Journal of Language Horizons

ارسال مقاله

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Executive staff

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Journal Metrics

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Guide for Authors

Ethics Commitment Form

Conflict of Interest

Publons Registration Guide

The Reviewer of the Journal in 2020

List of 2021 Reviewer

Reviewers 2022

The Impact of Task-Based Collaborative Output Activities on Learner Engagement in Writing Tasks

Document Type : Research article

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of English, Quchan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Quchan, Iran

Abstract

The present study explores the factors that shape learner engagement in writing tasks and the role that output-based instructions could perform in elevating the level of engagement. In so doing, to develop a measure for evaluating learner engagement in writing tasks, a pool of eight university teachers was interviewed and five university students participated in a think-aloud protocol and a total of 139 English-major university students were asked to complete the newly-developed inventory. The result of inter-coder reliability was acceptable and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) provided support for the factor structure of the measures. The final validated inventory comprised four factors and 23 items. Following this, the findings obtained from an experiment on 31 English-major students revealed that both types of task-based collaborative instructions including debating and dictogloss could elevate the level of students’ engagement in writing tasks. More specifically, the statistical analyses indicated that the debate-based instruction could increase the students’ engagement in writing tasks more than the dictogloss instruction. In the end, the linkage between task-based collaborative output activities, engagement in writing tasks, and engagement components were discussed, and the pedagogical implications were offered based on the results of the study.

Keywords

References
  1. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
  2. Aubrey, S., King, J., & Almukhalid, H. (2020). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal, 51(2), 209-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945418
  3. Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2017.7.3.2
  4. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semi-structured interviews: Problems of unitization and inter-coder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
  5. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Collins, L. (2007). L1 differences and L2 similarities: Teaching verb tenses in English. English Language Teaching Journal, 61(4), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm048
  7. Crowhurst, M. (1991). Research review: Patterns of development in writing persuasive/argumentative discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 314-338. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED299596
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harperand Row.
  9. Doody, O., & Condon, M. (2012). Increasing student involvement and learning through using debate as an assessment. Nurse Education in Practice, 12(4), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.03.002
  10. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  11. Egbert, J. L. (2020). The new normal? A pandemic of task engagement in language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 314-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12452
  12. Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 39-60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532
  13. Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Multilingual Matters.
  14. el Majidi, A., de Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2018). Students’ perceived effect of in-class debates in second language learning. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7(1), 35-57.
  15. el Majidi, A., de Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2020). Debate as L2 pedagogy: The effects of debating on writing development in secondary education. The Modern Language Journal, 104(4), 804-821. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12673
  16. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.
  17. Fathi, J., Nourzadeh, S., & Saharkhiz Arabani, A. (2021). Teacher individual self-efficacy and collective efficacy as predictors of teacher work engagement: The case of Iranian English teachers. Journal of Language Horizons. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.22051/LGHOR.2021.33184.1366
  18. Finn, J. D., & Rock, D. A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.221
  19. Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-132). Springer.
  20. 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
  21. Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763-782). Springer.
  22. Gallego, M. (2014). Second language learners’ reflections on the effectiveness of dictogloss: A multi-sectional, multi-level analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.1.3
  23. Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.11.001
  24. Hamedi, S. M., Pishghadm, R., & Farhadi, J. S. (2020). The contribution of reading emotions to reading comprehension: The mediating effect of reading engagement using a structural equation modeling approach. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 19(2), 211-238. https://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-1077862.html
  25. Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 184-192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192
  26. Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., Vitta, J. P., & Wu, J. (2021). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289
  27. Hofkens, T. L., & Ruzek, E. (2019). Measuring student engagement to inform effective interventions in schools. In J. Fredricks, A. L. Reschly, & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students (pp. 309-324). Academic Press.
  28. Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  29. Kelly, S. (2008). Race, social class, and student engagement in middle school English classrooms. Social Science Research, 37(2), 434-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.003
  30. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
  31. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.
  32. Leow, R. P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners' L2 development in SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/328683
  33. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
  34. Lustigova, L. (2011). Speak your mind: Simplified debates as a learning tool at the university level. Journal of Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 4(1), 18-30. https://www.eriesjournal.com/index.php/eries/article/view/30
  35. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
  36. Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668829
  37. Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
  38. Modarresi, Gh. (2019). Developing and validating involvement in translation scale and its relationship with translation ability. Forum: International Journal of Interpreting and Translation, 17(2), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1075/forum.18015.mod
  39. Modarresi, Gh. (2021). The effect of dictogloss vs. debating on L2 writing proficiency: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Teaching Language Skills. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.22099/jtls.2021.39939.2954
  40. Modarresi, Gh., & Alavi, S. M. (2014). Designing and validating a test battery of computerized dynamic assessment of grammar. TELL, 14(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2014.53816
  41. Naghdipour, B. (2016). English writing instruction in Iran: Implications for second language writing curriculum and pedagogy. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.05.001
  42. Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S.  L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). Springer.
  43. Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing. U.S. Department of Education.
  44. Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.
  45. Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning, 22(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
  46. 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.
  47. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.
  48. Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219-235). Springer.
  49. Shahian, L., Pishghadam, R., & Khajavy, H. (2017). Flow and reading comprehension: Testing the mediating role of emotioncy. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 527-549. http://iier.org.au/iier27/shahian.html
  50. Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. Springer.
  51. Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860
  52. Sirin, S. R., & Rogers-Sirin, L. (2004). Exploring school engagement of middle-class African American adolescents. Youth & Society, 35(3), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03255006
  53. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571-581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
  54. Stewart, T. (2003). Debate for ESOL students. TESOL Journal, 12(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2003.tb00114.x
  55. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158-164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158
  56. Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 58(2), 357-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00444.x
  57. Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford University Press.
  58. Yang, L. (2008). From group talk to group writing. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral–literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing and other media interactions (pp. 139-167). The University of Michigan Press.
  59. Zhang, Z. (2020). Learner engagement and language learning: A narrative inquiry of a successful language learner. The Language Learning Journal. Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786712
Journal of Language Horizons
Volume 6, Issue 2 - Serial Number 12
August 2022
Pages 81-101
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics