Cover not available
Article published In:
Research on EFL learning by young children in Spain
Edited by María del Pilar García Mayo
[Language Teaching for Young Learners 3:2] 2021
► pp. 189–213

Pair dynamics and language-related episodes in child EFL task-based peer interaction

| Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Previous research shows young learners are indeed able to interact in a foreign language (FL) and negotiate for meaning while also attending to form. One of the variables that has been least studied among young learners (YLs) in FL contexts is the kind of relationships established among the members of a dyad and how the nature of pair dynamics affects the learners’ ability to attend to language. The present study explores the pair dynamics and the frequency and types of language learning opportunities in the form of language-related episodes (LREs) that emerge during peer interaction in a spot-the-differences task completed by young learners in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. We also examine the effects of age and pair dynamics on the production of these LREs. Results suggest that children interact mainly using collabo­rative patterns and can actually attend to language in episodes which are mainly meaning-focused and are resolved particularly in expert/novice dyads. Age has been found to significantly affect the production of LREs but pair dynamics seems to be less determinant. Findings corroborate the need for YLs to be given the chance to interact with their peers in class to foster learning opportunities.

Keywords: child EFL, peer interaction, pair dynamics, LREs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Pair dynamics and language learning
    • 2.2Previous research on young learners’ pair dynamics and language learning
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Instruments and procedures
    • 3.3Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Pair dynamics
    • 4.2LREs
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 27 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.20007.pla
References
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. DOI logoGoogle 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., & García Mayo, M. P.
(2017) Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 211, 480–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A.
(2016) Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 501, 844–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & Kopinska, M.
(2020) Young EFL learners and collabo­rative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs, and task motivation. System, 941. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M. J.
(2019) Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collabo­rative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28(2), 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G., & Zheng, W.
(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, 3–131, 441, 292–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P.
(2020) Child learners’ reflections about EFL grammar in a collabo­rative writing task: When form is not at odds with communication. Language Awareness. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, W.
(2017) The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT Journal, 711, 329–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copland, F., Garton, S., & Burns, A.
(2014) Challenges in teaching English to young learners: Global perspectives and local realities. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 738–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E.
(1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 581, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R.
(1988) Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
(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
García Mayo, M. P.
(2017) Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Child task-based interaction in EFL Settings: Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. 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, 441, 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Child EFL interaction; age, instructional setting and development. In J. Enever & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Researching the complexity of early language learning in instructed contexts (pp. 249–268). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 801, 165–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro Ibarrola, A.
(2015) Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 541, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garton, S., & Copland, F.
(Eds.) (2019) The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A.
(2007) Input, interaction and output in SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ives, D.
(2004) Three NS-NNS upper primary school pairs: A case study. Australian Language & Literacy Matters, 1(4), 11–15.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(2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A., & Hidalgo, M. A.
(2017) Benefits and limitations of conversational interactions among young learners of English in a CLIL context. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights (pp. 86–102). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 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
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P.
(1995) Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions and content. Language Learning, 451, 605–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A.
(2012) Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Goo, J.
(2007) Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.). Conversational interaction and second language acquisition (pp. 407–453). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (third edition): Volume I: Transcription format and programs, Volume II: The database. Computational Linguistics, 26(4), 657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moranski, K., & Toth, P. D.
(2016) Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.) Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 291–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, V., & Evangelou, M.
(2016) Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Navés, T., Miralpeix, I., & Celaya, M. L.
(2005) Who transfers more…and what? Cross-linguistic influence in relation to school grade and language dominance in EFL. International Journal of Multilingualism, 2(2), 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A.
(2019) Patterns of interaction and young ESL learners: What is the impact of proficiency and task type? Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1),82–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. & Bogachenko, T.
(2019) Children and tasks. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 121, 48–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. K.
(2017) Impact of task modality on collabo­rative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(5), 614–627. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., & Tognini, R.
(2009) Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3–4), 245–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N.
(2014) Peer interaction and second language learning. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinter, A.
(2007) Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 111, 189–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vraciu, A.
(2017) Exploring early EFL: L1 use in oral narratives by CLIL and non-CLIL primary school learners. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 124–148). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) EFL child peer interaction: Measuring the effect of time, proficiency pairing and language of interaction. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching (Special Issue), 10(3), 449–472. DOI logoGoogle 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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rokita Raśkow, J., & Ellis, M.
(2019) Early instructed second language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 521, 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 171, 95–114. 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.
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1998) Task-based second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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). London: Longman.Google 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, 33(3), 27.1–27.24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vraciu, A., & Pladevall-Ballester, E.
(2020) L1 use in peer interaction: Exploring time and proficiency pairing effects in primary school EFL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 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., & Swain, M.
(2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogues between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar