Cover not available

Article published In: Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 6:1 (2024) ► pp.32–59

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
Original Research Article

Engagement in oral production

The impact of a coursebook innovation

 | Dong Thap University
 | Victoria University of Wellington
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 7 December 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00042.eng
Abstract
Interaction is recognised as an important contributor to language learning but in many classrooms opportunities to interact meaningfully are limited. This situation can be addressed when teachers make decisions about adapting the materials they are working with. The result is likely to be learners who are more engaged in multiple ways and who therefore learn more effectively. This article reports on a two-phase investigation of English language learning in Grade 5 classes in Vietnam. In the first phase, twenty-one classes were observed to form an understanding of standard practices in these classes. In the second phase, a small, replicable adaptation of coursebook material was made and implemented with an intervention class for one semester. Three dimensions of engagement were investigated, and on each learners in the intervention class were considerably more engaged than in the comparison class, or in the first phase classes. This study demonstrates what it is possible to achieve through a small coursebook innovation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Learner engagement
    • 2.1Cognitive engagement
    • 2.2Emotional engagement
    • 2.3Behavioural engagement
    • 2.4Teacher influence on engagement
    • 2.5Young learner engagement
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Context and participants
    • 3.2Data generation
    • 3.3Data analysis
    • 3.4Materials
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1Phase 1: The status quo
      • 4.1.1Cognitive engagement
      • 4.1.2Emotional engagement
      • 4.1.3Behavioural engagement
      • 4.1.4Teachers’ opinions about learners’ engagement
    • 4.2Phase 2
      • 4.2.1Cognitive engagement
        • 4.2.1.1Constructing
        • 4.2.1.2Comparing
        • 4.2.1.3Creating
      • 4.2.2Emotional engagement
      • 4.2.3Behavioural engagement
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (50)
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Webster, R. (2015). The challenges of implementing group work in primary school classrooms and including pupils with special educational needs. Education 3–13, 43(1), 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baralt, M., Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Kim, Y. (2016). Engagement with the language: 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 Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behr, H. (2005). Comparing rural and urban primary education in the Mekong Delta. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection, 4141. [URL]
Bock, A. K., & Erickson, K. A. (2015). The influence of teacher epistemology and practice on student engagement in literacy learning. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(2), 138–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 132–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J., & Haywood, D. E. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 (pp. 96–122). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dornyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 275–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, G. (1995). Storytelling and storybooks: A broader version of the communicative approach. The Journal of TESOL France- British Council, 2(1), 89–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finn, J. D., Folger, J., & Cox, D. (1991, 1991/06/01). Measuring participation among elementary grade students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(2), 393–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 US. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Everlove, S. (2009). Productive group work: How to engage students, build teamwork, and promote understanding. ASCD.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Poskitt, J. (2010). Student engagement in the middle years of schooling (Years 7–10): A literature review report to the Ministry of Education. [URL]
Grassick, L. J. (2016). Complexity, connections and sense-making: Stakeholder experiences of primary English language curriculum change in one province in Vietnam [PhD], University of Leeds.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods: An entry to social science research. SAGE. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guvenc, H. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ motivational support and engagement versus disaffection. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(3), 647–657.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1995). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Prentice Hall Europe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kutnick, P., & Blatchford, P. (2014). Effective group work in primary school classrooms: The SPRinG approach. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, G. W. (2013). Peer influences in elementary school. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 205–208). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to extensive reading practices in higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC Journal, 41(1), 59–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky’s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In R. K. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. J. Sternberg, D. H. Feldman, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 60–90). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morgan, J., & Rinvolucri, M. (1983). Once upon a time: Using stories in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, S. (1993). Young learners. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016, 03/2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 50–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 245–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 103–122). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and learning to think. National Academies Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Baroody, A. E., Larsen, R. A., Curby, T. W., & Abry, T. (2015). To what extent do teacher–student interaction quality and student gender contribute to fifth graders’ engagement in mathematics learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 170–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlechty, P. C. (1994). Increasing student engagement. Missouri Leadership Academy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shawer, S. F. (2010, 2/2010). Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 173–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skinner, E. A., & Pitzer, J. R. (2012). Developmental dynamics of student engagement, coping, and everyday resilience. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 21–44). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language teaching research : LTR, 11(2), 143–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Bergin, D. A., & Bergin, C. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 517–535. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willms, J. D. (2003). Student engagement at school: A sense of belonging and participation, results from PISA 2000. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bui, Trang Le Diem, Dao Thi Thuy Nguyen, Truc Thi Thanh Ly & Khoa Dang Nguyen
2025. Challenges in engaging EFL learners. Language Teaching for Young Learners 7:2 ► pp. 222 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue