Lexical language-related episodes in pair and small group work
Supporting Agencies
- Gobierno Vasco
Abstract
The present study investigates whether learner set up in interaction, namely in pairs or small groups, influences the frequency and outcome of lexical language-related episodes (LREs) and L2 vocabulary learning. Thirty Spanish English as a foreign language (EFL) university learners took part in the study. They worked in four groups and seven pairs on the same collaborative writing task. Research was carried out on the course of five weeks as a pre- and post- vocabulary task and an individual writing task were administered to assess vocabulary learning and retention. The quantitative analysis of the data showed that there was no significant difference between the performance of pairs and groups, although the latter produced slightly more lexical LREs than pairs and were able to solve most of them correctly. However, from a qualitative point of view, the findings suggest that small group work leads to slightly better results than pair work as the different members obtain benefits from their peers’ linguistic knowledge.
Downloads
References
Adams, R. & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Al Khali, M. (2016). Insights from measurement of task-related motivation. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice (pp. 244–262). New York, NY: Routledge.
Azkarai, A. (2013). Gender and task modality in EFL task-based interaction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of the Basque Country, Spain.
Azkarai, A. & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language-related episodes. In E. Alcón Soler & P. Safont-Jordá (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 249–278). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
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. 24–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crookes, G. & Chaudron, C. (2001). Guidelines for language classroom instruction. In M. Celce Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 29–42). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
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.
Fernández Dobao, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18, 497–520.
Fenández Dobao, A. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent reader. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fernández Dobao, A. & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 1–14.
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory and second language development: Theoretical foundations and insights from research. In M. P. García Mayo, J. Gutiérrez Mangado & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 129–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
García Mayo, M. P. & Alcón Soler, E. (2013). Negotiated input and output. Interaction. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 209–229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
García Mayo, M. P. & Azkarai, A. (2016). 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.
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
González Sáinz, T. (1999). Juegos comunicativos. Español lengua extranjera. Madrid: SM.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–227.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587.
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 407–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
Nassaji, H. & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
Philp, J. & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 245–266.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Richard, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sato, M. & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language clasroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363–374.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair-work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York, NY: Continuum.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 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). London: Longman.
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education. The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 101–129.
Syndicate, U.C.L.E. (2001). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Services at the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in item 2.
2. The works are published in the electronic edition of the magazine under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike 4.0.
3.Conditions of self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate pre-print (draft papers prior to being assessed) and/or post-print versions (those reviewed and accepted for publication) of their papers before publication, because it encourages distribution earlier and thus leads to a possible increase in citations and circulation among the academic community.
RoMEO color: green
