Collaborative writing and patterns of interaction in young learnersThe interplay between pair dynamics and pairing method in LRE production

  1. Basterrechea, María 1
  2. Gallardo-del-Puerto, Francisco 2
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco UPV/EHU
  2. 2 Universidad de Cantabria
    info

    Universidad de Cantabria

    Santander, España

    ROR https://ror.org/046ffzj20

Revista:
VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

ISSN: 1697-0381

Año de publicación: 2023

Número: 20

Páginas: 49-76

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.35869/VIAL.V0I20.4354 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: VIAL, Vigo international journal of applied linguistics

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Un número considerable de estudios enmarcados en la Teoría Sociocultural (Lantolf y Appel, 1994) investiga el modo en el que los/as aprendices expresan verbalmente sus lagunas lingüísticas, o cuestionan el uso propio o ajeno del lenguaje durante la escritura colaborativa, es decir, producen Episodios Relacionados con el Lenguaje (ERLs; Swain y Lapkin, 1998).Varios estudios han examinado, además, el efecto que los patrones de interacción (Storch, 2002) ejercen en la producción de los ERLs con aprendices adultos (véase Mozaffari, 2017; Storch y Aldosari, 2013), aunque pocos estudios han comparado el efecto de dichos patrones de interacción y el método de emparejamiento (es decir, formación de parejas en base a las preferencias de los/as propios/as aprendices y en base a la proficiencia) en la capacidad de los/las aprendices jóvenes de inglés como lengua extranjera (ILE) para atender a la lengua, y menos aún en el tipo de rasgos gramaticales en los que éstos/as se enfocan en la producción de ERLs. Este estudio examina la producción de los ERLs y los patrones de interacción en parejas formadas en base a sus preferencias o su proficiencia en jóvenes aprendices de ILE (10-12 años) durante una tarea colaborativa escrita. Los resultados demostraron que los jóvenes aprendices de ILE mantuvieron generalmente un tipo de dinámica colaborativa, quienes también resolvieron una mayor cantidad de ERLs de forma correcta, junto con las parejas experto/a-novato/a. En cuanto al tipo de emparejamiento, las parejas establecidas en base a su proficiencia obtuvieron resultados más beneficiosos en tanto en cuanto produjeron un mayor número de ERLs con resolución correcta. En cuanto al tipo de LREs enfocados a la forma, los/las participantes se enfocaron mayormente en aspectos relacionados con la ortografía y en menor medida en aspectos derivados de un conocimiento gramatical.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ahmadian, M., & Tajabadi, A. (2017). Patterns of interaction in young EFL learners’ pair work: the relationship between pair dynamics and vocabulary acquisition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 98–114.
  • Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M. (2020). Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs and task motivation. System, 9, Article 102338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102338
  • Azkarai, A., García Mayo, M.P., & Oliver, R. (2020). The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (ITL), 171(1), 90-112.
  • Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M.P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp.25-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Basterrecha, M. & Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2020). Language-related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners: A comparison between proficiencymatched and student-selected pairs. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 423-447.
  • Basterrechea, M. & Leeser, M. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28(2), 97-113.
  • Benson, C., Pavitt, J., & Jenkins, M. (2005). The use of dictogloss to encourage discussion of language use. Edinburgh Working Papers, 14, 1–17.
  • Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2015). Young foreign language learners’ interactional development in task-based paired assessment in their first and foreign languages: A case of English learners in China. Education, 44(3), 292-321.
  • Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2021). Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collaborative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness, 30(1), 1-16.
  • Cambridge University Press (2008). Key English Test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(4), 451-485.
  • Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33- 56).Westport (CT): Ablex Publishing.
  • Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407–432.
  • Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group. Pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40-58.
  • Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Basterrechea, M. (2021, online). The role of proficiency and pair formation method in language-related episodes: A study of young CLIL learners’ interaction. Language Teaching Research, 1-19.
  • García Mayo, M.P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341.
  • García Mayo, M.P. & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 241-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • García Mayo, M.P. & Hidalgo, M.A. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132-145.
  • García Mayo, M.P. & Imaz Aguirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165-175.
  • García Mayo, M.P. & Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40-54.
  • Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575–611.
  • Gilabert, R., Barón, J., & Llanes, A. (2009). Manipulating cognitive complexity across task types and its impact on learners’ interaction during oral performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47(3–4), 367–395.
  • Hidalgo, M.A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2021). The influence of task repetition type on young EFL learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research, 25(4), 565–586.
  • Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
  • Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
  • Lantolf J.P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.
  • Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Language Acquisition: Vol. 2. Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
  • López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: developing a theoretically motivated and empirically based coding system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(Special Issue 3), 503-527.
  • Mackey, A. (1994). Targeting morpho-syntax in children’s ESL: An empirical study of the use of interactive goal-based tasks. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10, 67-88.
  • Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 459-477.
  • Mackey, A. & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33(2), 239-260.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (third edition). Vol. I. Transcription format and programs, Volume II: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 128–141.
  • Manchón, R.M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R.M. Manchón (ed.), Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. (pp. 61–82). John Benjamins.
  • Manchón, R.M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón, & P.K. Matsuda (eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin, Germany, and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Martínez-Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez-Mangado, M.J. (2022). Gender pairings in EFL task-based interaction. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 103-128
  • Mozaffari, S.H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516.
  • Muñoz, C. (2014). The development of language awareness in the transition from primary to secondary school. In M.P. García Mayo (ed.), Learning Foreign Languages in Primary School: Research Insights (p. 49-68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402.
  • Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372-386.
  • Oliver, R. & Azkarai, A. (2019). Patterns of interaction and young ESL learners: What is the impact of proficiency and task type? Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 82-102.
  • Oliver, R., Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2017). Children working it out together: A comparison of younger and older learners collaborating in task based interaction. System, 69, 1-14.
  • Philp, J. Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261- 279.
  • Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34(4), 615-630.
  • Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189-207.
  • Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2021). Pair dynamics and language-related episodes in child EFL task-based peer interaction. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 189 – 213.
  • Pladevall-Ballester, E. & Vraciu, A. (2020). EFL child peer interaction: Measuring the effect of time, proficiency pairing and language of interaction. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 449-472.
  • Plonsky, L., & Y. Kim. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.
  • Roehr-Brackin, K., & Tellier, A., (2019). The role of language-analytic ability in children’s instructed second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 1111-1131.
  • Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 1-30).Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29-53.
  • Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 52, 119–158
  • Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative Writing. In R. M. Manchón, & P. K. Matsuda (eds.), Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 387-406). Berlin, Germany, and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
  • Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
  • Swain, M. (2010). “Talking it through”: languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 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: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (eds.), Researching Pedagogic tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp. 99-118). New York: Longman.
  • Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interaction and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 1-27.
  • Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Williams, J. (2008). The speaking-writing connection in second language and academic literacy development. In D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (eds.), The oral-literate connection: perspectives on L2 speaking, writing and other media interactions (pp. 10-25). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 321-331.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet