Cover not available
Part of
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 175–196

Chapter 8
Talking about language

L2 learners’ use of metalinguistic knowledge on contrasting pedagogic tasks

| University of Essex
| University of Essex

This qualitatively oriented study investigated the role of second language (L2) metalinguistic knowledge in languaging during performance on two pedagogic tasks – a gap-fill and a dictogloss. It involved 14 L1 English university-level learners of L2 Spanish (N = 8) and L2 German (N = 6). Drawing on individual think-aloud protocols and learners’ pair-work interactions, we investigated the extent to which metalinguistic knowledge was used during task completion, its purposes, and whether it was associated with successful task performance. Although considerable inter-learner variation was in evidence, we identified a relationship not only between the use of metalinguistic knowledge and successful task completion but also between the purpose for which metalinguistic knowledge was employed during languaging and the balance of expertise between partners.

Keywords: metalinguistic knowledge, gap-fill, dictogloss, languaging
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Metalinguistic knowledge in contrasting pedagogic tasks
  • The present study
    • Participants
    • Method
    • Data collection
    • Data analysis
  • Results
    • RQ1: To what extent do individuals and dyads use MLK on two pedagogic tasks, a gap-fill and a dictogloss?
    • RQ2: What is the relationship between use of MLK and successful performance on the two tasks?
    • RQ3: For what purposes is MLK used during successful performance on the two tasks?
    • RQ4: What is the relationship between purpose of MLK and balance of expertise during successful performance on the dictogloss task?
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.08gan
References
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D.
(1997) Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1 (2), 93–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bygate, M.
(2001) Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M.
(Eds.) (2001) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Chen, W.
(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
Collentine, J.
(2000) Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (2), 44–57.Google Scholar
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A.
(1994) Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from and Activity Theory perspective. In P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173–194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E.
(1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58 (2), 9–19. 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
(2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elder, C., & Manwaring, D.
(2004) The relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and learning outcomes among undergraduate students of Chinese. Language Awareness, 13 (3), 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2001) Non-reciprocal tasks, comprehension and second language acquisition. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 49–74). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54 (2), 227–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006a) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006b) Modelling learning difficulty and second language proficiency: The differential contributions of implicit and explicit knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27 (3), 431–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortune, A.
(2005) Learners’ use of metalanguage in collaborative form-focused L2 output tasks. Language Awareness, 14 (1), 21–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D.
(2001) Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10 (2-3), 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, P., & Hecht, K.
(1992) Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 168–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez, X.
(2016) Analyzed knowledge, metalanguage, and second language proficiency. System, 60 (1), 42–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H.
(2005) Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second-language learning: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knouzi, I., Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(2010) Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
(1997) From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G.
(Eds.) (1994) Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J.
(2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 55–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B.
(1992) Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 110–126). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Mozaffari, S. H.
(2017) Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21 (4), 496–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P.
(2001) Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, K.
(2018) Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K.
(2006) Metalinguistic knowledge in L2 task performance: A verbal protocol analysis. Language Awareness, 15 (3), 180–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29 (2), 173–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (1), 67–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr, K., & Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A.
(2009a) The status of metalinguistic knowledge in instructed adult L2 learning. Language Awareness, 18 (2), 165–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Metalinguistic knowledge: A stepping stone towards L2 proficiency? In A. G. Benati (Ed.), Issues in second language proficiency (pp. 79–94). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Skehan, P.
(2001) Tasks and language performance assessment. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 167–185). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Storch, N.
(2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5 (1), 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1995) Problems of output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 83 (3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effect. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R.
(1990) Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford 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