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. 349–375

13. Peer interaction while learning to read in a new language

| University of Minnesota
| University of Minnesota
This chapter examines second language (L2) peer oral language interaction between two learners engaged in a partner reading activity. The data come from an English language arts class for newcomers in an all-immigrant high school in the U.S. Students arrive in this beginner-level, English language arts class with widely disparate experiences with formal schooling and print literacy, as well as with varied first languages and oral English language skills. The year-long class focuses on developmental English language and literacy skills, and the students and teacher absorb and accommodate newcomer students each month. The data presented in this chapter highlight the peer work between two asymmetrically-paired, female adolescent students: an Amharic newcomer with prior schooling in Ethiopia and beginning-level oral English skills, and a Somali speaker with stronger English language skills but very low print literacy and no formal schooling before arriving to the U.S. Through an analysis of their interactions in one paired reading session, we describe how these two students use their language and literacy skills to complete a reading task and in doing so, we consider the complexities of how asymmetrically paired students engage in everyday classroom tasks and the learning opportunities therein.
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.14big
References (78)
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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
Berliner, D. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp. 3–35). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Betts, E.A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. New York, NY: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M. (2010). Mogadishu on the Mississippi: Language, racialized identity, and education in a new land. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., & King, K. (2014). Somali immigratn youths and the power of print literacy. Writing Systems Research, 6(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Bigelow, M., & Tarone, E. (2004). The role of literacy level in SLA: Doesn’t who we study determine what we know? TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 689–700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). A research agenda for second language acquisition of pre-literate and low-literate adult and adolescent learners. In P. Vinogradov & M. Bigelow (Eds.), Low educated second language and literacy acquisition, 7th symposium (pp. 157–181). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Printing Services.Google Scholar
Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C.B. (1994). Language, cognition, and ESL literacy: Vygotsky and ESL literacy teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 172–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C.G. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.432–463). New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.D. (2006). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 279–291.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Guerrero, M.C.M. (1994). Form and functions of inner speech in adult second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 83–116). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
de Guerrero, M.C.M., & Villamil, O.S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2014). Making content comprehensible for elementary English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
East, M. (2012). Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: Possibility or problem? Language and Intercultural Communication 12(1), 56–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (2011). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp.153–181). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M.D. LeCompte, W.L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google 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
Forman, E.A, & Cazden, C.B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value in peer interaction. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garcez, P.M. (1997). Microethnography. In N. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.)Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 187–196). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guerrettaz, A.M, & Johnston, B. (2013). Materials in the classroom ecology. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 779–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutierrez, X. (2008). What does metalinguistic activity in learners’ interaction during a collaborative L2 writing task look like? The Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 519–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (1999). Tasks and learners’ output in nonnative-nonnative interaction. In K. Kanno (Ed.), The acquisition of Japanese as a second language (pp. 31–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and The Noticing Hypothesis: An experimental study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., & Bigelow, M. (2000). Does output promote noticing and second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 239–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamil, M.L, Pearson, P.D, Moje, E.B, & Afflerbach, P. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of reading research, vol. IV. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, K.A., & Benson, C. (2008). Vernacular and Indigenous literacies. In B. Spolsky & F.M. Hult (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 341–354). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCafferty, S.G. (1994). The use of private speech by adult ESL learners at different levels of proficiency. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 117–134). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McCormick Calkins, L. (2000). The art of teaching reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
Moje, E.B, & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T.L. Jetton & J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp.320–350). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Norfolk, B., & Norfolk, S. (2006). Anansi and the pot of beans. Atlanta, GA: August House.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50(1), 119–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (Eds.). (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pettitt, N., & Tarone, E. (2015). Following Roba: What happens when a low-education mutilingual learns to read. Writing Systems Research, 7 (1), 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philips, S. (1972). Participation structure and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 329–342). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap” nonnative speakers’ noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126. 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
Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 35–56). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Revesz, A. (2009). Task complexity, focus on form, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 437–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., Ting, S., & Urwin, J. (1995). Investigating second language task complexity. RELC Journal, 25, 62–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roy, L.A, & Roxas, K.C. (2011). Whose deficit is this anyhow? Exploring counter-stories of Somali Bantu refugees’ experiences in “doing school”. Harvard Educational Review, 81(3), 521–541. 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
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
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
Schwartz, R.M. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during guided reading. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 436–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self- and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 433–457. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Learner output, hypothesis testing and internalizing linguistic knowledge. System, 31(2), 155–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2012). Input-based tasks and the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: A process-product study. Language Teaching Research 16 (2), 253–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164.Google Scholar
. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (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., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring tasks effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 99–118). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2009). Literacy and second language oracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, B.M, Hanson, B., Justice-Swanson, K.J., & Watts, S. (1997). Helping struggling readers: Linking small group intervention with cross-age tutoring. The Reading Teacher, 51, 196–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the zone of proximal development, and peer collaboration: Implications for classroom practice. In L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. (pp.155–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410–441. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinogradov, P. (2008). “Maestra! The letters speak.” Adult ESL students learning to read for the first time. Minne/WITESOL, 25. Retrieved from: [URL]Google Scholar
Washburn, G.N. (1994). Working in the ZPD: Fossilized and nonfossilized nonnative speakers. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 69–82). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Watson, J. (2010). Interpreting across the abyss: A hermeneutic study of initial literacy development by high school English language learners with limited formal schooling. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S, & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, A. & Tedick, D.J. (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
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D.A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Ramadan Elbaioumi Shaddad, Ali & Biruk Jember
2024. A step toward effective language learning: an insight into the impacts of feedback-supported tasks and peer-work activities on learners’ engagement, self-esteem, and language growth. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 9:1 DOI logo
Chadha, Anita
2023. Civic Deliberations in COVID-19 and Beyond. In Innovations in Digital Instruction Through Virtual Environments [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 14 ff. DOI logo
Chadha, Anita
2023. Civic Engagement. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Holovatenko, Tetiana
2023. Enhancing Elementary Classroom Learning Experiences With Mobile Learning. In Impactful Classroom Experiences in Elementary Schools [Advances in Early Childhood and K-12 Education, ], ► pp. 25 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
King, Kendall A. & Martha Bigelow
2018. East African Transnational Adolescents and Cross-Border Education: An Argument for Local International Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 38 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Loewen, Shawn & Masatoshi Sato
2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51:3 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
King, Kendall A., Martha Bigelow & Abdiasis Hirsi
2017. New to School and New to Print: Everyday Peer Interaction Among Adolescent High School Newcomers. International Multilingual Research Journal 11:3 ► pp. 137 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

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.