IntroductionTeachers’ important role in the instructional arena is well reflected in Mercer and Dörnyei’s (2020) sentence that “The key figure in any learner’s educational life is the teacher” (p. 72). This highlights the significant responsibility teachers have to maximize their professional effectiveness. One important quality that can help teachers enhance their professional performance is being just/fair toward students. In fact, fairness is one of the main criteria students use to define a good instructor (Çelik et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2008). For about 20 years, researchers in general and communication education have studied teachers’ fair treatment of students under the concept of classroom justice. It encompasses three dimensions (i.e., distributive, procedural, interactional) (Chory‐Assad, Paulsel, 2004). It is rooted in organizational justice theory (OJT) and takes a social psychological view (Kazemi, 2016). Classroom justice pertains to individuals’ (e.g., students, teachers) subjective perspectives toward the teacher’s (un)just (1) distribution of relational and instrumental outcomes (e.g., score, attention, care), (2) implementation of classroom procedures and policies (e.g., missed-work make-up policy, grading procedure), (3) making of interpersonal relationship with students, and communication of information to them (Chory et al., 2022).Recently, there has been growing interest in teacher classroom justice/fairness within the second/foreign language (L2) education. Many researchers have approached it from a social psychological perspective (e.g., Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021b; Dadvar & Tabatabaee-Yazdi, 2023; Sadeghi et al., 2023; Saleem Khasawneh, 2021; Seden & Švaříček, 2019; Yuniarti et al., 2022). In this context, teacher classroom justice is interpreted through individual perceptions and the teacher-student interactions and relationships they shape. This understanding can help develop theoretical insights within L2 education. As an interpersonal communication cue (Houser & Hosek, 2018), teacher classroom justice has the potential to significantly contribute to building effective teacher–student relationships in L2 classes. As Seidl (2021) notes, L2 teachers should invest in building good relationships with their students if they aim to provide emotionally responsive instruction. This is especially important because language learning involves continuous communication and interaction among classroom interlocutors. Thus, L2 teachers should care about boosting their interactions and rapport with students (Farrell, 2015; Park, 2016). Along similar lines, Mercer and Gkonou (2020) posit that our objective as effective language instructors is to ensure all our classroom relationships are positive and meaningful.It should also be noted that, so far, L2 education researchers have mainly focused on understanding the perspective of both teachers and students. Their aim was to establish conceptual frameworks for classroom justice/fairness by designing studies that address “what” research questions. For instance, they explored the teachers' and students’ perceptions about justice-related incidents they had experienced, and what constitutes the dimensions of classroom justice/fairness (e.g., Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a; Azizi, 2022; Sadeghi et al., 2023; Tofighi & Ahmadi Safa, 2023). To enrich these conceptualizations, L2 researchers should now explore not only how students perceive classroom justice but also how they respond to it. Although empirical evidence on what reactions students show toward classroom justice is lacking in the L2 literature, there exists a large body of such research findings in general and communication education (e.g., Chory et al., 2013; Eltahir et al., 2023; Horan et al., 2012; Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019). As Rasooli and DeLuca (2024) explain in their critical review, investigating how students respond to perceived classroom justice is a key part of justice research in general education. Therefore, the shortage of such studies in L2 education may preclude classroom justice theorization and practice in this field. As an endeavor to fill this research void, the current study aimed to unveil how a group of Iranian EFL learners perceive and emotionally respond to their experiences of teacher classroom justice.Literature reviewClassroom justiceThe concepts of justice and fairness are not new in L2 education. Previously, L2 studies have focused on issues such as critical language testing, equity, critical pedagogy, diversity, power dynamics, inclusion, and translanguaging (e.g., Atai & Moradi, 2016; Freire, 1970/2005; Garcia & Wei, 2013; Hiratsuka et al., 2023; Shohamy, 2022). Furthermore, justice and fairness have been identified as qualities of effective L2 teachers (e.g., Çelik et al., 2013; Chang, 2016; Chen, 2012; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2009). However, the social psychological view of justice (Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a), which underpins the OJT (Kazemi, 2008), has only recently and scantly been studied in L2 education. What makes this perspective distinctive is its attempt to explore the more subjective aspect of justice. i.e., how individuals perceive justice within a particular context. More than two decades ago, early researchers made efforts to extend this perspective into educational settings (e.g., Cooper et al., 1982; Oppenheimer, 1989). These efforts culminated in the introduction of the concept of classroom justice in the instructional environment.Classroom justice has primarily been conceptualized as encompassing three dimensions (Chory, 2007; Chory‐Assad & Paulsel, 2004): namely, distributive justice —perceived fairness of the outcomes and resources distributed by the teacher among students in the classroom—procedural justice—perceived fairness of the procedures and policies that the teacher utilizes in the classroom—and interactional justice—perceived fairness of the teacher’s dissemination of information among students and his/her interpersonal behavior toward students. Teachers can apply these three dimensions in classroom interactions, assessments, teaching, and learning incidents by following 17 justice principles (e.g., Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a; Rasooli, Zandi, et al., 2019).Distributive justice involves the three principles of need, equity, and equality, respectively implying that teachers should distribute resources based on students’ individual needs, achievement, and uniformity. Procedural justice involves the eight principles of consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, voice, ethicality, correctability, transparency, and reasonableness. These principles respectively suggest that teachers should enact classroom policies and procedures uniformly among students and ensure that the procedures are impartial, based on adequate information and student opinion, morally sound, modifiable, clear, and sensible. Interactional justice involves the three interpersonal principles of caring, propriety, and respect as well as the three informational principles of justification/sufficiency, truthfulness, and timeliness. Respectively, these principles imply that teachers should care about students’ needs and individual differences, conform to the conventional standards of behavior, and respect students’ privacy, rights, and personality. They should also adequately inform students of policies and procedures, communicate true information to students, and share information regarding policies and procedures at the right time (Chory et al., 2022 Rasooli et al., 2023).Classroom justice research and theory initially emerged in the United States (Chory, 2007; Cooper et al., 1982; Oppenheimer, 1989). Over time, however, it has become an expanding line of worldwide educational research. So far, the concept has been studied from the perspective of individuals hailing from different cultural backgrounds such as Pakistani (Laeeque & Ali, 2024), Chinese (Jiang et al., 2024), Russian (Bempechat et al., 2013), Italian (Grazia et al., 2024), Dutch (van Vijfeijken et al., 2023), Brazilian (Lucas & Costa, 2023), Australian (Lizzio et al., 2007), German (Kobs et al., 2022), and Iranian (Rasegh et al., 2022) cultures. It is noteworthy to mention that although classroom justice has a longer history in general education, it has only very recently been extended to the field of L2 education, mainly through the work of scholars outside the United States.This emerging line of L2 research has mainly been grounded on studies carried out in Asian countries (e.g., Aly, 2022; Saleem Khasawneh, 2021; Wallace & Qin, 2021; Yan, 2021; Yuniarti et al., 2022). Interestingly, most of these research undertakings have been conducted in Iran (e.g., Estaji et al., 2023; Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a, 2021b; Azizi, 2022; Bazvand & Rasooli, 2022; Chory et al., 2022; Dadvar & Tabatabaee-Yazdi, 2023; Sadeghi et al., 2023; Tofighi & Ahmadi Safa, 2023). Collectively, these L2 scholars have established an evidentiary basis for conceptualizing the dimensions and principles of classroom justice/fairness in L2 education. They tried to explore L2 students' and teachers’ perceptions and experiences of this phenomenon. But what L2 researchers have failed to investigate is how students respond to classroom justice. Addressing this research void is essential for developing a more comprehensive framework of classroom justice in L2 education. As Rasooli, Zandi et al. (2019) argue—based on the organizational justice model of Cropanzano et al. (2015)—both students’ perceptions and their emotional and behavioral responses are crucial pieces of the classroom justice/fairness puzzle. Therefore, both aspects deserve due attention from researchers. This rationale explains why the present study focuses on investigating students’ perceptions and responses.Students’ responses to classroom justiceTeacher interpersonal communication cues are among the chief elicitors of students’ emotionsFootnote 1 (Titsworth et al., 2010; Xie & Derakhshan, 2021). A pertinent theory about students’ emotions is emotional response theory (ERT), including three main consecutive elements: (1) instructor communication cues, (2) students’ emotional responses, and (3) students’ approach-avoidance behaviors. This theory has been applied by previous researchers (e.g., Jacobin & Johnson, 2025) and explains how students’ emotional responses mediate the association between instructor communication cues and students’ behavioral responses (Mottet et al., 2006). Accordingly, teacher classroom justice, as a form of positive communication, can promote a range of favorable emotions and approach behaviors among students (Yang, 2021). In contrast, teacher classroom injustice can trigger undesirable emotional reactions and avoidance behaviors (Chory et al., 2013).Furthermore, Cropanzano et al.'s (2015) theoretical model of OJT demonstrates how individuals form overall fairness judgments based on their perceptions of specific justice principles. Such judgments can consequently bring about many affective and behavioral responses. Rasooli, Zandi et al. (2019) later extended this model to the educational domain in order to conceptualize classroom assessment fairness. They proposed that this concept encompasses two components: (1) students’ subjective evaluations of classroom fairness, derived from their perceptions of interactional, procedural, and distributive justice principles, and (2) students’ behavioral, cognitive, and emotional responses to perceived fairness in the classroom. Together, ERT and the models of Cropanzano et al. (2015) and Rasooli, Zandi et al. (2019) explain a consistent pattern found in educational research: students’ judgments of classroom justice/fairness stimulate their emotional and behavioral reactions (e.g., Chory et al., 2013; Eltahir et al., 2023; Horan et al., 2010; Mameli et al., 2022; Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019).To illustrate, previous studies have reported that when students perceived their teachers as just, the students reported to feel happy (Frisby et al., 2022; Weber et al., 2010) and interested in the course content and instructor (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014; Horan et al., 2012; Kaufmann & Tatum, 2018). Similarly, the students emotionally responded to teacher classroom justice by experiencing greater self-efficacy (Vallade et al., 2014; Weber et al., 2010), self-worth (Gorard, 2012), subjective well-being (Choi et al., 2019), satisfaction (Choi et al., 2019; Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014), and pleasure (Eltahir et al., 2023; Horan et al., 2012). Moreover, students’ perceptions of classroom justice were concomitant with such other affective reactions as feeling valued, hopeful (Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019), confident, calm, focused, comfortable, not overwhelmed, able to manage stress (Rasooli et al., 2021), and less angry (Mameli et al., 2022).Educational researchers have also identified that perceived classroom justice predicted students’ approach behaviors, including their classroom engagement (Di Battista et al., 2014; Molinari & Mameli, 2018), autonomy (Gorard, 2012), motivation (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014; Kazemi, 2016), learning (Frisby et al., 2022; Kaufmann & Tatum, 2018), creativity, and criticality (Eltahir et al., 2023). Other behavioral reactions include students’ improved academic adjustment (Berti et al., 2016), willingness to talk (Kaufmann & Tatum, 2018), adaptation (Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019), class participation (Rasooli et al., 2021), and achievement (Bempechat et al., 2013; Kazemi, 2016).The literature outside the L2 domain is also replete with studies demonstrating that just the treatment of students by teachers strengthens teacher-student social bonds and interactions. Specifically, fairness was found to facilitate students’ dialog with the teacher (Berti et al., 2010), effective communication with the teacher, and lower negative responses to the teacher (Clemente, 2018). It also predicted students’ getting along well with the teacher (Gorard, 2012), and better evaluation of the teacher-student interpersonal relationships, interactions, and collaborations (Jiang et al., 2018; Rasooli et al., 2021). In the same vein, researchers have reported that teacher justice played a significant role in shaping students’ attitudes toward their learning/school environment. Precisely, it triggered students’ sense of class/university belonging and identification (Di Battista et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2018), classroom connectedness and integration (Mameli et al., 2018; Rasooli et al., 2021), and more positive evaluation of the learning environment (Alt, 2015). Teacher justice also impacted students’ lives beyond the classroom context (Rasooli et al., 2021) and promoted students to perceive that their instructional program, school, and the world are fair (Jiang et al., 2018; Wallace & Qin, 2021).Overall, the results of the studies referenced above present robust empirical support for the credibility of the OJT model proposed by Cropanzano et al. (2015). However, all these studies were conducted in non-L2 education settings. To determine if this model is extendable to L2 education, future research is necessary in various L2 instructional contexts. By drawing on Cropanzano et al. (2015) work, we put forth a tentative framework of classroom justice in L2 education (see Fig. 1). In the remainder of this paper, we present our attempt to collect, analyze, and interpret data from a sample L2 context (i.e., EFL in Iran) to evaluate the applicability of the model. While we acknowledge that findings from our single study are inadequate to fully check the boundary conditions of this theoretical model in L2 education, we hope that this tentative framework will serve as a basis for further investigations into L2 students’ perceptions and responses to classroom justice.Fig. 1A tentative framework of classroom justice in L2 education.Full size imageAdopting a purely qualitative research design, the present study endeavored to answer the following research questions:RQ1. What are the lived experiences of Iranian EFL students concerning teacher classroom justice?RQ2. In what ways do Iranian EFL students emotionally respond to their experiences of teacher classroom justice?MethodsResearch designThis qualitative research study adopted a phenomenological design (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994) to explore a group of EFL students’ lived experiences of classroom justice. This aligns with the focus of a phenomenological approach, aiming to describe the meaning that several individuals attribute to their actual experiences of a specific phenomenon (van Manen, 1990). Phenomenologists attempt to describe the shared beliefs of participants about their encounters with a particular phenomenon (e.g., classroom justice) in order to understand the very essence of the subject being investigated. In line with this goal, the research questions in this study highlighted the participants’ subjective perceptions and narratives, aligning with qualitative inquiry (van Manen, 1990) that aims to maintain rich, in-depth descriptions of the lived experiences of participants. Furthermore, exploring Iranian EFL students’ emotional responses to their experiences of classroom justice was consistent with phenomenological design, which seeks to elicit the essence of participants’ experiences (van Manen, 1990).Context and participantsThis study was conducted within the EFL instructional context in Iran. Particularly, the sample included 55 undergraduate EFL students from a university that was accessible to the authors. Although the largeness of the sample is not a critical issue in qualitative research, the researchers purposefully collected a relatively large sample in line with the phenomenological design of the study. This enabled a clearer description of the commonalities in the participants’ lived experiences of justice and potentially increased the credibility of generated themes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Furthermore, the researchers tried to enhance demographic diversity among the participants by using heterogeneous sampling. The choice of a heterogeneous and large sample improves transferability of findings in qualitative studies (Sandelowski, 1995). Specifically, the sample included both male (n = 15) and female (n = 40) students from majors of English Language and Literature (n = 18), TEFL (n = 35), and English Translation (n = 1). One participant did not mention his/her major, but (s)he was chosen from one of the university’s language-related majors. The participants self-evaluated their English proficiency levels, which included beginner (n = 2), pre-intermediate (n = 3), intermediate (n = 18), upper-intermediate (n = 19), and advanced (n = 13). They were divided into four age groups: under 20 (n = 10), ages 20–24 (n = 43), 25–29 (n = 1), and 30–34 (n = 1).InstrumentsThe data collection instrument in this study was an online Google Form, encompassing three main parts: (1) a consent form, where the participants declared their voluntary participation in this study, and the researchers guaranteed that all information provided would be treated confidentially and be reported anonymously; (2) a demographic information scale, eliciting such non-sensitive demographic details from participant as gender, self-assessed English proficiency, major, and age; and (3) an open-ended questionnaire on classroom justice. Although interviews are frequently employed in qualitative studies, interviewer presence might bias interviewees’ responses. Thus, to prevent this potential bias, in this study, open-ended questions were used. The rationale was that the absence of the researchers could enhance the chances that participants would freely express their lived experiences of the phenomenon under investigation (Moustakas, 1994). Moreover, as Braun & Clarke (2006) posit, open-ended questions are useful for collecting rich, narrative data in qualitative studies.Previous classroom justice studies (e.g., Chory et al., 2022; Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019) have employed the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Flanagan, 1954). CIT is well-suited to promote individuals to retrospectively divulge salient incidents that occurred to them in the past in relation to a particular phenomenon. These studies found that classroom (in)justice incidents were extremely salient in the participants’ memories and could be remembered after some years. Use of CIT is consistent with phenomenological research (Hughes, 2008) as this technique enables participants to reflect on their emotionally significant and personal incidents. Accordingly, in this study, CIT was utilized through administering a questionnaire including open-ended prompts (see the Appendix) that facilitated participants’ recall of and explanation of their lived experiences of classroom justice. Particularly, the students’ incidents of teacher justice in their university EFL classes were elicited. This approach aided the present study researchers to maintain personal and in-depth narratives from the participants without using predefined classifications that might bias participants’ responses. Students were also asked to present a detailed elaboration of their responses in order to help the researchers attain comprehensive and rich data (Brown, 2009).Data collectionThe first author, an EFL university instructor in Iran, distributed the link to the Google Form questionnaire among the potential participants via Telegram and WhatsApp. Employing online tools like Google Forms in qualitative studies is justifiable as they enhance response time and flexibility, improve participant accessibility and anonymity, and decrease researcher bias. Data collection initiated on October 29 and ended on November 6, 2022. Before collecting any data, the authors asked three classroom justice experts to check content validity (i.e., transparency and relevance) of the measurement tool in order to guarantee its trustworthiness and consistency with research objectives (Nassaji, 2020). Content validity, in the form of expert review, is recommended in qualitative investigations to enhance the clarity and relevance of open-ended prompts (Nassaji, 2020). Moreover, the first author introduced the concept of classroom justice to the potential participants, explaining how it is typically enacted or violated by the teacher during class, and what is meant by students’ emotional responses to it. Likewise, she informed the participants that partaking in the study was optional, and withdrawing from participation would not bring any adverse consequences for them. By completing a consent form, participants acknowledged their personal decision to cooperate with the current study researchers. Overall, the time estimated for answering the online Google Form was between 10 to 15 min.Data analysisThe first author led the analysis of the textual data using MAXQDA (version 2022). Specifically, she conducted an inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Terry et al., 2017) of the participants’ critical incidents. Accordingly, by adhering to systematic phenomenological analysis (Moustakas, 1994), first, she iteratively read the raw data to attain thorough familiarity, determined significant incidents pertaining to classroom justice, and identified meaningful statements indicating participants’ emotional responses to justice. As a result of this stage, she generated open codes (Total N = 224). Subsequently, she formulated clusters of meanings based on the significant incidents (i.e., generated codes) and, finally, grouped them under two superordinate themes, maintaining alignment with phenomenological interpretation. This analytical approach resembled the method used by Bazvand and Rasooli (2022), who also used phenomenological analysis to uncover classroom fairness experiences of university students. Particularly, they analyzed participants’ responses to specify significant statements, make clusters of meanings, and devise overall themes.Through a retrospective process, trustworthiness of the analysis was checked (Nowell et al., 2017). Initially, the second author reviewed all the themes and codes, and both authors engaged in discussions to review and modify them. They jointly compared each theme against its containing codes in order to see if the higher-order theme accurately reflected the codes within it. Having interpreted and discussed all codes and themes for two rounds, both authors approved the final version of the analysis.Researchers’ positionalityAcknowledging researchers’ positionality is valuable in qualitative studies, and the position of the researchers is typically explained in relation to the research study topic, participants, process, context, and design (Darwin Holmes, 2020). In the current investigation, both researchers were born and lived in Iran, which gave them an insider perspective on the study’s concept and context (i.e., justice in EFL university classrooms in Iran). They had both been EFL university students in Iran in the past, and at the time of data collection, were working as EFL university instructors in this country. This allowed them to share common experiences with the study participants regarding classroom justice. Moreover, the first author led this research undertaking, prepared the study design, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote and edited the original draft of the paper. The second author helped in finalizing the research design and data analysis and in reviewing, editing, and finalizing the paper.Findings and discussionTheme 1: Iranian EFL students’ perceptions regarding the importance of classroom justiceThe first research question aimed to explore how Iranian EFL students perceived the significance of classroom justice. All students (n = 55) considered being treated justly in EFL classes important. Particularly, few participants perceived the enactment of classroom justice as important to some extent (n = 6), while the majority regarded it as important to a great extent (n = 49). This finding is in agreement with the qualitative findings of Estaji and Zhaleh (2021a), who reported that from Iranian EFL teachers’ perspective, the enactment of classroom justice was deemed very important. Our result is similarly in congruence with previous empirical studies revealing that L2 students consider fairness and justice as important characteristics of good language teachers (Çelik et al., 2013; Chang, 2016; Chen, 2012; Moore et al., 2008; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2009). Figure 2 illustrates the reasons participants mentioned for the importance of classroom justice.Fig. 2Importance of classroom justice from Iranian EFL students’ perspective.Full size imageAccording to Fig. 2, the three most frequently raised reasons for the importance of classroom justice pertained to the notion of observing students’ rights. These three reasons were: to observe equal treatment/rights of all (F = 20), not to violate students’ rights (F = 15), and the importance of observing equity (F = 7). For example, S2 wrote, “By implementing justice in the classroom, equal rights of individuals are respected”, and S7 stated, “The rights of those students who study and try hard are not violated!” This finding corroborates the existing empirical and theoretical literature on OJT and classroom justice, which underscores the necessity of observing equality and equity to maintain justice in the work setting or instructional context (e.g., Cropanzano et al., 2015; Rasegh et al., 2022; Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019).Seven other reasons for the significance of classroom justice pertained to enhancing students’ academic and emotional outcomes. Specifically, the participants articulated that classroom justice is important since it facilitates students’ learning (F = 7), motivation (F = 2), collaboration (F = 1), concentration (F = 1), and interest in the lesson (F = 1). It also helps teachers avoid discouraging (F = 5) and underestimating students (F = 1). For instance, S23 mentioned that “In my opinion, justice motivates students. In a fair system, students have more motivation to work because they know that they will reach appropriate and real results.” Or, according to S38, “Classroom justice leads to better learning.” Our findings align with the results of other empirical investigations, indicating that perceived classroom justice could predict/associate with students’ approach behaviors. Such behaviors include engagement (Di Battista et al., 2014; Molinari & Mameli, 2018), learning (Frisby et al., 2022; Kaufmann & Tatum, 2018), motivation (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014; Kazemi, 2016), adaptation (Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019), class participation (Rasooli et al., 2021), and achievement (Bempechat et al., 2013; Kazemi, 2016). Furthermore, the present study findings support those of Chory (2007), which showed that students’ higher perceptions of teacher justice positively predicted their academic engagement.As illustrated in Fig. 2, four additional reasons reflect the importance of classroom justice for enhancing education and teachers’ effectiveness. One reason was that justice is the most important pillar of education (F = 5). This supports other researchers’ results, which indicated that teacher justice encouraged students to view the learning environment more positively (Alt, 2015). They also found that it predicted how students perceive their instructional program and school as just (Jiang et al., 2018; Wallace & Qin, 2021). The other three reasons were: justice enables the teacher to avoid problems (F = 1), manage the class more effectively (F = 1), and have more effective instruction (F = 1). For example, S34 commented, “Classroom justice is essential for more practical and effective instructions.” This confirms previous studies conducted in the EFL instructional context, showing that fairness/justice is essential for language teachers’ effective teaching practice and good treatment of students (Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a; Nikitina & Furuoka, 2009).The last three reasons are related to the significance of classroom justice for boosting the interpersonal aspect of the classroom. These reasons were: to create a friendly/better classroom environment (F = 3), to create healthy competition among students (F = 1), and to improve the teacher-student relationship (F = 1). These reasons provide further evidentiary support for the argument that classroom justice, as a positive teacher interpersonal/communication behavior, helps enhance teacher-student bonds and relationships (Chory et al., 2022; Houser & Hosek, 2018). They are also in conjunction with the previous results in non-L2 education. Such results demonstrated that teachers' treatment of students could facilitate students’ perceptions about their dialog, communication, collaboration, and interactions with the teacher (Berti et al., 2010; Clemente, 2018; Gorard, 2012; Jiang et al., 2018; Rasooli et al., 2021). Our findings further support the argument that L2 learning and teaching are interpersonally-laden undertakings, demanding language teachers to actively boost relationships and communications in the learning environment (Farrell, 2015; Mercer & Gkonou, 2020; Park, 2016).Theme 2: Emotional responses of Iranian students to their experiences of justice in EFL classesThe second research question aimed to uncover how Iranian students felt when experiencing justice in EFL classes. All students reported positive emotional responses to the perceived enactment of justice by their EFL instructors. In total, they expressed 23 different emotional responses to classroom justice (see Fig. 3). Based on their main focus, these responses were grouped under the three categories of students’ positive feelings about themselves, students’ positive feelings about EFL class/teacher, and students’ feeling cared for by their EFL teacher. It should be acknowledged that although these categories are thematically distinct, they include some overlapping responses. For instance, feeling noticed and valued relates to both categories of feeling cared for by the teacher and feeling positive about oneself. Nevertheless, each emotional response was put under one of the three categories according to the most salient aspect of the response.Fig. 3Iranian EFL students’ emotions as a result of their experiencing teacher justice in EFL classes.Full size imageAs indicated in Fig. 3, 10 affective responses reflected students’ attaining positive feelings about themselves. These responses included feeling self-confident (F = 13), happy (F = 5), peace of mind (F = 5), proud (F = 2), fresh (F = 1), hopeful (F = 1), intelligent (F = 1), superior (F = 1), useful (F = 1), and victorious (F = 1). In conjunction with our results, previous studies have revealed that students emotionally respond to perceived classroom justice through feeling happy (Frisby et al., 2022; Weber et al., 2010), hopeful (Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019), confident, calm, focused, comfortable, not overwhelmed, able to manage stress (Rasooli et al., 2021), and less angry (Mameli et al., 2022).Seven other affective reactions (see Fig. 3) implied students’ feeling cared for by their EFL teacher. Specifically, students felt valued (F = 17), noticed/seen (F = 9), satisfied (F = 6), encouraged (F = 5), secure (F = 3), sympathized with (F = 3), and equal (F = 1). Similar to our results, students in Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019 study felt valued as a result of being treated fairly by their instructors. Furthermore, this part of our results reflects the caring principle of interactional justice, where teachers attend to students’ needs, value students’ individual differences, show empathy toward them, and notice their presence in class (Estaji & Zhaleh, 2021a, 2021b; Estaji et al., 2023; Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019; Rasegh et al., 2022).The remaining six emotional responses are related to students’ positive feelings about the EFL class/teacher. These responses involved feeling good (F = 11), intimate with the teacher (F = 4), a positive attitude toward the teacher and class (F = 2), belonging to the class (F = 2), enjoyment (F = 1), and interested in the lesson (F = 1). In association with these responses, other studies reported that students’ perceptions of classroom justice promote their interest in the course content and instructor (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014; Horan et al., 2012; Kaufmann & Tatum, 2018), and satisfaction (Choi et al., 2019; Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014) and pleasure (Eltahir et al., 2023; Horan et al., 2012) in the learning environment. Our results also confirm Seidl’s (2021) notion that if teachers want to create an emotionally responsive teaching, they need to invest in building good relationships with students. Similarly, Lankiewicz (2014) explained that by showing interpersonally effective behaviors (e.g., being just toward students), L2 teachers can create a desirable class atmosphere and emotional ambience. Our findings further substantiate previous findings in non-L2 education domains, which have presented that students’ higher perceptions of teacher justice facilitate students’ positive emotions (e.g., Rasooli, DeLuca, et al., 2019). Importantly, our findings expand previous discoveries by indicating that L2 students’ experiences of teacher justice not only ameliorate students’ emotional well-being but also improve their motivation and sense of belonging to the class. Some instances of the participants’ excerpts reflecting their emotional responses to classroom justice are given below:S2: I became aware that there is someone who does not ignore my rights and activities in class and cares about me, and this increases my self-confidence and motivation.S27: It feels good that my opinion, beliefs, and presence are considered important, and I am also noticed.S32: I can establish a deeper relationship with the teacher and a sense of belonging to the class. I enjoy the lesson more and gain more self-confidence.S42: I feel secure, happy, and peaceful when my teacher implements justice in class.Overall, our findings demonstrate the link between students’ perceptions of classroom justice and their positive emotional and behavioral responses. This places teachers’ fair treatment of students at the forefront of students’ concerns in EFL classes. These outcomes, obtained in the non-Western EFL instructional setting of Iran, overlap with those obtained in Western instructional contexts, where teacher justice predicted students’ positive emotional and behavioral responses to the learning, classroom, and teacher (e.g., Frisby et al., 2022; Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014). Additionally, our findings provide further credence to the OJT model, which conceptualizes justice in terms of interactional, procedural, and distributive dimensions (Cropanzano et al., 2015). However, the current study presented an important, culturally distinct finding. Analysis of participants’ narratives indicated that compared to distributive and procedural dimensions, interactional justice was much more salient in the students’ accounts. Particularly, the students recalled and explained a wide range of teacher justice incidents and emotional responses (e.g., L2 teachers’ creating friendly relationships with students, motivating, valuing, noticing, and caring for students, attempting to make students interested in the lesson, encouraging students and sympathizing with them, and satisfying students’ needs). All these demonstrate that teachers maintaining interpersonal and emotional ties with students (i.e., interactional justice) might be a higher priority than procedural and distributive justice for many Iranian EFL students. Thus, it can be understood that while all three classroom justice dimensions have universal significance, their influence on students’ responses and emotions might be culturally constructed and interpreted.Conclusion and implicationsThis research, employing a phenomenological design, aimed to examine the construct of classroom justice as perceived and emotionally responded to by EFL undergraduate students in the higher education context of Iran. Findings from the first research question presented that all EFL students affirmed the importance of teacher justice. They, particularly, believed that teachers applying classroom justice was essential for upholding students’ rights, enhancing students’ academic and emotional outcomes, increasing the education and teachers’ effectiveness, and strengthening the interpersonal dynamics within the classroom. Additionally, findings from the second research question revealed that all EFL students responded emotionally in a positive manner to the perceived enactment of classroom justice. Specifically, the students attained positive feelings about themselves and their EFL class/teacher and felt cared for by their EFL teacher.At the theoretical level, these findings support and build on ERT (Mottet et al., 2006) by showing that when teachers are fair, it can lead to positive feelings and actions from Iranian students in EFL classes. Specifically, the fact that all Iranian EFL participants had positive feelings and behaviors towards teacher justice shows that having trusting and fair relationships with teachers is very important for helping students succeed in learning a second language. Prospective studies could be conducted in other countries to investigate if L2 students’ cultural backgrounds would mediate the impact of classroom justice on students’ emotional responses.Our findings similarly approved the OJT’s model, originally developed for workplace settings (Cropanzano et al., 2015) and later extended to education to conceptualize classroom assessment fairness (Rasooli, Zandi, et al., 2019). Analysis of our data highlighted that students’ perceptions of classroom justice could drive a range of emotional and behavioral reactions. These findings affirmed the applicability of this model to L2 education, thereby providing a preliminary empirical proof for the credibility of our tentative framework of classroom justice in L2 contexts (see Fig. 1). The present study further develops OJT and ERT by underscoring the distinct function of teacher justice in L2 classrooms. Our findings expand these two theories by showing that teacher justice is not merely an ethical undertaking but also an emotional trigger for a wide range of students’ positive academic, emotional, and behavioral outcomes in L2 classes.At the practical level, this research highlights the essentiality of EFL teachers running just/fair classes. Equitable teacher practices can foster students’ appreciation of the lesson and attainment of positive affect toward themselves and the main course elements (i.e., the teacher, content, and interpersonal behaviors). Moreover, given that Iranian EFL students regarded classroom justice as important, teacher justice-training courses are necessary. Consequently, EFL teachers can become cognizant of how to implement the justice principles in the classroom. Such training courses can be either embedded into pre-service teacher education programs or run by institutions and universities for their in-service instructors. To enhance the efficiency of such courses, they should be held regularly (e.g., monthly, seasonally, or annually). Furthermore, such courses can focus on developing prospective and practicing teachers’ (1) knowledge of the three classroom justice dimensions; (2) ability to apply justice principles in L2 classes; and (3) role in creating a fair learning environment that enhances L2 students’ positive academic and emotional experiences.It is similarly essential to hold ongoing teacher-student discussion sessions, where students can voice their concerns about the teacher’s unfair treatment of students. Such discussions can be held at three intervals: (1) at the beginning of the semester to become aware of students’ expectations and needs; (2) in the middle of the semester to collect feedback from students about if their expectations from the teacher are being met and if their academic and emotional needs are being satisfied; (3) at the end of the semester for overall evaluations of the teacher’s fairness and emotional support. These discussion opportunities can help teachers take appropriate actions to improve their justice behaviors based on their students’ concerns and feedback.This study involved some limitations. First, due to practicality issues, we chose a sample consisting of EFL undergraduates from one university in Iran, which might not adequately represent the population of all EFL learners in the world. To address this limitation and enhance the transferability of their findings, future researchers can take the following actions: To investigate the perspectives of EFL students from different countries; to extend their sample to include both undergraduate and graduate EFL students; to choose a sample comprising of university EFL students as well as EFL learners at private language institutes and public schools. Second, the context of this study was restricted to Iran. To examine if the cultural context had influenced our findings, future researchers can take a cross-cultural approach whereby they can compare perceptions of Iranian EFL students against those of students from other cultural backgrounds. Third, this study only focused on students’ emotional responses to classroom justice. Prospective research can explore the cognitive and behavioral consequences of students’ classroom justice experiences. Such studies can examine in what ways teachers' behaviors impact students’ L2 attainment, performance, and academic engagement. Future studies can also explore how classroom injustice impacts students’ emotional (e.g., anxiety, boredom), academic (e.g., course dropout, academic disengagement), and behavioral (e.g., aggression, resistance) outcomes. Finally, this study gathered data at a single point in time. Other researchers can conduct longitudinal studies to unveil whether and how students’ perceptions and responses to classroom justice vary over time.