Abstract
The study investigated the potential impact of task goal orientation on cognitive, social and emotional aspects of task performance through the lens of learner engagement. Sixteen EFL learner dyads completed a convergent decision-making task and a divergent opinion-exchange task. Their audio-recorded interactions were transcribed and coded for evidence of engagement, including idea units and language-related-episodes (cognitive engagement), instances of explicit task enjoyment, reported emotions (emotional engagement), and responsiveness (social engagement). To determine the effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement, scores for engagement types were compared between two tasks. To understand learners’ perception about their engagement, posttask exit questionnaire responses were analyzed using content-analysis approach. Findings showed that learners showed greater cognitive and social engagement in the convergent than divergent tasks. No differences were observed in learners’ emotional engagement. Results are discussed in terms of the role of task goal orientation in promoting learners’ cognitive and social engagement.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Kim McDonough, Pavel Trofimovich and Sara Kennedy for their insightful comments, and Mai Nguyen for her editing help and useful feedback. All remaining errors are my own.
References
Baralt, M., L. Gurzynski-Weiss and Y. Kim. 2016. The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45.09barSearch in Google Scholar
Batstone, R. 2010. Issues and options in sociocognition. In R. Batstone (ed.), Sociocognitive perspective on language use and language learning, 3–23. Oxford: OxFord University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Braun, V. and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3. 77–101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oaSearch in Google Scholar
Bygate, M. and V. Samuda. 2009. Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey and C. Polio (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass, 90–116. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Damon, W. and E. Phelps. 1989. Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research 58. 9–19.10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-XSearch in Google Scholar
Dao, P. N. Iwashita and E. Gatbonton. 2017. Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 21(4). 454–479.10.1177/1362168816651462Search in Google Scholar
Dao, P. and K. McDonough. 2017. The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System 65. 15–24.10.1016/j.system.2016.12.012Search in Google Scholar
Dao, P. and K. McDonough. 2018. Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research 88(1). 60–72.10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.008Search in Google Scholar
Duff, P. A. 1986. Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. R. Day (ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition, 147–181. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Search in Google Scholar
Egbert, J. 2003. A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 87. 499–518.10.1111/1540-4781.00204Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, New York: Oxford Applied Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. and G. Barkhuizen. 2005. AnalyzingLlearner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Erlam, R. 2016. I’m still not sure what a task is: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research 20. 279–299.10.1177/1362168814566087Search in Google Scholar
Galaczi, E. D. 2008. Peer–Peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5. 89–119.10.1080/15434300801934702Search in Google Scholar
Helme, S. and D. Clarke. 2001. Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal 13. 133–153.10.1007/BF03217103Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, D. 2007. Another look at convergent and divergent tasks: Evidence from synchronous computer-mediated communication. Presentation at Second International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University of Hawai’i.Search in Google Scholar
Keller-Lally, A. 2006. Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. University of Texas at Austin Unpublished PhD Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Lambert, C. and S. Engler. 2007. Information distribution and goal orientation in second language task design. In M. P. G. Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, 25–43. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599286-005Search in Google Scholar
Lambert, C. and D. Minn. 2007. Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA 7. 127–148.Search in Google Scholar
Lambert, C., J. Philp and S. Nakamura. 2017. Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research 21. 665–680.10.1177/1362168816683559Search in Google Scholar
Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie and T. K. Bahatia (eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition, 413–468. NY: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3Search in Google Scholar
Long, M. 2015. Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Mackey, A. 2012. Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maehr, M. 1984. Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames and C. Ames (eds.), Motivation in education: Student motivation, 115–144. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Oga-Baldwin, W. and Y. Nakata. 2017. Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System 65. 151–163.10.1016/j.system.2017.01.011Search in Google Scholar
Philp, J. and S. Duchesne. 2016. Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36. 50–72.10.1017/S0267190515000094Search in Google Scholar
Philp, J., S. Walter and H. Basturkmen. 2010. Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factor foster a focus on form? Language Awareness 19. 261–279.10.1080/09658416.2010.516831Search in Google Scholar
Phung, L. 2017. Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research 21. 75–766.10.1177/1362168816683561Search in Google Scholar
Pica, T., R. Kanagy and J. Falodun. 1993. Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes and S. M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice, 9–34. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar
Qiu, X. and Y. Y. Lo. 2017. Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research 21. 681–698.10.1177/1362168816684368Search in Google Scholar
Reeve, J. 2012. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement, 149–172. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7Search in Google Scholar
Reeve, J. and C. Tseng. 2011. Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology 36. 257–267.10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Sato, M. 2017. Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective‐social‐cognitive model. Language Learning 67. 249–283.10.1111/lang.12214Search in Google Scholar
Shin, S-Y., R Lidster, S. Sabraw and R. Yeager. 2016. The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research 20. 366–386.10.1177/1362168814567888Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2001. A framework for implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 17. 38–62.10.4324/9781315629766-3Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2014. Processing perspectives on task performance. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/tblt.5Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 2001. Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 183–205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.009Search in Google Scholar
Skinner, E., T. Kindermann and C. Furrer. 2009. A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement 69. 493–525.10.1177/0013164408323233Search in Google Scholar
Smith, B. 2003. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal 87. 38–57.10.1111/1540-4781.00177Search in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2001. How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research 5. 29–53.10.1177/136216880100500103Search in Google Scholar
Storch, N. 2008. Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness 17. 95–114.10.1080/09658410802146644Search in Google Scholar
Storch, N. and A. Aldosari. 2013. Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17. 31–48.10.1177/1362168812457530Search in Google Scholar
Svalberg, A. 2009. Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness 18. 242–258.10.1080/09658410903197264Search in Google Scholar
Svalberg, A. M. L. 2018. Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness 27(1-2). 21–39.10.1080/09658416.2017.1406490Search in Google Scholar
Swain, M. 2013. The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching 46. 195–207.10.1017/S0261444811000486Search in Google Scholar
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82. 320–337.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.xSearch in Google Scholar
Toth, P. D., E. Wagner and K. Moranski. 2013. Co-constructing explicit L2 knowledge with high school Spanish learners through guided induction. Applied Linguistics 34. 255–278.10.1093/applin/ams049Search in Google Scholar
van Lier, L. 2002. An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspective. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Wegerif, R., N. Mercer and L. Dawes. 1999. From social interaction to individual reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive development. Learning and Instruction 9. 493–516.10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00013-4Search in Google Scholar
Williams, J. 2001. Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning 51. 303–334.10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00020.xSearch in Google Scholar
Young, A. and D. Tedick. 2016. Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistics scaffolding. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 135–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45.06youSearch in Google Scholar
Appendix: Exit posttask questionnaires
| Instruction: Read the questions and provide answers in the boxes next to each question | ||
| Questions | Conversation 1 | Conversation 2 |
| What was your thinking about the task goal/outcome? And how did it affect your interaction? | ||
| What was your overall perception of the task that you just did with your partner? | ||
| What features of language did you notice during the task? Apart from that, what else did you pay attention to? | ||
| How important and/or helpful was working with your partner in order to do the task? | ||
| Did your partner help you? If so, how? | ||
| Provide three adjectives to describe how you felt when working with your partner in the interaction? | ||
| Do you think that you and your partner were both equally willing to contribute to the task? Explain? | ||
| Provide three adjectives to describe how you felt during the task? | ||
| Do task topics affect your interaction? | ||
| Other comments about the task, your partner, your interaction, task topics etc.? | ||
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
