Dynamic engagement in second language computer-mediated collaborative writing tasks: Does communication mode matter?

• Authors: Scott Aubrey

Abstracts

EN

This study takes a dynamic approach to investigating engagement, examining fluctuations in cognitive-affective variables at regular time intervals during online collaborative second language (L2) writing tasks. Using online conference software and online editing software, 16 university students who use English as an L2, completed two collaborative problem-solution L2 writing tasks in two communication modes: video-chat and text-chat. After each task, learners viewed videos of their performances in 12 three-minute segments and were asked to rate their engagement on two scales (interest, focus). They were then interviewed about their attributions for fluctuations in their ratings. Group-level analysis revealed that learners experienced significantly higher focus and interest during tasks performed in video-chat mode than text-chat mode. This was contrasted with an analysis from a dynamic perspective, which produced a more nuanced picture of individual engagement trajectories during the tasks. Dynamic patterns of engagement fell into either moderately steady, increasing, decreasing, or rollercoaster pattern categories. A content analysis of 32 interviews revealed four factors that accounted for changes in engagement during tasks: task design (e.g., task familiarity), task process (e.g., instances of collaboration), task condition (e.g., communication mode), and learner factors (e.g., perceptions of proficiency).

Keywords

EN

dynamic engagement; affective engagement; cognitive engagement; computer-mediated tasks; collaborative writing

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 59-86

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Scott Aubrey

• The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China

• https://orcid.org/0000000343650516

References

• Al-Shehri, S., & Gitsaki, C. (2010). Online reading: A preliminary study of the impact of integrated and split-attention formats on L2 students’ cognitive load. ReCALL, 22(3), 356-375. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000212
• Aubrey, S. (2017a). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 717-734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683563
• Aubrey, S. (2017b). Measuring flow in the EFL classroom: Learners’ perceptions of inter- and intra-cultural task-based interactions. TESOL Quarterly, 51(3), 661-692.
• Aubrey, S., King, J., & Almkiled, H. A. A. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945418
• Aubrey, S., & Shintani, N. (2021). L2 writing and language learning in electronic environments. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 282-296). Routledge.
• Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P. D., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Enjoyment and anxiety in second language communication: An idiodynamic approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.7
• Chamberlin Quinlisk, C. (2008). Nonverbal communication, gesture and second language classrooms: A review. In S. G. McCafferty & G. Stam (Eds.), Gesture: SLA and classroom research (pp. 25-44). Routledge.
• Chen, A. (2001). A theoretical conceptualization for motivation research in physical education: An integrated perspective. Quest, 53, 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2001.10491729
• Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36(2), 37-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.013
• Chun, D. M. (1998). Signal analysis software for teaching discourse intonation. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10125/25033
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper Perennial.
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2005). Flow. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 598-608). Guilford.
• Dao, P., & Sato, M. (2021). Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviors. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044238
• Develotte, C., Guichon, N., & Vincent, C. (2010). The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL, 22(3), 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000170
• Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00204
• Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51-71.
• Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld P. C., & Paris A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
• Guichon, N., & McLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 6(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.005
• Guo, Y., Xu, J., & Xu, X. (2020). An investigation into EFL learners’ motivational dynamics during a group communicative task: A classroom-based case study. System, 89(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102214
• Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-571. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549
• Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A., Vitta, J., & Wu, J. (2021). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289
• Hong Kong examinations and assessment authority. (2015). IELTS. http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/en/recognition/benchmarking/hkdse/ielts/
• Hsu, H. C. (2019). Wiki-mediated collaboration and its association with L2 writing development: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1542407
• Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous language learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
• Kessler, M., Polio, C., Xu, C., & Hao, X. (2020). The effects of oral discussion and text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Foreign Language Annals, 53(4), 666-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12491
• Krapp, A. (2003). Interest and human development: An educational-psychological perspective. In L. Smith, C. Rogers, & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Development and motivation: Joint perspectives (pp. 57-84), British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II(2).
• Lai, C., Fei, R., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 70-90. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v26i1.70-90
• Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665-680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559
• Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
• Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.2.260-276
• Li, M. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41(3), 752-769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.021
• Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-899. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465981
• Liao, J. (2018). The impact of face‐to‐face oral discussion and online text chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.06.005
• Loewen, S., & Wolff, D. (2016). Peer interaction in FTF and CMC contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 163-184). John Benjamins.
• Long, M. H. (2015). Experimental perspectives on classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 60-73). Wiley- Blackwell.
• MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The idiodynamic method: A closer look at the dynamics of communication traits. Communication Research Reports, 29(4), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.723274
• MacIntrye, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2021). The idiodynamic method: Willingness to communicate and anxiety processes interacting in real time. International Review of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0024.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Serroul, A. (2015). Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 109-138). Multilingual Matters.
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312
• Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
• Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1-19). Information Age Publishing.
• Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2020). Teachers’ accounts of learners’ engagement and disaffection in the language classroom. The Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1800067
• Németh, N., & Kormos, J. (2001). Pragmatic aspects of task-performance: The case of argumentation. Language Teaching Research, 5(3), 213-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500303
• Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Bielak, J. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 654-671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609615
• Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094
• Phung, L., Nakamura, S., & Reinders, H. (2020). The effect of choice on affective engagement: Implications for task design. In P. Hiver, S. Mercer, & A. Al-Hoorie (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 163-181). Multilingual Matters.
• Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816684368
• Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3-19). Springer.
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
• Shearer, R. L., & Park, E. (2019). Theory to practice in instructional design. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 260-280). Routledge.
• Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. (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(3), 493-525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
• Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144481800032
• Svalberg, A. M. L. (2009). Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 242-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197264
• Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05514.x
• Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2009). Awareness and performance through self- and partner’s image in videoconferencing. CALICO Journal, 27(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.27.1.1-25
• Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146-165. https://doi.org/10125/44599
• Zeigler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136-163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190516000039
• Zhou, S., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2021). Measuring L2 engagement: A review of issues and applications. In P. Hiver, A. H. Al-Hoorie, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 75-98). Multilingual Matters.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.4

Biblioteka Nauki

2051499