Behavioural, Cognitive, and Emotional Engagement in Task-Based Grammar Learning: A Qualitative Case Study of Indonesian EFL Undergraduates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29408/veles.v10i2.32939Keywords:
grammar, learner engagement, task-based language teaching, EFL undergraduates, qualitative case studyAbstract
This qualitative case study investigated how behavioural, cognitive, and emotional engagement manifested in task-based grammar learning and how Indonesian EFL undergraduates perceived the features supporting or constraining their engagement. Five first-semester students were recruited from a class of 25 in an English education program at a public university in West Java, Indonesia. Data were collected through semi-structured online interviews and students’ storytelling drafts. Interview transcripts were analysed using a six-phase thematic analysis, while the drafts were examined as complementary evidence of students’ grammatical choices and revisions. Member checking, peer debriefing, and data-source triangulation were employed to strengthen credibility. The findings revealed that behavioural engagement was manifested through active participation, persistence, error correction, and revision. Cognitive engagement emerged through narrative planning, text comparison, monitoring of grammatical choices, connection of grammar to meaningful contexts, and strategic use of digital resources. Emotional engagement involved enjoyment, enthusiasm, confidence, challenge, and occasional stress. Students generally perceived task-based grammar learning as meaningful and motivating because contextualised storytelling, familiar topics, planning, focused feedback, and revision enabled them to use grammar for communicative purposes. Nevertheless, excessive task demands, insufficient support, and difficulty transferring grammatical knowledge from structured tasks to spontaneous communication constrained their engagement. The study demonstrates that engagement in task-based grammar learning is multidimensional, interconnected, and conditional rather than an automatic outcome of task use. Grammar instruction should therefore combine meaningful tasks with manageable challenge, appropriate scaffolding, attention to form, and opportunities for reflective revision.
References
Adel, S. M. R., & Azari Noughabi, M. (2023). Developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through an enriched teacher education program: Cases of four Iranian pre-service EFL teachers. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 18(3), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2022.2061976
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596
Aubrey, S., King, J., & Almukhaild, H. (2022). Language learner engagement during speaking tasks: A longitudinal study. RELC Journal, 53(3), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220945418
Ben-Eliyahu, A., Moore, D., Dorph, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Investigating the multidimensionality of engagement: Affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement across science activities and contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.002
Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P. D., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2018). Enjoyment and anxiety in second language communication: An idiodynamic approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.1.7
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryfonski, L., & McKay, T. H. (2019). TBLT implementation and evaluation: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 603–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817744389
Casal, J. E., & Lee, J. J. (2019). Syntactic complexity and writing quality in assessed first-year L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.005
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Chen, H., & Hu, G. (2025). Investigating relationships among students’ affective, behavioral and cognitive engagement with peer feedback on EFL writing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 84, Article 101430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101430
Chen, W., Liu, D., & Lin, C. (2023). Collaborative peer feedback in L2 writing: Affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1078141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1078141
Dao, P. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 91, Article 102244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102244
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. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2018-0188
Dao, P., & Sato, M. (2021). Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 972–994. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044238
East, M. (2017). Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 50(3), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481700009X
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
Erlam, R. (2016). “I’m still not sure what a task is”: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814566087
Faez, F., Karas, M., & Uchihara, T. (2021). Connecting language proficiency to teaching ability: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 754–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819868667
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Graus, J., & Coppen, P.-A. (2018). Influencing student teacher grammar cognitions: The case of the incongruous curriculum. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12510
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., Vitta, J. P., & Wu, J. (2024). Engagement in language learning: A systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching Research, 28(1), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211001289
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.017
Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, Article 102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102196
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Barabadi, E. (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000304
Khezrlou, S. (2023). The role of task-supported language teaching in the development of explicit and automatized explicit knowledge and learners’ task engagement: Does practice meet perceptions? Language Awareness, 32(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2177659
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, Article 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
Lambert, C., Philp, J., & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683559
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000408
Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000069
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J.-Y. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69(3), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv010
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057
Marcos Miguel, N. (2021). Exploring tasks-as-process in Spanish L2 classrooms: Can corpus-based tasks facilitate language exploration, language use, and engagement? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12314
Michaud, G., & Ammar, A. (2023). Explicit instruction within a task: Before, during, or after? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 442–460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000316
Mora, J. C., Mora-Plaza, I., & Bermejo Miranda, G. (2024). Speaking anxiety and task complexity effects on second language speech. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12494
Mujtaba, S. M., Reynolds, B. L., Parkash, R., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50, Article 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100566
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000042X
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, Article 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102128
Pawlak, M. (2020). Grammar learning strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 53(3), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000314
Pawlak, M. (2021). Teaching foreign language grammar: New solutions, old problems. Foreign Language Annals, 54(4), 881–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12563
Pearson, W. S. (2024). Affective, behavioural, and cognitive engagement with written feedback on second language writing: A systematic methodological review. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1285954. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1285954
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816683561
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2142245
Qiu, X., & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 681–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816684368
Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Sanjaya, I. N. S., Sitawati, A. A. R., Suciani, N. K., Putra, I. M. A., & Yudistira, C. G. P. (2022). The effects of L2 pragmatic autonomous and controlled motivations on engagement with pragmatic aspect. TEFLIN Journal, 33(1), 148–172. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i1/148-172
Svalberg, A. M.-L. (2018). Researching language engagement; current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27(1–2), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1406490
Teravainen-Goff, A. (2025). Why motivated learners might not engage in language learning: An exploratory interview study of language learners and teachers. Language Teaching Research, 29(6), 2500–2520. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221135399
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070
Vo, H. (2023). Giving choices or making tasks relevant? Classroom practices that foster L2 learner engagement. System, 116, Article 103098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103098
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008). The management of confidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701622231
Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102
Zare, J., Azari Noughabi, M., & Al-Issa, A. (2024). The impact of data-driven learning form-focused tasks on learners’ task engagement: An intervention study. ReCALL, 36(3), 306–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344024000120
Zhang, M. (2022). A re-examination of pair dynamics and L2 learning opportunities in collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 26(1), 10–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819890949
Zhang, M., & Crawford, W. J. (2022). Attention to form in collaborative writing: Language-related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness, 31(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1998087
Zhang, Z. V. (2020). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing, 43, Article 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
Zheng, H., Miao, X., Dong, Y., & Yuan, D.-C. (2023). The relationship between grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1098568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1098568
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Reza Pahlevi, Utami Widiati, Nunung Suryati, Francisca Maria Ivone, Niamika El Khoiri, Elih Sutisna Yanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with VELES agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., posting it to an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges and earlier and greater citations of published work.
VELES is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
