It is widely acknowledged that SL/FL learning is deeply influenced by learners’ internal factors, such as motivation, attitudes, self-confidence, anxiety, personality and learning styles [27]. Of these internal factors, many have been extensively researched, while research on learning styles in relation to SL/FL learning is still inadequate despite an increasing attention to learning styles since the 1970s [28].

Keefe [29] (p. 4) defined learning styles as “characteristic cognitive, affective, and physiological behaviors that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment”. According to Reid [30], the learning style is a student’s natural, habitual, and preferred way of absorbing, processing and retaining new knowledge. Clearly, learning styles are combinations of an individual’s cognitive, affective and psychological characteristics that interact with the environment [31]. Since individuals may prefer various different ways of learning, the learning style consists of different components. Dunn et al. [32] categorized learning styles as visual, tactile and kinesthetic. Reid [20] classified learning styles into six types: auditory (preferring to learn through oral–aural channel), visual (preferring to learn through seeing/visual channel), kinesthetic (preferring to learn through experiential learning/total physical involvement), tactile (preferring to learn through hands-on activities/doing lab experiments), individual learning (preferring to learn through working alone) and group learning (preferring to learn through working with others and participating in group works). To measure learning styles of non-native speakers of English, Reid [20] developed the 30-item five-point-Likert Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ).

Although Pelegrín’s [33] review shows that the PLSPQ is an instrument in need of profound improvement, it is the most recent and widely used instrument for ESL/EFL learners (e.g., [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,24,25,33,34,35,36,37,38]). These studies show that ESL/EFL students generally prefer kinesthetic and tactile learning styles the most and prefer group learning the least. For example, Reid [20] researched learning styles on about 1300 ESL students studying in America and found that ESL students significantly differed from native speakers of English in their perceptual and social learning style preferences. Most ESL students preferred kinesthetic and tactile learning while native speakers of English were less tactile than all ESL students and less kinesthetic than Korean, Arabic, Chinese and Spanish speakers. Both groups preferred group learning the least. These findings were generally supported by Rossi-Le’s [21] study of 147 adult immigrant ESL students in the US with backgrounds of Chinese, Laotian, Vietnamese, Spanish, Cambodian, Japanese, Polish and Korean. Gao’s [16] study of 250 second-year non-English majors from a Chinese university indicated that almost all the participants were multi-style learners while preferring tactile, visual and kinesthetic styles the most and group style the least. Alkahtani’s [22] research of 667 EFL students studying at Yanbu English Language Institute revealed that the overall dominant perceptual style preferences were auditory and group learning. Akbarian et al.’s [15] investigation of 235 Iranian tertiary EFL learners showed that kinesthetic, auditory, visual and tactile modalities were the participants’ major learning styles while individual and group styles were their minor styles and that group learning was the least preferred style. Ha’s [18] research of 162 students at UNETI, Vietnam revealed that group learning was the participants’ most preferred style. These studies imply that differences in learning styles do exist as the learner population and learning context are different.

Differences also exist in learning styles in students of different genders and disciplines [23,39,40]. For example, in addition to the finding that the participants mostly preferred kinesthetic and auditory styles and liked individual and group styles the least, Peacock’s [40] study of 206 Hong Kong university EFL students revealed that humanities students chose the auditory style as their major preference and the individual style as their minor preference and had a negative opinion of group learning, while science students chose the auditory style as their minor preference and held a negative opinion of individual learning. Al Khatib and Ghosheh’s [23] study of 210 students of Al Ain University of Science and Technology showed that education students were more tactile learners than those in other fields of study, while law students were more group learners and pharmacy students were more individual learners than those in other fields. They also found that male students were more auditory and tactile learners while female students were more group learners. Hyland’s [39] study of 440 Japanese university students indicated that the participants had no major style and that female students demonstrated stronger preferences for all styles than males. Mozayan et al.’s [36] study of 107 Iranian medical sciences students also found that female students demonstrated stronger preferences for the styles than their male peers, which was supported by the finding in Akbarian et al. [15]. Nevertheless, no significant gender difference in learning styles was found in Zokaee et al.’s [25] study of 54 EFL learners at Tarbiat Moallem University.

Meanwhile, though not many studies have examined the relationship between learning styles and students’ achievements in SL/FL learning, some interesting findings have been revealed (e.g., [15,18]). For example, Akbarian et al. [15] found that the participants’ tactile style scores significantly correlated with vocabulary knowledge. Ha [18] found a significant relationship between the students’ learning styles and their English language proficiency. Nosratinia and Soleimannejad’s [17] study of 595 undergraduate EFL learners aged 18 to 25 indicated that significant and positive relationships existed between the participants’ critical thinking and total score of perceptual learning styles and that tactile learning style preference was the best predictor of EFL learners’ critical thinking. Malsawmkimi and Fanai’s [19] study of 192 secondary school EFL students found no correlation between students’ academic achievements and the scores on different learning styles.

In addition, learning styles have been found to interact with learning strategies, though limited research is available on the interaction of learning styles with other variables in SL/FL learning [16,22]. Gao [16] showed that there were complex relationships between learning styles and learning strategy preferences, as found in Zokaee et al. [25]. Alkahtani’s [22] research found significant correlations between perceptual language learning styles and language learning strategy use.

As a situation-specific type of anxiety, foreign language anxiety (FLA) has been extensively researched since the 1970s (e.g., [2,3,4,5]). It refers to “the worry and negative emotional reaction aroused when learning or using a second language” [41] (p. 27). This is because SL/FL learners often become doubtful and stressed when learning/using an SL/FL due to uncertain or unknown linguistic and socio-cultural rules [1]. Research on FLA shows that it may lead to deficits in SL/FL learning and performance and low self-confidence in SL/FL learners [1,2].

Anxiety exists in almost every aspect of SL/FL learning (i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing) [1]. Of various types of FLA, foreign language classroom anxiety has caught much attention, probably because of its close relation to formal classroom teaching and learning [5]. Foreign language classroom anxiety (FLCA) is “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings and behaviors related to classroom learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” [1] (p. 128). To measure this anxiety, Horwitz et al. [1] developed the 33-item 5-point Likert Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), which has then been widely adopted or adapted to measure learners’ anxiety in language classrooms or speaking anxiety in varying SL/FL contexts (e.g., [2,4,5,6,7,8,12,42,43]). Believing that situational anxiety affects not only formal language training but also informal language experiences, Gardner [2] developed the 8-item French Classroom Anxiety Scale (FCAS) to measure anxiety in French language classrooms and found that anxiety was negatively related to L2 motivation and French learning outcomes.

These studies, using either of the scales, together with those using other methods [4,8,9,13,44,45], reveal that FLCA is consistently negatively related to learners’ language performance, and that FLCA can be attributed to various learner-related, teacher-related and contextual variables, such as low language proficiency, low self-confidence, past learning experiences, fear of losing face, personality and pursuit of perfection. For example, Zhang’s [5] meta-analysis analyzed 55 independent samples with more than 10,000 participants and found that FLA was significantly negatively correlated with FL performance (r = −0.34, p < 0.01), which remained stable across groups with different FL proficiency levels. These results were generally supported by Dikmen’s [13] meta-analysis of 69 studies from fourteen countries.

In regard to gender difference, some studies report that female learners experience higher levels of FLA than their male peers (e.g., [11,12,46,47]). For example, Dewaele’s [12] study of 1287 female and 449 male participants revealed that female students demonstrated both more foreign language enjoyment and more foreign language classroom anxiety than their male peers. The researcher believed that this was because female learners were more emotionally involved in the FL learning and hence experiencing more emotional highs and lows than their male peers. Conversely, some studies show that male students are more anxious in FL classrooms (e.g., [48]). In a study of 64 Indonesian EFL learners, Hasan and Fatimah [48] discovered that male students exhibited more anxiety than their female peers. Contrary to this, some studies reveal no significant gender differences in FLA (e.g., [49,50]).

Likewise, mixed findings have been found about foreign language anxiety and disciplines. Many studies find that there are significant differences in FLA among learners with varying disciplinary backgrounds (e.g., [3,10,14,51]). For example, Kimura’s [51] study of 452 Japanese freshmen showed that math students experienced more anxiety than social science students. Torudom and Taylor [14] found that science students displayed a higher level of reading anxiety than non-science students. Altunel [10] found that students of natural sciences experienced more fear of negative emotions and a relatively higher level of FLA. On the other hand, Rajab et al. [52] found no significant differences in FLA among students of different disciplines, which might be because their studies involved no more than 100 participants.

Meanwhile, these studies show that FLCA interacts with many other variables, including age, gender, motivation, strategy use, field of study and foreign language enjoyment. For example, Liu’s [3] study of 934 Chinese first-year university students revealed significant differences in FLCA and its effects on English achievement between male and female students and between those from different disciplines. Nevertheless, little research is available on the relationship between FLA and learning styles.

Four years has passed since the outbreak of COVID-19 in late 2019. Because of its fast spreading speed and varying degrees of damage to human health, many schools in the world, including those in China, shifted online when COVID-19 was serious and then hybrid teaching and learning when it was not so serious, to prevent fast infection and reduce loss. When the present study was conducted in the spring semester of 2021 in China, there were occasionally tens of COVID-19 cases reported in certain areas of a province. People were generally free to travel but encouraged to wear masks in public places, and no gatherings of more than eight were allowed. Students normally took classes in real classrooms but were required to take them online if they had just returned from a place with COVID-19 cases or if they had a fever.

Though development in information and communications technology eliminates the barriers of time, space and pace, and creates greater flexibility in learning and teaching, students may experience isolation, distraction and frustration due to the lack of adequate face to-face interaction and instability of the internet [53]. They thus may have a reduced sense of belonging, lowered willingness and motivation to study and heightening anxiety in learning and using the language [53]. For example, though van der Velde et al. [54] found that COVID-19 did not negatively affect FL learners’ performance, Liu and Yuan’s [53] longitudinal quantitative study showed that university students had high levels of English language classroom anxiety (ELCA) and listening anxiety throughout the semester. They thus claimed that ELCA and listening anxiety were serious issues in the pandemic FL learning context. Nevertheless, similar studies are rarely found from the period during COVID-19.