Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.32–59
Original Research Article

Engagement in oral production

The impact of a coursebook innovation

| Dong Thap University
| Victoria University of Wellington

Interaction is recognised as an important contributor to language learning but in many classrooms opportunities to interact meaningfully are limited. This situation can be addressed when teachers make decisions about adapting the materials they are working with. The result is likely to be learners who are more engaged in multiple ways and who therefore learn more effectively. This article reports on a two-phase investigation of English language learning in Grade 5 classes in Vietnam. In the first phase, twenty-one classes were observed to form an understanding of standard practices in these classes. In the second phase, a small, replicable adaptation of coursebook material was made and implemented with an intervention class for one semester. Three dimensions of engagement were investigated, and on each learners in the intervention class were considerably more engaged than in the comparison class, or in the first phase classes. This study demonstrates what it is possible to achieve through a small coursebook innovation.

Keywords: interaction, engagement, English language learning, young learners, Vietnam, coursebook adaptation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Learner engagement
    • 2.1Cognitive engagement
    • 2.2Emotional engagement
    • 2.3Behavioural engagement
    • 2.4Teacher influence on engagement
    • 2.5Young learner engagement
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Context and participants
    • 3.2Data generation
    • 3.3Data analysis
    • 3.4Materials
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Phase 1: The status quo
      • 4.1.1Cognitive engagement
      • 4.1.2Emotional engagement
      • 4.1.3Behavioural engagement
      • 4.1.4Teachers’ opinions about learners’ engagement
    • 4.2Phase 2
      • 4.2.1Cognitive engagement
        • 4.2.1.1Constructing
        • 4.2.1.2Comparing
        • 4.2.1.3Creating
      • 4.2.2Emotional engagement
      • 4.2.3Behavioural engagement
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00042.eng
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C.
(2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R.
(2015) The challenges of implementing group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special educational needs. Education 3–13, 43 (1), 15–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y.
(2016) Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behr, H.
(2005) Comparing rural and urban primary education in the Mekong Delta. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, 414 1. [URL]
Bock, A. K., & Erickson, K. A.
(2015) The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40 (2), 138–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S.
(2006) Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.Google Scholar
Brophy, J.
(2008) Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43 (3), 132–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J., & Haywood, D. E.
(2014) Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116 (4), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V.
(2009) Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 96–122). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cameron, L.
(2001) Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B.
(1988) Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dornyei, Z., & Kormos, J.
(2000) The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, G.
(1995) Storytelling and storybooks: A broader version of the communicative approach. The Journal of TESOL France- British Council, 2 (1), 89–100.Google Scholar
Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D.
(1991, 1991/06/01). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51 (2), 393–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H.
(2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W.
(2012) The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). Springer US. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, S.
(2009) Productive group work: How to engage students, build teamwork, and promote understanding. ASCD.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Poskitt, J.
(2010) Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (Years 7–10): A literature review report to the Ministry of Education. [URL]
Grassick, L. J.
(2016) Complexity, connections and sense-making: Stakeholder experiences of primary English language curriculum change in one province in Vietnam [PhD], University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Guthrie, G.
(2010) Basic research methods: An entry to social science research. SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guvenc, H.
(2015) The relationship between teachers’ motivational support and engagement versus disaffection. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15 (3), 647–657.Google Scholar
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L.
(2010) Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 588–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D.
(1995) The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Prentice Hall Europe.Google Scholar
Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P.
(2014) Effective group work in primary school classrooms: The SPRinG approach. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, G. W.
(2013) Peer influences in elementary school. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 205–208). Routledge.Google Scholar
Macalister, J.
(2010) Investigating teacher attitudes to extensive reading practices in higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC Journal, 41 (1), 59–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V.
(2003) Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 60–90). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J., & Rinvolucri, M.
(1983) Once upon a time: Using stories in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newton, J., & Nguyen, B. T. T.
(2019) Task repetition and the public performance of speaking tasks in EFL classes at a Vietnamese high school. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1 (1), 34–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M.
(2006) The role of peers and group learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, S.
(1993) Young learners. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S.
(2016, 03/2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36 1, 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R.
(2009) Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47 (3–4), 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P. R.
(2003) Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 103–122). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Resnick, L. B.
(1987) Education and learning to think. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P.
(2012) Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (3), 700–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T.
(2015) To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (1), 170–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M.
(2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.Google Scholar
Schlechty, P. C.
(1994) Increasing student engagement. Missouri Leadership Academy.Google Scholar
(2011) Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Shawer, S. F.
(2010, 2/2010) Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (2), 173–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R.
(2012) Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.
(2005) Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 87–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language teaching research : LTR, 11 (2), 143–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z., Bergin, D. A., & Bergin, C. A.
(2014) Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29 (4), 517–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willms, J. D.
(2003) Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation, results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar