Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance

Abstract

The study investigated the potential impact of task goal orientation on cognitive, social and emotional aspects of task performance through the lens of learner engagement. Sixteen EFL learner dyads completed a convergent decision-making task and a divergent opinion-exchange task. Their audio-recorded interactions were transcribed and coded for evidence of engagement, including idea units and language-related-episodes (cognitive engagement), instances of explicit task enjoyment, reported emotions (emotional engagement), and responsiveness (social engagement). To determine the effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement, scores for engagement types were compared between two tasks. To understand learners’ perception about their engagement, posttask exit questionnaire responses were analyzed using content-analysis approach. Findings showed that learners showed greater cognitive and social engagement in the convergent than divergent tasks. No differences were observed in learners’ emotional engagement. Results are discussed in terms of the role of task goal orientation in promoting learners’ cognitive and social engagement.

Teachers’ perceptions of learner engagement in L2 classroom task-based interaction

“…In addition, one discrepancy between the teachers and researchers in terms of their perceptions of learners' cognitive engagement is that researchers have used LREs and interactional moves that involve negotiation of meaning as indicators of cognitive engagement (Dao, 2019;Lambert et al, 2017), whereas the teachers in the present study did not seem to focus on this language aspect. In this sense, researchers considered negotiation of form as cognitive engagement.…”

“…Learner engagement was associated with various indicators, including the amount of language production (Dörnyei and Kormos, 2000); level of attention, that is, their meta-talk about language features (Storch, 2008); or effort to work with peers to communicate successfully and fulfil task goals (Bygate and Dao, P., Nguyen, M. & Iwashita (in press, 2019 , 2009). Recently, L2 research has recognised the multidimensional characteristics of learner engagement (Dao, 2019;Philp and Duchesne, 2016;Svalberg, 2009;Svalberg 2017).…”

“…Cognitive engagement is often associated with learners' attention and mental effort (Helme and Clarke, 2001;Philp and Duchesne, 2016), alertness (Svalberg, 2009), and noticing or discussion of language features (Baralt et al, 2016;Storch, 2008;Toth, Wagner, and Moranski, 2013), as demonstrated in language-related episodes or LREs (i.e., discussion of language forms), negotiation of meaning, elaborative talk (e.g., talk used to clarify and expand semantic meanings), and idea units (e.g., amount of ideas or content) (Dao & McDonough, 2018, 2019Lambert et al, 2017;Phung, 2017;Qiu and Lo, 2017). Behavioural engagement is perceived as learners' time on task or participation, operationalised as, for example, language production (e.g., amount of time on task, and numbers of utterances, turns, and/or words).…”

“…In addition, task with familiar topics promoted greater cognitive and behavioural engagement (Qiu and Lo, 2017), but repeating the tasks and selecting types of tasks that learners were less interested in decreased their level of engagement (Phung, 2017;Qiu and Lo, 2017). Task goals (convergent versus divergent) have also been shown to affect the extent to which the learners engage in the task-based interaction (Dao, 2019). While a convergent task goal induced learner's greater cognitive and social engagement, a divergent task goal decreased their level of engagement.…”

“…It should be noted that indicators used by the teachers to identify the level of cognitive engagement included degree of deep thinking and attention to partner's ideas and amount of content. Previous engagement research used idea units (Dao & McDonough, 2018;Dao, 2019;also see Shin, Lidster, Sabraw, and Yeager, 2016), language-related episode or LREs (i.e., discussion of language form) (Dao, 2019;Baralt et al, 2016), and negotiation for meaning (Philp et al, 2017) as measures of cognitive engagement. It appears that only idea units tape into one aspect of learner engagement (i.e.…”