Keywords
second language learner engagement
interactive oral tasks
task complexity
task type
How to Cite
Number of views: 337
Number of downloads: 279
Abstract
This study investigated the engagement of 60 Hong Kong English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners in two types of tasks, each with two levels of complexity (-elements/simple versus +elements/complex). The learners formed self-initiated pairs and completed two descriptive tasks (-reasoning demand) and two narrative tasks (+reasoning demand) in a counterbalanced order in synchronous video-based computer-mediated communication (SvCMC) across two separate meetings. Immediately after each task performance, the learners were interviewed about their emotional experiences during the tasks. Quantitative analysis of their spoken discourse revealed that learners were more cognitively engaged in the simple descriptive task than in the complex one. However, the number of elements did not seem to affect learner engagement in the narrative tasks. Descriptive tasks engaged learners behaviorally in task performance, while narrative tasks encouraged social engagement. The participants generally found both types of tasks emotionally engaging, but more participants experienced positive emotions during the descriptive tasks than during the narrative tasks. These findings suggest that task complexity and task type should be carefully considered when designing interactive oral tasks in online teaching and learning contexts.
References
Aubrey, S. (2022). Dynamic engagement in second language computer-mediated collaborative writing tasks: Does communication mode matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 59-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.4
Aubrey, S., & Philpott, A. (2023). Second language task engagement in face-to-face and synchronous video-based computer-mediated communication modes: Performances and perceptions. System, 115, 103068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103069
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 689-725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000429
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with lan-guage: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209-240). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.09bar
Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90-116). Routledge.
Carver, C., Jung, D., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2021). Examining learner engagement in relationship to learning and communication mode. In P. Hiver, A., AI-Hoorie, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Student engagement in the language classroom (pp. 120-142). Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.22730722.12
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
Dao. P. (2021). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(3), 315-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0188
Dao, P., Nguyen, M. X. N. C., Duong, P., & Tran-Thanh, T. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 767-791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12737
Egbert, J. (2020). Engagement, technology, and language tasks: Optimizing student learning. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2(4), 110-118.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford Univer-sity Press.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 299-323. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100015047
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2019). Handbook of student engagement interventions: Working with disengaged students. Academic Press.
Garcia-Ponce, E. E., & Tavakoli, P. (2022). Effects of task type and language proficiency on dialogic performance and task engagement. System, 105, 102734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102734
Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Levkina, M. (2011). Manipulating task complexity across task types and modes. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 105-140). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.10ch5
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Helme, S., & Clarke, D. (2001). Identifying cognitive engagement in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 13, 133-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217103
Henry, A., & Lamb, M. (2020). L2 motivation and digital technologies. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 599-610). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3_29
Hiver, P., AI-Hoorie, A., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2021). Student engagement in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788923613
Jackson, D. O. (2025). Cognitive task complexity and learner engagement: Evidence from direction-giving map tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12682
Jackson, D. O., & Suethanapornkul, S. (2013). The Cognition Hypothesis: A synthesis and meta-analysis of research on second language task complexity. Language Learning, 63(2), 330-367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12008
Johnson, M. D., & Abdi Tabari, M. (2022). Task planning and oral L2 production: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 43(6), 1143-1164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac026
Khatib, M., & Farahanynia, M. (2020). Planning conditions (strategic planning, task repetition, and joint planning), cognitive task complexity, and task type: Effects on L2 oral performance. System, 93, 102297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102297
Kim, J. (2009). The effects of task complexity on learner-learner interaction. System, 37(2), 254-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.02.003
Lambert, C., Aubrey, S., & Bui, G. (2023). The role of the learner in task-based language teaching. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003227267
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665-680. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559
Lambert, C., & Zhang, G. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chi-nese as foreign languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional tasks. Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 391-411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12560
Leeming, P. (2024). The influence of small groups on leader stability and task engagement in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 52-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168821989866
Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Technology as a mediating tool: Videoconferencing, L2 learning, and learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 483-509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1572018
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 171-197). John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.08lev
Long, M. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & Mackey, A. (2015). Creativity and EFL students’ language use during a group problem-solving task. TESOL Quarterly, 49(1), 188-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.211
Mercer, S. (2019). Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 643-660). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_40
Nakamura, S., Phung, L., & Reinders, H. (2021). The effect of learner choice on L2 task engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(2), 428-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000042X
Neuendorf, K. A. (2019). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
Nuevo, A.-M. (2006). Task complexity and interaction: L2 learning opportunities and development (unpublished PhD thesis). Georgetown University.
Pang, F., & Skehan, P. (2021). Performance profiles on second language speaking tasks. Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 371-390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12699
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000094
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 751-766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683561
Qian, L., & Shamsudin, S. (2023). One size fits all? The role of task complexity in L2 production via the audio chat. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8, 48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00221-5
Qiu, X. (2020). Functions of oral monologic tasks: Effects of topic familiarity on L2 speaking performance. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 745-764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829021
Qiu, X. (2024). Revisiting the cognition hypothesis: The impact of task complexity on L2 learner engagement in task performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(7), 2028-2050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2142245
Qiu, X., & Bui, G. (2022). Pre-task planning effects on learner engagement in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221135280
Qiu, X., & Ge, H., & Cai, J. (2024). An exploratory study on second language learner engagement in different types of interactive tasks in video-chat and text-chat communication. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2024-0096
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie. (Eds.). Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Gilabert, R. (2016). Measuring cognitive task demands using dual-task methodology, subjective self-ratings, and expert judgments: A validation study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(4), 703-737. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000339
Robinson, P. (2011). Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2
Sasayama, S. (2016). Is a “complex” task really complex? Validating the assumption of cognitive task complexity. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 231-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12313
Skinner, E. A., & Pizer, J. (2012). Developmental dynamics of engagement, coping, and every resilience. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), The handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21-45). Springer, 21-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_2
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233
Soongpankhao, W., Aubrey, S., & Lambert, C. (2023). Impact of goal-tracking on engagement in language use in an online TBLT module for Thai university students. System, 119, 103184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103184
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2018). Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27(1-2), 21-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1406490
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 285-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
Tavakoli, P. (2016). Fluency in monologic and dialogic task performance: Challenges in defining and measuring L2 fluency. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 54(2), 133-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2016-9994
Torres, J., & Yanguas, I. (2021). Levels of engagement in task-based synchronous computer mediated interaction. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 234-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31319
Young, A., & Son, J.-B. (2023). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and task-based learning in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231191309
Zalbidea, J. (2017). “One task fits all”? The roles of task complexity, modality, and working memory capacity in L2 performance. Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 335-352. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12389
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Xuyan Qiu, Yuen Yi Lo, Haoyan Ge, Gavin Bui
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.