Content uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie on Jul 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Engagement in Language Learning: A
Systematic Review of 20 Years of
Research Methods and Definitions
Phil Hiver, Ali Al-Hoorie, & Joseph S. Yamazaki
phiver@fsu.edu
1. look back at the methodological characteristics of previous empirical L2
engagement research in SLA and applied linguistics
Objectives of this systematic review:
2. explore whether there were limitations and potential areas to clarify lingering
ambiguity around fundamental definitions of L2 engagement
•Engagement is “the holy grail of learning” (Sinatra et al., 2015, p. 1)
→ Specifically in language learning, learner action for learning
(e.g., language use, interaction) is critical for language development.
Engagement: Characteristics & Dimensions
1. Action
2. Context-dependent
3. Object
4. Dynamic
Characteristics
Dimensions
1. Behavioral engagement
the amount and quality of learners’ active participation in learning
(e.g., time on task, voluntary involvement in speaking)
Engagement: Characteristics & Dimensions
Dimensions
2. Cognitive engagement
learners’ mental effort and mental activity in the process of learning
(e.g., language-related episodes, private speech)
3. Emotional engagement
learners’ personal affective reactions as they participate in target language-
related activities or tasks (e.g., enjoyment, enthusiasm)
4. Social engagement
social forms of activity and involvement that are prominent in communities of
language learning and use (e.g., turn-taking, willingness to listen to others)
Importance of Engagement for Language Learning
•Engagement is a meta-construct that unites many separate lines of research
e.g., awareness, attention, interaction
•Engagement is intertwined with many other individual and situational factors
e.g., persistence, achievement, dropout rate
•Engagement brings together teaching and learning perspectives
Research Questions
1. What are the methodological characteristics of engagement studies in
the field (including trends in study design and analytical choices)?
2. What conceptual definitions and operationalizations of engagement are
adopted in empirical reports?
3. What, if any, areas for improving engagement study quality are
apparent?
over 20 years (2000-2020) of published work
Report Pool Criterion
Coding
Ambiguous L2 engagement report (k= 73)
Bona fide L2 engagement report (k= 39)
•ambiguity or no specific information regarding how engagement is
conceptualized, operationalized, and/or measured
•a low bar concerning what forms of learner participation/behavior are
indicative of ‘engagement’ or ‘engaging’
•adopts a specific definition of engagement as deliberate attention to and
volitional action for language learning that is operationalized and measured
through (among others) behavioral, cognitive, affective, or social indicators
Descriptive markers for coding
e.g., study aim, unit of analysis, indicators included in operational measurement
RQ1: Methodological Characteristics
RQ1:
Methodological
Characteristics
RQ1: Methodological Characteristics
RQ1: Methodological Characteristics
RQ1: Methodological Characteristics
RQ2:
Operationalization
Discussion: Methodological Issues
•The inclusion of multiple measurements and complementary data sources
•Group-based and cross-sectional designs
1. skill- and domain-specific measures
2. dynamics of engagement
3. implicit measures
4. big data
Research potential
Research potential
1. individual-based work (e.g., intra-individual variability)
2. fine-tuning the level of granularity (agent, task, time)
Discussion: Methodological Issues
•Very little work on the malleability of engagement, the dynamics of its
development, and re-engaging disengaged and disaffected students
1. investigating the role of teachers, peers, and learning tasks on the
development of engagement over time
2. examining how classroom learning opportunities, assessments, and
extramural interests and experiences influence learners’ engagement
Example design
Discussion: Operational & Definitional Issues
•fewer than 35% of studies reviewed featured a clear definition and/or
operationalization of engagement
•unable to ascertain which operational domain of engagement had
been adopted or was the area of focus in over 15% of reports
•only roughly 20% of the measures adopted were skill- or language
learning-specific
e.g., preparation, sense-making ??
Discussion: Operational & Definitional Issues
•distinction between engagement and other constructs
•engagement = the intensity and the quality of student involvement in the
learning activity or environment
•many indicators of engagement were ambiguous and fell outside
the scope of the engagement construct
e.g., goal-directed behavior = goal-setting (cognitive) + strategic pursuit (behavioral)
e.g., satisfaction, interest vs. flow
e.g., engagement vs. motivation
•motivation = the forces that energize and direct that behavior
Pedagogical Implications
•language pedagogy must sharpen its focus on the necessary
conditions for engagement
•establishing clear definitions and toolkits for assessment
e.g., task characteristics (support provided, sequencing)
•use of technology
e.g., video games, CMC, social media
•identifying disaffected learners and disengaging learning environments
Conclusion
•Areas to be addressed in future research
•The purpose was to take stock of empirical work in the field and
draw conclusions across the subdomains of language education
1. longitudinal and individual-based investigation
2. uncover the dynamic nature of engagement
3. conceptual and definitional precision
