Neomy Storch

Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work

This study investigated the nature of dyadic interaction in an adult ESL classroom. The study was longitudinal, classroom based, and examined the nature of interaction between 10 pairs of adult ESL students over a range of language tasks and over time (a semester). Four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found. These patterns are distinguishable in terms of equality and mutuality (Damon & Phelps, 1989). More importantly, the findings suggest that certain patterns of dyadic interaction are more conducive than others to language learning. These findings are explained by reference to Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development.

How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs

A common teaching strategy in the language classroom is to assign students to work on a task in pairs or small groups. Research on group/pair has shown that such classroom organization promotes speaking practice and negotiations of meaning. However, most of the studies on pair work to date have focused on factors affecting the quantity of certain types of negotiation moves. Very few studies have investigated the nature of group or pair interactions; that is, whether they are collaborative or not. Moreover, very few studies have utilized tasks which require students to produce a written text in pairs. The study reported in this paper investigated the performance of three pairs of adult ESL students on a writing task assigned in class. The main source of data was transcripts of the pair talk. Other sources of data included the researcher’s observation notes and the written text the pairs produced. Data were analysed for salient features of student interactions and characteristics of collaborative pair work were identified. Results show that students working in pairs may not necessarily work in a collaborative manner, but where they do collaborate this may have an effect on task performance.

Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy

The assessment of oral language is now quite commonly done in pairs or groups, and there is a growing body of research which investigates the related issues (e.g. May, 2007). Writing generally tends to be thought of as an individual activity, although a small number of studies have documented the advantages of collaboration in writing in the second language classroom (e.g. DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Particularly in university contexts, group or pair assignments are widely used in many disciplines. In addition, collaborative writing could be used in second language classroom assessment contexts as formative assessment. However, research which compares texts produced by learners collaboratively to texts produced individually, and the implications of this for assessment practices, is rare. This study is a first step in the investigation of using collaborative writing in second language contexts and comparing the performance of two groups of second language learners: one group worked individually, and the other group worked in pairs. When writing in pairs, each pair produced a single text. All participants completed one writing task: an argumentative essay. The performances of the individuals (N = 48) and the pairs (N = 48) were compared on detailed discourse analytic measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy. This comparison revealed that collaboration impacted positively on accuracy, but did not affect fluency and complexity. A detailed analysis of the pair transcripts recorded during the writing activity provides insights into the ways in which pairs work together, and the foci of their endeavour. The implications of these findings for in-class assessment of second language writing are discussed.

Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy

Abstract The use of pair work has been promoted in both first (L1) and second (L2) language classrooms. In the L2 classroom, a number of studies have shown that learners working in pairs have more opportunities to communicate in the target language than in teacher-fronted classrooms. However, this research has also shown that the tasks generally used in such studies (eg. jigsaw) do not engage students in negotiations over grammar. In the language class where the development of both fluency and accuracy are important goals, what is needed is research on grammar-focused communication tasks investigating the effects of student negotiations over grammatical choices on the accuracy of production. The small-scale study reported here required tertiary ESL learners of intermediate to advanced L2 proficiency to complete three different types of grammar-focused exercises commonly used in the language classroom: a cloze exercise, a text reconstruction and a short composition. Each exercise type had two isomorphic versions, one to be completed individually and the other to be completed in pairs. A comparison of exercises completed individually with those completed in pairs suggested that collaboration had a positive effect on overall grammatical accuracy, but tended to vary with specific grammatical items.

Learners' Processing, Uptake, and Retention of Corrective Feedback on Writing.

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008 ; Sheen, 2007 ), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.

Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes

Although the literature on language pedagogy encourages the use of pair work in the second language classroom, students sometimes seem reluctant to work in pairs, particularly on grammar-focused tasks. This study investigated the merits of pair work by comparing pair and individual work on an editing task and by analysing the nature of pair interaction. The study was conducted in four intact ESL tertiary classes. Students in class A completed the task in pairs and in class B individually. In classes C and D students were given the choice of completing the task in pairs or individually. In class A all pair talk was audio recorded. Analysis of the edited texts showed that there were no significant differences between the accuracy of tasks completed individually and those completed in pairs. Analysis of the transcribed pair talk showed that most pairs engaged actively in deliberations over language and tended to reach correct resolutions. Thus the results suggest that although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to greater accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides learners with opportunities to use the second language for a range of functions, and in turn for language learning.

Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class

One of the concerns foreign language teachers may have about using small group (and pair) work is that students will use their shared first language (L1) instead of the target language. This study investigated the effect of learner proficiency pairing and task type on the amount of L1 used by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in pair work and the functions that the L1 served. Learners in this study (n = 15 pairs) formed three proficiency groupings based on the teacher’s assessment of their second language proficiency: high—high (H—H), high—low (H—L), and low—low (L—L). All pairs completed three tasks — jigsaw, composition and text-editing — and their talk was audio-recorded. The transcribed pair talk was analysed for the quantity of L1 used (L1 words and L1 turns), and the functions the L1 served. The study found that overall, there was a modest use of L1 in pair work activity and that task type had a greater impact on the amount of L1 used than proficiency pairing. L1 was mainly used for the purpose of task management and to facilitate deliberations over vocabulary. When used for task management, L1 tended to reflect the kind of relationship the learners formed. When used for vocabulary deliberations, L1 was used not only to provide explanations to peers but also for private speech.

Relationships Formed in Dyadic Interaction and Opportunity for Learning.

Abstract A large study which investigated the nature of dyadic interactions in a university second language (ESL) classroom setting found that students form very distinct and stable relationships or patterns of dyadic interaction. This paper uses a case study approach to illustrate two of the patterns found in the study: a collaborative pattern and a dominant/dominant pattern. These distinct patterns were evident in the way the pairs approached the task, dealt with any language issues as well as a number of salient features such as the quantity and quality of requests, explanations, phatic utterances and repetitions. The study also considered whether there were instances in the data to suggest a transfer of knowledge from the pair talk to subsequent individual performance. The study found that there were a number of such instances in the data of the collaborative pair but none in the dominant/dominant pair. These findings suggest that the relationship a pair or group forms is an important consideration in research on learner interaction and in second language pedagogy.

Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions

Collaborative writing is the joint production of a text by two or more writers. Despite the widespread use of collaborative writing in the world outside the second language (L2) classroom, the use of collaborative writing tasks in L2 classes, to date, seems relatively limited. The overarching aim of this article is to suggest that collaborative writing activities, if carefully designed and monitored, may form an optimal site for L2 learning. The article begins by providing a brief theoretical rationale for collaborative writing, drawing on both cognitive and sociocultural theories. It then reviews the small number of published studies that have investigated collaborative writing in different L2 contexts. This review provides empirical evidence that working jointly on producing a written text provides opportunities for language learning, but that factors such as task type, L2 proficiency, and the relationships that the learners form affect these opportunities and may also affect language-learning gains. The chapter then considers new directions in implementing collaborative writing: online collaboration via wikis. The article concludes by highlighting the factors that need to be considered in order to maximize the language-learning potentials of collaborative writing in face-to-face and online modes.

Pairing learners in pair work activity

Although pair work is advocated by major theories of second language (L2) learning and research findings suggest that pair work facilitates L2 learning, what is unclear is how to best pair students in L2 classes of mixed L2 proficiency. This study investigated the nature of pair work in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class in a college in Saudi Arabia. The L2 proficiency of the learners in such classes is often quite heterogeneous. Thirty learners allocated into similar (high–high and low–low) and mixed–L2 proficiency pairs (five pairs in each proficiency pairing) completed a short composition. The audio recorded and transcribed pair talk was analysed for the learners’ overt focus on language use and amount of L2 used. In our analysis we took into consideration the effect of proficiency pairing as well as the dyadic relationship the learners formed. Our findings suggest that decisions regarding how to best pair students in heterogeneous classes depend on the aim of the activity, and that the dyadic relationship may be of greater significance than proficiency pairing.