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. 135–160

5. Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom

Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding?

| New York University
ORCID logo | University of Minnesota

This chapter contributes to the field of language education by comparing peer interaction patterns during homogeneous and heterogeneous (based on language proficiency) small group work in a two-way immersion context. Using Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory as a theoretical framework, researchers analyzed 16 audio-recorded sessions of student Spanish interactions in a 5th grade (10 to 11 year-old students) two-way immersion classroom. Centered on four focal students, the study explored the relationship between group composition, student interaction, and collaborative dialogue. While homogeneous group work produced more collaborative dialogue, a micro discourse analysis using positioning theory, found student interactions were affected by expert and novice positioning leading to marginalization and silencing of less proficient students during heterogeneous group work. The study recommends ways teachers and students can facilitate collaborative interactions in two-way immersion contexts.

Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.06you
References
Abdi, K
(2011) “She really only speaks English”: Positioning, language ideology, and heritage language learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(2), 161–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D
(2006) Peer teaching and learning: Co-constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education, 20(3), 173–190. 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
Ballinger, S., & Lyster, R
(2011) Student and teacher oral language use in a two-way Spanish/English immersion school. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 10–20.Google Scholar
Carrera-Carrillo, L., & Smith, A.R
(2006) Seven steps to success in dual language immersion: A brief guide for teachers & administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Choi, H., & Iwashita, N
(2016) Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Commins, N.L, & Miramontes, O.B
(2005) Linguistic diversity and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A
(2008) Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Davies, B., & Harré, R
(1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, E
(2002) Effective bilingual education: From theory to academic achievement in a two-way bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Jong, E., & Howard, E
(2009) Integration in two-way immersion education: equalising linguistic benefits for all students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 12(1), 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A
(2016) Peer interaction and learning. A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hamayan, E., Genesee, F., & Cloud, N
(2013) Dual language instruction from A to Z. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Howard, E.R, & Christian, D
(2002) Two-way immersion 101: Designing and implementing a two-way immersion education program at the elementary level. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Howard, E.R, Sugarman, J., & Christian, D
(2003) Trends in two-way immersion education: A review of the research. Baltimore, MD: CRESPAR.Google Scholar
Howard, E.R, Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K., & Rogers, D
(2007) Guiding principles for dual language education. Washington, DC: CAL.Google Scholar
Howard, E., Sugarman, J., Perdomo, M., & Temple Adger, C
(2005) The two-way immersion toolkit. Providence, RI: Education Alliance.Google 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, 267–287. 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
Kowal, M., & Swain, M
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm-Leary, K
(2001) Dual language education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M
(2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(01), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin-Beltrán, M
(2010a) The two-way language bridge: Co-constructing bilingual language learning opportunities. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 254–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Positioning proficiency: How students and teachers (de)construct language proficiency at school. Linguistics and Education, 21(4), 257–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olmedo, I.M
(2003) Language mediation among emergent bilingual children. Linguistics and Education, 14(2), 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla, A., & Sung, H
(1999) The Stanford Foreign Language Oral Skills Evaluation Matrix (FLOSEM): A Rating Scale for Assessing Communicative Proficiency. ERIC (ED445538).Google Scholar
Parkes, J., Ruth, T., Anberg-Espinoza, M., & de Jong, E
(2009) Urgent research questions and issues in dual language education. Santa Fe, NM: Dual Language Education of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Patton, M.Q
(2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Potowski, K
(2004) Student Spanish use and investment in a dual immersion classroom: Implications for second language acquisition and heritage language maintenance. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 75–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogoff, B
(2003) The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saldaña, J
(2013) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S
(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., & 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
Senesac, B
(2002) Two-way bilingual immersion: A portrait of quality schooling. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(1), 85–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.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., & Lapkin, S
(2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Talmy, S
(2004) Forever FOB: The cultural production of ESL in a high school. Pragmatics, 14(2–3), 149–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tedick, D.J., & Young, A.I
(2014, advance access). Fifth grade two-way immersion students’ responses to form-focused instruction. Applied Linguistics, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W.P, & Collier, V.P
(2012) Dual language education for a transformed world. Albuquerque, NM: Dual Language Education of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S
(1986) Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1978) Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google 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
Wiese, A.M
(2004) Bilingualism and biliteracy for all? Unpacking two-way immersion at second grade. Language and Education, 18(1), 69–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J
(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 and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wortham, S
(1996) Mapping deictics: A technique for discovering teachers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 331–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Interactionally situated cognition: A classroom example. Cognitive Science, 25(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 23 other publications

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
Dao, Phung
2021. Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance . International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59:3 ► pp. 315 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
Fernández–Dobao, Ana
2023. “Pero yo también estoy aprendiendo”: Negotiating expert and novice positions in heritage–second language learner interaction. The Modern Language Journal 107:4 ► pp. 873 ff. DOI logo
Estaji, Masoomeh & Meisam Mirzaei Shojakhanlou
2023. Engagement in initiation, response, and feedback in L2 classroom interactions. Discourse and Interaction 16:1 ► pp. 70 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
Kos, Tomas
2021. 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 ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Kos, Tomas
2022. Exploring same- and different grade peer interactions among EFL young learners. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Kos, Tomáš
2021. Pedagogical challenges of foreign language teaching in mixed-age primary school classrooms. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:1 ► pp. 66 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
Martin‐Beltrán, Melinda, Andrés A. García & Angélica Montoya‐Ávila
2020. “I Know There's Something Like That in Spanish”: Heritage Language Learners' Multifaceted Interactions with Linguistically Diverse Peers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:3 ► pp. 530 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
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
Protassova, Ekaterina, Anna Golubeva & Ilze Mikelsone
2021. Russian as a Home Language in Early Childhood Education. In Handbook of Early Language Education [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Protassova, Ekaterina, Anna Golubeva & Ilze Mikelsone
2022. Russian as a Home Language in Early Childhood Education. In Handbook of Early Language Education [Springer International Handbooks of Education, ], ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
Puntambekar, Sadhana, Dana Gnesdilow & Sinan Yavuz
2023. Understanding the effect of differences in prior knowledge on middle school students’ collaborative interactions and learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 18:4 ► pp. 531 ff. DOI logo
Sato, Masatoshi & Paula Viveros
2016. 3. Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Storch, Neomy
2018. Collaborative Language Learning. 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
Tedick, Diane J & Amy I Young
2016. Fifth Grade Two-Way Immersion Students’ Responses to Form-Focused Instruction. Applied Linguistics 37:6 ► pp. 784 ff. DOI logo
Young, Amy I.
2016. Facilitating functional complexity. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 4:2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 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.