Cover not available
Article In:
TASK
Vol. 4:1 (2024) ► pp.78–109

Pairing method and young learners’ use of previously known languages during task-based interaction

ORCID logo | The University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain
ORCID logo | The University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Spain
Recent research examining adult and young learners have concluded that pairing method (self-selected vs. proficiency-matched pairings) may affect learning opportunities operationalized as language-related episodes (LREs). But how it influences previously known language (PKL) use during task-based interaction is an under researched topic. This study sets out to explore whether the pairing method (self-selected vs. proficiency-matched pairings) during speaking and speaking+writing tasks completed by 10 to 11-year-old children has an effect on the amount and functions of PKLs. The study found that, in both tasks, self-selected pairs generated a greater amount of two functions: minor turns and vocabulary discussions. In the speaking+writing task specifically, self-selected pairs had greater PKL and greater off-task talk.
Keywords: use of previously known languages, task-based interaction, pair-formation method; young learners, English as a foreign language
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Child peer interaction and pairing method
    • The use of PKL in child task-based interaction
  • Method
    • Participants
      • Instruments and data collection procedure
    • Data analysis
      • Off-task talk
      • Metacognitive talk
      • Grammar talk
      • Vocabulary
      • Phatics
      • Mechanics
  • Results
  • Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (84)
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). The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 47 (3), 325–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al Khalil, M. K. (2016). Insights from measurement of task-related motivation. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 243–262). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arratibel-Irazusta, I., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2018). The use of previously known languages in the oral production of L3 English learners: A pseudolongitudinal study. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 229–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The use of communication strategies in L3 English CLIL learners. In M. J. Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. Martínez-Adrián, & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice (pp. 169–189). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19 (5), 550–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21 (4), 480–495. 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
(2017). Gender and age in child interaction in an EFL CLIL context: An exploratory study. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 103–123). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2020). Language-related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners: A comparison between proficiency-matched and student-selected pairs. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 423–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28 (2), 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouffard, L. A., & Sarkar, M. (2008). Training 8-year-old French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis: An innovation in form-focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 17 (1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada Lizarraga, A. (2021). Dictogloss in the Primary School EFL classroom: Investigating the process, product and perceptions of collaborative writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual education. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, F., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2020). Introduction to the Special Issue ‘Learners’ outcomes and effective strategies in early second language learning’. E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 7 (1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100 1, 19–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2018). Code switching in the Spanish heritage language classroom: communicative and cognitive functions. In R. Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 175–196). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2015, April). L1 influence in CLIL vs. EFL schoolchildren: A study of codeswitching and transfer lapses. Paper presented at the 33th AESLA International Conference, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2022). Task modality effects on young learners’ language related episodes in collaborative dialogue. RESLA, 35 (2), 480–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.). (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights. Multilingual Matters. 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 potential (pp. 241–266). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Hidalgo-Gordo, M. A. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67 1, 132–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (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). 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, 80 1, 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, 54 1, 40–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7 (1), 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Mangado, M. J., & Basterrechea, M. (forthcoming). Investigating the effect of task modality on the production of LREs by young learners.
Hidalgo-Gordo, M. A. (2019). Differences in the task-supported negotiations of younger and older EFL children: From repair into prevention. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59 (3), 395–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, S., & Scott, K. (2009). Sparks 1. Richmond.Google Scholar
IBM Corp. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 19.0). IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in non-native interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29 (2), 267–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2020). Willingness to engage: The importance of what learners bring to pair work. Language Awareness, 29 (2), 134–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. LACLIL, Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6 (2), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azpilicueta, R. (2015). Investigating negotiation of meaning in EFL children with very low levels of proficiency. International Journal of English Studies, 15 (1), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8 (1), 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2019). Curriculum genres and task structure as frameworks to analyse teachers’ use of L1 in CBI classrooms. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22 (1), 78–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51 (3), 285–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–168). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign and second language education: A research agenda for mindsets in language learning and Teaching. System, 86 1, 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (2), 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53 (1), 35–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 338–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33 (2), 239–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Adrián, M. (2020a). ¿Los juntamos? A study of L1 use in interactional strategies in CLIL vs. non-CLIL primary school learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 58 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). The use of previously known languages and target language English during task-based interaction: A pseudolongitudinal study of primary-school CLIL learners. Euro-American Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 7 (1), 59–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Adrián, M., & Arratibel-Irazusta, I. (2020). The interface between task-modality and the use of previously known languages in young CLIL English learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10 (3), 473–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Adrián, M., & Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. (2021). Task modality and language related episodes in young learners: An attempt to manage accuracy and editing. Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.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
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
Noels, K. A., Chaffee, K., Lou, N. M., & Dincer, A. (2016). Self-determination, engagement, and identity in learning German: Some directions in the psychology of language learning motivation. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 45 (2), 12–29.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (1), 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 1, 62–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., & Bogachenko, T. (2019). Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in school ESL classrooms. In V. Samuda, K. Van den Branden, & M. Bygate, (Eds), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 72–95). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R., Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2017). Children working it out together: A comparison of younger and older learners collaborating in task based interaction. System, 69 1, 1.14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. (2019). 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., 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
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34 (4), 615–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 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). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayati, R. A., Yaqubi, B., & Harsejsani, R. (2012). L1 use and language-related episodes (LREs) in an EFL setting. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS), 3 (4), 99–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender (Unpublished doctoral dissertation]). Georgetown University.
(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 University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67 (2), 249–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In C. Lambert, & R. Oliver (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Mindsets and language-related problem-solving behaviors during interaction in the classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16 (3), 265–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2012). Repeating input-based tasks with young beginner learners. RELC Journal, 43 (1), 39–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Using tasks with young beginner learners: The role of the teacher. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8 (3), 279–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69–84). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14 (4), 355–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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, 82 (3), 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4 (3), 251–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 53–78). Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UCLES. (2014). Key English test for schools. Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 25 (4), 1433–1450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, J., Fan, Y., & Xu, Q. (2019). EFL Learners’ Corrective Feedback Decision-Making in Task-Based Peer Interaction. Language Awareness, 28 (4), 329–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2013). Conflict between learners’ beliefs and actions: speaking in the classroom. Language Awareness, 22 (4), 371–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M., & Crawford, W. J. (2022). Attention to form in collaborative writing: language-related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness, 31 (2), 194–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar