Article published in:
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited 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

| Florida International University
| 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
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
(2010) Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
(2013) The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 689–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Task sequencing and task complexity in traditional versus online classes. In M. Baralt, R. Gilabert, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 95–122). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Blake, R.J
(2011) Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(3): 221–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S
(2001) Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A
(2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, N., & Parks, S
(2013) Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17, 188–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. & Azharai, A
(2016) EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R
(1987) On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 54–81). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M
(2014) Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hama, M., & Leow, R.P
(2010) Learning without awareness revisited: Extending Williams (2005). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 465–491. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y
(2009) The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37, 254–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Task complexity, learning opportunities and Korean EFL learners’ question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 627–658. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly 47, 8–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N
(2011) Task complexity, language anxiety and the development of past tense. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 287–306). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L
(2010) Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(1), 23–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y
(2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102–120.Google Scholar
Leow, R.P
(1997) Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–506. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Toward operationalizing the process of attention in SLA: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa’s (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R., Cerezo, L., & Baralt, M
(2015) A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Wolff, D
(2016) Peer interaction in F2F and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Long, M.H
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–68). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Long, M.H., & Norris, J.M
(2015) An international collaborative research network on task complexity. Colloquium presented at the Task-Based Language Teaching Conference. University of Leuven.Google Scholar
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
(2011) Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner–learner interaction In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L
(2009) Interaction and attention to form in L2 text-based computer-mediated communication. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 226–253). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Payne, J.S. & Whitney, P.J
(2002) Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20, 7–32.Google Scholar
Révész, A
(2009) Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 437–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom-based study. Modern Language Journal, 95, 162–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P
(2010) Situating and distributing cognition across task demands: TheSSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing. In M. Putz & L. Sicola (Eds.), Cognitive processing in second language acquisition: Inside the learner’s mind. (pp. 243–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Gilabert, R
(2007) Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis and second language learning and performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 161–76.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldmen, L
(2007) Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 53–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N
(2016) A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S
(2016) Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R
(2012) Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(4), 591–626. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R.W
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N
(2008) Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G
(2010) Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svalberg, A.M.-L
(2007) Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching, 40, 287–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Engagement With Language: Developing a construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svalberg, A.M-L
(2012) Thinking allowed: Language awareness in language learning and teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching 45(3), 376–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson, pp. 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
(2005) The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, pp. 471–484. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M
(2007) Riddles and puns in the ESL classroom: Adults talk to learn. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 143–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.
Williams, J
(2001) The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y
(2011) Task effects on focus on form in synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 115–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D
(2011) Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 45 other publications

Aubrey, Scott
2017. Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research 21:6 ► pp. 717 ff. Crossref logo
Aubrey, Scott
2017. Measuring Flow in the EFL Classroom: Learners’ Perceptions of Inter- and Intra-Cultural Task-Based Interactions. TESOL Quarterly 51:3 ► pp. 661 ff. Crossref logo
Ay Yilmaz, Merve & Derin Atay
2022.  In Emerging Concepts in Technology-Enhanced Language Teaching and Learning [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 153 ff. Crossref logo
BİÇER, Ela & İlknur REİSOĞLU
2021. MOOC ÖĞRENCİ MEŞGULİYETİ ÖLÇEĞİNİN TÜRKÇEYE UYARLANMASI: GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama Crossref logo
Cho, Hyejin & YouJin Kim
2021. Comparing the characteristics of EFL students’ multimodal composing and traditional monomodal writing: The case of a reading-to-write task. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110467 ff. Crossref logo
CHO, MINYOUNG
2018. Task Complexity and Modality: Exploring Learners’ Experience From the Perspective of Flow. The Modern Language Journal 102:1 ► pp. 162 ff. Crossref logo
Cho, Minyoung
2019. The effects of prompts on L2 writing performance and engagement. Foreign Language Annals 52:3 ► pp. 576 ff. Crossref logo
Dao, Phung
2021. Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59:3 ► pp. 315 ff. Crossref logo
Dao, Phung, Phuong-Thao Duong & Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen
2021. Effects of SCMC mode and learner familiarity on peer feedback in L2 interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
DAO, PHUNG, MAI XUAN NHAT CHI NGUYEN, PHUONG–THAO DUONG & VU TRAN–THANH
2021. Learners’ Engagement in L2 Computer‐Mediated Interaction: Chat Mode, Interlocutor Familiarity, and Text Quality. The Modern Language Journal 105:4 ► pp. 767 ff. Crossref logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Noriko Iwashita
2021. Teachers’ perceptions of learner engagement in L2 classroom task-based interaction. The Language Learning Journal 49:6 ► pp. 711 ff. Crossref logo
Dao, Phung, Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen & Ngoc Bao Chau Nguyen
2021. Effect of pronunciation instruction on L2 learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 7:1 ► pp. 10 ff. Crossref logo
Dao, Phung & Masatoshi Sato
2021. Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours. Language Teaching Research 25:6 ► pp. 972 ff. Crossref logo
García-Pastor, María Dolores
2021.  In Motivation, Volition, and Engagement in Online Distance Learning [Advances in Mobile and Distance Learning, ], ► pp. 126 ff. Crossref logo
Geeslin, Kimberly L., Avizia Y. Long & Megan Solon
2021.  In The Acquisition of Spanish as a Second Language, ► pp. 277 ff. Crossref logo
Guo, Yan, Jinfen Xu & Cong Chen
2022. Measurement of engagement in the foreign language classroom and its effect on language achievement: the case of Chinese college EFL students. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 Crossref logo
Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura, Avizia Yim Long & Megan Solon
2017. TBLT AND L2 PRONUNCIATION. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39:2 ► pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Gurzynski‐Weiss, Laura, Mackenzie Coulter‐Kern & Tess Kuntz
2021. Engagement and emerging elementary‐level L2 Spanish: Detailing the status quo and identifying opportunities. Foreign Language Annals Crossref logo
Hiver, Phil, Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Joseph P. Vitta & Janice Wu
2021. Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110012 ff. Crossref logo
Lambert, Craig, Jenefer Philp & Sachiko Nakamura
2017. Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research 21:6 ► pp. 665 ff. Crossref logo
Lee, Bradford J.
2022. Listener engagement: the missing link in research on accented speech. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 0:0 Crossref logo
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51:3 ► pp. 285 ff. Crossref logo
Mercer, Sarah
2019.  In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Mercer, Sarah
2019.  In Second Handbook of English Language Teaching [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 643 ff. Crossref logo
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Anna
2020. Teachers’ accounts of learners’ engagement and disaffection in the language classroom. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Nagle, Charles L., Pavel Trofimovich, Mary Grantham O’Brien & Sara Kennedy
2022. BEYOND LINGUISTIC FEATURES. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 44:1 ► pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo
Nakamura, Sachiko, Linh Phung & Hayo Reinders
2021. THE EFFECT OF LEARNER CHOICE ON L2 TASK ENGAGEMENT. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:2 ► pp. 428 ff. Crossref logo
Pawlak, Miroslaw
2020.  In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 52 ff. Crossref logo
Philp, Jenefer & Susan Duchesne
2016. Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36 ► pp. 50 ff. Crossref logo
Philp, Jenefer & Laura Gurzynski-Weiss
2020.  In Cross-theoretical Explorations of Interlocutors and their Individual Differences [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 53], ► pp. 20 ff. Crossref logo
Phung, Linh
2017. Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research 21:6 ► pp. 751 ff. Crossref logo
Rahimi, Muhammad & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2021. Effects of an Engaging Process-Genre Approach on Student Engagement and Writing Achievements. Reading & Writing Quarterly ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Samifanni, Faramarz & Rose Leslie R Gumanit
2021. Survival with Technology: Elderly Teachers’ Perspective Towards Emergency Online Learning During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Philippines. Studies in Learning and Teaching 2:3 ► pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2017. Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective-Social-Cognitive Model. Language Learning 67:2 ► pp. 249 ff. Crossref logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
2020. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882092358 ff. Crossref logo
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L.
2018. Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness 27:1-2 ► pp. 21 ff. Crossref logo
Svalberg, Agneta M.-L. & Jim Askham
2020. Teacher and learner perceptions of adult foreign language learners’ engagement with consciousness-raising tasks in four languages. Language Awareness 29:3-4 ► pp. 236 ff. Crossref logo
Tarrayo, Veronico N., Rafael Michael O. Paz & Emejidio C. Gepila
2021. The shift to flexible learning amidst the pandemic: the case of English language teachers in a Philippine state university. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Toth, Zuzana
2020. Language Awareness in Italian Secondary Schools How Do Students Approach Language Awareness Tasks and What Kind of Language Awareness Emerges from Their Reflections? . EL.LE :3 Crossref logo
Trofimovich, Pavel, Oguzhan Tekin & Kim McDonough
2021. Task engagement and comprehensibility in interaction. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 7:3 ► pp. 435 ff. Crossref logo
Yoshida, Reiko
2020. Emotional scaffolding in text chats between Japanese language learners and native Japanese speakers. Foreign Language Annals 53:3 ► pp. 505 ff. Crossref logo
Zabihi, Reza
2020. The effects of task type on the resolution of grammatical cognitive conflict episodes and grammar learning. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Zhang, Aizhen & Yang Yang
2021. Toward the Association Between EFL/ESL Teachers' Work Engagement and Their Students' Academic Engagement. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Zhang, Boya
2021. Engaging in dialogue during collaborative writing: The role of affective, cognitive, and social engagement. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110540 ff. Crossref logo
Zheng, Jin
2021. The Role of Chinese EMI Teachers’ Clarity and Credibility in Fostering Students’ Academic Engagement and Willingness to Attend Classes. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo

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.