While learners’ engagement has been recognized as important for second language (L2) learning in task-based language teaching (TBLT), how engagement is manifest in learners’ L2 use during task performance and how tasks can be designed to facilitate better engagement have not received enough attention in the L2 research. This study investigates the relationship between learners’ expressed preferences for two communicative L2 tasks and their engagement in L2 use during task performance. Twenty-one learners of English as a second language (ESL) performed two distinct tasks and participated in an interview after finishing them. This article compares behavioral, cognitive, and social measures of learners’ engagement in L2 use while performing the task they preferred more and the task they preferred less as well as their expressed reasons for these preferences. The findings revealed a higher level of cognitive engagement in L2 use (i.e. greater negotiation of meaning and form) during the performance of the task they preferred more. The findings also revealed that the topic as well as opportunities to create ideas and address a genuine communicative need were the most important factors in determining learners’ expressed task preferences. Implications for task design include allowing learners to create content for the tasks they perform and choosing topics that are familiar, personally relevant, and emotionally engaging to learners.
AubreyS. (2017). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21, 717–734.
2.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
BuiG.H.Y. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency level. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing persectives on task performance (pp. 63–94). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
4.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose and engagement within the interaction approach. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
ChristensonS.LReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds.) (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer.
6.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
den BrandenK.V.BygateM.NorrisJ.M. (2009). Task-based language teaching: A reader. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
8.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
9.
DörnyeiZ.TsengW.T. (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
EgbertJ. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 499–518.
11.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
ErlamR. (2016). ‘I’m still not sure what a task is’: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20, 279–299.
14.
GumperzJ.J.BerenzN. (1993). Transcribing conversational exchanges. In EdwardsJ.A.LampertM.D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 91–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
HurdS. (2008) Affect and strategy use in independent language learning. In LewisS. T. (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 218–236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
16.
ImaiY. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 278–292.
17.
KormosJ.PréfontaineY. (2017). Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’
appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 699–716.
18.
LambertC. (1998). The role of the learner in classroom task performance. Journal of Nanzan Junior College, 26, 85–101.
19.
LambertC.MinnD. (2007). Personal investment in L2 task design and learning: A case study of two Japanese learners of English. ELIA, 7, 127–148.
20.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
21.
LambertzK. (2011). Back-channelling: The use of yeah and mm to portray engaged listenership. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 4, 11–18.
22.
LongM.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
23.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
24.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25.
LongM. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
26.
MacIntyreP.D.LegattoJ. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
27.
MacIntyreP.D.SerroulA. (2015). Motivation on a per-second time scale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.D.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109–138). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
28.
MeahrM. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In AmesR.AmesC. (Eds.), Motivation in education: Student motivation, Volume 1 (pp. 115–144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
MercerS. (2015). Dynamics of the self: A multilevel nested systems approach. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.D.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 139–163). New York: Multilingual Matters.
30.
MozgalinaA. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task engagement. System, 49, 120–132.
31.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
32.
PréfontaineY.KormosJ. (2015). The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: A mixed methods approach. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 96–112.
33.
QiuX.LoY.Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681–698.
34.
SacksH.SchegloffE.A.JeffersonG. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
35.
SkehanP. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
36.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
37.
StorchN. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
38.
SvalbergA.M.-L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating the construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258.
39.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidhoferB. (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
SwainM. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46, 195–207.
41.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics16, 371–91.
42.
TomlinsonB. (2011). Introduction: Principles and procedures of materials development. In TomlinsonB. (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp. 1–31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
WaningeF. (2015). Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Attractor states in the classroom. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.D.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 195–213). New York: Multilingual Matters.
