Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2022) ► pp.307–343

Exploring same- and different grade peer interactions among EFL young learners

| Humboldt University of Berlin , Germany

Grounded in the sociocultural theoretical framework, this study compared peer interaction among same-grade (similar proficiency) and different grade (different proficiency) pairs in terms of patterns of interaction established and learning opportunities that such interactions afford. The same learners (N = 24) aged between 10 and 12 interacted with the same and different grade partners during common classroom lessons in two EFL classrooms. Findings reveal that grade matched pairs tended to establish patterns of interaction conducive to learning while different grade pairs tended not to. However, the relationship between patterns of interaction and learning opportunities is not clear-cut.

Keywords: patterns of interaction, young learners, mixed-grade, sociocultural theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
  • 3.Literature review
    • 3.1Research on mixed-age peer interaction
    • 3.2Research on mixed-proficiency peer interaction
    • 3.3Research on patterns of interaction
    • 3.4Research questions
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Setting
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Instruments and procedures
      • 4.3.1Procedure
      • 4.3.2Tasks and exercises
  • 5.Data analysis
    • 5.1Patterns of interaction
    • 5.2Interviews
    • 5.3Learning opportunities
  • 6.Findings
    • 6.1Overall findings
    • 6.2In-depth analysis
      • 6.2.1ROMY (grade 4, low proficiency student)
        • Same-grade peer interaction
        • Different-grade peer interaction
      • 6.2.2ELIAS (grade 5, average proficiency)
        • Same-grade peer interaction
        • Different-grade peer interaction
  • 7.Summary and discussion
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 1 September 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21040.kos
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M.
(2020) Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System, 94 1, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, M.
(1998) A Multiple Intelligences Road to an ELT Classroom. Carmarthen: Crown House.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A.
(2004) Language Development across Childhood and Adolescence. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Retrieved on 21 July 2022, from [URL]. DOI logo
Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W.
(2014) Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11 (1), 45–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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, 13 (3), 292–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, W.
(2017) The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 711, 329–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: the transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72 (4), 425–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damon, W. & Phelps, E.
(1989) Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 135–157). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Dao, P., & McDonough, K.
(2017) The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65 1, 15–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davin, J. K., & Donato, R.
(2013) Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46 (1), 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doff, S. & Giesler, T.
(2014)  Jack in search of Jill. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der individuellen Förderung im Englischunterricht. In Thorsten Bohl et al. (Eds.), Friedrich Jahresheft “Fördern” pp. (79–56). Seelze: Friedrich.Google Scholar
Donato, R.
(1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, S. S.
(2014) Unterrichten in altersdurchmischten Klassen mit Young World 1–4. Baar: Klett und Balmer.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P.
(ed.) (2017) Learning Foreign Languages in Primary School:Research Insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-810-1.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Agirre, A. I.
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Ibarrola, L.
(2015) Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 54 1, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinzmann, S., Ries, S., & Wicki, W.
(2015) Expertise „Altersdurchmischter Fremdsprachenunterricht im Fach Englisch. Forschungsbericht, 51. Luzern: Pädagogische Hochschule Luzern.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J.
(2002) Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom. Theory into Practice, 41 (1), 47–52. Retrieved on 21 July 2022, from [URL].
Huf, C., & Raggl, A.
(2015) Social orders and interactions among children in age mixed classes in primary schools – new perspectives from a synthesis of ethnographic data. Ethnography and Education, 10(2), 230–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyry-Beihammer, E. K. & Hascher, T.
(2015) Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools. International Journal of Educational Research, 74(1), 104–113. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved August 19, 2022 from [URL]. DOI logo
Kalaoja, E., & Pietarinen, J.
(2009) Small rural primary schools in Finland:A pedagogically valuable part of the school network. International Journal of Educational Research, 48 (2), 109–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopinska, M. & Azkarai, A.
(2020) Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: Individual versus pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 607–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kos, T.
(2017) Peer assistance among mixed-age pairs in mixed-age EFL secondary school classrooms in Germany. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 61–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Patterns of Interaction: Analysis of Mixed-Age Peer Interactions in Secondary School Classrooms In Germany. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 1–29. [URL]
(2021a) Exploring young learners’ L2 development and perceptions of mixed-age and same-age peer interactions in EFL mixed-age classrooms. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 331–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b) What exactly is mutuality? An analysis of mixed-age peer interactions on classroom tasks in German secondary school classrooms. In M. García Mayo (Eds.), Working Collaboratively in Second/Foreign Language Learning (pp. 59–88). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote learners’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3 (2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A.
(2005) Children’s friendships and learning in school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75 (4), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E.
(2008) Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L.
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leeser, M.
(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W.
(2013) Patterns of Computer-mediated Interaction in Small Writing Groups using Wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26 (1), 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Explaining Dynamic Interactions in Wiki-based Collaborative Writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21 (1), 96–120.Google Scholar
Little, A. W.
(2005) Learning and teaching in multigrade settings. Paper prepared for UNESCO 2005 EFA Monitoring Report.
Mercer, N.
(2005) Sociocultural Discourse Analysis: Analysing Classroom Talk as a Social Mode of Thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 137–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The analysis of classroom talk: Strengths and weaknesses. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. S.
(2000) Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
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, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagiotopoulou, A. J., & Carle, U.
(2004) Sprachentwicklung und Schriftspracher- werb. Beobachtungs- und Fördermöglichkeiten in Familie, Kindergarten und Grundschule. Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Pape, M.
(2016) Didaktische Handeln in jahrgangsheterogenen Grundschulklassen. Eine qualitative Studie zur Inneren Differenzierung und zur Anleitung des Lernens [Didactic action in heterogeneous primary school classes. A qualitative study of inner differentiation and guidance in learning]. Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
(2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S.
(2016) Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 361, 50–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), (pp. 189–207). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qiu, X., & Lee, M.-K.
(2020) Regulated learning and self-efficacy beliefs in peer collaborative writing: An exploratory study of L2 learners’ written products, task discussions, and self-reports. System (Linköping), 931, 102312-. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saeedakhtar, A., Haqju, R., & Rouhi, A.
(2021) The impact of collaborative listening to podcasts on high school learners’ listening comprehension and vocabulary learning. System (Linköping), 1011, 102588-. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saqlain, N.
(2015) A Comprehensive Look at Multi-Age Education. Journal Of Educational And Social Research, 5(2), 285. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Shahid, K. A., Moghal, S., & Aziz, F.
(2018) Mixed-Age Group Teaching in Second Language Learning: An Observational Study of a Montessori Classroom in Pakistan. Journal of Early Childhood Care and Education, 2 1, 87–100.Google Scholar
Smit, R., & Engeli, E.
(2015) An Empirical Model of Mixed-Age Teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 741, 136–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 1, 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) Collaborative writing: Promoting languaging among language learners. In María del Pilar García Mayo and Ainara Imaz Agirre (Eds.) Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 13–33). De Gruyter – Trends in Applied Linguistics series. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A.
(2012) Pairing students in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17 (1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
(2010) Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Eds.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Haliday and Vygotsky (pp.95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2010) Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Eds.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp.112–130). Oxford: Oxford Univesrity Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82 1, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tellier, A., & Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2017) Raising children’s metalinguistic awareness to enhance classroom second language learning. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 22–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thoren, K., & Brunner, M.
(2019) State-wide implementation of mixed-age learning; which types can be identified, and do they differ in their school and teaching quality? Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 221, 279–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurn, S.
(2011) Individualisierung ernst genommen. Englisch lernen in jahrgangsübergreifenden Gruppen (3/4/5). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, J., Volman, M. & Beishuizen, J.
(2010) Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research, Educational Psychology Review, 22 (3), 271–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wagener, M.
(2014) Gegenseitiges Helfen. Soziales Lernen im jahrgangsgemischten Unterricht [Helping Each Other. Social Learning in Age-mixed Lessons]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waschk, K.
(2008) Öffnung des Englischunterrichts in der Grundschule: Studien zur Wahlfreiheit und Lernerautonomie. Duisburg: Univ.-Verl. Rhein-Ruhr.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y.
(2008) Peer-Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64 (2), 605–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M.
(2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL students. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A.
(2003) Promoting Effective Helping Behavior in Peer-Directed Groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 (1), 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J.
(1991) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Wu, S., Liu, D. & Li, Z.
(2022) Consolidating EFL content and vocabulary learning via interactive reading. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A. & Tedick, D.
(2016) Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar