Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.189-210
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 15 Feb 2021 Revised 09 Mar 2021 Accepted 16 Mar 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202103.189

모둠 활동에서 학습자간 상호작용과 외국어 학습과의 관계: 참여 정도와 언어 학습에 미치는 영향

김윤희
한국항공대학교
Relationship between peer interaction in pair work and foreign language learning: level of engagement and implications for language learning
Youn-Hee Kim
Researcher, Korea Aerospace University youne0828@hotmail.com


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study aims to investigate adult learners’ level of engagement while they interact with their peer, what factors influence peer interaction, and how the interactions have an impact on their English learning. Data were collected over a semester. In the first and fifteenth weeks, learners completed one version of text reconstruction tasks individually. In the second and fourteenth weeks, learners completed another version of text reconstruction tasks in pairs and all pair work was audio recorded. Questionnaires were conducted individually in the second and fifteenth weeks to elicit the learners’ perceptions of pair work. Analysis of pair talk data showed that in the second weeks, pairs mostly tended to show the evidence of limited engagement where one learner made a suggestion and the other simply repeated, acknowledged or did not respond to the suggestion. On the other hand, in the fourteenth week, pairs showed most evidence of elaborate engagement where learners actively deliberated and discussed language items. The reason of this change can be related to learners’ understanding of pair work, their willingness to engage, and the development of their relationship with their partner in a learning context. Analysis of learner performance suggests that elaborate engagement tended to be more facilitative of learning or consolidation for learners than limited engagement. However, the data also shows that the learning or consolidation did not appear to all learners. It might be related to English proficiency levels in pair, their collaborative relationship, and the level of tasks.

Keywords:

pair work, peer interaction, collaborative relationship, learning context, English language learning

References

  • Adams, R. and L. Ross-Feldman. 2008. Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela, eds., The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions, 243-266. Ann Arbor MI: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Anton, M. and F. DiCamilla. 1998. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 54(3), 414-442. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314]
  • Baralt, M., L. Gurzynski-Weiss and Y. Kim. 2016. Engagement with the language: How examining learners’ affective and social engagement explains successful learner-generated attention to form. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger, eds., Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, 209-239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.09bar]
  • Brooks, F. B. and R. Donato. 1994. Vygotskian approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77(2), 262-274. [https://doi.org/10.2307/344508]
  • Brooks, F.B., R. Donato and J. V. McGlone. 1997. When are they going to say ‘it’ right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annuals 30(4), 524-541. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb00860.x]
  • Donato, R. 1994. Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel, eds., Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, 33-56. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press.
  • Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Foster, P. and A. S. Ohta. 2005. Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26(3), 402-430. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014]
  • Iwashita, N. 2001. The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System 29(2), 267-287. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00015-X]
  • Kim, Y. 2017. The Nature of Peer Interaction: Role relationships formed in pair interaction. English Teaching 72(1), 129-156.
  • Kim, Y. 2019. The Relationship between Pair Work and the Opportunities for Language Learning. Korean Journal of Linguistics 44(2), 233-254. [https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2019.44.2.005]
  • Kim, Y. 2020. Willingness to engage: the importance of what learners bring to pair work. Language Awareness 29(2), 134-154. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2020.1743712]
  • Kim, Y. and K. McDonough. 2008. The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12(2), 211-234. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288]
  • Kim, Y. and K. McDonough. 2011. Using pretask modeling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research 15(2), 183-199. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711]
  • Kowal, M. and M. Swain. 1994. Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness 3(2), 73-93. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845]
  • Kowal, M. and M. Swain. 1997. From semantic to syntactic processing. How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R.K. Johnson and M. Swain, eds., Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524667.022]
  • Lantolf, J. P. and A. Aljaafreh. 1995. Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research 23(7), 619-632. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1]
  • Lantolf, J. P. and A. Pavlenko. 2001. (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen, ed., Learner contributions to language learning, 141-158. London: Longman.
  • Lee, L. 2008. Focus on form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology 12(3), 53-72.
  • Leeser, M. K. 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8(1), 55-82. [https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr134oa]
  • Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3]
  • Mackey, A. 2007. Interaction as practice. In R. DeKEyser, ed., Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 85-110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.006]
  • Ohta, A. S. 2001. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604712]
  • Pekrun, R. and L. Linnenbrink-Garcia. 2012. Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly and C. Wylie, eds., Handbook of research on student engagement, 259-282. New York: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_12]
  • Philp, J. 2016. Epilogue: new pathways in researching interaction. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger, eds., Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, 377-396. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.15phi]
  • Philp, J., R. Adams and N. Iwashita. 2014. Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203551349]
  • Rouhshad, A., and N. Storch. 2016. A focus on mode in peer interaction. In M. Sato and S. Ballinger, eds., Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda, 267-290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Stone, A. 1993. What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding. In E.A. Forman, N. Minick and C. A. Stone, eds, Contexts for Learning: Sociocultural Dynamics in Children’s Development, 169-183. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Storch, N. 2002. Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1), 119-158. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179]
  • Storch, N. 2004. Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interaction in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review 60(4), 457-480. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457]
  • Storch, N. 2008. Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness 17(2), 95-114. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644]
  • Storch, N. and A. Aldosari. 2010. Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research 14(4), 355-375. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375362]
  • Storch, N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2003. Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting. TESOL Quarterly 37(4), 760-770. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3588224]
  • Swain, M. 2006. Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes, ed., Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
  • Swain, M. 2010. Talking-it-through: Language as a source of learning. In R. Batstone, ed., Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1995. Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16(3), 371-391. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371]
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82(3), 320-337. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x]
  • Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 2002. Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37(3-4), 285–304. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5]
  • Swain, M., S. Lapkin, I. Knouzi, W. Suzuki and L. Brooks. 2009. Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal 93(1), 5-29. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x]
  • Swain, M. and L. S. Miccoli. 1994. Learning in a content-based, collaboratively structured course: The experience of an adult ESL learner. TESL Canada Journal 12, 15-28. [https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v12i1.641]
  • Tocalli-Beller, A. and M. Swain. 2005. Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(1), 5–28. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00078.x]
  • Watanabe, Y. 2008. Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64(4), 605-635. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605]
  • 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(2), 121-142. [https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599]
  • Wigglesworth, G. and N. Storch. 2008. Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing 26(3), 445-466. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670]
  • Yule, G. and D. Macdonald. 1990. Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning 40(4), 539-556. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00605.x]