Volume 55, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2451-828x
  • E-ISSN: 2451-8298
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Research on peer interaction patterns over the past three decades has provided insights regarding how relationships formed among peers can influence task performance. Six pairs of intermediate Chinese learners participating in a collaborative writing task were recruited, and their pair-interaction patterns were investigated for detailed evidence of how such patterns were constructed through their co-participation measured by two indices proposed by Storch (2002a), equality and mutuality. Furthermore, taking a Conversation Analytical (CA) perspective, this study also examined the fine-grained detail of several interactional practices displaying participants’ orientation to the peer relationship. This revealed that each pair displayed a distinctive interaction pattern that was constructed through diverse participatory practices which are contingent upon the ongoing interaction as it unfolds. The findings shed new light into analyzing pair interactions in collaborative writing from a CA perspective in CFL settings and have important implications for studying interaction patterns and implementing collaborative writing tasks.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bejarano, Y. , Levine, T. , Olshtain, E. , & Steiner, J.
    (1997) The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System, 25(2), 203–214. doi:  10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00009‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00009-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bruffee, K. A.
    (1984) Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 46(7), 635–652. doi:  10.2307/376924
    https://doi.org/10.2307/376924 [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2009) A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’. In M. Haakana , M. Laakso , & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction – comparative dimensions (pp.94–123). Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Crawford, W. J. , McDonough, K. , & Brun-Mercer, N.
    (2019) Identifying linguistic markers of collaboration in second language peer interaction: A lexico-grammatical approach. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 180–207. doi:  10.1002/tesq.477
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.477 [Google Scholar]
  6. Damon, W. , & Phelps, E.
    (1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9–19. doi:  10.1016/0883‑0355(89)90013‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X [Google Scholar]
  7. DiNitto, R.
    (2000) Can collaboration be unsuccessful? A sociocultural analysis of classroom setting and Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 34(2), 179–210. doi:  10.2307/489553
    https://doi.org/10.2307/489553 [Google Scholar]
  8. Donato, R.
    (1988) Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ede, L. , & Lunsford, Andrea A.
    (1992) Singular texts/plural authors : Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Edstrom, A.
    (2015) Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative task. System, 52, 26–37. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2015.04.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.014 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fernández-Dobao, A.
    (2012) Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229–256. doi:  10.1093/applin/ams002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, J.
    (2002)  Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In Ford, C. E. , Fox, B. A. , & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp.196–224). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jin, L.
    (2014) Peer/group interaction in a Mandarin Chinese study abroad context. In Han, Z. (Ed.), Studies in second language acquisition of Chinese (Vol.77) (pp.57–79). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783092093‑005
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092093-005 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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(2), 211–234. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00690.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Kunitz, S.
    (2018) Collaborative attention work on gender agreement in Italian as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 64–81. doi:  10.1111/modl.12458
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12458 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lapkin, S. , & Swain, M.
    (2013) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. InResearching pedagogic tasks (pp.109–128). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Li, M. , & Zhu, W.
    (2017) Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–53. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  20. Liu, Y. , Yao, D. , Ge, L. , Bi, N. P. , & Shi, Y.
    (2018) Integrated Chinese: Workbook 3 (4th ed.). Cheng & Tsui Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lockhart, C. , & Ng, P.
    (1995) Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1995.tb00456.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Long, M. H.
    (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. doi:  10.1093/applin/4.2.126
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. , & Bahtia, T. K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.413–468). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Lyster, R. , & Ranta, L.
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44488666
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mackey, A. , & Goo, J.
    (2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Malmqvist, A.
    (2005) How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output?. Language Awareness, 14(2–3), 128–141. doi:  10.1080/09658410508668829
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668829 [Google Scholar]
  27. Nakatani, Y.
    (2010) Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116–136. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00987.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00987.x [Google Scholar]
  28. Naughton, D.
    (2006) Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169–184. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2006.00391.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00391.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Oxford, R. L.
    (1997) Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443–456. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05510.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05510.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Poupore, G.
    (2016) Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2 learners’ task motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 719–740. doi:  10.1177/1362168815606162
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815606162 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. , & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simple systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, E.
    (1987) Between macro and micro: Contexts and other connections. In J. Alexander , B. Giesen , R. Munch , & N. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp.207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Storch, N.
    (2001) An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2002a) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language learning, 52(1), 119–158. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9922.00179
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2002b) Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 305–322. doi:  10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00007‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00007-7 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2004) Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–480. doi:  10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2011) Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. doi:  10.1017/S0267190511000079
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms (Vol.31). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847699954
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954 [Google Scholar]
  39. Storch, N. , & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2007) Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In García Mayo, M. (Ed.). Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp.157–177). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Swain, M.
    (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. , & Williams, Jessica . (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.64–81). Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Swain, M. , & Lapkin, S.
    (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391. doi:  10.1093/applin/16.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  43. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01209.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Tan, L. L. , Wigglesworth, G. , & Storch, N.
    (2010) Pair interactions and mode of communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 27–1. doi:  10.2104/aral1027
    https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027 [Google Scholar]
  45. Thorne, S. L., & Hellermann, J.
    (2015) Sociocultural approaches to expert-novice relationships in second language interaction. InN. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp.281–298). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Vygotsky, L.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Walls, L. C.
    (2018) The effect of dyad type on collaboration: Interactions among heritage and second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 638–657. doi:  10.1111/flan.12356
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12356 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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(2), 121–142. doi:  10.1177/136216880607074599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wigglesworth, G. , & Storch, N.
    (2009) Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445–466. doi:  10.1177/0265532209104670
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670 [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu, R. , & Heritage, J.
    (2017) Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In Raymond, G. , Lerner, G. , & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, pp.273–297. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.14wu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.14wu [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhang, M.
    (2019) Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16–30. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error