This study investigates the effects of pre-task planning on English as a second language (ESL) learners’ engagement in oral tasks in the face-to-face real-time communication (FTF) and synchronous video-based computer-mediated communication (SvCMC) modes. A total of 36 ESL learners performed two decision-making tasks (with versus without pre-task planning) in dyads in the FTF or the SvCMC mode. Their oral discourse of tasks was analysed via seven indicators in terms of behavioral, cognitive and social engagement. Their emotional engagement was captured via an interview immediately after the task performance. As the results showed, pre-task planning did not significantly affect the learners’ behavioral, cognitive and social engagement in either the FTF or the SvCMC condition. In SvCMC, more negotiations on content were produced when there was no planning time, but such a difference was not observed among the FTF learners. Mixed affective responses were reported on pre-task planning and the two task modalities. The findings yield pedagogical implications for second language (L2) teaching in the face-to-face and online contexts.
AubreyS.KingJ.AlmkiledH.A. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal. Epub ahead of print 29August2020. DOI: 10.1177/0033688220945418.
2.
BaraltM.L. (2010). Task complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, and interaction in CMC and FTF environments. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
3.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). Engagement with 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 (pp. 209–240). John Benjamins.
4.
BuiH.Y.G. (2014). Task readiness: Theoretical framework and empirical evidence from topic familiarity, strategic planning, and proficiency levels. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 63–93). John Benjamins.
5.
BuiG.HuangZ. (2018). L2 fluency as influenced by content familiarity and planning: Performance, methodology and pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 22, 94–114.
6.
BuiG.TengF. (2018). Exploring learners’ self-reported behavioral patterns in two task-readiness conditions: A qualitative study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 129–149.
7.
BuiGSkehanP.WangZ. (2018). Task condition effects on advanced level foreign language performance. In MalovrhP.A.BenatiA. (Eds.), The handbook of advanced proficiency in second language acquisition (pp. 219–237). John Wiley and Sons.
8.
BygateM. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins.
9.
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 honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). Routledge.
10.
CarverC.JungD.Gurzynski-WeissL. (2021). Examining learner engagement in relationship to learning and communication mode. In HiverP.AI-HoorieA.H.MercerS. (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 120–142). Multilingual Matters.
11.
ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer.
12.
DaoP.NguyenM.X.N.C.DuongP.Tran-ThanhV. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. The Modern Language Journal, 105, 767–791.
13.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
14.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisR. (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. John Benjamins.
16.
EllisR. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
17.
FosterP.SkehanP. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.
18.
Garcia MayoM.AgirreA.I. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.
19.
González-LloretM. (2020). Collaborative tasks for online language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 53, 260–269.
20.
González-LloretM.OrtegaL. (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks. John Benjamins.
21.
HampelR.HauckM. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 66–82.
22.
JenksC.FirthA. (2013). Synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication. In HerringS.SteinD.VirtanenT. (Eds.), Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication (pp. 217–243) Walter de Gruyter.
23.
JepsonK. (2005). Conversations-and negotiated interaction- in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9, 79–98.
24.
LambertC. (2017). Tasks, affect and second language performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 657–664.
25.
LambertC.ZhangG. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as foreign languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional task design. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 391–411.
26.
LambertC.AubreyS.BuiG. (2023). The role of the learner in task-based language teaching: Theory and research. Routledge.
27.
LambertC.PhilpJ.NakamuraS. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21, 665–680.
28.
LeeJ.S.LeeK.HsiehJ.C. (2019). Understanding willingness to communicate in L2 between Korean and Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research, 26, 455–476.
29.
LenkaitisC.A. (2020). Technology as a mediating tool: videoconferencing, L2 learning, and learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33, 483–509.
30.
MaehrM.L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In AmesR.E.AmesC. (Eds.), Motivation in education: student motivation, Volume 1 (pp. 115–144). Academic Press.
31.
McGuireT.KieslerS.SiegalJ. (1987). Group and computer-mediated discussion effects in risk decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.
32.
MehnertU. (1998). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83–108.
33.
MercerS. (2019). Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In GaoX. (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 643–660). Springer Nature.
34.
MichelM.C. (2013). The use of conjunctions in cognitively simple versus complex oral L2 tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 178–195.
35.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 77–109). John Benjamins.
36.
PangF.SkehanP. (2014). Self-reported planning behaviour and second language performance in narrative retelling. In SkehanP. (Ed.), Processing perspectives on task performance (pp. 95–128). John Benjamins.
37.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
38.
PhungD.NguyenM. X. N.DuongP.Tran-ThanhV. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, text quality. The Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 767–791.
39.
QiuX.ChengH. (2021). The effects of task types on L2 oral production and learner engagement. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 4March2021. DOI: 10.1515/iral-2020-0128.
40.
QiuX.LoY.Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.
41.
Rabe-HempC.WoollenS.HumistonG.S. (2009). A comparative analysis of student engagement, learning, and satisfaction in lecture hall and online learning settings. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10, 207–218.
42.
ReeveJ. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer.
43.
ReschlyA.L.ChristensonS.L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Springer.
44.
RobinsonP. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins.
45.
SkehanP. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
46.
SkehanP. (2015). Limited attention capacity and cognition. In BygateM. (Ed.), Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 123–155). John Benjamins.
47.
SkehanP. (2018). Second language task-based performance: Theory, research, assessment. Routledge.
48.
SkinnerE.A.KindermannT.A.FurrerC. (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.
49.
SvalbergA.M. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18, 242–258.
50.
TavakoliP.SkehanP. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure, and performance testing. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–276). John Benjamins.
51.
Van der ZwaardR.BanninkA. (2016). Nonoccurrence of negotiation of meaning in task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 625–640.
52.
WigglesworthG. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, 85–106.
53.
WoltersC.A.TaylorD.J. (2012). A self-regulated learning perspective on student engagement. In ChristensonS.L.ReschlyA.L.WylieC. (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 635–651). Springer Nature.
54.
YamadaM. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers and Education, 52, 820–833.
55.
ZieglerN. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 553–586.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
