Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance

By Craig Lambert, Jenefer Philp, Sachiko Nakamura. 2017

249 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f517401e4520052e7c49c2adc722e9440af92d47

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Phil Hiver
2. Joseph P. Vitta
3. Ali H. Al-Hoorie
4. L. Phung
5. Y. Lo
6. Xuyan Qiu

In Language and Linguistics

1. Phil Hiver
2. Joseph P. Vitta
3. Y. Lo
4. Xuyan Qiu
5. Ali H. Al-Hoorie
6. J. Wu
7. L. Phung
8. Mostafa Papi

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Phil Hiver
2. Joseph P. Vitta
3. Y. Lo
4. Xuyan Qiu
5. Ali H. Al-Hoorie
6. J. Wu
7. L. Phung
8. Mostafa Papi

Citations in the corpus

• Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context (2017, background): “Regarding personal and emotional investment in a topic, Lambert and Minn (2007) and Lambert et al. (2017) have found positive effects for tasks with content which learners generated based on real experiences that they wanted to share on their engagement in language use as well as their affective…”
• Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use (2017, background): “…is within teachers’ direct control, affects learners’ perceptions about their possibilities of achievement, which in turn influence their willingness to invest personal recourses, such as talent, time and energy into tasks and situations (for a more detailed discussion, see Lambert et al., 2017).”
• Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions (2021, background): “In addition to such negotiation of meaning, others see language-related episodes (LREs) as fitting indicators of cognitive engagement (e.g. Baralt et al., 2016; Lambert et al., 2017; Svalberg, 2017).”