TBLT ConferenceLancaster, 2009
Collaborative dialogue
in task-based oral interaction:
a comparison of pair and group work
Ana Fernández Dobao
University of Washington
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987)
Language is a cognitive tool that mediates learning
Cognitive development occurs in social interaction
BACKGROUND
Language-related episodes (LREs)Any part of dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others
(Swain & Lapkin, 1998: 326)
Form-focused LREs (F-LREs)
Lexical LREs (L-LREs)
Mechanical LREs (M-LREs)
BACKGROUND
Previous research LREs and L2 learning
(Kim, 2008; Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Watanabe & Swain,
2007)
Collaborative tasks and L2 learning Collaborative tasks versus individual tasks
(Kim, 2008; Storch, 1999, 2005, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007)
Limitations of previous research Small group interaction and L2 learning
(Donato, 1994)
Pair interaction versus small group interaction
PRESENT STUDY
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the fluency, complexity and accuracy of the written texts produced during a collaborative writing task?
Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the amount, focus and outcome of LREs produced during a collaborative writing task?
Is pair or small group interaction more effective for L2 learning?
METHOD
Participants34 intermediate level learners of Spanish� 7 dyads� 5 groups
Instruments and procedureDay 1: pre-test
Day 2: grammar review lesson
collaborative writing task
Day 9: post-test
DATA ANALYSIS
Written text� Fluency�Complexity�Accuracy
Oral interaction� LREs
DATA ANALYSIS
LREs� Frequency� Focus
� F-LREs� L-LREs� M-LREs
�Outcome� Correctly resolved LREs� Incorrectly resolved LREs� Unresolved LREs
FORM-FOCUSED LRE
L1: esquí: esquiaban? ... o esquiaron?L2: como: ... esquí:L3: esquiaronL2: esquiaban? ... eh?L4: esquiaron ... porque es un díaL2: síL4: los dos esquiaron
LEXICAL LRE
L1: mm cómo se dice travel?L2: viajarL1: u:h ... viajar ... todo el mundo
MECHANICAL LRE
L1: cer:ve:zas:?L2: efe heh hehL3: zeta L4: zetaL2: oh! zeta síL1: cervezas! ok
INCORRECTLY RESOLVED LRE
L1: o consultaba?L2: síL3: consultóL2: consultó? o consultaba? ... qué piensas?L4: mm con:sul:-?L1: es ... indefinido porque lleva: no séL2: pero no es: una acción com-L1: es, sí, es, no no es completaL2: creo que es consultaba? ok está bien ... consultaba:
UNRESOLVED LRE
L1: u:h ... pero: antes ... de:el viaje ... un: fortune-teller?L2: mhm
L1: cómo se dice fortune-teller?L2: no séL1: un: ... clairvoyant? un:L2: heh hehL1: no sé
RESULTS
WRITTEN TEXT: FLUENCY
Words T-units Clauses
GROUPS (n=5) 162.60 18.80 29.20
PAIRS (n=7) 137.14 15.43 24.12
WRITTEN TEXT: COMPLEXITY
C/T DC/C (%)
GROUPS (n=5) 1.55 35.62%
PAIRS (n=7) 1.56 36.09%
WRITTEN TEXT: ACCURACY
Errors
E/words EFC EFC/C (%)
EFT EFT/T (%)
GROUPS (n=5) 27.60 0.17 10.80 36.99% 4.40 23.40%
PAIRS (n=7) 33.57 0.24 5.71 23.67% 1.86 12.04%
LREs: FREQUENCY
LREs Time (min.) LREs/min.
GROUPS (n=5) 47.40 24.60 1.93
PAIRS (n=7) 24.00 18.86 1.27
LREs: FOCUS
F-LREs L-LREs M-LREs
No. % No. % No. %
GROUPS (n=5) 28.40 59.92% 16.40 34.60% 2.60 5.48%
PAIRS (n=7) 12.29 51.19% 10.86 45.24% 0.86 3.57%
LREs: OUTCOME
Correct LREs
Incorrect LREs
Unresolved LREs
No. % No. % No. %
GROUPS (n=5) 39 82.28% 5.60 11.81% 2.80 5.91%
PAIRS (n=7) 16 66.67% 5.57 23.21% 2.43 10.12%
COLLECTIVE SCAFFOLDING
L1: recomendó que: mm ella: ... es en sub- subjuntivo? ... después de: ... recomendó que? L2: sí sí L1: que: ella: uh ... vaya? a: um: ... el sur L3: pero es en el pasado entonces es: uh: L1: oh sí uh L3: que ella mm L1: mm: L2: fuera? L3: fuera L1: sí, fuera:
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
AND
CONCLUSIONS
QUESTION 1
Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the fluency, complexity and accuracy of the written texts produced during a collaborative writing task?
Groups did not produce much longer texts than pairs
Groups did not produce more complex texts than pairs
Groups produced more accurate texts than pairs
QUESTION 2
Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the amount, type and outcome of LREs?
Groups produced more LREs than pairs
Both groups and pairs produced more F-LREs than L-LREs or M-LREs
Groups produced a higher percentage of correctly resolved LREs than pairs
CONCLUSIONS
Groups produced more accurate written
texts than pairs because: they produced more LREs than pairs and they were able to correctly resolve
their LREs more frequently than pairs
QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Is pair or small group interaction more effective for L2 learning?
Do more LREs mean more L2 learning opportunities in small group interaction?
Do all the learners in the group benefit from the LREs? Or does the learner’s role as initiator, supplier of the information or observer of the LRE have an influence on L2 learning?
REFERENCESDonato, R. 1994. “Collective scaffolding in second language learning”. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds.) Vygotskian
Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 33-56.
Kim, Y. 2008. “The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary”. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-130.
Lapkin, S., M. Swain and M. Smith. 2002. “Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context”. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507.
Storch, N. 1999. “Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy”. System, 27, 363-74.
Storch, N. 2005. “Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Storch, N. 2007. “Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes”. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143-159.
Storch, N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2007. “Writing tasks: the effects of collaboration”. In M. P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 157-177.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. “Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together”. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. “Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation”. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1987. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Thinking and Speaking. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Watanabe, Y. and M. Swain. 2007. “Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners”. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-14
Top Related