Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development

By N. Storch. 2008

306 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fe1397e93b03a247bcc81db30d4774c5a1b4b424

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

In Literature and Literary Theory

Citations in the corpus

Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work (2014, methodology): “Previous research has found that LREs eliciting this sort of elaborate engagement are more facilitative of learning than those involving limited engagement (see Storch, 2008; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010).”
Teachers’ accounts of learners’ engagement and disaffection in the language classroom (2020, background): “…negotiation of meaning, back channelling, commentary, and indications of empathy (Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss, and Kim 2016; Lambert and Philp 2015; Storch 2008), or vicarious responses, private speech and attentive listening (Snyder Ohta 2001) have been considered manifestations of learner engagement.”
Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities (2011, background): “…2008; Kim & McDonough, 2008), pair dynamics between learners (Storch, 2002a, 2002b; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), level of engagement (McDonough, 2004; Storch, 2008), planning time (Philp et al., 2006), and task type (Swain & Lapkin, 2001; García Mayo, 2002; Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007;…”
Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions (2011, background): “Storch (2008) noted that earlier studies on collaborative writing tended to consider only the quantity of LREs rather than their quality, and she suggested that depth of engagement evident in the LREs may affect subsequent language development.”
Engagement with language: interrogating a construct (2009, methodology): “It has drawn on the works of Storch (2008) and others (e.g. ‘languaging’; Swain, 2006) for the cognitive aspects and notions such as agency (Ahearn, 2001; Swain, 2006) and autonomy (Holec, 1981; Little, 2007).”
Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context (2017, background): “Focusing on engagement with language, researchers in the field of language awareness have mostly adopted the degree of elaboration in language-related episodes (LREs) as a measure of cognitive engagement (Storch, 2008, Svalberg, 2009; Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss & Kim, 2016).”
Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance (2017, background): “It is reflected in reciprocity and mutuality (see Damon & Phelps, 1989; Storch, 2008) as seen by learners’ willingness to listen to one another (indicated, for example, by the use of backchannels).”
Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016, methodology): “The latter describes how learners “deliberated over the language items, sought and provided confirmation and explanations, and alternatives” (Storch, 2008, p. 100).”
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING (2010, unknown): “Based on the work of several researchers (Qi & Lapkin, 2001 ; Storch, 2008 ; Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2005 ), a distinction was made between LREs that showed extensive engagement and those that showed limited or no engagement.”
Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions (2021, background): “In addition to domain-specificity, our review also showed that even when combining EWL and LREs with other L2-specific definitions only roughly 20% of the measures adopted were skill-or language learning-spe-cific.”