen and colleagues (2014) reported that clickers reduced cognitive load during language learning, allowing students to focus more effectively on language use while the devices scaffolded new vocabulary and content (Roussel & Galan, 2018 ). In a reading course, Kent ( 2019 ) found that clickers enhanced peer learning and improved the overall learning environment. From the student perspective, Shadiev and Yang ( 2020 ) noted that clickers helped increase comprehension and maintain focus on the task at hand. Clickers have also been shown to support long-term retention over five weeks (Swadon, 2009), four months (Rush et al., 2013 ), and even in the absence of teacher feedback (Oswald et al., 2014 ). 3 Methods Our literature review highlights the critical role of satisfying the need for competence in language learning motivation within the SDT framework. It also discussed the temporal and task-dependent nature of perceived competence arguing for it to be simultaneously explored longitudinally. It was hypothesized that lectures focused on deepening student understanding of the language learning process improve perceived competence, and that student response systems, specifically clickers, enhanced long-term retention of learning content would maintain perceived competence in the language learner. 3.1 Research Questions This study seeks to address the gap in the literature concerning GAS and how it attempts to satisfy the need for competence. It investigated the impact of lectures on language learning before actual language learning has on EFL learners’ perceived competence, and if the retention of content is necessary to maintain perceived competence. The following research questions guided the study: RQ1 Do lectures to deepen understanding of the language learning process before actual language learning influence perceived competence? RQ2 Does the use of clickers facilitate retention of lecture content? RQ3 Does retention of lecture content maintain perceived competence over time? 3.2 Participants The target population consisted of first-year university students enrolled in a mandatory EFL course. A convenience sample was drawn from two separate courses at a private university in Japan, with students assigned to their courses and instructors by the administration based on student ID numbers. Each class met twice a week for 90-minute sessions over a 15-week semester. The content, methodology, textbook, and grading scheme were left to the discretion of individual instructors. Participants were education majors, with no participants specializing in English. The sample comprised of students aiming to become primary or secondary school teachers, with one group majoring in science (Group 1) and the other in Japanese language (Group 2). None of the participants reported additional English learning outside the course. Both groups had completed two years of EFL classes in elementary school, followed by three years each in junior high and senior high school. Based on academic standards and entrance exam percentile rankings, the groups were considered nearly equivalent (Benesse, n.d.) and identified by their instructors as false beginners (TEFL Academy, 2018). Before the lectures in language learning, a pre-survey measured students’ attitudes toward English to show that both groups were alike at the outset. Both groups responded to two five-point Likert scale questions: whether they liked English (Q1) and whether they wanted to use English in the future (Q2). A Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference between the groups. Group 1 ( n = 36) had a rank of 33.15 and Group 2 ( n = 29) a rank of 32.81 for Q1 ( p = 0.94). For Q2, Group 1 had a rank of 35.21 and Group 2 a rank of 29.22 ( p = 0.15), indicating no significant difference between groups. The only notable distinction between the groups might be attributed to the Bunkei - Rikei categorization in Japan (Saito, 2017 ) with Bunkei students focusing on humanities and Rikei students on sciences, however, both groups had undergone similar instructional experiences throughout their education. Group 1 raised their hands to respond to questions, while Group 2 used clickers during the lectures to provide answers. Clickers were selected for their ability to facilitate real-time feedback and anonymous participation and potentially fostering more active discussions and higher student engagement, which was anticipated to enhance retention. To control for halo effects, a colleague observed the lessons and confirmed that the only difference between the two groups was the use of clickers, along with a few examples modified by the instructor after reviewing student responses. 3.3 Intervention The intervention consisted of two lectures in language learning introducing basic concepts of language learning (Appendix 1). The primary objective was to provide students with foundational knowledge on how languages are learned. Most of the content was drawn from the Lightbown and Spada ( 2013 ) and Hato ( 2005 ). Students were initially asked to reflect on and respond to questions about their views on language learning, such as the potential usefulness of English in their future. These reflections preceded a short lecture discussing the use of English in schools and society, followed by instructor questions designed to provoke conceptual change. The questions were structured to elicit incorrect responses, leading to peer discussions and class-wide engagement with the lecture content. In this study, a control group was not included because the primary aim was not to compare the GAS to other teaching methods, but rather to explore how specific interventions, namely lectures and clicker use, impacted perceived competence and lecture content retention during the course. Both groups participated in the same syllabus and instructional framework to ensure that the observed differences were attributable to the use of clickers and engagement with the lectures rather than differences in overall teaching methodologies. Incorporating a control group that received no intervention would have created a fundamentally different learning environment, potentially leading to disengagement among participants and undermining the ethical considerations of providing all students with equal access to the benefits of the GAS. 3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Procedures 3.4.1 Surveys To assess perceived competence, two instruments were used: the Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). While these tools are well-established in research, the original version of these scales includes more items. In this study, the modified version with fewer items was used. The PCS, originally developed within the SDT framework (Williams & Deci, 1996 ), was used to assess students' perceived competence in language learning. The original scale contains more items, but for the purposes of this study, four items were selected because they were most relevant to the students' experience in learning English in the GAS. The PCS items asked students to evaluate how capable and confident they felt in their ability to succeed in language learning. The modified scale still retained strong internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.71), indicating that the reduced number of items sufficiently captured perceived competence in this context. The PCS items used in this study were adapted to reflect the specific language-learning context, asking students about their competence in handling the course, the learning material, and the task, with specific reference to the activities and self-directed learning in the GAS. These terms in the survey (e.g., this material, this task, etc.) refer to the language-learning tasks and self-directed study plans that students engaged in during the course. For example, students were asked to reflect on their confidence in creating and following through on their personalized study plans or setting their own learning goals in the context of the GAS. Below are the items from the adapted PCS: I feel confident in my ability to complete the language learning tasks in this course. I am capable of improving my English skills through the activities in this class. I believe I can succeed in this language course. I am able to handle the learning materials and tasks assigned in this course. The IMI, also developed within the SDT framework, assesses students’ intrinsic motivation, particularly their interest, enjoyment, and perceived value of a task (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989 ). In this study, a six-item modified version of the IMI was used which focused on items that aligned with perceived competence related to language learning activities in the GAS. The IMI items were adapted to reflect the specific language-learning context, referring to the activities and tasks that students performed as part of the course. The phrases this material , this activity , and this task appear in several items. These refer to the specific language learning activities undertaken during the course, either directed by the teacher or planned by the students themselves. For clarity, the context of these terms was explained to students in the survey administration, ensuring they understood that this material referred to the teacher-directed activities or learning tasks associated with their personalized study plans. IMI items used in this study include: I enjoy the activities in this course. I find the language learning tasks in this class interesting. I feel motivated to engage with the learning materials provided. The language learning tasks in this course are fun and enjoyable. I am enthusiastic about the activities in this course. I value the opportunity to set my own goals and study plans. The adaptation of both the PCS and IMI was based on the specific structure and learning experience of the GAS. By modifying the items, the aim was to reflect students’ intrinsic motivation and perceived competence in the context of language learning, as opposed to more general academic tasks. The smaller number of items in this study, while a limitation, was balanced by ensuring that the selected items were highly relevant to the language-learning environment. Additionally, the internal consistency of both scales was validated, with Cronbach's Alpha exceeding the accepted threshold (IMI α = 0.81), indicating that the reduced item set was reliable in measuring intrinsic motivation and perceived competence within this context. 3.4.2 Tests Tests, based on the same questions used in the lectures, were administered at three points during the course (i.e., Week 5, Week 10, and Week 15). Each question was in the participants’ native language, and responses were scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Tests were graded by the authors and did not affect course grades. The test questions and assessment criteria are detailed in Appendix 1. 3.5 Data Analysis Survey and test data were initially entered into Microsoft Excel for descriptive analysis and subsequently analyzed using SPSS (version 27.0J) for inferential statistics. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, with a threshold of α = .70 for acceptable reliability. The PCS and IMI scores were also collapsed into single scores for each participant to facilitate further analysis. Though justification for collapsing data in this way is complicated at the risk of losing information and potential validity (McCallum et al., 2002 ), it can be feasible for reporting descriptive statistics as adopted in this study to gain interpretability or simplicity in an exploratory study such as the present study (Jeong & Lee, 2016 ). Given the ordinal nature of Likert-scale data, the Mann-Whitney U test was employed which is a non-parametric alternative to the t -test, to compare group differences. A p -value of .05 was set as the threshold for statistical significance. Where significant differences were found, and the effect sizes were calculated using Pearson’s r , with r = 0.1 indicating a small effect, r = 0.3 a medium effect, and r = 0.5 a large effect (Lenhard & Lenhard, 2016 ). Further analysis was conducted to examine whether clickers facilitated retention of lecture content and whether this retention influenced perceived competence, as measured by PCS and IMI scores. Group test scores were compared at each of the three time points using independent two-tailed t -tests. Following Levene’s Test for equality of variances, two-tailed analysis was conducted to identify significant differences. Lastly, a correlation analysis was conducted between PCS, IMI, and test scores to investigate associations between lecture content retention and perceived competence. 3.6 Ethical Considerations This study adhered to the ethical guidelines and received approval from the first author's University Ethical Committee on Research before data collection. Ethical practices implemented included informed consent from all participants after they were provided with information about the study in their native language. Consent forms clearly stated that participation was voluntary, posed no risks to well-being, and not part of a course grade, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants' responses were anonymized to protect identities. All data collected were securely stored and accessible only to the researchers. 4 Results and Discussion 4.1 Results Internal reliability was confirmed using Cronbach’s Alpha with the first survey. As shown in Table 1, acceptable reliability levels were achieved, with α = 0.71 for PCS items ( n = 4) and α = 0.81 for IMI items ( n = 6). This allowed us to compute composite PCS and IMI scores for each participant by using the median for each respective scale. A between-group analysis of the initial survey (Time 1) confirmed no significant differences in perceived competence between the two groups before the lectures (see Table 2). Group 1 had a rank of 30.81, and Group 2 had a rank of 35.72 for the PCS score. For the IMI score, Group 1 had a rank of 32.19, and Group 2 had a rank of 34.00. Mann-Whitney U results revealed no significant difference between the groups for PCS ( p = 0.28) or IMI ( p = 0.69). After the lectures (Time 2), both PCS and IMI scores increased in both groups, suggesting the lectures had a positive impact on participants’ perceived competence. Mann-Whitney U tests revealed an insignificant difference between the groups: PCS Mean rank for Group 1 was 37.36, and for Group 2, 31.47. IMI ranks were 36.81 for Group 1 and 32.05 for Group 2, with p -values of 0.20 (PCS) and 0.30 (IMI). These results indicate that the use of clickers (Group 2) did not significantly impact perceived competence compared to the traditional lecture format (Group 1) during the first phase of the GAS. However, a significant difference was observed at the end of the course (Time 3) for IMI ( p = 0.05) but not for PCS ( p = 0.06). A post-hoc effect size analysis revealed a small effect size ( r = 0.24) between the groups. For PCS, Group 1 had a Mean rank of 37.48, while Group 2 had a Mean rank of 28.91. For IMI, Group 1’s Mean rank was 37.65, and Group 2’s was 28.76. These results suggest that the learning experience, rather than the lectures alone, may have had a greater influence on Group 2's perceived competence (IMI) compared to Group 1. Within-group analyses using Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks tests showed differing results between the groups (see Tables 3 and 4). For Group 1, Time 2 PCS scores were significantly higher than Time 1 scores ( Z = 2.08, p = 0.01), but no significant difference was found for IMI ( Z = 1.89, p = 0.06). An effect size of r = 0.48 suggests a moderate impact of the lectures on perceived competence. For Group 2, no significant difference was found between Time 1 and Time 2 for PCS ( Z = 1.80, p = 0.07) or IMI ( Z = 1.30, p = 0.19). At the end of the semester (Time 3), the within-group analysis showed significant increases in both PCS and IMI scores for Group 1. Time 3 PCS ranks were significantly higher than Time 2 ( Z = 3.13, p = 0.00), and IMI scores also increased significantly ( Z = 3.51, p = 0.00). Effect sizes were medium for PCS ( r = 0.53) and large for IMI ( r = 0.63), suggesting that the language learning experience in the GAS had a substantial impact on Group 1’s perceived competence. For Group 2, significant increases were also observed from Time 2 to Time 3 for both PCS ( p = 0.04) and IMI ( p = 0.00), with medium effect sizes for PCS ( r = 0.36) and IMI ( r = 0.58). These results suggest that for both groups, it was most likely the language learning experience in the GAS, rather than the lectures themselves, contributed to the increases in perceived competence. However, to further explore the relationship between perceived competence and retention of lecture content, as shown in Table 5, Levene’s Test for equality of variances was administered. It then confirmed homogeneity of variance for both Group 1 ( F (1,93) = 0.91, p = 0.41) and Group 2 ( F (1,92) = 0.18, p = 0.83). Despite an increase in the Mean scores for both groups at Time 2, t -tests revealed no significant difference in retention between the groups. Group 1’s Mean score was 3.86 ( SD = 1.52), while Group 2’s was 4.00 ( SD = 1.39) after the lectures ( t (63) = 0.04, p = 0.71). Similarly, by Time 3, Group 1’s Mean score decreased slightly to 4.59 ( SD = 1.59), while Group 2’s increased to 5.00 ( SD = 1.59), but again, no significant difference was found between the groups ( t (63) = 1.29, p = 0.20). Overall, it was found that the clicker intervention did not significantly enhance retention rates compared to the traditional lecture format. Paired-sample t -tests conducted within groups confirmed no significant differences in test scores between Time 1 and Time 2 or Time 2 and Time 3. Finally, an examination of whether perceived competence (PCS and IMI) correlated with retention of lecture content using Spearman’s Rho was conducted (Table 6). No significant relationships were found between test scores and perceived competence at Time 3 for either group. These findings suggest that perceived competence was more likely maintained through the overall learning experience in the GAS rather than through retention of lecture content as discussed in Hiromori (2006) in which the limitations of the school or class in the EFL context where the students most likely gain a sense of being competent in the learning as they progress, hence internalizing their motivation to learn. 4.2 Discussion This study sought to explore the effects of lectures aimed at providing students with a deeper understanding of the language learning process to measure its influence on satisfying the need of competence within the SDT framework. Also, the role of clickers in content retention was examined to explore whether retention of content contributes to satisfaction of this need. While the results showed that lectures alone did not significantly increase perceived competence, a more nuanced examination of the data suggested that the overall learning experience in an autonomy-supportive learning environment the GAS aims to provide had a stronger influence on satisfying the need for competence. In our examination of RQ1, findings indicate that lectures, by themselves, did not result in a significant increase in perceived competence for either group. For the science and math education majors, or Rikei students, perceived competence increased significantly after the lectures, whereas Japanese language education majors, or Bunkei students, showed no significant increase until later in the course, during the more autonomous phase of the GAS. To explain this difference, it is essential to clarify the nature of the learning experience within the GAS. In the GAS, after the initial lectures, students engaged in a self-directed learning process. This process involved setting their own learning goals, creating personalized study plans, and reflecting on their progress (Fukuda, Sakata, Pope, 2019). Rikei students may have benefited more from the language learning lectures because of their pre-existing negative self-perceptions regarding language learning. The lectures may have helped them understand that language learning is not solely based on innate talent, but rather on structured practice and the development of learning strategies, thus a deeper understanding of this may have fostered their perceived competence in language learning after the lectures. For Bunkei students, who already had stronger language backgrounds, data suggested that it was the actual experience of applying their learning in the GAS that most likely led to fostering their perceived competence in the later phases of the GAS. In sum, data suggests that while lectures aim to deepen students’ understanding of the language learning process, they need to be complemented by practical, autonomy-supportive learning experiences to have a meaningful impact on students’ perception of their own competence in language learning. In interpreting data to answer RQ2, the use of clickers did not result in a significant improvement in content retention compared to the non-clicker group. This finding contradicts some prior research on the benefits of digital tools for retention. However, a deeper analysis suggests that the interactive nature of the lectures themselves may have already been sufficient to promote engagement, reducing the added value of the clickers. Moreover, it is possible that the novelty of using clickers, as noted by the participants, might have initially engaged students but did not translate into long-term retention benefits including the testing effect. Future studies could explore how integrating clickers more systematically across the course, rather than in isolated lectures, might produce more lasting effects on retention. In the lectures, students were encouraged to engage in peer discussions, process their answers, and receive immediate feedback on their understanding. These activities involved elements of productive failure, where students were intentionally led to make mistakes in their initial answers, which were then corrected through class discussions. This peer-driven, active learning approach likely provided enough cognitive stimulation to enhance engagement and learning, regardless of the use of clickers. The clickers, while useful for anonymous participation, may not have significantly added to the already interactive lecture format and better learning outcomes as discussed in the literature review. To answer RQ3, data showed no significant relationship between retention of lecture content and perceived competence. These results suggested that retaining knowledge from the lectures in language learning did not directly influence students' perceived competence in language learning. Instead, perceived competence, again, seemed to be more strongly tied to the broader learning experience in the GAS. In the GAS, students were given the opportunity to take ownership of their learning by setting personalized goals and engaging in independent study. This autonomy-supportive learning environment likely had a greater influence on their perceived competence than the specific content of the lectures. The process of making decisions about their learning paths, reflecting on their progress, and experiencing success in achieving self-determined goals may have contributed more to their confidence as language learners than simply retaining lecture content or the lecture itself. Overall, these findings align with previous research in GAS, which emphasizes the importance of autonomy and relatedness in fostering intrinsic motivation (e.g., Fukuda et al., 2011, Fukuda et al., 2016). In this study, while the lectures in language learning may have provided important foundational knowledge, it was most likely the active, autonomous learning experience that had the most profound impact on maintaining perceived competence over time. Regardless, this study should be interpreted considering several limitations. Future research should further investigate how different types of learning experiences emphasizing autonomy or foundational subject knowledge influence the basic psychological needs, and whether integrating digital tools more holistically throughout a course might yield more consistent benefits. Additionally, examining the role of student understanding of the language learning process over a longer timeframe, opposed to two lectures in the beginning of the course, could provide insights into how lectures in language learning might set the stage for successful learning outcomes in EFL contexts. Expanding the number of items in both the PCS and IMI could provide a more comprehensive assessment of students’ perceptions and motivation. Future iterations of this study may incorporate the full version of these scales to ensure a broader representation of intrinsic motivation and all three basic needs. Furthermore, the novelty effect of using clickers for the first time, as well as the Hawthorne effect should not be overlooked. These factors may have contributed to increased engagement or inflated PCS scores immediately after the lectures. Additionally, the tests used to measure retention relied on a 0- or 1-point scale, which may not have fully captured participants' retention of lecture content. Binary Yes/No answers can be difficult to interpret, as they may reflect opinion rather than true knowledge retention. Future studies could use more nuanced assessment methods, such as open-ended questions or scaled responses, to provide a clearer understanding of retention and knowledge acquisition. Finally, this study should also be viewed as exploratory, given the specific context of education majors and the relatively small sample size. Research involving larger, more diverse cohorts from different academic disciplines would be necessary before any broad generalizations can be made. Measuring perceived competence and retention a year later, or even by the time students graduate, would offer insights into the long-term effects of the GAS. 5 Conclusion This study aimed to explore the impact of students’ deeper understanding of language learning had on students’ perceived competence in language learning within the SDT framework. Specifically, investigation was conducted on whether deepening the understanding of how languages are learned, prior to actual language learning, would foster students’ perceived competence. Our findings suggest that while lectures designed to deepen students’ understanding of the language learning process can play a role in increasing perceived competence, it is most likely the actual learning experience in an autonomy-supportive environment that may have had a more substantial influence on learners’ perceived competence. Nevertheless, for students who have negative self-perceptions regarding their language abilities, such lectures at the outset of a course appear beneficial. Our results showed that the lectures had a slight impact on Rikei participants, who often label themselves as less capable in language learning. Our data suggested that providing these types of learners with a better understanding of the language learning process can help dissolve pre-existing negative beliefs, encouraging a more positive self-image and boosting their perceived competence. However, for Bunkei participants, perceived competence increased only after they engaged in actual learning tasks, underscoring the importance of experiential learning. An examination was also conducted on the effectiveness of clickers in enhancing retention of lecture content. Contrary to previous research, our study found that the use of clickers did not significantly improve content retention or perceived competence. The lack of significant difference between the clicker and non-clicker groups suggests that the interactive and engaging nature of the lectures themselves may have mitigated the potential benefits of clickers. Additionally, no correlation was found between the retention of lecture content and students’ perceived competence, indicating that the knowledge gained from the lectures may not be directly tied to some students' perceptions of their ability to learn a language. Again, this result reinforces the notion that actual language learning experiences in an autonomy-supportive learning environment may have a stronger and more lasting influence on perceived competence. Declarations Ethics Approval Committee: This study adhered to the ethical guidelines and received approval from the first author's University Ethical Committee on Research before data collection. Human Ethics and Consent for participation: Constant was received via written document from all participants after they were provided with information about the study in their native language. Consent forms clearly stated that participation was voluntary, posed no risks to well-being, and not part of a course grade, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and additional anonymized datasets and survey instruments are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests Funding: The study received no specific grant from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector funding. Authors' contributions: S.T.F. conceived and designed the study, led the research process, and oversaw data analysis. T.M. was responsible for data collection and preliminary data organization. C.J.P. wrote the main manuscript text and revised the paper for clarity and coherence. H.S. served as the overall advisor, providing critical feedback on the research design and manuscript drafts. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Author information: S.T.F. and T.M. are professors in the Department of Education at Bunkyo University, Japan, C.J.P. is a lecturer at Tokushima Bunri University; and H.S. is a professor in the International Center at Tokushima University. Acknowledgements: There are no additional individuals to acknowledge other than that we are indebted to our participants and authors’ of previous studies. References Benesse. (n.d.). My vision . Benesse website. https://manabi.benesse.ne.jp/daigaku/school/3157/hensachi/index.html Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6 (1), 9–20. Çelik, S., & Baran, E. (2022). Student response system: Its impact on EFL students’ vocabulary achievement. Technology, Pedagogy, & Education, 31 (2), 141–158. Chien, Y.T., Chang, Y.H., & Chang, C.Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17 , 1–18. Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K.L. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. Life Sciences Education, 7 (1), 146–154. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . Springer. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching: Motivation (2nd ed.) . Routledge. Freeman, M.A., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22 (4), 568–580. Fukuda, E. (2014). Changes in Japanese university students’ metacognitive knowledge of writing skills and awareness as writers. The Journal of Learner-Centered Higher Education, 3 , 133–148. Fukuda, S.T., Sakata H., & Pope, C. J. (2019) Developing self-coaching skills in university EFL classrooms to encourage out-of-class study time. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 118–132. Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Pope, C. (2015). The GAS that fuels motivation: Satisfying the need for relatedness in the guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12 (2), 219–237. Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, S., & Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy to enhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8 (1), 71–86. Fukuda S., Yoshida H., Kamioka M. Sakata H. & Pope C. (2016). The proof of the pudding: Active Learning and Self-Regulated Learning Skills in University Classrooms. OnCUE Journal , 8 (4), 344–371. Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13 , 266–272. Hato, Y. (2005). Problems in top-down goal setting in second language education: A case study of the Action plan to cultivate ‘Japanese with English abilities.’ JALT Journal, 27 (1), 33–52. Hiromori, T. (2006). The effect of educational intervention on L2 learners’ motivational development. JACET Bulletin, 43 , 1-14. Hirosawa, E., Kono, Y., & Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2023). The structure of ability beliefs in EFL classrooms: A cross-theoretical analysis bridging self-efficacy and perceived competence needs satisfaction. System, 114 , 102990. Jeong, H. J., & Lee, W. C. (2016). The level of collapse we are allowed: comparison of different response scales in safety attitudes questionnaire. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 4 (4),128–134. Kent, D. (2019). Technique efficacy when using a student response system in the reading classroom. Language Learning Technology, 23 , 26–35. Knight, J. K., and Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 4 , 298–310. Lantz, M.E., & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31 , 280–286. Lenhard, W., & Lenhard, A. (2016). Computation of effect sizes . Psychometrica. https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. Leung, R.C.Y. (2020). Understanding the in‐class behavior patterns of Japanese university students in EFL classes: A foreign English teacher's perspective. Jissen Women's University CLEIP Journal, 6 , 9–22. Li, W., Lee, A. M., & Solmon, M. A. (2005). Relationships among dispositional ability conceptions, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, experience, and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24 (1), 51–65. Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed) . Oxford University Press. Liu, H. J. (2013). Effects of foreign language anxiety and perceived competence on learning strategy use. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3 (3), 76–87. Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2019). The effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27 (8), 1178–1191. Losier, G.F., & Vallerand, R.J. (2001). The temporal relationship between perceived competence and self-determined motivation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134 (6), 793–801. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V.V. (1989), Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60 (1), 48–58. McCallum, R. C., Zhang, A., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 19–40. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7 , 133–144. Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R.J. (2000) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self‐determination theory. Language Learning, 50 (1), 57–85. Oswald, K.M., Blake, A.B., & Santiago, D.T. (2014). Enhancing Immediate Retention with Clickers Through Individual Response Identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28 (3), 438–442. Oxford, R. & D. Crookall. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 71 (4), 404–419. Roussel,S., & Galan, J.P. (2018). Can clicker use support learning in a dual-focused second language German course? Language Learning Technology, 22 , 45–64. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association , San Diego, CA, 2004. ubiqcomputing.org/ CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf. Rodgers, W.M., Markland, D., Selzler, A.M., Murray, T. C., & Wilson, P. M. (2014). Distinguishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: an example from exercise. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85 (4), 527–539. Roediger, H. L., and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 1 , 181–210. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68–78. Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14 (2), 226–249. Rush, B.R., White, B.J. Allbaugh, R.A., Jones, M.L., Klocke, E.E., Miesner, M., Towle-Millard, H.A., & Roush, J.K. (2013). Investigation into the impact of audience response devices on short- and long-term content retention. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 40 (2), 171–176. Saito, T. (2017). Bunkeiryoku koso bukidearu [Literary power is a weapon]. Shisosha. Sawdon, M. (2009). Improving knowledge retention using KEEpad. Medical Education , 43 (5). 487-487. Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12 , 524–526. Shapiro, A.M., & Gordon, L.T. (2012). A controlled study of clicker‐assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (4), 635–643. Steel, P., Svartdal, F., Thundiyil, T., & Brothen, T. (2018). Examining procrastination across multiple goal stages: A longitudinal study of temporal motivation theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , Article 327. TEFL Academy. (2018, March 21) What are absolute beginner and false beginner EFL students? https://www.theteflacademy.com/blog/2018/03/what-are-absolute-beginner-and-false-beginner-efl-students/ Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11 (1), 142–169. Wang, Y., Chung, C., & Yang, L. (2014). Using clickers to enhance student learning in mathematics. International Education Studies, 7(10), 1–13. Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. English Language Journal, 40 (1), 3–12. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (4), 767–779. Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be. . . The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3 (2), 14–20. Zhonggen, Y. (2014). The impact of clickers use on vocabulary knowledge and satisfaction in an EFL class in China. IJICTE, 10 (3), 47–59. Tables Tables 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix1.docx Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 04 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 22 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 28 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 24 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 17 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6475745","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":450401365,"identity":"4bdca1f2-5807-40e4-9878-2ada29b33231","order_by":0,"name":"Steve T. Fukuda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bunkyo University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Steve","middleName":"T.","lastName":"Fukuda","suffix":""},{"id":450401367,"identity":"d471e0c8-b2a5-4a2c-8057-f993f50272c8","order_by":1,"name":"Tomohiro Masuda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bunkyo University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tomohiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Masuda","suffix":""},{"id":450401369,"identity":"2b449642-73f0-442e-9ae8-75cb0d37b3fb","order_by":2,"name":"Christopher J. Pope","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokushima Bunri University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christopher","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Pope","suffix":""},{"id":450401371,"identity":"5a232af1-f05f-41d0-98f5-273d1d95ec2b","order_by":3,"name":"Hiroshi Sakata","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokushima University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hiroshi","middleName":"","lastName":"Sakata","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-18 03:53:09","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81817199,"identity":"ce53a8b5-07f3-4f01-a5a2-9d8f26cb91d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-02 10:23:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":824626,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6475745/v1/63111315-effa-4578-a9e2-f16bc0435046.pdf"},{"id":81816017,"identity":"ac2c1b06-be48-4125-8a28-0ebe58242b21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-02 09:59:05","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18888,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6475745/v1/a274ffd0043cd20299336606.docx"},{"id":81816314,"identity":"5089c105-048b-40b7-be2b-4f5ac24a66c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-02 10:07:05","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":106086,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6475745/v1/c0892cf4067e26639e5c7b6b.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Language Learners’ Perceived Competence in the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.1 Language Learning Motivation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLanguage learning motivation is a critical factor in successful second language acquisition, particularly in contexts where learners face external pressures such as examinations or mandatory course requirements. Fostering sustainable motivation remains a challenge in many educational environments, particularly in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) setting like Japan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-Determination Theory (SDT), a comprehensive theory of human motivation, has provided valuable insights into how learning motivation can be fostered by satisfying the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) in EFL environments (Noels, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Autonomy refers to the perception of choice and volition in learning, competence involves the feeling of efficacy in achieving language tasks, and relatedness refers to the sense of connection and support from others. According to SDT, learning motivation exists on a continuum from intrinsic motivation (e.g., learning for its own sake) to extrinsic motivation (e.g., learning driven by external rewards or pressures) (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e), and in autonomy-supportive learning environments where the three basic needs are met, learners are more likely to internalize their motivation, moving from extrinsic forms of motivation to being more intrinsically motivated to learn (Niemiec \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNumerous studies have demonstrated that autonomy-supportive environments, which allow learners to make meaningful choices about their learning, are particularly effective in internalizing motivation (Niemiec \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, relatedness has been linked to increased motivation and engagement in language learning (Ryan, Stiller, \u0026amp; Lynch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). However, the role of competence, defined as the learner\u0026rsquo;s perceived ability to successfully complete language tasks, remains underexplored in many contexts. Albeit Li and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) argue that competence is a strong predictor of achievement and recommend focusing on experiences that build learners\u0026rsquo; confidence in their abilities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch in language learning motivation dates to the seminal work of Gardner and Lambert (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1959\u003c/span\u003e), who emphasized the importance of integrative and instrumental orientations in ESL contexts. Afterwards, SDT emerged as a powerful framework for understanding motivation in EFL contexts (Noels et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Dornyei \u0026amp; Ushioda, 2011). Despite the theoretical advancements offered by SDT, however, the practical application of these concepts in EFL classrooms remains underexplored, especially in terms of the basic need for competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrior research on language learning motivation has often emphasized autonomy as the strongest predictor of motivation. However, in the school context where it is difficult to gain full autonomy in learning, Hiromori (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) argues that satisfying the need for competence and relatedness are more important. It was argued that as Japanese learners perceive themselves as more competent in their language learning through small achievements (e.g., test scores), their learning motivation gradually shifts towards more intrinsic forms of language learning motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2 Guided-Autonomy Syllabus\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Guided-Autonomy Syllabus (GAS) for university EFL learners aims to foster intrinsic motivation gradually by satisfying the three basic psychological needs. The GAS is structured into three distinct phases, each progressively granting students more autonomy while ensuring consistent guidance from instructors and peers. The syllabus design and the activities within each phase are grounded in previous research and has been empirically validated to satisfy the needs for autonomy (Fukuda, Sakata, \u0026amp; Takeuchi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) and relatedness (Fukuda, Sakata, \u0026amp; Pope, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) in connection to Phase 3 and Phase 2 of the GAS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2.1 \u003cem\u003ePhase 1 (Weeks 1\u0026ndash;5): Teacher-Centered Introduction and Goal Setting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the first phase of the syllabus, the classroom is largely teacher-centered. The primary goal during this phase is to introduce students to the foreign language learning process, as well as self-regulated learning strategies. In the first two lessons, students learn about the foreign language learning process (Appendix 1), where they learn about topics in language acquisition, such as the Silent Period, the importance of comprehensive input and interaction. This knowledge is meant to deepen student understanding of how languages are learned, equipping students with the tools to make informed decisions about their own language learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the same time, students begin to set personal learning goals and create their first semester-long learning plans, a process that is guided through teacher feedback and peer collaboration. Goal-setting templates are provided, and students engage in discussions about realistic expectations, available resources, and potential challenges. This structured process ensures that students are not left to navigate self-study entirely on their own from the beginning, but rather are given concrete frameworks for planning and reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2.2 Phase 2 (Weeks 6\u0026ndash;10): Guided Learning and Feedback\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the second phase, students begin to take more control over their learning, executing their self-designed weekly study plans. While students have greater freedom to pursue their own learning goals, autonomy is guided in terms of regular assignments and feedback from both the teacher and peers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor example, students submit weekly learning logs detailing their progress, challenges, and reflections on their study plans. These logs are reviewed by the instructor, who provides formative feedback on learning and provides advice on how to refine learning strategies or adjust goals. Peer feedback is also integral during this phase, as students are encouraged to share their experiences and offer suggestions to one another during class discussions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, activities are provided to address issues that arise during this semi-autonomous phase, such as dealing with procrastination, revising study plans, or using effective self-assessment tools as needs arise. These activities help ensure that students stay on track with their goals and continue to develop their language skills in a structured manner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2.3 Phase 3 (Weeks 11\u0026ndash;15): More Autonomous Learning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the final phase of the syllabus, students take full responsibility for their learning. They implement their learning plans with minimal teacher intervention, using class time for independent language practice and personal study projects. This phase is designed to allow students to experience true autonomy while still having access to guidance when needed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the autonomy in this phase is still guided by the structured learning plans students have developed over the course of the semester. While students are not required to check in with the instructor as frequently, they are encouraged to reflect on their learning and adjust their goals as necessary. The end-of-course reflection involves creating ongoing learning plans for future language study, ensuring that students are equipped to continue their autonomous learning beyond the classroom.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1.2.4 Previous Studies in Guided-Autonomy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Previous studies in the GAS have been shown to effectively guide students\u0026rsquo; language learning while fostering intrinsic motivation. For instance, Fukuda et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) found that students were more motivated to learn when they were given autonomy over their study plans but received continuous feedback on their progress. This form of guided autonomy allowed students to feel in control of their learning while maintaining a clear structure to follow satisfying the need for autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA follow-up study by Fukuda, Sakata, and Pope (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) showed that relatedness was satisfied through peer feedback and collaboration also played a key role in guiding students\u0026rsquo; autonomous learning. For example, during weekly peer-review sessions, students discussed their progress with classmates, which helped reinforce accountability and provided a sense of community, further guiding their self-directed efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile previous studies have examined the role of autonomy and relatedness in GAS, existing research on GAS has not directly investigated how the syllabus supports learners in satisfying their needs for competence in language learning. This study attempted to fill this gap by examining whether a better understanding of the language learning process, as described in Phase 1, before actual language learning could from Phase 2 satisfy the learner\u0026rsquo;s need for competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2 Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Fostering Perceived Competence in Language Learning\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompetence in SDT refers to the feeling of effectiveness and mastery in carrying out a task, and it is closely tied to the individual\u0026rsquo;s perceived experience of achieving success and being capable in their learning endeavors. Competence is not the objective ability to perform a task but the subjective sense of efficacy. In the SDT framework, competence is deeply intertwined with the concept of intrinsic motivation, which is the more competent a learner perceives themselves as the more likely they are to become intrinsically motivated to engage in and persist with a learning task (Niemiec \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In other words, it is how the learner perceives his or her competence that satisfies this need and ultimately influences learning motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis perceived competence refers to the learner\u0026rsquo;s self-assessed belief in their ability to learn a language or successfully complete a language learning task. This need is central to the learning process because a learner\u0026rsquo;s perception of their own competence significantly impacts their motivation, persistence, and eventual success (Deci \u0026amp; Ryan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). Importantly, perceived competence does not reflect an objective measure of language proficiency; rather, it reflects the learner\u0026rsquo;s internal belief in their ability to handle language learning or any language learning task they encounter. Perceived competence often drives behavior more strongly than actual competence. Students who believe they are competent are more likely to engage fully and persist in the face of challenges, even if their actual ability is not yet fully developed (Rodgers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a classroom setting, a student with high perceived competence may attempt more difficult tasks, believing they can succeed, whereas a student with low perceived competence might avoid challenging tasks, regardless of their actual ability (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). This makes perceived competence a crucial element in fostering long-term success in language learning as well (e.g., Liu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). The more students feel capable of succeeding in their language learning endeavors, the more likely they are to stay engaged and ultimately achieve their goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies have confirmed that perceived competence is a strong predictor of language learning achievement. For instance, Li et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) found that perceived competence was closely linked to students' academic performance, as learners with higher perceived competence were more likely to engage with tasks, leading to greater achievement. More recently, Hirosawa et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) examined the relationship between confidence in language learning from the SDT perspective in Japanese EFL classrooms. The findings revealed that students with stronger perceptions of competence showed greater academic achievement, reinforcing the idea that perceived competence is fundamental to sustained language learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has also emphasized that perceived competence is not a static trait but rather a dynamic, context-dependent construct that fluctuates based on task difficulty, learning conditions, and time (Steel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Studies have shown that learners may feel competent in one situation but experience a drop in perceived competence when encountering a more challenging task or a new learning environment (Vallerand \u0026amp; Losier, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). This situational and temporal dependency of perceived competence highlights the need for ongoing reinforcement to sustain confidence in language learning. Without continued support and feedback, students who initially feel competent may experience declines in motivation as they encounter increasingly complex linguistic challenges, such as students taking control of their language learning for the first time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch suggests that the ability to recall and apply learned material reinforces students\u0026rsquo; perception of their competence, contributing to sustained motivation (Roediger \u0026amp; Karpicke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, poor retention can erode perceived competence, as students may feel they are failing to make progress, even if they have engaged meaningfully with prior instruction (Lantz \u0026amp; Stawiski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This underscores the importance of retention of content learned to maintain perceived competence to support learners in their learning endeavors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1.1 Perceived Competence in the GAS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hypothesis of the study was that lectures on how languages are learned could foster students' perceived competence by helping them understand the language learning processes. Research by Wenden (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) showed that when learners become more aware of their own learning processes, they developed more effective approaches to studying, leading to increased motivation to continue learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, by understanding the language learning process better, learners can develop realistic expectations and have a clearer grasp of potential challenges, which in turn helps sustain their motivation throughout the learning journey (Oxford \u0026amp; Crookall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, awareness of the common influences and difficulties at various stages of language learning process can aid learners in appreciating the importance of phenomena such as the Silent Period or the role of making mistakes in language acquisition (See Appendix). For instance, in the context of a EFL writing course, Fukuda (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that deepening student understanding of the process of learning how to write in a foreign language positively impacted their ability and increased their learning motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, in the first and second weeks of the GAS, lectures in language learning are delivered with the intention of satisfying the need for competence. However, the effectiveness of these lectures in achieving this goal has not yet been empirically tested. Unpublished student evaluations and informal feedback suggested that students felt more competent in their language learning as a result of these lectures, this has not been objectively measured. Additionally, from personal communications with GAS instructors, although students appear engaged during the course, informal questioning revealed that many students struggled to retain the content of the lectures as the course progressed and after completion of the course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Retention of Lecture Content\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch suggests that the use of ICT tools can significantly enhance student engagement with the learning content which ultimately influences learning outcomes (Roschelle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). One such tool is the student response system, commonly referred to as clickers. These handheld devices, equipped with keypads, allow students to respond to instructors\u0026rsquo; questions in real time, with their responses simultaneously displayed on a screen for collective review. Clickers have been found to be particularly effective in facilitating learning, especially in larger classroom settings (Caldwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Caldwell\u0026rsquo;s meta-analysis on the use of clickers across various educational levels highlights their role in promoting student achievement. In most cases, teachers pose two to five questions in a typical 50-minute lecture to foster interaction, assess student understanding, and guide classroom discussions. Clickers are especially valuable in environments where students may be hesitant to speak up or ask questions due to fear of making mistakes or feeling embarrassed (Freeman, Blayney, \u0026amp; Ginns, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Leung, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) found that the use of clickers in English grammar classes increased student confidence by promoting greater participation in classroom activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eClickers also enable teachers to tailor lessons based on student responses, making discussions more engaging and relevant to the learners. After submitting their answers, students are more invested in the subsequent discussion, paying closer attention and feeling more psychologically involved in the lesson (Wit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, clicker responses allow students to recognize that they are not alone in their misconceptions, which can enhance their psychological stability and encourage more active participation (Knight \u0026amp; Wood, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of content retention, Lantz and Stawiski (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that students using clickers exhibited better retention of lecture material two days later compared to a control group without clickers. Similarly, Shapiro and Gordon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that clickers promoted higher retention of factual knowledge, even after controlling for repetition. Their findings align with the testing effect, however, which posits that testing knowledge, rather than merely restudying, enhances long-term retention (Roediger \u0026amp; Karpicke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). In another longitudinal study, Crossgrove and Curran (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) showed that clickers improved content retention for up to four months, with significant performance gains observed in biology students, particularly non-majors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough some critics argue that the effectiveness of clickers may stem from the novelty effect, Chien et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) contend that clicker-integrated instruction is supported by robust empirical evidence. Shapiro and Gordon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) further explored this argument in a university psychology course, concluding that the benefits of clickers likely stemmed from the testing effect rather than mere novelty. Similarly, in the mathematics classroom, Wang et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that clickers enhanced long-term memory retention.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of EFL classrooms, clickers have been shown to aid in vocabulary retention and enhance student satisfaction, as evidenced in studies from China (Zhonggen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) and Turkey (Celik \u0026amp; Baran, 2022). Zhonggen and colleagues (2014) reported that clickers reduced cognitive load during language learning, allowing students to focus more effectively on language use while the devices scaffolded new vocabulary and content (Roussel \u0026amp; Galan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In a reading course, Kent (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) found that clickers enhanced peer learning and improved the overall learning environment. From the student perspective, Shadiev and Yang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) noted that clickers helped increase comprehension and maintain focus on the task at hand. Clickers have also been shown to support long-term retention over five weeks (Swadon, 2009), four months (Rush et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and even in the absence of teacher feedback (Oswald et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur literature review highlights the critical role of satisfying the need for competence in language learning motivation within the SDT framework. It also discussed the temporal and task-dependent nature of perceived competence arguing for it to be simultaneously explored longitudinally. It was hypothesized that lectures focused on deepening student understanding of the language learning process improve perceived competence, and that student response systems, specifically clickers, enhanced long-term retention of learning content would maintain perceived competence in the language learner.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Questions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study seeks to address the gap in the literature concerning GAS and how it attempts to satisfy the need for competence. It investigated the impact of lectures on language learning before actual language learning has on EFL learners\u0026rsquo; perceived competence, and if the retention of content is necessary to maintain perceived competence. The following research questions guided the study:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDo lectures to deepen understanding of the language learning process before actual language learning influence perceived competence?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDoes the use of clickers facilitate retention of lecture content?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eRQ3\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDoes retention of lecture content maintain perceived competence over time?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe target population consisted of first-year university students enrolled in a mandatory EFL course. A convenience sample was drawn from two separate courses at a private university in Japan, with students assigned to their courses and instructors by the administration based on student ID numbers. Each class met twice a week for 90-minute sessions over a 15-week semester. The content, methodology, textbook, and grading scheme were left to the discretion of individual instructors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants were education majors, with no participants specializing in English. The sample comprised of students aiming to become primary or secondary school teachers, with one group majoring in science (Group 1) and the other in Japanese language (Group 2). None of the participants reported additional English learning outside the course. Both groups had completed two years of EFL classes in elementary school, followed by three years each in junior high and senior high school. Based on academic standards and entrance exam percentile rankings, the groups were considered nearly equivalent (Benesse, n.d.) and identified by their instructors as false beginners (TEFL Academy, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore the lectures in language learning, a pre-survey measured students\u0026rsquo; attitudes toward English to show that both groups were alike at the outset. Both groups responded to two five-point Likert scale questions: whether they liked English (Q1) and whether they wanted to use English in the future (Q2). A Mann-Whitney \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e test revealed no significant difference between the groups. Group 1 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36) had a rank of 33.15 and Group 2 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;29) a rank of 32.81 for Q1 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.94). For Q2, Group 1 had a rank of 35.21 and Group 2 a rank of 29.22 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15), indicating no significant difference between groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe only notable distinction between the groups might be attributed to the \u003cem\u003eBunkei\u003c/em\u003e-\u003cem\u003eRikei\u003c/em\u003e categorization in Japan (Saito, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) with \u003cem\u003eBunkei\u003c/em\u003e students focusing on humanities and \u003cem\u003eRikei\u003c/em\u003e students on sciences, however, both groups had undergone similar instructional experiences throughout their education. Group 1 raised their hands to respond to questions, while Group 2 used clickers during the lectures to provide answers. Clickers were selected for their ability to facilitate real-time feedback and anonymous participation and potentially fostering more active discussions and higher student engagement, which was anticipated to enhance retention. To control for halo effects, a colleague observed the lessons and confirmed that the only difference between the two groups was the use of clickers, along with a few examples modified by the instructor after reviewing student responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Intervention\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe intervention consisted of two lectures in language learning introducing basic concepts of language learning (Appendix 1). The primary objective was to provide students with foundational knowledge on how languages are learned. Most of the content was drawn from the Lightbown and Spada (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and Hato (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Students were initially asked to reflect on and respond to questions about their views on language learning, such as the potential usefulness of English in their future. These reflections preceded a short lecture discussing the use of English in schools and society, followed by instructor questions designed to provoke conceptual change. The questions were structured to elicit incorrect responses, leading to peer discussions and class-wide engagement with the lecture content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, a control group was not included because the primary aim was not to compare the GAS to other teaching methods, but rather to explore how specific interventions, namely lectures and clicker use, impacted perceived competence and lecture content retention during the course. Both groups participated in the same syllabus and instructional framework to ensure that the observed differences were attributable to the use of clickers and engagement with the lectures rather than differences in overall teaching methodologies. Incorporating a control group that received no intervention would have created a fundamentally different learning environment, potentially leading to disengagement among participants and undermining the ethical considerations of providing all students with equal access to the benefits of the GAS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Collection Instruments and Procedures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.1 Surveys\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess perceived competence, two instruments were used: the Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). While these tools are well-established in research, the original version of these scales includes more items. In this study, the modified version with fewer items was used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PCS, originally developed within the SDT framework (Williams \u0026amp; Deci, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e), was used to assess students' perceived competence in language learning. The original scale contains more items, but for the purposes of this study, four items were selected because they were most relevant to the students' experience in learning English in the GAS. The PCS items asked students to evaluate how capable and confident they felt in their ability to succeed in language learning. The modified scale still retained strong internal reliability (Cronbach's α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71), indicating that the reduced number of items sufficiently captured perceived competence in this context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PCS items used in this study were adapted to reflect the specific language-learning context, asking students about their competence in handling the course, the learning material, and the task, with specific reference to the activities and self-directed learning in the GAS. These terms in the survey (e.g., this material, this task, etc.) refer to the language-learning tasks and self-directed study plans that students engaged in during the course. For example, students were asked to reflect on their confidence in creating and following through on their personalized study plans or setting their own learning goals in the context of the GAS. Below are the items from the adapted PCS:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI feel confident in my ability to complete the language learning tasks in this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am capable of improving my English skills through the activities in this class.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI believe I can succeed in this language course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am able to handle the learning materials and tasks assigned in this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe IMI, also developed within the SDT framework, assesses students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation, particularly their interest, enjoyment, and perceived value of a task (McAuley, Duncan, \u0026amp; Tammen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1989\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, a six-item modified version of the IMI was used which focused on items that aligned with perceived competence related to language learning activities in the GAS. The IMI items were adapted to reflect the specific language-learning context, referring to the activities and tasks that students performed as part of the course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe phrases \u003cem\u003ethis material\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ethis activity\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003ethis task\u003c/em\u003e appear in several items. These refer to the specific language learning activities undertaken during the course, either directed by the teacher or planned by the students themselves. For clarity, the context of these terms was explained to students in the survey administration, ensuring they understood that this material referred to the teacher-directed activities or learning tasks associated with their personalized study plans. IMI items used in this study include:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI enjoy the activities in this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI find the language learning tasks in this class interesting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI feel motivated to engage with the learning materials provided.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe language learning tasks in this course are fun and enjoyable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI am enthusiastic about the activities in this course.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eI value the opportunity to set my own goals and study plans.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe adaptation of both the PCS and IMI was based on the specific structure and learning experience of the GAS. By modifying the items, the aim was to reflect students\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation and perceived competence in the context of language learning, as opposed to more general academic tasks. The smaller number of items in this study, while a limitation, was balanced by ensuring that the selected items were highly relevant to the language-learning environment. Additionally, the internal consistency of both scales was validated, with Cronbach's Alpha exceeding the accepted threshold (IMI α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81), indicating that the reduced item set was reliable in measuring intrinsic motivation and perceived competence within this context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4.2 Tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTests, based on the same questions used in the lectures, were administered at three points during the course (i.e., Week 5, Week 10, and Week 15). Each question was in the participants\u0026rsquo; native language, and responses were scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Tests were graded by the authors and did not affect course grades. The test questions and assessment criteria are detailed in Appendix 1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurvey and test data were initially entered into Microsoft Excel for descriptive analysis and subsequently analyzed using SPSS (version 27.0J) for inferential statistics. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha, with a threshold of α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.70 for acceptable reliability. The PCS and IMI scores were also collapsed into single scores for each participant to facilitate further analysis. Though justification for collapsing data in this way is complicated at the risk of losing information and potential validity (McCallum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), it can be feasible for reporting descriptive statistics as adopted in this study to gain interpretability or simplicity in an exploratory study such as the present study (Jeong \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the ordinal nature of Likert-scale data, the Mann-Whitney \u003cem\u003eU\u003c/em\u003e test was employed which is a non-parametric alternative to the \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test, to compare group differences. A \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value of .05 was set as the threshold for statistical significance. Where significant differences were found, and the effect sizes were calculated using Pearson\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e, with \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1 indicating a small effect, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3 a medium effect, and \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5 a large effect (Lenhard \u0026amp; Lenhard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurther analysis was conducted to examine whether clickers facilitated retention of lecture content and whether this retention influenced perceived competence, as measured by PCS and IMI scores. Group test scores were compared at each of the three time points using independent two-tailed \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests. Following Levene\u0026rsquo;s Test for equality of variances, two-tailed analysis was conducted to identify significant differences. Lastly, a correlation analysis was conducted between PCS, IMI, and test scores to investigate associations between lecture content retention and perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.6 Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e This study adhered to the ethical guidelines and received approval from the first author's University Ethical Committee on Research before data collection. Ethical practices implemented included informed consent from all participants after they were provided with information about the study in their native language. Consent forms clearly stated that participation was voluntary, posed no risks to well-being, and not part of a course grade, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty. Participants' responses were anonymized to protect identities. All data collected were securely stored and accessible only to the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1 Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInternal reliability was confirmed using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha with the first survey. As shown in Table 1, acceptable reliability levels were achieved, with \u0026alpha; = 0.71 for PCS items (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4) and \u0026alpha; = 0.81 for IMI items (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 6). This allowed us to compute composite PCS and IMI scores for each participant by using the median for each respective scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA between-group analysis of the initial survey (Time 1) confirmed no significant differences in perceived competence between the two groups before the lectures (see Table 2). Group 1 had a rank of 30.81, and Group 2 had a rank of 35.72 for the PCS score. For the IMI score, Group 1 had a rank of 32.19, and Group 2 had a rank of 34.00. Mann-Whitney \u003cem\u003eU\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eresults revealed no significant difference between the groups for PCS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.28) or IMI (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.69).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the lectures (Time 2), both PCS and IMI scores increased in both groups, suggesting the lectures had a positive impact on participants\u0026rsquo; perceived competence. Mann-Whitney\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;U\u003c/em\u003e tests revealed an insignificant difference between the groups: PCS Mean rank for Group 1 was 37.36, and for Group 2, 31.47. IMI ranks were 36.81 for Group 1 and 32.05 for Group 2, with \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values of 0.20 (PCS) and 0.30 (IMI). These results indicate that the use of clickers (Group 2) did not significantly impact perceived competence compared to the traditional lecture format (Group 1) during the first phase of the GAS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, a significant difference was observed at the end of the course (Time 3) for IMI (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.05) but not for PCS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.06). A post-hoc effect size analysis revealed a small effect size (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.24) between the groups. For PCS, Group 1 had a Mean rank of 37.48, while Group 2 had a Mean rank of 28.91. For IMI, Group 1\u0026rsquo;s Mean rank was 37.65, and Group 2\u0026rsquo;s was 28.76. These results suggest that the learning experience, rather than the lectures alone, may have had a greater influence on Group 2\u0026apos;s perceived competence (IMI) compared to Group 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin-group analyses using Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks tests showed differing results between the groups (see Tables 3 and 4). For Group 1, Time 2 PCS scores were significantly higher than Time 1 scores (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 2.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.01), but no significant difference was found for IMI (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 1.89,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e = 0.06). An effect size of \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.48 suggests a moderate impact of the lectures on perceived competence. For Group 2, no significant difference was found between Time 1 and Time 2 for PCS (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 1.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.07) or IMI (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 1.30, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.19).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the end of the semester (Time 3), the within-group analysis showed significant increases in both PCS and IMI scores for Group 1. Time 3 PCS ranks were significantly higher than Time 2 (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 3.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.00), and IMI scores also increased significantly (\u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e = 3.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.00). Effect sizes were medium for PCS (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.53) and large for IMI (\u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 0.63), suggesting that the language learning experience in the GAS had a substantial impact on Group 1\u0026rsquo;s perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor Group 2, significant increases were also observed from Time 2 to Time 3 for both PCS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.04) and IMI (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.00), with medium effect sizes for PCS (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.36) and IMI (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = 0.58). These results suggest that for both groups, it was most likely the language learning experience in the GAS, rather than the lectures themselves, contributed to the increases in perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, to further explore the relationship between perceived competence and retention of lecture content, as shown in Table 5, Levene\u0026rsquo;s Test for equality of variances was administered. It then confirmed homogeneity of variance for both Group 1 (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,93) = 0.91, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.41) and Group 2 (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1,92) = 0.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.83).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite an increase in the Mean scores for both groups at Time 2, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests revealed no significant difference in retention between the groups. Group 1\u0026rsquo;s Mean score was 3.86 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.52), while Group 2\u0026rsquo;s was 4.00 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.39) after the lectures (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(63) = 0.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.71). Similarly, by Time 3, Group 1\u0026rsquo;s Mean score decreased slightly to 4.59 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.59), while Group 2\u0026rsquo;s increased to 5.00 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.59), but again, no significant difference was found between the groups (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(63) = 1.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = 0.20).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, it was found that the clicker intervention did not significantly enhance retention rates compared to the traditional lecture format. Paired-sample \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests conducted within groups confirmed no significant differences in test scores between Time 1 and Time 2 or Time 2 and Time 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, an examination of whether perceived competence (PCS and IMI) correlated with retention of lecture content using Spearman\u0026rsquo;s Rho was conducted (Table 6). No significant relationships were found between test scores and perceived competence at Time 3 for either group. These findings suggest that perceived competence was more likely maintained through the overall learning experience in the GAS rather than through retention of lecture content as discussed in Hiromori (2006) in which the limitations of the school or class in the EFL context where the students most likely gain a sense of being competent in the learning as they progress, hence internalizing their motivation to learn.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2 Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study sought to explore the effects of lectures aimed at providing students with a deeper understanding of the language learning process to measure its influence on satisfying the need of competence within the SDT framework. Also, the role of clickers in content retention was examined to explore whether retention of content contributes to satisfaction of this need. While the results showed that lectures alone did not significantly increase perceived competence, a more nuanced examination of the data suggested that the overall learning experience in an autonomy-supportive learning environment the GAS aims to provide had a stronger influence on satisfying the need for competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our examination of RQ1, findings indicate that lectures, by themselves, did not result in a significant increase in perceived competence for either group. For the science and math education majors, or \u003cem\u003eRikei\u003c/em\u003e students, perceived competence increased significantly after the lectures, whereas Japanese language education majors, or \u003cem\u003eBunkei\u003c/em\u003e students, showed no significant increase until later in the course, during the more autonomous phase of the GAS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo explain this difference, it is essential to clarify the nature of the learning experience within the GAS. In the GAS, after the initial lectures, students engaged in a self-directed learning process. This process involved setting their own learning goals, creating personalized study plans, and reflecting on their progress (Fukuda, Sakata, Pope, 2019). \u003cem\u003eRikei\u003c/em\u003e students may have benefited more from the language learning lectures because of their pre-existing negative self-perceptions regarding language learning. The lectures may have helped them understand that language learning is not solely based on innate talent, but rather on structured practice and the development of learning strategies, thus a deeper understanding of this may have fostered their perceived competence in language learning after the lectures. For \u003cem\u003eBunkei\u003c/em\u003e students, who already had stronger language backgrounds, data suggested that it was the actual experience of applying their learning in the GAS that most likely led to fostering their perceived competence in the later phases of the GAS. In sum, data suggests that while lectures aim to deepen students\u0026rsquo; understanding of the language learning process, they need to be complemented by practical, autonomy-supportive learning experiences to have a meaningful impact on students\u0026rsquo; perception of their own competence in language learning.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn interpreting data to answer RQ2, the use of clickers did not result in a significant improvement in content retention compared to the non-clicker group. This finding contradicts some prior research on the benefits of digital tools for retention. However, a deeper analysis suggests that the interactive nature of the lectures themselves may have already been sufficient to promote engagement, reducing the added value of the clickers. Moreover, it is possible that the novelty of using clickers, as noted by the participants, might have initially engaged students but did not translate into long-term retention benefits including the testing effect. Future studies could explore how integrating clickers more systematically across the course, rather than in isolated lectures, might produce more lasting effects on retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the lectures, students were encouraged to engage in peer discussions, process their answers, and receive immediate feedback on their understanding. These activities involved elements of productive failure, where students were intentionally led to make mistakes in their initial answers, which were then corrected through class discussions. This peer-driven, active learning approach likely provided enough cognitive stimulation to enhance engagement and learning, regardless of the use of clickers. The clickers, while useful for anonymous participation, may not have significantly added to the already interactive lecture format and better learning outcomes as discussed in the literature review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo answer RQ3, data showed no significant relationship between retention of lecture content and perceived competence. These results suggested that retaining knowledge from the lectures in language learning did not directly influence students\u0026apos; perceived competence in language learning. Instead, perceived competence, again, seemed to be more strongly tied to the broader learning experience in the GAS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the GAS, students were given the opportunity to take ownership of their learning by setting personalized goals and engaging in independent study. This autonomy-supportive learning environment likely had a greater influence on their perceived competence than the specific content of the lectures. The process of making decisions about their learning paths, reflecting on their progress, and experiencing success in achieving self-determined goals may have contributed more to their confidence as language learners than simply retaining lecture content or the lecture itself.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings align with previous research in GAS, which emphasizes the importance of autonomy and relatedness in fostering intrinsic motivation (e.g., Fukuda et al., 2011, Fukuda et al., 2016). In this study, while the lectures in language learning may have provided important foundational knowledge, it was most likely the active, autonomous learning experience that had the most profound impact on maintaining perceived competence over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Regardless, this study should be interpreted considering several limitations. Future research should further investigate how different types of learning experiences emphasizing autonomy or foundational subject knowledge influence the basic psychological needs, and whether integrating digital tools more holistically throughout a course might yield more consistent benefits. Additionally, examining the role of student understanding of the language learning process over a longer timeframe, opposed to two lectures in the beginning of the course, could provide insights into how lectures in language learning might set the stage for successful learning outcomes in EFL contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExpanding the number of items in both the PCS and IMI could provide a more comprehensive assessment of students\u0026rsquo; perceptions and motivation. Future iterations of this study may incorporate the full version of these scales to ensure a broader representation of intrinsic motivation and all three basic needs. Furthermore, the novelty effect of using clickers for the first time, as well as the Hawthorne effect should not be overlooked. These factors may have contributed to increased engagement or inflated PCS scores immediately after the lectures.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the tests used to measure retention relied on a 0- or 1-point scale, which may not have fully captured participants\u0026apos; retention of lecture content. Binary Yes/No answers can be difficult to interpret, as they may reflect opinion rather than true knowledge retention. Future studies could use more nuanced assessment methods, such as open-ended questions or scaled responses, to provide a clearer understanding of retention and knowledge acquisition. Finally, this study should also be viewed as exploratory, given the specific context of education majors and the relatively small sample size. Research involving larger, more diverse cohorts from different academic disciplines would be necessary before any broad generalizations can be made. Measuring perceived competence and retention a year later, or even by the time students graduate, would offer insights into the long-term effects of the GAS.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to explore the impact of students\u0026rsquo; deeper understanding of language learning had on students\u0026rsquo; perceived competence in language learning within the SDT framework. Specifically, investigation was conducted on whether deepening the understanding of how languages are learned, prior to actual language learning, would foster students\u0026rsquo; perceived competence. Our findings suggest that while lectures designed to deepen students\u0026rsquo; understanding of the language learning process can play a role in increasing perceived competence, it is most likely the actual learning experience in an autonomy-supportive environment that may have had a more substantial influence on learners\u0026rsquo; perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, for students who have negative self-perceptions regarding their language abilities, such lectures at the outset of a course appear beneficial. Our results showed that the lectures had a slight impact on \u003cem\u003eRikei\u003c/em\u003e participants, who often label themselves as less capable in language learning. Our data suggested that providing these types of learners with a better understanding of the language learning process can help dissolve pre-existing negative beliefs, encouraging a more positive self-image and boosting their perceived competence. However, for \u003cem\u003eBunkei\u003c/em\u003e participants, perceived competence increased only after they engaged in actual learning tasks, underscoring the importance of experiential learning.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn examination was also conducted on the effectiveness of clickers in enhancing retention of lecture content. Contrary to previous research, our study found that the use of clickers did not significantly improve content retention or perceived competence. The lack of significant difference between the clicker and non-clicker groups suggests that the interactive and engaging nature of the lectures themselves may have mitigated the potential benefits of clickers. Additionally, no correlation was found between the retention of lecture content and students\u0026rsquo; perceived competence, indicating that the knowledge gained from the lectures may not be directly tied to some students' perceptions of their ability to learn a language. Again, this result reinforces the notion that actual language learning experiences in an autonomy-supportive learning environment may have a stronger and more lasting influence on perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval Committee:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study adhered to the ethical guidelines and received approval from the first author\u0026apos;s University Ethical Committee on Research before data collection.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuman Ethics and Consent for participation:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConstant was received via written document from all participants after they were provided with information about the study in their native language. Consent forms clearly stated that participation was voluntary, posed no risks to well-being, and not part of a course grade, and participants could withdraw at any time without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and additional anonymized datasets and survey instruments are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e The study received no specific grant from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector funding.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e S.T.F. conceived and designed the study, led the research process, and oversaw data analysis. T.M. was responsible for data collection and preliminary data organization. C.J.P. wrote the main manuscript text and revised the paper for clarity and coherence. H.S. served as the overall advisor, providing critical feedback on the research design and manuscript drafts. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor information:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eS.T.F. and T.M. are professors in the Department of Education at Bunkyo University, Japan, C.J.P. is a lecturer at Tokushima Bunri University; and H.S. is a professor in the International Center at Tokushima University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThere are no additional individuals to acknowledge other than that we are indebted to our participants and authors\u0026rsquo; of previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenesse. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eMy vision\u003c/em\u003e. Benesse website. https://manabi.benesse.ne.jp/daigaku/school/3157/hensachi/index.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. \u003cem\u003eLife Sciences Education, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;elik, S., \u0026amp; Baran, E. (2022). Student response system: Its impact on EFL students\u0026rsquo; vocabulary achievement. \u003cem\u003eTechnology, Pedagogy, \u0026amp; Education, 31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141\u0026ndash;158. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChien, Y.T., Chang, Y.H., \u0026amp; Chang, C.Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research Review, 17\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrossgrove, K., \u0026amp; Curran, K.L. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. \u003cem\u003eLife Sciences Education, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 146\u0026ndash;154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (1985). \u003cem\u003eIntrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior\u003c/em\u003e. Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026ouml;rnyei, Z., \u0026amp; Ushioda, E. (2011). \u003cem\u003eTeaching and researching: Motivation (2nd ed.)\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, M.A., Blayney, P., \u0026amp; Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 568\u0026ndash;580.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda, E. (2014). Changes in Japanese university students\u0026rsquo; metacognitive knowledge of writing skills and awareness as writers. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Learner-Centered Higher Education, 3\u003c/em\u003e, 133\u0026ndash;148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda, S.T., Sakata H., \u0026amp; Pope, C. J. (2019) Developing self-coaching skills in university EFL classrooms to encourage out-of-class study time. \u003cem\u003eInnovation in Language Learning and Teaching,\u003c/em\u003e 13(2), 118\u0026ndash;132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., \u0026amp; Pope, C. (2015). The GAS that fuels motivation: Satisfying the need for relatedness in the guided-autonomy syllabus. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 219\u0026ndash;237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda, S. T., Sakata, S., \u0026amp; Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy to enhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda S., Yoshida H., Kamioka M. Sakata H. \u0026amp; Pope C. (2016). The proof of the pudding: Active Learning and Self-Regulated Learning Skills in University Classrooms. \u003cem\u003eOnCUE Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 344\u0026ndash;371.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, R.C., \u0026amp; Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Psychology, 13\u003c/em\u003e, 266\u0026ndash;272. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHato, Y. (2005). Problems in top-down goal setting in second language education: A case study of the Action plan to cultivate \u0026lsquo;Japanese with English abilities.\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eJALT Journal, 27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33\u0026ndash;52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHiromori, T. (2006). The effect of educational intervention on L2 learners\u0026rsquo; motivational development. \u003cem\u003eJACET Bulletin, 43\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirosawa, E., Kono, Y., \u0026amp; Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2023). The structure of ability beliefs in EFL classrooms: A cross-theoretical analysis bridging self-efficacy and perceived competence needs satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eSystem, 114\u003c/em\u003e, 102990. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeong, H. J., \u0026amp; Lee, W. C. (2016). The level of collapse we are allowed: comparison of different response scales in safety attitudes questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eBiometrics \u0026amp; Biostatistics International Journal, 4\u003c/em\u003e(4),128\u0026ndash;134. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKent, D. (2019). Technique efficacy when using a student response system in the reading classroom. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Learning Technology, 23\u003c/em\u003e, 26\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnight, J. K., and Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. \u003cem\u003eCell Biol. Educ. 4\u003c/em\u003e, 298\u0026ndash;310.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLantz, M.E., \u0026amp; Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. \u003cem\u003eComputers in Human Behavior, 31\u003c/em\u003e, 280\u0026ndash;286.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLenhard, W., \u0026amp; Lenhard, A. (2016). \u003cem\u003eComputation of effect sizes\u003c/em\u003e. Psychometrica. https://www.psychometrica.de/effect_size.html. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeung, R.C.Y. (2020). Understanding the in‐class behavior patterns of Japanese university students in EFL classes: A foreign English teacher\u0026apos;s perspective. \u003cem\u003eJissen Women\u0026apos;s University CLEIP Journal, 6\u003c/em\u003e, 9\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, W., Lee, A. M., \u0026amp; Solmon, M. A. (2005). Relationships among dispositional ability conceptions, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, experience, and performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLightbown, P.M., \u0026amp; Spada, N. (2013). \u003cem\u003eHow languages are learned (4th ed)\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, H. J. (2013). Effects of foreign language anxiety and perceived competence on learning strategy use. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of English Linguistics, 3\u003c/em\u003e(3), 76\u0026ndash;87. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., \u0026amp; Audran, J. (2019). The effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. \u003cem\u003eInteractive Learning Environments, 27\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1178\u0026ndash;1191. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLosier, G.F., \u0026amp; Vallerand, R.J. (2001). The temporal relationship between perceived competence and self-determined motivation. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Social Psychology, 134\u003c/em\u003e(6), 793\u0026ndash;801.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcAuley, E., Duncan, T., \u0026amp; Tammen, V.V. (1989), Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. \u003cem\u003eResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60\u003c/em\u003e(1), 48\u0026ndash;58. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCallum, R. C., Zhang, A., Preacher, K. J., \u0026amp; Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 19\u0026ndash;40. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiemiec, C. P., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom applying self-determination theory to educational practice. \u003cem\u003eTheory and Research in Education, 7\u003c/em\u003e, 133\u0026ndash;144. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Cl\u0026eacute;ment, R., \u0026amp; Vallerand, R.J. (2000) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self‐determination theory. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Learning, 50\u003c/em\u003e(1), 57\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOswald, K.M., Blake, A.B., \u0026amp; Santiago, D.T. (2014). Enhancing Immediate Retention with Clickers Through Individual Response Identification.\u003cem\u003e Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28\u003c/em\u003e(3), 438\u0026ndash;442. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOxford, R. \u0026amp; D. Crookall. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. \u003cem\u003eModern Language Journal, 71\u003c/em\u003e(4), 404\u0026ndash;419.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoussel,S., \u0026amp; Galan, J.P. (2018). Can clicker use support learning in a dual-focused second language German course? \u003cem\u003eLanguage Learning Technology, 22\u003c/em\u003e, 45\u0026ndash;64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., \u0026amp; Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Presented at the \u003cem\u003eAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association\u003c/em\u003e, San Diego, CA, 2004. ubiqcomputing.org/ CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRodgers, W.M., Markland, D., Selzler, A.M., Murray, T. C., \u0026amp; Wilson, P. M. (2014). Distinguishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: an example from exercise. \u003cem\u003eResearch Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85\u003c/em\u003e(4), 527\u0026ndash;539.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoediger, H. L., and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 181\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M., \u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 55\u003c/em\u003e(1), 68\u0026ndash;78. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., \u0026amp; Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Early Adolescence, 14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 226\u0026ndash;249.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRush, B.R., White, B.J. Allbaugh, R.A., Jones, M.L., Klocke, E.E., Miesner, M., Towle-Millard, H.A., \u0026amp; Roush, J.K. (2013). Investigation into the impact of audience response devices on short- and long-term content retention. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Veterinary Medical Education, 40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 171\u0026ndash;176. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaito, T. (2017). \u003cem\u003eBunkeiryoku koso bukidearu\u003c/em\u003e [Literary power is a weapon]. Shisosha.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawdon, M. (2009). Improving knowledge retention using KEEpad. \u003cem\u003eMedical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(5). 487-487.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShadiev, R., \u0026amp; Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. \u003cem\u003eSustainability, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 524\u0026ndash;526. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro, A.M., \u0026amp; Gordon, L.T. (2012). A controlled study of clicker‐assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. \u003cem\u003eApplied Cognitive Psychology, 26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 635\u0026ndash;643.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteel, P., Svartdal, F., Thundiyil, T., \u0026amp; Brothen, T. (2018). Examining procrastination across multiple goal stages: A longitudinal study of temporal motivation theory. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 9\u003c/em\u003e, Article 327.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTEFL Academy. (2018, March 21) \u003cem\u003eWhat are absolute beginner and false beginner EFL students?\u003c/em\u003ehttps://www.theteflacademy.com/blog/2018/03/what-are-absolute-beginner-and-false-beginner-efl-students/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVallerand, R. J., \u0026amp; Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 142\u0026ndash;169. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, Y., Chung, C., \u0026amp; Yang, L. (2014). Using clickers to enhance student learning in mathematics. \u003cem\u003eInternational Education Studies, \u003c/em\u003e7(10), 1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Journal, 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 3\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, G. C., \u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70\u003c/em\u003e(4), 767\u0026ndash;779. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWit, E. (2003). Who wants to be. . . The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. \u003cem\u003eMSOR Connections, 3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 14\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhonggen, Y. (2014). The impact of clickers use on vocabulary knowledge and satisfaction in an EFL class in China. \u003cem\u003eIJICTE, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 47\u0026ndash;59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Need for Competence, Retention of Learning, Self-Determination Theory, Student Response Systems, University EFL Context","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAutonomy-supportive environments are vital in fostering learning motivation, a core feature of the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus (GAS). Based on the self-determination theory framework, learning motivation is maintained by satisfying the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Previous research has shown the GAS to satisfy students\u0026rsquo; needs for autonomy and relatedness. However, the need for competence remains underexamined. This study explored whether student perceptions of their competence, namely perceived competence, could be enhanced with a better understanding of how languages are learned prior to actual language learning. Additionally, because of the temporal nature of psychological needs, we also explored whether retention of this lecture content would be necessary to sustain the satisfaction of the need for competence throughout the course. Two groups of university EFL students participated in a GAS course that started with these lectures. In the lectures, one group used clickers as an intervention for retention of lecture content, whereas the other group did not. Survey and test results, collected at three points during the 15-week course, showed that while lectures positively influenced perceived competence at the beginning of a course, the overall language learning experience in the GAS after lectures most likely had a more significant impact on perceived competence.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Language Learners’ Perceived Competence in the Guided-Autonomy Syllabus","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-02 09:59:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6475745/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-04T06:49:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-22T20:15:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"214702512796178480478039099078441689503","date":"2025-10-02T06:29:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"64514865987125474517094480046963896572","date":"2025-10-02T01:42:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-29T02:20:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"194560317478615090833209926346883486522","date":"2025-05-29T01:56:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-28T08:01:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-04-24T08:11:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-24T08:08:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","date":"2025-04-18T03:43:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"851030af-30e5-43fc-bda6-bf71b6128864","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 2nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-30T07:40:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-02 09:59:00","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6475745","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6475745","identity":"rs-6475745","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}