Collaborative writing (CW) involves two or more students writing a single text together. Previous studies mainly focused on students’ cognitive engagement in CW and investigated their attention to various language-related problems during task interaction. However, little CW research to date has considered that engagement in language-related discussions can manifest from three dimensions: cognitive, social, and affective. Focusing on the multidimensional characteristics of engagement, this study investigated how Russian learners’ social and affective reactions influence their focus on language use while they completed a CW task. Drawing on Svalberg’s framework of engagement with language to identify the three dimensions of engagement, I conducted a mixed-method approach towards analysing the audio-recorded collaborative dialogues by three student pairs (n = 6), along with a qualitative analysis of their responses to a five-point Likert scale questionnaire. The analyses showed that when learners were interactive and viewed the activity as useful, they noticed many linguistic problems and elaborated on them. In contrast, when learners demonstrated social disengagement and perceived disadvantages from CW, they were likely to withdraw their attention from resolving the language issues they encountered. These findings indicate the complex and dynamic nature of task engagement. They can provide second language (L2) teachers with an in-depth understanding of how to fully engage students in instructional activities to better foster their L2 learning.
AhnS. (2016). Exploring language awareness through students’ engagement in language play. Language Awareness, 25, 40–54.
2.
AnY. (2018). Adaptive study on localization of communicative linguistics and Russian teaching in applied colleges. Journal of Changchun Normal University, 37, 175–179.
3.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–239). Benjamins.
4.
BourneJ.JewittC. (2003). Orchestrating debate: A multimodal analysis of classroom interaction. Literacy, 37, 64–72.
5.
ChenW.YuS. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 82, 83–96.
6.
ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer US.
7.
CummingA. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511.
8.
DamonW.PhelpsE. (1989). Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. In Peer relationships in child development (pp. 135–157). John Wiley.
9.
DaoP. (2019). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59, 315–334.
10.
DewaeleJ.M. (2010). Emotions in multiple languages. Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
DobaoF.A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
12.
DobaoF.A.BlumA. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–378.
13.
Du BoisJ.W.Schuetze-CoburnS.CummingS.PaolinoD. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In EdwardsJ.A.LampertM.D. (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
ElolaI.OskozA. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14, 51–71.
15.
FarrahM.A.H. (2011). Attitudes towards collaborative writing among English majors in Hebron University. Arab World English Journal, 2, 136–170.
16.
FirthA.WagnerJ. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819.
17.
GalacziE.D. (2008). Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the first certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 89–119.
18.
HänniR. (1980) What is planned during speech pauses? In GilesH.RobinsonW.P.SmithP.M. (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 321–326). Pergamon.
19.
JacknickC.M. (2018). Collaborative use of multimodal resources in discussions of L2 grammatical meaning: A microgenetic analysis. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 5, 130–174.
20.
KötterM. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning and Technology, 7, 145–172.
21.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
22.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
23.
LantolfJ.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
24.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
25.
LiM.KimD. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42.
26.
LiM.ZhuW. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26, 61–82.
27.
LiM.ZhuW. (2017). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–53.
28.
MercerN. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 137–168.
29.
MozaffariS.H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21, 496–516.
30.
OchsE.SchieffelinB. (1989). Language has a heart. Text & Talk, 9, 7–25.
31.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2008). When the gate opens: The interaction between social and linguistic goals in child second language development. In PhilpJ.OliverR.MackeyA. (Eds.), Child’s play? Second language acquisition and the young learner (pp. 83–104). John Benjamins.
32.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
33.
SatoM. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67, 249–283.
34.
ShehadehA. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.
35.
StellA. (2018). Exploring the use of collaborative writing in an EFL classroom context. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 13, 63–97.
36.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
37.
StorchN. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.
38.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
39.
StorchN. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.
40.
StorchN. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
41.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
42.
StorchN. (2018). Collaborative Writing. In LiontasJ.I.DelliCarpiniM.KesslerG. (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. John Wiley.
43.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
44.
SvalbergA.M.L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258.
45.
SvalbergA.M.L. (2012). Language awareness in language learning and teaching: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 45, 376–388.
46.
SvalbergA.M.L. (2018). Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27, 21–39.
47.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
48.
SwainM. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46, 195–207.
49.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Lingusitics, 16, 371–391.
50.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
51.
SwainM.WatanabeY. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In ChapelleC.A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell.
52.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
53.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
54.
YuS. (2015). What factors shape the collaborative pattern of group interaction during peer feedback in the L2 writing classroom?Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 28, 618–640.
55.
ZengG.TakatsukaS. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446.
56.
ZhangB. (2017). Collaborative writing in Russian language classroom in China: Its effectiveness and learner attitudes. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
57.
ZhangM. (2019). A re-examination of pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities in collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 2 December 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819890949.
