Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-11T06:05:18.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE EFFECT OF LEARNER CHOICE ON L2 TASK ENGAGEMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2020

Sachiko Nakamura Open the ORCID record for Sachiko Nakamura [Opens in a new window] ,
Linh Phung  and
Hayo Reinders
Sachiko Nakamura*
Affiliation:
King Mongkut’s University of TechnologyThonburi
Linh Phung
Affiliation:
Chatham University
Hayo Reinders
Affiliation:
King Mongkut’s University of TechnologyThonburi
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sachiko Nakamura, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand. E-mail: sachiko8266@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the effect of choice on EFL learners’ task engagement. Twenty-four Thai university students completed two opinion-gap tasks. In one, they discussed and agreed on three items among given options (+constraint). In the other, they discussed and agreed on three items among the options they generated (−constraint). Spoken interaction and questionnaires were analyzed for behavioral (time on task, words produced, turns), cognitive (negotiation of meaning and form, self-repairs), social (overlaps and turn completion, backchannels), and emotional engagement (anxiety, enjoyment), based on Philp and Duchesne’s multifaceted model. The −constraint task had positive effects on all the cognitive engagement measures, but only one of the behavioral measures (turns) and one of the social measures (overlaps). Learners reported higher anxiety and enjoyment in the −constraint task. The findings highlight the interrelated multidimensional nature of learner task engagement while suggesting pedagogical implications and avenues for future research.

Type
Research Report
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 428 - 441
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We are deeply grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.

References

Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjørge, A. K. (2010). Conflict or cooperation: The use of backchannelling in ELF negotiations. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, M. H., Jager, J., & Putnick, D. L. (2013). Sampling in developmental science: Situations, shortcomings, solutions, and standards. Developmental Review, 33, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, Y. G. (2017). Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners’ game designs. Language Teaching Research, 21, 735–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). Routledge.Google Scholar
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2011). The handbook of research on student engagement. Springer Science.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variable in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). The motivational basis for language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flowerday, T., & Schraw, G. (2003). Effect of choice on cognitive and affective engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, J. J., & Berenz, N. (1993). Transcribing conversational exchanges. In Edwards, J. A. & Lampert, M. D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 91–122). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13, 133–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–433.Google Scholar
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2007). The role of affect in student learning: A multi-dimensional approach to considering the interaction of affect, motivation, and engagement. In Schutz, P. A. & Pekrun, R. (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 107–124). Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maehr, M. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In Ames, R. & Ames, C. (Eds.), Motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 115–144). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. (2019). Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In Gao, X., Davison, C., & Leung, C. (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Springer.Google Scholar
Miyata, S., & Nisisawa, H. Y. (2007). The acquisition of Japanese backchanneling behavior: Observing the emergence of aizuchi in a Japanese boy. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1255–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosher, R., & MacGowan, B. (1985). Assessing student engagement in secondary schools: Alternative conceptions, strategies of assessing, and instruments. University of Wisconsin, Research and Development Center (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272812).Google Scholar
Mozgalina, A. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oga-Baldwin, W. Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ) – User’s manual. University of Munich, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21, 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phung, L., Nakamura, S., & Reinders, H. (2020). The effect of choice on affective engagement: Implications for task design. In Hiver, P., Mercer, S., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (Eds.), Learner engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). The experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 285–316). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (2009a). Engagement and disaffection as organizational constructs in the dynamics of motivational development. In Wenzel, K. R. & Wigfield, A. (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 223–245). Routledge.Google Scholar
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. (2009b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer.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
Svalberg, A. (2009). Engagement with language: Developing a construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Wannaruk, A. (1997). Back-channel behavior in Thai and American casual telephone conversations. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)..Google Scholar
Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yngve, V. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. In Campbell, M. et al. (Eds.), Papers from the sixth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 567–578). Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar