Validation study demonstrates strong psychometric validity of a 22-item flow experience scale in university language students, indicating its utility for assessing academic engagement.
In response to the bilingual education policy in Taiwan, English for specific academic purposes (ESAP) courses are highly emphasized in higher education nowadays because they are considered the bridge to English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI). Students acquire both content knowledge and academic English in ESAP courses, thus helping them prepare for disciplinary subject content learning and obtain required academic skills in EMI classrooms. Compared to general English learning, ESAP could be more challenging and demand deeper mental involvement since students need to integrate the acquired content knowledge and academic skills simultaneously. Students’ flow experience, i.e., the psychological state in which people are fully involved and achieve optimal performance in certain activities, is therefore essential in ESAP learning because it helps enhance learning quality and self-growth through positive and optimal engagement. In order to investigate students’ flow experience in ESAP learning, the study developed the ESAP Flow Experience Scale and provided initial evidence of validity through 120 students from ESAP courses at a university in Taiwan. The scale had 22 question items with four constructs, including personal psychological conditions, personal environmental conditions, personal creative conditions, and team social conditions. The results of Exploratory factor analysis showed that the loading factors of the four constructs were from 0.35 to 0.87, and the cumulative value explained variation reached 60.26%, indicating good construct validity. Moreover, the Cronbach’s alpha test indicated high consistency among the constructs with the reliability coefficients 0.921. In conclusion, the study developed a flow experience scale with high construct validity and internal consistency, serving as a practical evaluation tool in ESAP learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: