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. 113–134

4. Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work

 | University of Queensland
ORCID logo | University of Queensland
Building on empirical studies investigating the relationship between interlocutors’ proficiency and learning opportunities in pair work, this chapter examines how group members’ proficiency affected the occurrence and outcome of language related episodes (LREs) and also how their proficiency level affected their perception of working within a small group. Two low-proficiency ESL learners engaged in three small group discussion tasks. For each task, the two learners were grouped into one of three proficiency levels: high-proficiency dominant, low-proficiency dominant, and low-proficiency. The interactional data of the three groups was analysed in terms of the types and outcomes of LREs. While the occurrence and outcome of LREs appeared to be dependent on the interlocutors’ proficiency levels, their perceptions of and contributions to group work were largely dependent on the interlocutors’ attitudes toward sharing ideas in completing the task.
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.05cho
References (43)
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. 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
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 29–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewald, J. (2008). The assumption of participation in small group work: An investigation of L2 teachers’ and learners’ expectation. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 151–174.Google Scholar
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google 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, 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Psyllakis, P. (2010). The role of languaging in creating zones of proximal development: A long-term care resident interacts with a researcher. Canadian Journal on Aging, 29, 477–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Re-thinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Oreström, B. (1983). Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google 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, 261–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rance-Roney, J. (2010). Reconceptualizing interactional groups: Grouping schemes for maximizing language learning. English Teaching Forum, 1, 20–26.Google Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A, & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633. DOI logoGoogle 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
. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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), 591–626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration?: The proficiency effect on group work in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.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, 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 learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17, 115–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340. 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
Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflict in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

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
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. Chapter 4. Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact collaborative writing performance?. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 80 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
Bédard, Vincent, Véronique Fortier & Suzie Beaulieu
2022. L’engagement dans la tâche en classe de langue seconde : un cadre d’observation pour rendre compte du processus d’apprentissage. La Revue de l’AQEFLS: Revue de l’Association québécoise des enseignants de français langue seconde 35:1 DOI logo
Kirchhoff, Natalie
2022. interacción entre pares y el input escrito. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades 11:Monográfico ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Trofimovich, Pavel, Kim McDonough, Phung Dao & Dato Abashidze
2022. Attitudinal bias, individual differences, and second language speakers’ interactional performance . Applied Linguistics Review 13:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Feng, Ruiling, Kyunghee Pyun, Wenzhong Zhang & Rafael Márquez Flores
2021. When Different Language Groups Meet Online: Covert and Overt Focus on Form in Text-Based Chats. Frontiers in Psychology 12 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
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
Nguyen, Bao Trang Thi & Jonathan Newton
2020. Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance. Language Teaching Research 24:5 ► pp. 588 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
Ziegler, Nicole & Lara Bryfonski
2018. Interaction‐Driven L2 Learning. In The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition, ► pp. 94 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
Dobao, Ana Fernández
2016. 1. Peer interaction and learning. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Kikuchi, Hisayo
2016. Students’ perceptions of online apprenticeship projects at a university. In CALL communities and culture – short papers from EUROCALL 2016, ► pp. 215 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.