Article published in:
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agendaEdited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 209–239
8. Engagement with the language
How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form
Melissa Baralt | Florida International University
Laura Gurzynski-Weiss | Indiana University
Interactive tasks that have successfully promoted attention to form and language learning in face-to-face (FTF) can be ineffective when performed online (Baralt 2013, 2014). This research is concerning, given the push for online language classes in higher education (Leow, Cerezo, & Baralt 2015). One reason that interactive language tasks do not translate to online settings may be the diminished affect and socialization present in online settings (Baralt 2014). Despite this hypothesis, researchers continue to explore learners’ attention to form from exclusively the cognitive perspective. Recently, Svalberg (2009; 2012) proposed a new model for exploring how learners achieve awareness of forms: a threefold construct including cognitive as well as social and affective engagement. The present chapter is the first to empirically operationalize Svalberg’s model for analyzing learners’ attention (or not) to forms during task-based peer interaction. Forty intermediate-level learners of Spanish performed either cognitively simple or complex interactive dyadic tasks in person or online. Learners’ interaction and post-task questionnaires were then coded for the three types of engagement. Results showed more cognitive engagement (e.g., attention to language forms, reflection), social engagement (e.g., supportive interaction) and affective engagement (e.g., positive feelings) in FTF, particularly during the more complex task. All three types of engagement were diminished or were entirely absent in the online interactions. We argue that the lack of social and affective engagement is what deterred cognitive engagement with language forms. The chapter concludes with a discussion on why researchers must consider social and affective engagement to understand how language awareness can be differentially experienced online.
Published online: 10 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.09bar
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.09bar
References
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J
(2015) Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved April 13, 2015 from: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf.
Baralt, M
Blake, R.J
Duff, P.A
(2013)
Sociocultural and discursive approaches to task-based language learning, teaching, and research
. Plenary talk given at the 5th Biennial International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching. Banff, Canada.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S
Foster, P., & Ohta, A
Gagné, N., & Parks, S
García Mayo, M. & Azharai, A
Grotjahn, R
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M
Hama, M., & Leow, R.P
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N
Kowal, M., & Swain, M
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y
Leow, R.P
Leow, R., Cerezo, L., & Baralt, M
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D
Long, M.H
Long, M.H., & Norris, J.M
Nuevo, A.-M
(2006) Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and interaction (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Nuevo, A.-M., Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L
Ortega, L
Payne, J.S. & Whitney, P.J
Révész, A
Robinson, P
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R
Ross-Feldmen, L
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S
Sato, M., & Lyster, R
Schmidt, R.W
Schmidt, R
Storch, N
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G
Svalberg, A.M-L
Swain, M
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M
Van den Branden, K
(2015) Tasks for real! Hold on, how real is ‘real’? Plenary paper presented at the Task-Based Language Teaching Conference. University of Leuven.
Yilmaz, Y
Cited by
Cited by 45 other publications
Aubrey, Scott
Aubrey, Scott
Ay Yilmaz, Merve & Derin Atay
BİÇER, Ela & İlknur REİSOĞLU
Cho, Hyejin & YouJin Kim
CHO, MINYOUNG
Cho, Minyoung
Dao, Phung
Dao, Phung, Phuong-Thao Duong & Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen
DAO, PHUNG, MAI XUAN NHAT CHI NGUYEN, PHUONG–THAO DUONG & VU TRAN–THANH
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Noriko Iwashita
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Ngoc Bao Chau Nguyen
Dao, Phung & Masatoshi Sato
García-Pastor, María Dolores
Geeslin, Kimberly L., Avizia Y. Long & Megan Solon
Guo, Yan, Jinfen Xu & Cong Chen
Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura, Avizia Yim Long & Megan Solon
Gurzynski‐Weiss, Laura, Mackenzie Coulter‐Kern & Tess Kuntz
Hiver, Phil, Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Joseph P. Vitta & Janice Wu
Lambert, Craig, Jenefer Philp & Sachiko Nakamura
Lee, Bradford J.
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
Mercer, Sarah
Mercer, Sarah
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Anna
Nagle, Charles L., Pavel Trofimovich, Mary Grantham O’Brien & Sara Kennedy
Nakamura, Sachiko, Linh Phung & Hayo Reinders
Pawlak, Miroslaw
Philp, Jenefer & Susan Duchesne
Philp, Jenefer & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
Phung, Linh
Rahimi, Muhammad & Lawrence Jun Zhang
Samifanni, Faramarz & Rose Leslie R Gumanit
Sato, Masatoshi
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L.
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L. & Jim Askham
Tarrayo, Veronico N., Rafael Michael O. Paz & Emejidio C. Gepila
Toth, Zuzana
Trofimovich, Pavel, Oguzhan Tekin & Kim McDonough
Yoshida, Reiko
Zabihi, Reza
Zhang, Aizhen & Yang Yang
Zhang, Boya
Zheng, Jin
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.