Cover not available
Part of
Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 91–112

3. Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom

ORCID logo | Universidad Andres Bello
| Universidad Andres Bello
This chapter reports on a classroom-based quasi-experimental study examining the relationship between interactional moves and collaborative patterns in peer interaction and their effect on L2 development, using proficiency as an independent variable. Participants were from two parallel Grade 10 English classes in Chile, divided into low and high proficiency classes by the school (N = 53). A series of communicative group work activities were designed and implemented during the regular classes. L2 development was investigated by examining past tense usage and vocabulary size. Focus groups from the two classes (n = 10) were used for analyses of interactional features. Results indicated that learners in the low proficiency group (a) provided more corrective feedback and produced more modified output, (b) engaged in more collaborative interaction, and (c) exhibited a greater L2 development, than the high proficiency group. In order to interpret the results and conceptualize the links among interaction-­collaboration-learning, the findings are discussed in relation to a theory in social psychology referred to as social interdependence theory. It is concluded that while proficiency does have an impact on learners’ interactional behaviours, a collaborative mindset – a learner’s psychological approach towards the partner and/or task – may be a stronger mediating factor for L2 development.
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.04sat
References (68)
Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 42–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alcón, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(4), 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexander, O. (2012). Exploring teacher beliefs in teaching EAP at low proficiency levels. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 99–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berns, M. (1990). ‘Second’ and ‘foreign’ in second language acquisition/foreign language learning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition/Foreign language learning (pp. 3–11). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Davin, 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
DeKeyser, R. (2010). Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 155–165.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language learning. System, 25(1), 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farías, M., & Abrahams, M. (2008). Innovation and change in the Chilean ITT curriculum for teachers of English. II Latin American Congress on Language Teacher Education (II CLAFPL) , 26–29.
Fernández Dobao, A.F. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner–learner and learner–native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 188–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galaczi, E. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English Examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 35–58.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M.P, & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: 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.Google Scholar
Gillies, R., Ashman, A., & Terwel, J. (Eds.). (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., Lantolf, J., Mackey, A., & Talmy, S. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29(2), 267–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, S. (Writer) & Darabont, F. (Director). (1994). The shawshank redemption [Motion picture]. United States of America: Columbia Pictures.Google Scholar
Kormos, J., & Kiddle, T. (2013). The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System, 41(2), 399–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J.P, & Poehner, M.E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M.M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 817–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 31–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKay, S. (2003). Teaching English as an International Language: The Chilean context. ELT Journal, 57(2), 139–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihalani, P., Wilson, H., Thomas, G., & Robinson, D. (2010). What determines high- and low- performing groups? The superstar effect. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(3), 500–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (2013). From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence, and attention: An overview of theory and research on learner interaction and SLA. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 49–69). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspective from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riazi, A.M, & Candlin, C.N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salaberry, M.R. (2000). The acquisition of English past tense in an instructional setting. System, 28(1), 135–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2015). Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(3), 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
. (2007). Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner-learner and learner-NS dyads. JALT Journal, 29(2), 183–208.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 157–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stæhra, L. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. 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 learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(1), 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Conflict between learners’ beliefs and actions: Speaking in the classroom. Language Awareness, 22(4), 371–388. 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.Google Scholar
Cited by (27)

Cited by 27 other publications

Aksoy-Pekacar, Kadriye
2024. Task-related collaborative behaviours in task-based oral peer interactions. The Language Learning Journal 52:4 ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Suong Thi Thu Hoang & Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen
2024. Young learners’ synchronous online peer interaction: teachers’ beliefs of its benefits and implementation. Language Awareness 33:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Spinelli, Franciele
2024. Examining learning opportunities and perceptions of Latin American ESL learners in varying proficiency‐level groups. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:3 ► pp. 884 ff. DOI logo
Storch, Neomy
2023. Collaborative Writing as a Pedagogical Technique. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tajabadi, Azar, Moussa Ahmadian, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi & Hooshang Yazdani
2023. EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research 27:3 ► pp. 689 ff. DOI logo
Tosun, Sibel & Nuray Alagözlü
2023. THE EFFECT OF INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY TRAINING ON PEER COLLABORATION AND INTERACTION PATTERNS. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 33:2 ► pp. 701 ff. DOI logo
Groepper, Emily
2022. Student Negotiation of Collaborative Dialogues: The Roles and Resources Used in Unsupervised Conversations. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 55:2 ► pp. 170 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Neomy Storch
2022. Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research 26:5 ► pp. 919 ff. DOI logo
Dao, Phung & Masatoshi Sato
2021. Exploring fluctuations in the relationship between learners’ positive emotional engagement and their interactional behaviours. Language Teaching Research 25:6 ► pp. 972 ff. DOI logo
Iwashita, Noriko & Phung Dao
2021. Peer Feedback in Second Language Oral Interaction. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Abrams, Zsuzsanna I.
2020. Intercultural Communication and Language Pedagogy, DOI logo
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2020. Chapter 1. Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative writing task. In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo
McDonough, Kim, Pavel Trofimovich, Phung Dao & Dato Abashidze
2020. Eye gaze and L2 speakers’ responses to recasts: A systematic replication study of McDonough, Crowther, Kielstra and Trofimovich (2015). Language Teaching 53:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte
2020. German Learners' Beliefs About Peer Interaction and Peer Feedback. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 53:2 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Storch, Neomy & Masatoshi Sato
2020. Comparing the Same Task in ESL vs. EFL Learning Contexts: An Activity Theory Perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo
Crawford, William J., Kim McDonough & Nicole Brun‐Mercer
2019. Identifying Linguistic Markers of Collaboration in Second Language Peer Interaction: A Lexico‐grammatical Approach. TESOL Quarterly 53:1 ► pp. 180 ff. DOI logo
Leeming, Paul
2019. Emergent Leadership and Group Interaction in the Task‐Based Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly 53:3 ► pp. 768 ff. DOI logo
Leeming, Paul
2024. The influence of small groups on leader stability and task engagement in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 28:1 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo
Sydorenko, Tetyana, John Hellermann, Steven L. Thorne & Vanessa Howe
2019. Mobile Augmented Reality and Language‐Related Episodes. TESOL Quarterly 53:3 ► pp. 712 ff. DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi
2017. Interaction Mindsets, Interactional Behaviors, and L2 Development: An Affective‐Social‐Cognitive Model. Language Learning 67:2 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Bigelow, Martha & Kendall A. King
2016. 13. Peer interaction while learning to read in a new language. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 349 ff. DOI logo
Choi, Hyunsik & Noriko Iwashita
2016. 4. Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
McDonough, Kim, William J. Crawford & Jindarat De Vleeschauwer
2016. 7. Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Moranski, Kara & Paul D. Toth
2016. 11. Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Philp, Jenefer
2016. New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 377 ff. DOI logo
Young, Amy I. & Diane J. Tedick
2016. 5. Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.