1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-2053
  • E-ISSN: 2589-207x
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Previous research carried out from a socio-cultural perspective has explored the way adult learners interact when undertaking tasks. Following the type of analysis initiated by Storch (2002) we examined the patterns of interaction of young ESL learners (ages 9–12) of different English proficiency levels, high-intermediate (H) and low-intermediate (L) as they worked with native speakers (NS) (i.e., H/NS and L/NS pairs) to carry out a one-way and a two-way task. Once the patterns of interaction were determined, we then explored the relationship between these patterns, the learners’ proficiency levels and the task type. Our findings reveal that, regardless of proficiency, these child ESL learners engaged with the tasks and with each other, most often collaboratively, but also using other patterns interaction. However, the findings also suggest that task type and learner proficiency influenced the pattern of interactions that occurred.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00006.oli
2019-03-22
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, R.
    (2006) L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality?ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–34. 10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861
    https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.152.0.2017861 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L.
    (2008) Does writing influence learner attention to form?InD. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. 10.17576/3L‑2017‑2301‑08
    https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-08 [Google Scholar]
  4. Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A.
    (2016) Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870. 10.1002/tesq.249
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.249 [Google Scholar]
  5. Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R.
    (2016) Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. Language Learning Journal. doi:  10.1080/09571736.2016.1196385
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1196385 [Google Scholar]
  6. Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W.
    (2014) Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 45–75. 10.1080/15434303.2013.869814
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.869814 [Google Scholar]
  7. (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 3–13, 43, 292–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, W.
    (2017) The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 71, 329–340.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2018) Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: the transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal. doi:  10.1093/elt/ccy015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy015 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, R.
    (2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. 10.1177/1362168816628627
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627 [Google Scholar]
  11. García Mayo, M. d. P., & Azkarai, A.
    (2016) EFL task-based interaction: does task modality impact on language related episodes?InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Research agenda and pedagogical implications (pp.241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.10gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.10gar [Google Scholar]
  12. García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A.
    (2016) Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: an exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. 10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1185799 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1177/1362168807086288
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288 [Google Scholar]
  14. Lázaro Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. A.
    (2017) Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference. ITL, 168(2), 183–202. 10.1075/itl.16024.laz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.16024.laz [Google Scholar]
  15. Leeser, M. J.
    (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. 10.1191/1362168804lr134oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa [Google Scholar]
  16. Mackey, M., & Gass, S.
    (2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Malmqvist, A.
    (2005) How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output. Language Awareness, 14(2, 3), 128–141. 10.1080/09658410508668829
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410508668829 [Google Scholar]
  18. Niu, R.
    (2009) Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 384–402. 10.1080/09658410903197256
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197256 [Google Scholar]
  19. Oliver, R.
    (1995) Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17, 459–481. 10.1017/S0272263100014418
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014418 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1998) Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372–386. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01215.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01215.x [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111. 10.1111/1540‑4781.00138
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00138 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2009) How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in children aged five to seven years. InA. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language interaction research in honour of Sue M. Gass (pp.135–156). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A.
    (2017) Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76. 10.1017/S0267190517000058
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190517000058 [Google Scholar]
  24. Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N.
    (2016) A focus on mode. Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. InM. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp.267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.45.11rou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.11rou [Google Scholar]
  25. Storch, N.
    (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 5, 119–158. 10.1111/1467‑9922.00179
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) The nature of pair interaction: learners’ interaction in an ESL class: its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A.
    (2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1): 31–48. 10.1177/1362168812457530
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530 [Google Scholar]
  28. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1998.tb01209.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
    (2010) Pair interactions and mode of communication: comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–27. 10.2104/aral1027
    https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027 [Google Scholar]
  30. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Watanabe, Y.
    (2008) Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635. 10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605 [Google Scholar]
  32. 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. 10.1177/136216880607074599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 [Google Scholar]
  33. Williams, J.
    (1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00103
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00103 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00006.oli
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ltyl.00006.oli
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ESL , patterns of interaction , proficiency , task-based interaction and young learners
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