Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Teaching for Young Learners
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp.82–102

Patterns of interaction and young ESL learners

What is the impact of proficiency and task type?

 | Curtin University
 | Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Previous research carried out from a socio-cultural perspective has explored the way adult learners interact when undertaking tasks. Following the type of analysis initiated by Storch (2002) we examined the patterns of interaction of young ESL learners (ages 9–12) of different English proficiency levels, high-intermediate (H) and low-intermediate (L) as they worked with native speakers (NS) (i.e., H/NS and L/NS pairs) to carry out a one-way and a two-way task. Once the patterns of interaction were determined, we then explored the relationship between these patterns, the learners’ proficiency levels and the task type. Our findings reveal that, regardless of proficiency, these child ESL learners engaged with the tasks and with each other, most often collaboratively, but also using other patterns interaction. However, the findings also suggest that task type and learner proficiency influenced the pattern of interactions that occurred.
Keywords: patterns of interaction, ESL, young learners, task-based interaction, proficiency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Tasks and patterns of interaction
    • 1.2Proficiency and pairings
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Method
    • 2.4Data analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
  • 4.Conclusion
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 22 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00006.oli
References (33)
References
Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1521, 7–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ahmadian, M., & Tajabadi, A. (2017). Patterns of interaction in young EFL learners’ pair work: the relationship between pair dynamics and vocabulary acquisition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 98–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Oliver, R. (2016). Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. Language Learning Journal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners’ interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 111, 45–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Young foreign language learners’ interactional development in task-based paired assessment in their first and foreign languages: a case of English learners in China. Education 3–13, 431, 292–321.Google Scholar
Chen, W. (2017). The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 711, 329–340.Google Scholar
(2018). Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: the transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. d. 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. Research agenda and pedagogical implications (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: an exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451–466. 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
Lázaro Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. A. (2017). Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference. ITL, 168(2), 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 81, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, M., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output. Language Awareness, 14(2, 3), 128–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 384–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171, 459–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language interaction research in honour of Sue M. Gass (pp. 135–156). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 62–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode. Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 51, 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The nature of pair interaction: learners’ interaction in an ESL class: its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.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., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 331, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 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, 641, 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(2), 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

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
Bui, Trang Le Diem & Phung Dao
2023. Primary school children’s peer interaction: Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Dao, Phung, Trang Le Diem Bui, Dao Thi Thuy Nguyen & Mai Xuan Nhat Chi Nguyen
2023. Synchronous online English language teaching for young learners: insights from public primary school teachers in an EFL context. Computer Assisted Language Learning ► pp. 1 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
Pladevall-Ballester, Elisabet
2021. Pair dynamics and language-related episodes in child EFL task-based peer interaction. Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Sayyadi, Ali & Reza Rezvani
2021. Questioning in TOEFL iBT speaking test: a case of washback and construct underrepresentation. Language Testing in Asia 11:1 DOI logo
Azkarai, Agurtzane, María del Pilar García Mayo & Rhonda Oliver
2020. The effect of task repetition on the patterns of interaction of ESL children. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 171:1 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo
Azkarai, Agurtzane & Marta Kopinska
2020. Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System 94 ► pp. 102338 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.