TBLT ConferenceLancaster, 2009

Collaborative dialogue

in task-based oral interaction:

a comparison of pair and group work

Ana Fernández Dobao

University of Washington

anadobao@u.washington.edu

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