8. Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form
Abstract
Interactive tasks that have successfully promoted attention to form and language learning in face-to-face (FTF) can be ineffective when performed online (Baralt 2013, 2014). This research is concerning, given the push for online language classes in higher education (Leow, Cerezo, & Baralt 2015). One reason that interactive language tasks do not translate to online settings may be the diminished affect and socialization present in online settings (Baralt 2014). Despite this hypothesis, researchers continue to explore learners’ attention to form from exclusively the cognitive perspective. Recently, Svalberg (2009; 2012) proposed a new model for exploring how learners achieve awareness of forms: a threefold construct including cognitive as well as social and affective engagement. The present chapter is the first to empirically operationalize Svalberg’s model for analyzing learners’ attention (or not) to forms during task-based peer interaction. Forty intermediate-level learners of Spanish performed either cognitively simple or complex interactive dyadic tasks in person or online. Learners’ interaction and post-task questionnaires were then coded for the three types of engagement. Results showed more cognitive engagement (e.g., attention to language forms, reflection), social engagement (e.g., supportive interaction) and affective engagement (e.g., positive feelings) in FTF, particularly during the more complex task. All three types of engagement were diminished or were entirely…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Socialization and community building are fundamental to engagement with a language and language learning.
“Socialization and community building-fundamental to engagement with a language and language learning-are not accomplished in the same way as they are in traditional classrooms”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss, & Kim, 2016
Socializing and the formation of trust and friendship is essential for language learning.
“(c) socializing and the formation of trust and friendship is essential for language learning, and these can be more challenging for the teacher to promote online (Baralt et al., 2016;Compton, 2009;Gleason, 2013;Hampel & Stickler, 2005;Stickler & Shi, 2015);”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Socialization and community building are not accomplished in the same way online as in traditional classrooms.
“Socialization and community building-fundamental to engagement with a language and language learning-are not accomplished in the same way as they are in traditional classrooms”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss, & Kim, 2016
Socializing and the formation of trust and friendship can be more challenging for the teacher to promote online.
“(c) socializing and the formation of trust and friendship is essential for language learning, and these can be more challenging for the teacher to promote online (Baralt et al., 2016;Compton, 2009;Gleason, 2013;Hampel & Stickler, 2005;Stickler & Shi, 2015);”
From Task-based language teaching online: A guide for teachers (2017) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
One student's frustration at exclusion by her partner in an online chat session resulted in deliberate disengagement.
“As seen here, one student's frustration at exclusion by her partner in an online chat session resulted in deliberate disengagement:”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al. (2016)
Baralt et al. (2016) described engagement as a cognitive and/or affective and/or social state and identified these through a range of indicators developed from the data.
“Consistent with Svalberg (2012), Baralt et al. described engagement as a cognitive and/or affective and/or social state, and identified these through a range of indicators developed from the data.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Categories of engagement often overlapped; for example, learner scaffolding was coded as social engagement yet could also constitute an LRE, an indicator of cognitive engagement.
“Perhaps symptomatic of the interdependence between dimensions of engagement, categories often overlapped. For example, learner scaffolding (or lack of support thereof) was coded as social engagement-yet this could also constitute an LRE, an indicator of cognitive engagement.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Affective engagement in Baralt et al. related to learners' attitudes, willingness to interact, purposefulness, and autonomy.
“Affective engagement related to learners' attitudes, willingness to interact, their purposefulness (orientation), and their autonomy (pp. 222, 227).”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Social engagement in Baralt et al. related to aspects of mutuality and reciprocity, described in terms of interactiveness and supportiveness, as well as relational indicators of friendship, trust, and inclusion.
“Social engagement related to aspects of mutuality and reciprocity, which Baralt et al. described in terms of interactiveness and supportiveness, as well as relational indicators of friendship, trust, and inclusion (p. 229).”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Baralt et al.'s coding of the data was based primarily on instances of LREs.
“Baralt et al.'s (2016) coding of the data was based primarily on instances of LREs.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
For cognitive engagement, Baralt et al. identified noticing and reflection on language form.
“For cognitive engagement, they identified noticing and reflection on language form.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
In Lambert and Philp's study, indicators of engagement were developed from the interaction data and varied according to task type.
“Like Baralt et al. (2016), indicators of engagement were developed from the interaction data, resulting in some variation according to task type.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Baralt et al., 2016
Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim (2016) showed that learners' level of attention to form (language awareness) was higher in the FTF mode, learners' attitude towards the task was more positive in the FTF context, and learners engaged with each other more in the FTF than in the CMC interactions.
“The researchers analysed the interactions in terms of cognitive, affective, and social engagement, and showed that, first, learners' level of attention to form (language awareness) was higher in the FTF mode.Second, learners' attitude towards the task was more positive in the FTF context.In addition, learners engaged with each other more in the FTF than in the CMC interactions.”
From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 152
- Authors
- Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y.
- Affiliations
- Florida International University (US)
- Indiana University
- Venue
- Language Learning & Language Teaching
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2016-02-26
- Pages
- 209-239
- ISSN
- 1569-9471 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2999061786
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 26.98
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language learning and language teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Foreign Language Teaching Methods
- Keywords
- attention to form, language awareness, online language learning, cognitive engagement, social engagement, emotional engagement, Spanish as a foreign language, intermediate learners, dyadic interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
