Citation
Teng, X., & Teng, Q. (2026). Ecological Classrooms as Pedagogical Intervention: Impact on English Writing Anxiety and Writing Achievement in Chinese Senior High Schools. International Journal of Research, 13(4), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/edupub/16Style
APA
Xuan Teng1*, Qing Teng2
1 Foreign Studies College, Hunan Normal University, China
2 Foreign Studies College, Hunan Normal University, China
*Corresponding author’s email: xuanteng@hunnu.edu.cn
*Orcid: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1133-8589
® Copyright (c) 2025 Xuan Teng, Qing Teng
Keywords: Ecological classrooms, L2 writing anxiety; L2 writing achievement; Chinese senior high school English learners
ABSTRACT
In most English writing classrooms in China, the less than ecological learning environments often contribute to Chinese senior high school students’ moderate to high levels of English writing anxiety and hinder their progress in English writing achievement. To address this issue, this study constructed an ecological classroom for English writing instruction based on the nested ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) and the concept of affordances (van Lier, 2004). A 14-week pedagogical intervention was conducted in a senior high school in China with an experimental class following the ecological classroom instruction and a control class receiving the traditional classroom instruction. Results showed that participation in ecological classroom significantly reduced their writing anxiety and increased their writing achievement. A negative correlation was also found between these two variables in the experimental class. These findings demonstrated the effectiveness of ecological classroom for alleviating writing anxiety and improving writing achievement, and offer insights for the potential of ecological classrooms to create emotionally supportive and pedagogically dynamic environments that foster both affective well-being and English writing development.
Introduction
Writing is a vital component of English as a second or foreign language (L2) learning because it consolidates L2 learners’ mastery of vocabulary, grammar, and discourse structures, and cultivates their ability to think critically, express ideas coherently, and explore cultural perspectives thoroughly (Hu & Saleem, 2023; Li et al., 2024). This is particularly notable in the Chinese senior high school context, where writing, as a vital component of the large-scale high-stake examinations and the National English Curriculum Standards shapes both teaching practices and learning outcomes (Bai & Zhou, 2024). Importantly, the development of writing ability must take place within an ecosystem in which students engage in authentic communication, draw on diverse cultural resources, and interact with peers, teachers, and texts. Within this system, their writing and other language skills reinforce one another, and cultural understanding and cognitive development gradually deepen through meaningful practice. In this way, English writing bridges language knowledge with higher-order thinking, emotional well-being and communicative skills essential for their holistic growth.
However, the current writing instruction practices in many Chinese senior high schools have in reality detracted from the ecological balance of this system. According to Zhou (2017), the rigid physical settings, oversized classes, authoritative role of teachers, limited teacher-student interaction, real-life detached teaching content, underutilized teaching resources, teacher-centered instruction, and exam-oriented, unilateral teaching evaluation together contribute to the less than ecological situation in many English classrooms of Chinese senior high schools. Particularly for English writing teaching, as pointed out by Lian (2020), the dominance of teachers in the classroom, rigid formats of the writing tasks, heavy homework load, insufficient authentic language environments, and exam-oriented evaluation consist of the causes of ecological imbalance in the English writing classroom system.
This less than ecological status of English classroom writing instruction may, to a certain extent, impact on the affective states involved in English learners’ writing processes. One of the affective variables, notably anxiety, has increasingly drawn attention from educators and applied linguists in recent years. A few scholars (i.e., Saghafi et al., 2017) have found a profound association between ecological factors and the anxiety L2 learners have experienced during their writing. According to Krashen’s (1982) Affective Filter hypothesis, excessive anxiety could create a barrier that prevents L2 learners from effectively processing and internalizing language input, and thereby hinder L2 learning. As extant literature (Wang, 2024) showed, there is an overall moderate to high level of L2 writing anxiety among Chinese senior high school students, which is likely to have a detrimental effects on their writing performance. Therefore, it is of particular importance that appropriate measures, based on the relevant ecological factors, be implemented to create a supportive classroom environment that helps to alleviate their L2 writing anxiety and increase their L2 writing performance. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining the extent to which an ecological classroom, keeping balance through the harmonious interaction of its ecological factors, mitigates L2 writing anxiety and improves L2 writing performance among Chinese senior high school students.
Literature review
Definition and Characteristics of Ecological Classrooms
As the application of educational ecology (Cremin, 1980) to classroom teaching and learning, ecological classrooms are often described an organic ecosystem in which teachers and students establish the “symbiosis” relationship through dynamic interaction with each other and the classroom environment to support their growth (Feng, 2015; Kolpin, 2019). Rather than treating teaching as a unidirectional transfer of knowledge, ecological classrooms highlights the classroom teaching environment as a complex, adaptive system that evolves through the reciprocal relationships of its various factors and the environment (Hao, 2022). This perspective, aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) ecological systems theory and van Lier’s (2004) ecological approach to language learning, emphasizes the importance of balance and sustainability in human development and education.
A handful of scholars has described the characteristics of ecological classrooms (i.e., Wang, 2006; Zhou, 2017; Hao, 2022; Luu, 2022). According to Zhou (2017), the main features of an English ecological classroom in senior high schools consist of its overall openness, flexible interaction, respect for individual differences, harmonious symbiosis, and sustainable development. Openness means the reciprocal exchanges of knowledge and resources among teachers, students, and the wider community. Differing from the traditional teacher-centered instruction, flexible interaction embodies the adoption of diverse teaching methods and interactive activities to stimulate students’ critical thinking and foster their autonomous learning. By showing respect for individual differences, teachers tailor their instruction to students’ needs and help them find the learning methods that serve to exploit their potentials. With regard to harmonious symbiosis, there exists a harmony between teachers, students and the classroom teaching environment so that teachers and students inspire one another and work together as co-developers of knowledge. When it comes to sustainable development, teachers ensure that learning remains meaningful, motivating and long-lasting by cultivating students’ independent learning abilities, maintaining their interest in learning English, and communicating with them regularly for their long-term growth. Collectively, following these ecological laws, the various factors in the English classrooms, including students, teachers, learning content, learning methods, learning evaluation and learning environment, work together as micro educational ecosystem that achieves an ecological balance.
Ecological Classrooms and L2 Learners’ Academic Performance and Affective States
An expanding body of research has given credence to the link between ecological classrooms and students’ academic performance. For example, Oyinlade and Watson (2001), focusing on classroom arrangement of seating, found that where a student sat on any part of the single-row horseshoe configuration did not significantly affect their academic grades or class attendance. They claimed that the single-row horseshoe classroom design fostered a classroom ecology where a student’s seat location does not inherently place them at an academic disadvantage. Makaremi’s (2024) review of the building science-related literature showed the substantial impact of indoor environmental quality (i.e., thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustic and lighting conditions), classroom interior space quality (i.e., layout and furniture, window view and integration of nature, color), and individual characteristics on students’ overall well-being in higher education. Justice et al. (2023) unmasked the correlation between the four dimensions of the classroom ecology, notably classroom composition, peer network and norms, teacher practices, and student experiences and the five child outcomes (math, reading, behavioral control, peer social skill, and school liking) from pre-kindergarten to third grade. In the L2 learning context in China, Zhu’s (2018) study showed that the occurrence of peer scaffolding in the ecological classroom had improved college-level English learners’ group oral presentation quality. For high school students, Kang and Han (2025) investigated data from the China Education Panel Survey consisting of socio-demographic information collected from 7th and 9th grade junior high school students. Their results demonstrated that overall Chinese junior high schoolers’ academic performance is shaped by both ecological systems (individual, family, teacher, and school factors) and intersectionality (social positions like parental education, and family income).
Concomitant with this growing interest, a number of studies centering on the association of ecological classrooms with affective variables in L2 learning contexts have been conducted over the past couple of years. Li (2023), in particular, provided a systematic review of the ecological studies on L2 learners’ affective variables, including willingness to communicate, anxiety, enjoyment, and boredom. As she put it, the ecological perspective is especially relevant to the examination of emotional factors embedded in the L2 classrooms because “it takes into account the primary contextual aspects, both human and nonhuman, that might all impact on the growth and fluctuations in the affective states of language learners’ behavior” (p. 2). In line with this reasoning, findings from a few empirical studies have pointed to the embeddedness of L2 learners’ affective states in a network of external and internal sociocultural factors. For instance, Kruk et al.’s (2022) study showed that boredom in an online English language classroom emerged from a complex interplay of ecosystemic factors. These factors were identified across three levels: the microsystem (e.g., technological issues, teaching style, repetitive tasks), the mesosystem (e.g., past learning experiences, home distractions), and the exosystem (e.g., curriculum design, platform problems). Tewelde et al. (2023) likewise found that sophomore L2 students in Eritrea experienced a wide range of positive, negative, and ambivalent emotions in the English language education ecosystem. These emotions stemmed from individual, teacher-related, linguistic and systemic conditions, and informed their identity and visualization of their ideal selves within the ecosystem. In the L2 learning context in China, the study conducted by Long and Xu (2023) revealed that a college English teacher’s use of reformulations with the intention of providing emotional support encouraged student participation in the classroom conversation. Students’ perceptions of the emotional support, on the other hand, were shaped by the combination of a plethora of contextual factors. Taken together, these studies suggest that from an ecological perspective, the affective experiences in L2 learning are not simply isolated internal states. Rather, they emerge from and constantly interact with a multi-layered ecosystem of personal, social, and environmental factors.
Definition of L2 Writing Anxiety and Measures to Alleviate It
L2 writing anxiety usually denotes the feelings of tension, apprehension, and nervousness that L2 learners experience when they are in situations where writing in a language that is not their native tongue is required (Cheng, 2004a). It derives from multiple sources, including instructional practices (e.g., time pressure, unfamiliar topics), personal beliefs about writing (e.g., believing good writing is error-free), low self-confidence in L2 competences, and interpersonal threats (e.g., fear of negative evaluation), which often leads to avoidance behaviors and hinders the writing process and overall language acquisition (Cheng, 2004b). As a result, it is very likely that L2 writing anxiety is influenced by both internal and external factors.
Extant studies have in general revealed a negative correlation between L2 writing anxiety and L2 writing performance (Teimouri et al., 2019; Papi & Khajavy, 2023). For example, Zabihi et al. (2020), examining the effects of L2 writing anxiety on Iranian English learners’ written performance, found that while L2 writing anxiety mainly reduced accuracy in narrative writing, it mostly detracted from fluency, complexity, and accuracy in argumentative writing. Similarly with Iranian English learners, Abolhasani et al. (2022) investigated the contribution of L2 writing anxiety to their performance on graph-based writing tasks and found that L2 writing anxiety was a negative predictor of graph comprehension, graph interpretation, and graph translation. In their study, learners with lower L2 writing anxiety achieved higher level of graph writing performance. An and Li (2024) differentiated between task-specific writing anxiety and general L2 writing anxiety, and found that for Korean English learners, general L2 writing anxiety was consistently, negatively associated with learners’ immediate target structure accuracy, whereas task-specific anxiety had a detrimental effect in general but a positive one when learners received metalinguistic feedback under the within-task planning condition. Overall, these findings have unmasked the pervasive adverse effects of L2 writing anxiety on learners’ writing performance across task types and learning conditions.
According to Tahmouresi and Papi (2021), the negative relationship between L2 writing anxiety and L2 writing performance can be attributed to learners’ procrastination in their writing assignments, dissatisfaction with their writing experiences, avoidance of expressing complex ideas in their written work, and less effort to improve their writing skills. In face of these obstacles, educators and applied linguists have increasingly stressed the necessity of implementing pedagogical interventions that serve to alleviate L2 writing anxiety and increase L2 writing performance. As Papi et al. (2022) summarized it, teaching strategies useful for learners to cope with their L2 writing anxiety include providing face-to-face or computer-mediated peer feedback, writing dialogue journals, encouraging risk-taking and creativity in writing tasks, fostering positive attitudes to errors, enhancing their ideal L2 writing selves, using familiar writing topics, and adopting a process-oriented approach to L2 writing instruction. While most of these intervention measures may be effective as far as the immediate learning environment (i.e., L2 classrooms) is concerned, they are somewhat inadequate to probe the changes in affective states in relation to the multi-layered system in which L2 learners are affiliated with, including their family influences, school-based assessment policies, examination-oriented culture, as well as curricular transition. Therefore, it is of importance and relevance to examine the extent the use of pedagogical interventions beyond the local level aids in L2 learners’ alignment of ecological affordances and their cognitive-psychological well-beings.
Thus far, there are a few studies that have examined L2 anxiety in particular from an ecological perspective. Rani (2020), for example, employed an ecological systems module to better understand the factors contributing to English language learning anxiety among undergraduate students in Pakistan. The factors identified consisted of the classroom environment, peer pressure, involvement in extracurricular activities, parents’ financial status, institutional rules, the ethnic background of the students, and the culture of teaching and learning English. Based on the findings, she concluded that an ecological approach was advantageous in tracing the reasons for L2 anxiety both inside and outside the classroom and offering an more thorough understanding of the phenomena under exploration. Applying an ecological perspective, Kasbi and Elahi Shirvan’s (2017) study with Persian learners of English revealed L2 speaking anxiety as a fluctuating state influenced by a variety of internal and external factors, such as background knowledge, the use of new words and expressions, teacher and peer judgment, classroom environment, past learning experience, course assessment, and the goal to pass university entrance exam. As the only study until now concerning L2 writing anxiety, Saghafi et al. (2017), drawing on an ecological perspective, unmasked the emerging patterns of L2 writing anxiety on the basis of the synergistic interaction between Iranian English learners’ individual (i.e., linguistic, cognitive, affective) factors and a wide range of contextual factors (i.e., classroom environment, extracurricular activities, curriculum design, evaluation criteria, Iranian cultural themes). Additionally, they emphatically endorsed the use of the ecological approach as it offered a comprehensive, contextualized examination of the interactive factors that are vital for accounting for the fluctuation of L2 writing anxiety in the immediate classroom environment.
Although the aforementioned studies have offered valuable insights, their descriptive nature leaves unclear the usefulness of pedagogical interventions, informed by ecological factors, for alleviating L2 writing anxiety and, by extension, promoting L2 writing performance. There thus exists a critical gap in the literature concerning the development and implementation of ecological classroom intervention, and the measurement of its effectiveness.
Current Ecological Situation in Chinese Senior High School Writing Classrooms
According to Mo (2023), the classroom ecology in many Chinese high schools tends to be less than balanced. Specifically, students are often passive recipient of knowledge who demonstrate little willingness to actively participate in classroom activities. They are largely overwhelmed by the amount of homework and evaluated by the test-oriented unilateral assessment criteria. Teachers, on the other hand, in face of a large number of students, usually play an authoritative role in acquiring knowledge and find it difficult to take into consideration students’ individual needs and personal characteristics. The submissive teacher-student relationship often results in the school’s decreased likelihood of meeting students’ learning compared with extra-curricular institutions. With regard to English writing, Bai and Zhou (2024) pointed out that “test-driven culture, limited instructional time, tight schedule, large class size, teachers’ (mis)conceptions, students’ attitudes and other potential social-cultural factors” (p. 6) collectively constitute some of the most critical the issues in English writing instruction in China’s basic education. They also contented that an ecological approach might serve as the important attempts to improve English writing instruction in schools.
To sum up, the current situation in Chinese senior high school writing classrooms are less than ecological in terms of classroom environment, teacher-student relationship, teaching materials, teaching methods, and assessment criteria. Such a situation on the whole contrasts with the operationalization of aforementioned ecological classrooms, characterized by their openness, flexible interaction, respect for individual differences, harmonious symbiosis, and sustainable development. Based on the close association between ecological factors and L2 writing anxiety documented in the prior studies (i.e., Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017; Saghafi et al., 2017; Rani, 2020), it is valuable and need-fulfilling to construct an ecological classroom that addresses the ecological imbalance in current Chinese senior high school writing classrooms. Given the descriptive nature of most studies examining L2 writing anxiety from an ecological perspective, it is also necessary to implement the ecological classroom practice and assess the extent to which it can alleviate L2 learners’ writing anxiety and improve their writing performance. This study therefore seeks to design and implement an ecological classroom in Chinese senior high school writing instruction, with the aim of examining its effectiveness in reducing L2 writing anxiety and enhancing writing performance.
Theoretical Framework
This study deploys the nested ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) and the concept of affordances (van Lier, 2004) to examine L2 writing anxiety in an ecological English writing classroom in Chinese senior high schools.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model provides a conceptual and operational framework for understanding human development within interconnected environmental systems. At its core lies the microsystem, which, in the context of English writing instruction in Chinese senior high schools, refers to the immediate classroom environment where teacher-student and peer interactions directly shape learners’ affective and cognitive engagement. Encompassed within this is the mesosystem, which denotes the interconnections between students’ classroom environment and other key contexts in which they are situated, including home, school administration, and extracurricular learning spaces. The interactions across all these levels ultimately converge to shape students’ writing experiences. Beyond these lies the exosystem, which includes broader institutional and policy factors, such as curriculum standards, assessment practices, and teacher training programs, indirectly shaping classroom ecology. The macrosystem embodies overarching cultural norms and educational ideologies that frame beliefs about English writing, second language acquisition, teacher authority, and academic achievement. Finally, the chronosystem captures the dimension of time and highlights the way in which educational reforms, such as China’s “Double Reduction” policy, along with evolving societal values, dynamically reshape classroom practices over time. Together, these nested systems illustrate what Bronfenbrenner (1979, p.21) described as “the progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded.” Adoption of this ecological perspective underscores the importance of fostering balanced, interactive, and adaptive learning environments that acknowledge the interdependent relationship between learners and the multilayered systems surrounding them.
The concept of affordances, originally proposed by Gibson (1979), is commonly described as “possibilities for action” (as summarized by Barsingerhorn et al., 2012, p. 54) present within a given environment. From a learning perspective, what is crucial is that such possibilities are neither fixed nor objectively given; instead, they emerge only when a learner interacts with the environment in a particular manner. This relational perspective, grounded in ecological psychology, redirects focus from the static attributes of a classroom setting to the dynamic, ongoing transactions between learners and their surroundings. In L2 contexts, these transactions manifest as opportunities for communication, participation, and language development arising from classroom discourse, established interactional routines, and the social relationships that underlie these exchanges. Van Lier (2004) aptly captures this notion by describing affordances as “action in potential” that only materializes as learners proactively engage with both the physical and social dimensions of their environment (p. 92).
Viewed from this perspective, affordances unfold through a recursive cycle of noticing, interpretation, and action. Learners first notice potential opportunities in their environment, including teacher feedback, peer responses, or authentic writing tasks. What they notice is simultaneously filtered through their attentional priorities and previous learning experiences. They then interpret these possibilities through evaluation of which ones matter for their immediate goals and which align with their developing identities as L2 writers. Only after this process of interpretation do they act and engage linguistically, cognitively, or socially with the opportunity at hand. Each action reshapes what they are able to perceive next and generate subsequent rounds of noticing and interpretation. Learning, in this way, becomes a dynamic and adaptive process rather than a linear uptake of instructional input.
In an ecological English writing classroom, this recursive perspective places responsibility not only on learners but also on teachers to design environments saturated with meaningful affordances. Such environments allow students to construct knowledge, strengthen their writing competence, and gradually cultivate learner autonomy through iterative engagement with the classroom ecology.
Research Questions
- What are the effects of an ecological classroom on Chinese senior high school students’ L2 (English) writing anxiety?
- What are the effects of an ecological classroom on Chinese senior high school students’ L2 (English) writing performance?
- What is the relationship between L2 (English) writing anxiety and L2 (English) writing performance following the ecological classroom intervention?
Methods
Pedagogical Setting & Participants
This study was conducted at a senior high school located in south-central China with a total of 100 second-year students from two parallel classes. These students, typically aged between 16 and 17, had been studying English for approximately six to eight years as part of China’s national curriculum. Like many Chinese senior high school students, they faced considerable academic pressure due to the highly competitive college entrance examination, which places strong emphasis on English proficiency and writing skills. In line with the general structure of English education in Chinese high schools, their English classes were held five to six times per week and focused primarily on reading comprehension, grammar, vocabulary building, and writing practice.
A convenience sampling method was adopted to select the participants. Two intact classes from the same grade level were chosen for the study: the experimental class (EC) was instructed by the researcher, while the control class (CC) was taught by an experienced English teacher from the same school. Both classes followed an identical curriculum and utilized the same instructional materials. All participating students were fully informed of the study’s objectives and procedures and provided their voluntary consent to participate. Prior to the intervention, these two classes were equivalent in terms of L2 writing anxiety (t = -.792, p = .430) and L2 writing performance (t = .084, p = .933).
Design of the Study
This study employed a mixed-methods approach with a convergent design to comprehensively examine the effects of ecological classrooms on L2 writing anxiety and writing performance. In this design, quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently during the intervention period, analyzed separately, and subsequently integrated to provide a more holistic understanding of the research questions. Quantitative data, derived primarily from responses to the pre, post, and delayed post tests, as well as the Foreign Language Writing Anxiety Scale (FLWAS) questionnaire were used to measure changes in students’ writing performance and levels of writing anxiety. Qualitative data, gathered through semi-structured interviews, were used to capture participants’ perceptions and experiences of the ecological dynamics of classroom interactions. The integration of these two strands of data enabled triangulation of findings, which allowed for both statistical validation and in-depth interpretation of the way ecological classroom environments influence students’ affective and cognitive dimensions in L2 writing.
Data collection & analysis
Foreign Language Writing Anxiety Scale (FLWAS) questionnaires
According to Guo and Qin (2010), the FLWAS was adapted from Cheng’s (2004a) Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory and validated with Chinese non-English majors. Designed to measure the specific types and levels of anxiety experienced by L2 learners in English writing, the scale contains 20 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Six items (Items 4, 7, 17, 18, 21 and 22) are reverse-scored to control response bias. It consists of four dimensions of writing anxiety: Classroom Teaching Anxiety, Conceiving Anxiety, Avoidance Behavior, and Lack of Confidence Anxiety. Among these four dimensions, Classroom Teaching Anxiety (items 3, 8, 14, 19, 20) reflects the tension and nervousness students experience in classroom writing situations, particularly when their work is subject to teacher evaluation, peer comparison, or time constraints. Conceiving Anxiety (items 2, 6, 11, 13, 14) describes the cognitive difficulty and panic that students experience when generating ideas or organizing thoughts before or during timed writing tasks. Avoidance Behavior (items 4, 5, 10, 12, 18, 22) represents students’ tendencies to avoid writing in English whenever possible, reflecting a behavioral manifestation of anxiety and a negative coping strategy toward writing tasks. Lack of Confidence Anxiety (items 7, 9, 17, 21) denotes students’ worries, self-doubt, and low confidence regarding their English writing competence and potential evaluations. The overall internal consistency of the scale was high, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.842. Scores on the scale range from 20 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater levels of writing anxiety. Furthermore, for each item on the scale, a mean score of 3.5 or above indicates a high level of writing anxiety, a score between 2.5 and 3.4 represents a moderate level of anxiety, and a score of 2.4 or below suggests a low level of writing anxiety. To avoid practice effects, three versions of the FLWAS with identical content but different item orders were created. Among them, version 1 was administered before the ecological classroom intervention, version immediately after the intervention, and version 3 one month following the intervention.
English writing tests
An English writing test was administered to the participants in order to investigate their English writing performance. Three versions of the English writing test, equivalent in content, format, and difficulty, were administered throughout the intervention, comprising a pretest, an immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. The test prompts, adapted from the school’s final examination papers, maintained a moderate level of difficulty, corresponded well with students’ background knowledge, and exhibited satisfactory reliability and validity. The writing genre for the tests was news report, given its importance in the 2017 English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools as one of the required discourse type for students to master its organizing structure and linguistic features. A pretest was conducted prior to the intervention to ensure the equivalence of English writing proficiency between the two classes. Its results also served as a baseline for comparison with those of the post test and the delayed post test. The post test was administered at the conclusion of the intervention to measure the short-term effects of the ecological classroom, while the delayed post test, conducted one month later, was designed to assess the persistence of these effects over time. Each test involved approximately 80 words and took 30 minutes to complete.
Semi-structured interviews
A semi-structured interview was conducted to obtain in-depth insights into the participants’ perceptions of the ecological classroom and its effects on their writing anxiety and writing performance. 10 students were randomly selected and interviewed in a relaxed setting one day after the post test. All interviews were conducted in Chinese, audio-recorded, and transcribed for subsequent thematic analysis.
Research procedures
The collection of data for this study lasted 14 weeks (September to December 2024). In week 1, the two classes were briefed on the study and gave their informed consent to participate. The FLWAS and the pretest was administered to both EC and CC. From weeks 2 to 9, the pedagogical intervention took place where both classes were taught using identical topics and materials, with the only difference being the teaching approach: EC received instruction based on the pre-writing, while-writing, post-writing (PWP) model embedded in an ecological classroom, while CC followed the PWP model within a traditional classroom. The post test was conducted in week 10, following the same procedures as the pretest. In addition, 10 students from EC were randomly selected and interviewed. One month later (week 14), a delayed post test was administered to both classes and concluded the study.
The ecological classroom was grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) ecological systems theory and van Lier’s (2004) affordance theory (see Figure 1), and emphasized harmony and balance among learners, teachers, and the environment. The teaching process included four stages: pre-writing, while-writing, post-writing, and summary with homework, each embodying the ecological principles of openness, interaction, diversity, and sustainability.
Before teaching, the teacher designed a supportive physical and social environment by arranging flexible seating, ensuring comfort, and providing accessible materials such as books, newspapers, and visual displays. This open and adaptable setting fostered communication and collaboration. In the pre-writing stage, teachers introduced writing objectives and motivated students through videos, discussions, and group brainstorming. Students took on different roles, such as reporter, secretary, and leader, and this group work promoted interaction and role diversity. Authentic materials such as news articles, cultural texts, and mind maps enriched the learning environment and reduced limiting factors, allowing students to perceive and interpret multiple affordances (cognitive, emotional, cultural, and social). The teacher acted as a facilitator and encouraged the key elements of openness and sustainability: curiosity, creativity, and learner autonomy.
During the while-writing stage, students engaged in independent writing supported by teacher guidance and peer collaboration. Writing progressed from words to sentences to paragraphs, reflecting gradual cognitive development within an interactive ecosystem. Group practice created real communicative contexts, reduced marginal participation, and promoted inclusivity and sustained engagement. Students transformed perceived and interpreted affordances into meaningful writing experiences or action, which reflected continuous ecological growth.
The post-writing stage emphasized multi-dimensional feedback through teacher, peer, and self-evaluation. Such diverse evaluation sources promoted openness and reflection, and enabled students to revise and refine their work through iterative drafts. The “living water effect” as a result of this ongoing feedback maintained the vitality of learning and supported
Figure 1 The ecological classroom model for EC
sustainable improvement in writing ability.
In the final stage, students collaboratively summarized their writing achievements and enhance their sense of agency and ecological presence in the classroom. Homework extended their learning beyond class through creative, open-ended tasks such as poster-making or online research. These activities fostered creativity, independent exploration, and respect for individual differences, which demonstrated the principles of diversity and sustainability.
In summary, the ecological classroom served to transform traditional writing instruction into a dynamic, student-centered ecosystem characterized by openness in communication, interaction among all participants, diversity of learning affordances, and sustainability of learning growth.
For CC, the students were guided from understanding the topic and brainstorming ideas to drafting, revising, and refining their compositions through peer and teacher feedback. The emphasis was placed on grammatical usage, lexical choices, and sentence structure, and the students received a final grade according to the quality of their drafts from the teacher.
Data analysis
Results
Q1: What are the effects of an ecological classroom on Chinese senior high school students’ L2 (English) writing anxiety?
Table 1 reveals significant differences between ecological (EC) and traditional (CC) classrooms in their effects on overall L2 writing anxiety, both in the short term and long term. In the short term, EC reported significantly lower L2 writing anxiety (M = 2.578, SD = .260) compared to that of CC (M = 3.239, SD = .549), with a highly significant t value of 7.698, p < .05. This suggests that ecological classroom environments substantially reduced EC’ immediate L2 writing anxiety. In a similar vein, in the long term, EC continued to show lower
Table 1
Comparing the short and long-term effects of ecological vs. traditional classroom on overall L2 writing anxiety
| Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| The short-term effects on overall L2 writing anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 2.578 | .260 | 7.698 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 3.239 | .549 | ||||
| The long-term effects on overall L2 writing anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 2.781 | .310 | 2.489 | 98 | .015 | |
| CC | 3.012 | .578 | ||||
| Independent Samples t-test | ||||||
anxiety levels (M = 2.781, SD = .310) than CC (M = 3.012, SD = .578), with a t value of 2.489, p < .05. Although the long-term difference is less pronounced, it remains statistically significant, indicating that the ecological classroom provides both immediate and sustained benefits in lowering L2 writing anxiety over time.
The repeated measures ANOVA further supports this finding through the within-subjects effects analysis and shows a statistically significant main effect of time on L2 writing anxiety, F = 34.794, p < .05. This indicates that EC’ writing anxiety levels significantly differed across the three testing occasions. The results of the Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons among the three testing occasions further shows that the mean L2 writing anxiety score at the pretest was significantly higher than at both the post test (MD = 0.584, p < .05) and the delayed post test (MD = 0.381, p < .05). Moreover, there was a significant difference between the post test and the delayed post test (MD = −.203, p < .05), indicating that although L2 writing anxiety slightly increased between these two tests, it remained substantially lower than the pretest level. In contrast, no significant main effect of time on L2 writing anxiety was found in CC. This suggests that EC’s writing anxiety levels decreased remarkably and continuously across the three administration of the FLWAS questionnaire, and the ecological classroom intervention produced meaningful improvements in reducing L2 writing anxiety through time.
Table 2 presents a comparison of the short and long-term effects of ecological (EC) versus traditional (CC) classrooms on the four sub-components of L2 writing anxiety. These results indicate that ecological classrooms significantly reduced all its dimensions compared to traditional classrooms, particularly in the short term. For classroom teaching anxiety, EC reported lower anxiety (M = 1.828, SD = .434) than CC (M = 2.948, SD = .714), with a highly significant difference (t = 9.473, p < .05), and this reduction remained significant in the long term (t = 5.282, p < .05). Regarding conceiving anxiety, EC again showed significantly lower anxiety both in the short term (t = -5.307, p < .05) and long term (t = -6.486, p < .05). Similarly, ecological classrooms effectively reduced avoidance behavior in the short term (t = 8.105, p < .05) and to a lesser extent in the long term (t = 2.016, p < .05). For lack of confidence anxiety, significant short-term differences were observed (t = 3.339, p < .05), but the long-term difference was not statistically significant (t = -.910, p = .365). Overall, these results suggest that the ecological classroom environment considerably lowered L2 writing anxiety across multiple dimensions, particularly in the short term, with most effects persisting across time.
The repeated measures ANOVA further confirms these outcomes through the within-subjects effects analysis, revealing statistically significant changes in classroom teaching anxiety (F = 32.615, p < .05), conceiving anxiety (F = 28.473, p < .05), and avoidance behavior (F = 19.286, p < .05) over time. However, no significant within-subjects effect was found for lack of confidence anxiety (F = 1.784, p = .175). Conversely, no significant main effect of time was observed in CC for any of the sub-components. These results suggest that students in the ecological classroom experienced marked and consistent declines in classroom teaching anxiety, conceiving anxiety, and avoidance behavior across the three administrations of the FLWAS. Overall, the ecological classroom intervention clearly demonstrated remarkable and
Table 2
Comparing the short and long-term effects of ecological vs. traditional classroom on the sub-components of L2 writing anxiety
| Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| The short-term effects on classroom teaching anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 1.828 | .434 | 9.473 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 2.948 | .714 | ||||
| The long-term effects on classroom teaching anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 2.120 | .497 | 5.282 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 2.830 | .810 | ||||
| The short-term effects on conceiving anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 4.500 | .491 | -5.307 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 3.827 | .751 | ||||
| The long-term effects on conceiving anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 4.380 | .535 | -6.486 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 3.540 | .744 | ||||
| The short-term effects on avoidance behavior | ||||||
| EC | 2.173 | .518 | 8.105 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 3.487 | 1.022 | ||||
| The long-term effects on avoidance behavior | ||||||
| EC | 2.307 | .425 | 2.016 | 98 | .048 | |
| CC | 2.580 | .859 | ||||
| The short-term effects on lack of confidence anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 2.820 | .321 | 3.339 | 98 | .001 | |
| CC | 3.210 | .761 | ||||
| The long-term effects on lack of confidence anxiety | ||||||
| EC | 3.100 | .363 | .910 | 98 | .365 | |
| CC | 3.207 | .745 | ||||
| Independent Samples t-test | ||||||
sustained effectiveness in reducing multiple dimensions of L2 writing anxiety.
Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews additionally point to the positive impact of the ecological classroom practices in reducing L2 writing anxiety among students in EC. When queried about changes in their L2 writing anxiety compared to the pre-intervention period, all ten interviewed participants reported a noticeable decrease in their apprehension toward English writing. Thematic analysis of their responses identified several key areas of improvement:
1. shift from avoidance to engagement
A prominent theme was a move away from avoidance behaviors toward active engagement. For example, participant A stated, “I would not try to avoid writing in English as much as I used to.” Participant D similarly reported a reversal in attitude by mentioning, “Now, I’m not against writing in English. I’m going to seize the chance to write any chance I get.”
2. alleviation of cognitive and physiological stress
Students reported a reduction in both psychological and physiological symptoms of anxiety. Particularly student E explicitly noted, “I feel less stressed than I was earlier.” Student F observed that, “Some uncomfortable physiological reactions I used to have toward English writing diminished.” Student C reflected on her writing experience during the intervention by noting, “I noticed a decrease in my cognitive blocks, unlike before when my mind would just go blank. Now, I find that I can write more easily when I have a topic to talk about.”
3. increase in self-efficacy and positive affect
During the interview, a few participants expressed a growing sense of confidence and enjoyment in writing in English. “I actually find it enjoyable to communicate my ideas in English now.” stated student B, reflecting on a change in his attitude toward the writing tasks. Similarly, Student J remarked, “Writing in English is not as scary as I used to think.” With demonstration of an increase in self-efficacy, Student B shared, “I started making a writing plan to help me with my weak areas.”
Q2: What are the effects of an ecological classroom on Chinese senior high school students’ L2 (English) writing performance?
Table 3 compares the short and long-term effects of ecological (EC) and traditional (CC) classrooms on students’ L2 writing performance. In the short-term, EC achieved a higher mean writing score (M = 12.02, SD = 1.152) than CC (M = 10.86, SD = 0.948), and the difference was statistically significant (t = -5.500, p < .05), indicating that the ecological classroom had a significant positive impact on EC’ L2 writing performance in the short term. In the long-term, although both classes showed relatively stable performance over time, EC maintained a higher mean score (M = 11.74, SD = 0.853) compared to CC (M = 10.94, SD = 1.168). The difference remained statistically significant (t = -3.912, p < .05), suggesting that the ecological classroom continued to exert a beneficial effect on EC’s writing performance even after a longer period. On the whole, these results demonstrate that the ecological classroom practices not only enhanced L2 writing performance in the short term but also sustained such advantage along the way compared with traditional classroom instruction.
Results from the repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time on EC’s writing performance, F = 22.14, p < .05, showing that EC’s performance significantly changed across the three English writing tests. Pairwise comparisons in a similar vein showed that for EC, the mean writing score at the post test was significantly higher than at the pretest, MD = -1.26, p < .05, and the delayed post test score was also significantly higher than the pretest, MD = -.98, p < .05. However, there was no significant difference between the post test and the delayed post test, MD = 0.28, p = .195. In contrast, no significant main effect of
Table 3
Comparing the short and long-term effects of ecological vs. traditional classroom on L2 writing performance
| Variable | M | SD | t | df | p | |
| The short-term effects on L2 writing performance | ||||||
| EC | 12.020 | 1.152 | -5.500 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 10.860 | .948 | ||||
| The long-term effects on L2 writing performance | ||||||
| EC | 11.740 | .853 | -3.912 | 98 | .000 | |
| CC | 10.940 | 1.168 | ||||
| Independent Samples t-test | ||||||
time on L2 writing performance was found in CC. These results indicate that the ecological classroom intervention led to significant improvements in EC’s L2 writing performance immediately after instruction, and that this improvement was largely maintained through the course of time.
Qualitative evidence based on the semi-structured interview data also showed the favorable influence that the incorporation of the ecological classroom instruction had on EC’s L2 writing performance. Analysis of the participant responses revealed several key themes as follows.
1. development of self-regulation and purposeful writing
During the interviews, several participants described their development of a greater sense of clarity and purpose in their writing, which mirrored a heightened level of self-regulation. Student J, for example, explained, “I’m learning with more clear aims now.” Similarly, student F expressed, “I feel more purposeful when writing.” With increased meta-cognitive awareness, student D reflected, “My mind is no longer in a chaos. I can recognize my areas of weakness and I am working diligently to refine my writing.”
2. improvement in writing fluency and idea generation
Many participants also highlighted their growing ability to generate and organize ideas more fluently. Student C, for instance, shared, “Now I can easily complete a writing task without much trouble. I’m striving to compose something more fluently and logically.” Likewise, student E commented, “I have more ideas to put into my writing”, and Student G remarked, “I can efficiently produce the writing content.”
3. increase in collaborative learning and resource utilization
Another recurring theme was the enhancement of collaborative learning and the proactive use of available resources. For example, student B observed, “We had more chances to share our ideas with our classmates.” Echoing this sentiment, student F emphasized the value of feedback by stating, “I’ve got more constructive comments and feedback from both teacher and classmates.” Meanwhile, student H recognized the importance of the use of learning resources by pointing out, “I can read and review the learning materials at my disposal and adapt them for my own writing. This allows me to learn from my mistakes and see the stead progress in my writing performance.”
4. formation of positive writing habits
A host of participants mentioned their development of autonomous writing habits that helped them transfer the L2 skills from a course requirement to a personal tool for communication and reflection. Student A, for example, shared, “Now I have formed the habit of writing English journals every day to keep a record of my daily routines, and this really helps me with my writing.” Students E made a similar comments by stating, “I’ve started using English to write short stories and social media posts. It no longer feels like homework, but a natural way for me to express myself.”
Q3: What is the relationship between L2 (English) writing anxiety and L2 (English) writing performance following the ecological classroom intervention?
As shown in Table 4, there was a significant negative correlation between overall L2 writing anxiety and L2 writing performance in both the post test (r = –.663, p < .05) and the delayed post test (r = –.702, p < .05). This result indicates that for both short and long time periods, higher levels of L2 writing anxiety were associated with lower L2 writing performance. Regarding the sub-components of L2 writing anxiety, classroom teaching anxiety showed a significant negative correlation with L2 writing performance in both the post test (r = –.360, p < .05) and delayed post test (r = –.520, p < .05). Similarly, lack of confidence anxiety was
Table 4
Correlations of EC’s L2 (English) writing anxiety and L2 writing performance in the post test and delayed post test
| Variable | L2 (English) writing anxiety | CTA | CA | AB | LCA | |
| L2 writing performance in the post test | ||||||
| Pearson Correlation | -.663** | -.360* | -.054 | -.222 | -.920** | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .010 | .709 | .120 | .000 | |
| N | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
| L2 writing performance in the delayed post test | ||||||
| Pearson Correlation | -.702** | -.520** | -.033 | -.376** | -.805** | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .000 | .823 | .007 | .000 | |
| N | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
| Pearson Correlation Analysis | ||||||
Note. CTA=Classroom Teaching Anxiety; CA=Conceiving Anxiety; AB=Avoidance Behavior; LCA=Lack of Confidence Anxiety; *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
strongly and negatively correlated with L2 writing performance in the post test (r = –.920, p < .05) and delayed post test (r = –.805, p < .05). However, cognitive anxiety did not exhibit any significant relationship with L2 writing performance at either testing session, whereas avoidance behavior showed a negative association with L2 writing performance only in the delayed post test (r = –.376, p < .05). Overall, these findings demonstrate that EC, who experienced lower levels of L2 writing anxiety, particularly classroom teaching anxiety and lack of confidence anxiety, tended to perform better in L2 writing tasks. Moreover, the stronger correlations observed in the delayed post test indicate that the negative association between these two variables may persist as time progressed.
The interview responses provided rich insights into EC’s emotional and cognitive experiences with their writing performance. For example, student H commented, “When I start writing in English, I always feel that my sentences are too simple or full of mistakes. Even if I have ideas, I stop many times to check grammar. I know it makes my writing slow and sometimes incomplete.” Student C further added, “When the teacher asked us to share our writing or give feedback to classmates, I felt really nervous. I worried that others would think my English was poor. Sometimes I just hoped the teacher wouldn’t call on me.” Several participants also indicated a longer-term persistence of writing-related apprehension, as student F noted, “Even after the final session, I still felt nervous when I had to write something in English by myself. I kept thinking about how the teacher would score it. I don’t think the nervousness went away completely.” Others mentioned that their anxiety was closely intertwined with their perceptions of self-efficacy and motivation. Student D, for instance, remarked, “Sometimes I felt that no matter how much I tried, my writing wouldn’t be as good as others’. This thought demotivated me to write longer essays or revise my drafts.” A few participants, such as student I, nevertheless reported that repeated practice and constant feedback contributed to reduced anxiety and improved outcomes, as she commented, “At the beginning, I was afraid to make mistakes. But after practicing more in class and getting feedback, I started to care less about being perfect. I think that’s when my writing got better.”
Discussion
Overall, the findings reveal that the ecological classroom exerted a significant positive influence on both L2 (English) writing anxiety and writing performance among Chinese senior high school students. Regarding the first research question, quantitative and qualitative data consistently showed that students in the ecological classroom experienced significantly lower overall writing anxiety than those in the traditional classroom, both immediately and over time, with notable reductions in classroom teaching anxiety, conceiving anxiety, and avoidance behavior. Interview data further highlighted decreased psychological tension, enhanced confidence, and a shift from avoidance to engagement in writing. Concerning the second research question, students in the ecological classroom demonstrated significantly higher L2 writing performance than their peers in the traditional classroom in both the short and long term, with improvements that were maintained over time. Qualitative findings supported these results, showing enhanced self-regulation, idea generation, collaboration, and positive writing habits. Addressing the third research question, correlation analyses indicated strong and persistent negative relationships between L2 writing anxiety and writing performance, particularly in classroom teaching anxiety and lack of confidence anxiety, suggesting that lower anxiety levels were closely associated with higher writing achievement. Collectively, these results demonstrate that the ecological classroom not only effectively reduces L2 writing anxiety but also enhances and sustains L2 writing performance, with reduced anxiety contributing meaningfully to improved writing outcomes.
Findings from research question one resonate with previous ecological studies showing that L2 learners’ affective states fluctuate in response to changes in their immediate and broader learning environments (Kruk et al., 2022; Tewelde et al., 2023) and are in line with the ecological perspective that stresses the dynamic interplay between learners, teachers, and their surrounding environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; van Lier, 2004). From an ecological standpoint, anxiety is not merely an internal psychological state but an emergent property of the classroom ecosystem shaped by multiple interrelated factors, including pedagogical practices, interpersonal relationships, and contextual affordances (Saghafi et al., 2017; Li, 2023). The reduced levels of L2 writing anxiety observed in the ecological classroom may thus be attributed to its openness, interaction, diversity and respect for individuality (Zhou, 2017; Hao, 2022). These characteristics are very likely to create a harmonious and supportive learning atmosphere where L2 learners felt emotionally secure and socially adept, and thereby alleviated their fear of negative evaluation and encouraged their active engagement in writing tasks. In contrast to traditional classrooms, which often emphasize performance outcomes and teacher-centered evaluation, the ecological classroom in this study placed importance on collaboration, autonomy, and sustainability. These are the factors that help to mitigate pressure and foster intrinsic motivation (Luu, 2022) throughout the writing process, and as prior studies (i.e., Alico, 2016; Wang, 2021; Sukjairungwattana et al., 2025) suggested, an increase in L2 learning motivation is often associated with a decrease in L2 writing anxiety. These findings overall substantiate earlier claims that interventions grounded in ecological principles can effectively transform debilitating emotions such as anxiety into positive affective engagement by reshaping the classroom into a balanced and reciprocal system (Rani, 2020; Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017). As a result, this study extends the ecological understanding of L2 writing anxiety by demonstrating that ecological classroom practices can durably lower students’ anxiety levels through systemic adjustments that nurture both the emotional and cognitive dimensions of L2 learning.
Findings from the second research question aligns with previous studies demonstrating that ecological classroom factors, such as teacher guidance, peer scaffolding, and enriched physical environments can significantly improve L2 learners’ academic performance (Justice et al., 2023; Zhu, 2018; Makaremi, 2024). It also corroborates the notion that learning outcomes are emergent from the complex, interactive dynamics of the classroom ecosystem (Cremin, 1980; Feng, 2015). The ecological classroom, characterized by openness, interaction, diversity, and sustainability (Zhou, 2017), provides abundant affordances for L2 development by fostering collaboration, learner autonomy, and meaningful engagement with authentic tasks. Specifically, the supportive physical and social setting, authentic materials, and collaborative pre-writing tasks enhanced student engagement, content relevance, and language variety. Guided and peer-aided writing fostered coherence and communicative effectiveness, while multi-dimensional feedback and reflection refined accuracy and organization. Extension activities further promoted creativity and autonomy, and sustained learning beyond the classroom. Altogether, these affordances enabled the L2 learners in this study to construct linguistic knowledge through continuous interaction with peers, teachers, and the environment, which is consistent with van Lier’s (2004) view of learning as an ecological process of attunement and adaptation. The observed long-term improvement in English writing performance further indicates that the ecological classroom can sustain their motivation and self-regulatory capacities, echoing Hao’s (2022) claim that ecological learning environments promote long-lasting cognitive and affective growth. Compared with the traditional classroom, which often restricts learning to linear instruction and summative evaluation, the ecological classroom’s emphasis on process-oriented writing, flexible interaction, and mutual respect likely empowered L2 learners to take ownership of their writing development and to internalize feedback more effectively. To sum up, these findings suggest that ecological classrooms facilitate both immediate and sustained improvements in L2 writing by integrating cognitive, social, and environmental dimensions into a cohesive and adaptive learning system.
The significant negative correlations found between L2 writing anxiety and writing performance following the intervention, as evidenced by findings of research questions three, further illuminate the reciprocal relationship between L2 learners’ affective states and their language development within an ecological framework. The strong and persistent negative correlations, particularly between classroom teaching anxiety, lack of confidence anxiety and writing performance suggest that emotional regulation and confidence in writing are central mediators of L2 learning outcomes in the ecological classroom. This finding supports van Lier’s (2004) assertion that affect and cognition are dynamically intertwined within the learning environment and that anxiety can either constrain or facilitate learner engagement depending on the quality of ecological interactions available. In this study, the reduction of anxiety and the corresponding improvement in writing performance, aligning with prior studies (i.e., Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017; Rani, 2020), indicate that the ecological classroom effectively nurtured positive affective conditions conducive to prolonged linguistic growth. Moreover, the persistence of these correlations in the delayed post test suggests that the ecological affordances, including peer collaboration, teacher encouragement, and a non-threatening atmosphere had lasting effects on students’ emotional stability and writing confidence. In contrast, students in more traditional classrooms may remain trapped in high-anxiety cycles due to rigid evaluation standards and limited interaction opportunities, as noted by Kruk et al (2022) and Tewelde et al (2023). Therefore, the present findings not only reaffirm the inverse relationship between anxiety and performance but also demonstrate how ecological classroom dynamics can moderate this relationship by creating an emotionally balanced and cognitively stimulating learning ecosystem.
Unexpectedly, the ecological classroom did not yield a sustained reduction in lack of confidence anxiety across time. This result suggest that while the immediate classroom ecology promoted short-term emotional relief, its long-term influence on deeper affective patterns was less pronounced. It may also reflect the firmly ingrained and trait-like nature of these anxiety dimensions, which are shaped not only by classroom interactions but also by broader exosystem and macrosystem factors such as institutional assessment pressures, cultural attitudes toward errors, and students’ long-standing self-beliefs about English writing (Saghafi et al., 2017; Kasbi & Elahi Shirvan, 2017). Although the ecological classroom initially provided supportive affordances, such as peer collaboration and teacher scaffolding that temporarily alleviated students’ lack of confidence anxiety, this anxiety appeared to resurface after the intervention ended and suggested a return to habitual patterns of self-doubt and insecurity. Similar observations were reported by Li (2023), who noted that L2 learners’ affective states fluctuate dynamically within and beyond classroom contexts, influenced by a network of social and institutional forces. Hence, the absence of long-term effects highlights the need for unremitting ecological support extending beyond classroom boundaries, through continuous teacher encouragement, reflective feedback, and institutional recognition of process-oriented learning, to consolidate affective resilience and foster enduring confidence in L2 writing.
Conclusion
Distinct from previous studies merely describing the association of the ecological factors in the classroom with L2 writing anxiety (i.e., Saghafi et al., 2017), this study examined the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions through the construction and implementation of an ecological classroom for alleviating Chinese senior high school students’ L2 writing anxiety and improving their L2 writing performance. The results revealed that students in the ecological classroom experienced significantly lower overall writing anxiety, with reductions most evident in classroom teaching anxiety, conceiving anxiety, and avoidance behavior, and higher writing performance than those in the traditional classroom. Correlation analyses further confirmed a strong negative relationship between L2 writing anxiety and writing performance, which indicated that alleviating anxiety can effectively enhance students’ writing outcomes.
One major pedagogical implication is that teachers should foster an open, interactive, and student-centered learning environment that values collaboration, constructive feedback, and process-based writing. Encouraging peer interaction, reflective writing, and tolerance for errors can help L2 learners build confidence and view writing as a dynamic process rather than a source of pressure. By recognizing individual differences and creating emotionally supportive spaces, teachers can promote both linguistic and affective growth. However, the absence of sustained reductions in lack of confidence anxiety indicates that ecological support must extend beyond the classroom. Schools should align assessment practices, parental involvement, and extracurricular writing opportunities with the ecological emphasis on dynamics, openness, diversity and sustainability. Continuous teacher professional development in ecological pedagogy is also essential to help educators design lessons that address both cognitive and emotional needs. In doing so, L2 writing instruction can foster enduring confidence, motivation, and engagement among students.
Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, it did not examine how ecological classroom interventions affect students with different levels of L2 writing anxiety (i.e., high, moderate, low), which may result in varying degrees of responsiveness to the intervention and limit understanding of for whom the approach is most effective. Second, writing performance was assessed only through holistic scores, leaving the impact on specific components, including content, organization, language, and mechanics unclear. Third, the study did not examine the effectiveness of ecological classrooms from the perspectives of teachers, and this would undoubtedly limit understanding of the instructional challenges teachers face and their perceptions of the effectiveness of the intervention. Future research should therefore investigate the effects of ecological classroom across varying anxiety levels to tailor interventions to learners’ needs, and use componential assessment of writing performance to reveal which aspects benefit most. Combining teacher insights with student outcomes could provide a more comprehensive picture of the mechanisms underlying anxiety reduction and writing improvement, as well as inform practical strategies for designing and sustaining effective ecological classrooms.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely appreciate the students and English instructors who generously contributed their time and expertise to this study. Their responses and insights were invaluable to our research.
References
Abolhasani, H., Golparvar, S. E., & Robatjazi, M. A. (2022). Modelling the role of l2 writing anxiety in graph-based composing performance and strategy use. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 51(2), 417-435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-022- 09858-8
Alico, J. C. (2016). Writing anxiety and language learning motivation: Examining causes, indicators, and relationship. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), https://doi.org/10.11648/j.cls.20160201.12
An, H., & Li, S. (2024). Task-specific writing anxiety and self-efficacy are separate from general L2 writing anxiety and self-efficacy and they have differential associations with the effects of written corrective feedback in pre-task and within-task planning. System, 126, 103480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103480
Bai, B., & Zhou, H. (2024). Standards, instruction and assessment of EFL writing in schools: Lessons from China’s basic education. European Journal of Education, 59(4), e12747. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12747
Barsingerhorn, A. D., Zaal, F. T., Smith, J., & Pepping, G. J. (2012). On possibilities for action: The past, present and future of affordance research. Avant, 3(2), 54-69.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. QMiP Bulletin, 1(33), 46-50. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsqmip.2022.1.33.46
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (eds.), Development in Context: Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 37-43). New York: Freeman.
Cheng, Y. S. (2004a). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.07.001
Cheng, Y. S. (2004b). EFL Students’ Writing Anxiety: Sources and Implications. English Teaching & Learning, 29(2), 41-62.
Cremin, L. A. (1980). American Education, the National Experience, 1783-1876. New York: Harper and Row.
Feng, L. (2015). Ecological perspective of classroom teaching manifest vigor of life, back to essence of classroom. In 2015 2nd International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC-15) (pp. 23-26). Atlantis Press. http://10.2991/icelaic-15.2016.6
Gibson, J. (1979). The Theory of Affordances: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Guo Y. & X. Qin. (2010). An English writing anxiety test report of Chinese non-English majors and its implications for writing teaching. Foreign Language World, 2, 54-62.
Hao, H. (2022). Analysis of ecological environment problems and countermeasures in ideological and political education in colleges and universities. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9479881
Hu, Y., & Saleem, A. (2023). Insight from the association between critical thinking and English argumentative writing: catering to English learners’ writing ability. PeerJ, 11, e16435. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16435
Justice, L. M., Jiang, H., Sun, J., Lin, T. J., Purtell, K., Ansari, A., & Helsabeck, N. (2022). Classrooms are Complex Host Environments: An Integrative Theoretical Measurement Model of the Pre-K to Grade 3 Classroom Ecology. Early Education and Development, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2079321
Kang, X., & Han, W. J. (2025). Exploring the role of ecological systems and intersectionality in shaping the academic performance of Chinese adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 172, 108266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108266
Kasbi, S., & Elahi Shirvan, M. (2017). Ecological understanding of foreign language speaking anxiety: emerging patterns and dynamic systems. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0026-y
Kolpin, A. (2019). Understanding and Evaluating Classroom Ecology [Masterʼs thesis, Bethel University]. Spark Repository. https://spark.bethel.edu/etd/361
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kruk, M., Pawlak, M., Elahi Shirvan, M., & Shahnama, M. (2022). The emergence of boredom in an online language class: An ecological perspective. System, 107, 102803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102803
Li, X. (2023). The need for ecological nested models as emerging theoretical frameworks in the investigation of affective variables in L2 education. Heliyon, 9(6), e16891-e16891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16891
Li, X., Li, Y., & Lou, Y. (2024). Research on the cultural awareness integration in senior high school English teaching in China. Creative Education, 15(12), 2574-2581. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2024.1512156
Lian, W. (2020). A study of English continuation writing teaching in senior high schools from the perspective of educational ecology. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 3(5), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2020.030503
Long, Z., & Xu, J. (2023). Investigating teacher reformulations in EFL classroom interaction: An ecological perspective. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2023.2187808
Luu, N. Q. H. (2022). Perspective chapter: Building an online ecosystem for English teaching and learning in the times of Covid-19 pandemic and beyond. IntechOpen eBooks. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105651
Makaremi, N., Yildirim, S., Morgan, G. T., Touchie, M. F., Jakubiec, A., & Robinson, J. (2024). Impact of classroom environment on student wellbeing in higher education: Review and future directions. Building and Environment, 265, 111958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111958
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). General Senior High School Curriculum Standards-English (2017 Edition). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Mo, Y. (2022). Improving classroom ecology under the “Double Reduction” policy in China. In Proceedings of the 2022 2nd International Conference on Modern Educational Technology and Social Sciences (ICMETSS 2022) (pp. 648- 654). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-45-9_78
Oyinlade, A. O., & Watson, S. M. R. (2001). Classroom Ecology and Academic Performance: An Exploration of the Merits of the Single-Row Horseshoe Classroom Design. Great Plains Sociologist, 13(1), 3. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/greatplainssociologist/vol13/iss1/3
Papi, M., & Khajavy, H. (2023). Second language anxiety: Construct, effects, and sources. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000028
Papi, M., Vasylets, O., & Ahmadian, M. J. (2022). Individual difference factors for second language writing. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences (pp. 381-395). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546-30
Rani, R. (2020). An ecological study of English language learning anxiety: A case study of National Textile University. NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry, 18(I), 64-85. https://doi.org/10.52015/numljci.v18ii.126
Saghafi, K., Adel, S. M. R., & Zareian, G. (2017). An ecological study of foreign language writing anxiety in English as a foreign language classroom. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 46(5), 424-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2017.1367954
Sukjairungwattana, P., Xu, W., Dong, D., & Li, F. (2025). The influence of learning anxiety and involution on motivation among undergraduate English majors in Beijing and Macau. Frontiers in Education, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1523205
Tahmouresi, S., & Papi, M. (2021). Future selves, enjoyment and anxiety as predictors of L2 writing achievement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100837
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(2), 363-387. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000311
Tewelde, M., Moate, J., & Posti-Ahokas, H. (2023). Investigating the emotional experiences of sophomore students in English language education in Eritrea from an ecological perspective. Education Sciences, 13(12), 1181. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121181
Van Lier, L. (2004) the ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020- 7912-5
Wang, H. (2021). Exploring the relationships of achievement motivation and state anxiety to creative writing performance in English as a foreign language. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100948
Wang, W. (2024). A survey of foreign language writing anxiety among Chinese high school students. Arts Culture and Language, 1(7). https://doi.org/10.61173/k36d2z31
Wang, X. (2006). Is our classroom an ecological place? Frontiers of Education in China, 1(1), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-005-0002-z
Zabihi, R., Mousavi, S. H., & Salehian, A. (2018). The differential role of domain-specific anxiety in learners’ narrative and argumentative L2 written task performances. Current Psychology, 39(4), 1438-1444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9850-6
Zhou, Z. (2017). The model construction of English ecological class in the high school in China. English Language Teaching, 10(9), 227-231. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n9p227
Zhu, N. (2018). Effect of eco-class instruction on group oral presentation quality: With peer scaffolding as the tool. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 1(1), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.004461
Biodata
Xuan Teng is a lecturer at the Foreign Studies College, Hunan Normal University, China. He has experience teaching various subjects, including English teaching methodology, applied linguistics, and academic writing. His research interests include applied linguistics, TESOL, and computer-assisted language learning.
Qing Teng is a graduate student at Hunan Normal University, majoring in subject (English language) teaching. She has experience supporting English classes and helping students enhance their language proficiency through a range of instructional and interactive activities. Her research interests include second language acquisition, language pedagogy, and the integration of technology in English language teaching.
* This research was funded by the Joint Foreign Language and Scientific Research Project sponsored by Hunan Provincial Planning Office of Social Sciences, Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 23WLH03) to the corresponding author.
* This research was funded by the Joint Foreign Language and Scientific Research Project sponsored by Hunan Provincial Planning Office of Social Sciences, Hunan Province, China (Grant No. 23WLH03) to the corresponding author.
Eduindex 