Name: Robert Iain Collins.Module: Trends and Issues in Language Teaching Methodology.Date: 3 October 2012Title: Language Learning Opportunities and Collaborative Interaction.

1

Introduction

Cognitive and sociocultural theories propose that learner

interaction facilitates language learning. However, classroom

experience and numerous studies have shown that not all pair and

group interaction is equally conducive to learning. The first two

studies examined in this paper investigate the benefits of

completing tasks in pairs or groups compared to individual

completion. The main part of the paper considers the impact of

pairs or groups adopting a collaborative pattern of interaction

on the production of learning opportunities and how this relates

to differences in proficiency levels. Having established the

significance of such a collaborative pattern, I review studies

that have investigated the effects of pre-task modelling and

coaching on the adoption of such collaborative patterns and the

employment of strategies to recognize and exploit learning

opportunities. Finally, I examine the relevance of these findings

to my teaching context in Greece.

Pair/Group Interaction vs. Individuals

2

A number of recent studies have indicated that pair/group

interaction can result in more accurate written work and provide

opportunities for language learning. Wigglesworth and Storch

(2009) investigated whether collaborative essay writing held

benefits over individual completion of the task. The study

involved 144 ESL learners at an Australian university, 96

learners completed the task in pairs and 48 individually.

Wigglesworth and Storch found that dyads produced written tasks

that were more accurate than those produced by individuals but

that fluency and accuracy were not affected.

A recent, somewhat unique, study by Fernández Dobao (2012)

carried the Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) investigation one step

further comparing not only pair work to individual work but also

adding a group element. At a university in the United States, 111

intermediate learners of Spanish as a foreign language worked

individually, in pairs or in groups of four to produce a written

text. Fernández Dobao found that written tasks produced by groups

were more accurate than those produced by pairs or individuals

but that fluency and complexity were little affected, thus

3

supporting and extending the findings of Wigglesworth and Storch

(2009). Analysis of oral interactions revealed that groups

produced more language related episodes (LREs) than pairs and

more LREs were correctly resolved in groups than in pairs. A LRE

is usually defined in studies as “any part of a dialogue where

students talk about the language they are producing, question

their language use, or correct themselves or others” (Swain &

Lapkin, 1998, p.326).

These studies found that when learners interact they produce

more accurate texts. It was also observed that interaction can

lead to the occurrence of language related episodes that are

perceived as language learning opportunities (Swain & Lapkin,

1998), that is, they are indications of noticing and attention.

Attention that takes place during interaction is considered

crucial for second language (L2) learning (Gass, 2008). Both

studies examined the frequency and nature of LREs, while

Fernández Dobao (2012) also considered the outcome of LREs, that

is, if they were correctly resolved. It was observed that not all

interaction produced a similar number of LREs, nor were the

4

learning opportunities that arose fully exploited. Wigglesworth

and Storch (2009) found that the amount of total pair-talk time

spent on LREs varied greatly between pairs from less than 10% to

about 50%, showing that some pairs paid little attention to

language. Furthermore, because of the focus of the study there

was no post-test to measure if the learning opportunities had

actually been internalized and could be used independently.

In the discussion section of her paper Fernández Dobao

(2012) discusses group dynamics observing that if one member of

the group adopted a dominant or passive stance this negatively

affected the number of LREs. It would have been informative had

Fernández Dobao included examples of these interactions in the

qualitative analysis section where she examines collaborative

exchanges. It is important that research examines not only

instances of collaborative exchanges but also those of a non-

collaborative nature.

Two competing theories

Both these studies are informed by a sociocultural approach to

interactive and collaborative learning. Research into language

5

learning is generally informed by two competing and fundamentally

different approaches to cognitive development (Larsen-Freeman,

2002). One is a psycholinguistic approach, in particular the

interaction hypothesis, emphasizing the primacy of cognition and

the individual; the other, a sociocultural approach, emphasizing

the primacy of social interaction and language use.

The interaction hypothesis formulated and updated by Long

(1996), contains aspects of Krashen’s (1989) Input Hypothesis but

extends Krashen’s work by proposing that second language

interaction provides opportunities for learners to receive

modified, comprehensible input through negotiation of meaning. It

is the interplay of this input, with internal capacities, such as

selective attention, and output which Long proposed facilitate

language learning. Thus, the output hypothesis (Swain & Lapkin,

1995) has also attracted interest from cognitive interaction

researchers. Swain proposed that using language may facilitate

language learning by creating opportunities for learners to

notice gaps, test hypotheses and reflect on their language use.

Swain’s use of the term collaborative dialogue (Watanabe & Swain,

6

2007), to define talk that emerges when learners engage in a

problem-solving activity, was extended from the output

hypothesis, a move prompted by Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural

theory.

Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory contains many elements

that several SLA researchers find appealing and are particularly

pertinent to collaborative learning. Vygotsky stated that all

learning takes place in a social environment and is facilitated

by dialogue. A key Vygotskian construct with regard to learning

or development is the Zone of Proximal Development, which is

defined as the “distance between actual development level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of

potential development as determined through problem solving under

the guidance or in collaboration with more competent peers”

(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). During the process of interaction, when

it takes place within the zone of one’s potential development,

knowledge is co-constructed and is facilitated by scaffolding.

The metaphor scaffolding was first used by Wood, Bruner and Ross

(1976) and describes assistance provided by a more competent

7

other with the goal of helping the novice achieve self-regulation

and autonomy; it is therefore by nature temporary, graduated and

contingent. Donato (1994) extended the concept of scaffolding,

analysis showed that when a group adopted, what Donato referred

to as a collective orientation during interaction, the learners

were at the same time individually novices and collectively

experts, and in fact these learners were contributing to

expanding their own L2 knowledge as well as that of their peers.

This led Donato to refer to their interaction as collective

scaffolding. Despite the fundamental differences in the

approaches of these two theories, they also have much in common

not least the crucial role of interaction in language learning,

leading Larsen-Freeman (2002) to suggest that ways should be

sought to connect cognitive acquisition and social use. Evidence

of which can be detected in recent studies reviewed in this

paper.

Group Dynamics, Collaboration and LREs

Storch (2002a, 2002b) utilizes a sociocultural approach in her

study arguing that the interaction hypothesis with its emphasis

8

on negotiation of meaning represents a limited view of the role

of language in interaction, paying little attention, as it does,

to the nature of relations formed and how language is used in

such interactions. Storch examined the nature of dyadic

interaction and the resultant outcomes in a longitudinal study

involving intermediate ESL learners at an Australian university

working in dyads and then individually to complete three

different writing/grammar tasks. This study is examined in detail

as it considers important aspects highlighted in the more recent

research of Fernández Dobao (2012) and Wigglesworth and Storch

(2009), that is, levels of interaction and the occurrence of

LREs.

Drawing on Damon and Phelps’ (1989) two indexes of peer

engagement, equality and mutuality, where equality is

characterized by both parties taking direction from one another

and mutuality by discourse that is “extensive, intimate and

connected” (p10), Storch identified four different patterns of

dyadic interaction. These four patterns were collaborative,

expert/novice, dominant/dominant and dominant/passive. The

9

collaborative and dominant/dominant dyads represented patterns

that were both moderate to high in equality whereas the

expert/novice and dominant/passive dyads were moderate to low.

However, mutuality seems to be the strongest indicator of

collaborative interaction and the first two patterns,

collaborative and expert/novice, were considered to exhibit

moderate to high mutuality and therefore to be more collaborative

in nature. In the collaboratively oriented pairs there was a high

level of involvement of both parties and a high level of

contingency and cohesion in their discourse. Contingency and

cohesion are considered necessary for symmetrical interaction and

include: responding to, incorporating, repeating and completing

each other’s utterances; language instances that a

psycholinguistic approach largely ignores (van Lier, 2001). The

latter two patterns were classified as non-collaborative

exhibiting low levels of mutuality, in these two groups there was

little evidence of consensus or co-construction of knowledge;

there was an unwillingness or incapacity to make or respond to

requests, explain or negotiate.

10

Storch (2001, 2002a,2002b) found that there was evidence of

more instances of a transfer of knowledge from pair talk to

individual written work in dyads that functioned collaboratively

than in the dominant/dominant and dominant/passive dyads. Storch

also found that the more collaborative the interaction in a dyad,

the higher the instance of LREs. However, Storch examined not

only the quantity of these episodes but also the quality. Storch

found that the LREs of collaboratively orientated dyads contained

a higher number of requests and interactive responses, indicative

of a collaborative pattern whereas the smaller number of LREs

produced by the dominant/dominant group consisted of very few

requests (9% of total LREs) and 43% of initiated LREs were

ignored, indicating an individual approach to the task. There

were also other subtle differences in the fabric of the LREs, for

example in the non-collaborative dyad, repetitions were self-

repetitions whereas in the collaborative group more were other-

repetitions. Similarly, phatic utterances were used more in the

collaborative group to express agreement with the other member

while in the non-collaborative group they were used more to

express agreement with oneself.

11

Thus, Storch’s (2002a, 2002b) study addresses a number of

issues from a sociocultural perspective; the type of relations

formed and the language used in those interactions. To sum up,

Storch found more LREs are produced in collaboratively orientated

dyads, but it is not only the quantity of LREs but also the

quality of LREs that seems to be important in promoting language

transfer and consequent individual use. The analysis suggests

that if there is little engagement then opportunities to learn

may be missed through lack of repetition and explanation, and the

resultant lack of attention and noticing.

Evidence of the benefits of collaboration and LREs on grammar and

vocabulary learning

Informed by the interaction hypothesis and the output

hypothesis, but not exclusively so, McDonough’s (2004) findings

can be seen as supporting Storch (2002a, 2002b). McDonough

(2004) investigated the relationship between participation in

pair activities and post-test scores on a grammar form, in this

case conditional sentences in a sample of 16 intermediate Thai

EFL university students. McDonough identified two types of dyad,

12

high participation and low participation and results from post-

tests showed that high participation dyads that is, those

producing a greater number of LREs showed an improved production

of target forms. LREs were examined in terms of negative feedback

and modified output reflecting a psycholinguistic approach.

McDonough’s findings relating to the LREs produced, revealed that

83% of modified output was self-modified and out of 34 instances

of negative feedback only 21% received a response, suggesting

non-collaborative patterns of interaction. However, from a

sociocultural perspective there is a need for closer

investigation of the interactive patterns at work in these groups

so as to fully understand the implications of these figures. In

a final questionnaire McDonough found that the students perceived

interactive activities as useful only for practicing language,

not for learning language (i.e. grammar and vocabulary) and

indicated that they did not consider their peers as useful

language resources. These student beliefs McDonough concludes

could mean that students become exclusively orientated on

accomplishing the task and may miss language learning

opportunities.

13

Kim (2008) investigated the effect of collaborative learning

on vocabulary acquisition in a study involving 32 intermediate

learners of Korean as a second language at a university in South

Korea. The participants were divided into two groups of 16; one

group worked in dyads and the other individually. Following a

dictogloss task the participants were tested on 15 lexical items

unknown to all the participants prior to the task and retested

two weeks later. The dyad group performed significantly better on

these tests than the individual group.

The LREs occurring in the dyad group were analyzed as were

LREs in the individual groups, which occurred as a result of

previously coached think aloud protocols. The findings of the

study showed that LREs per participant were the same, with the

result that the participants in the dyads were exposed to twice

as many LREs and more of these were correctly resolved. Kim

(2008) concluded that collaborative learning led to exposure to

more LREs and that the additional resources learners enjoyed

enabled the correct resolution of more LREs. Kim posited that

“when learners reflected consciously on the language they were

14

producing (this) may lead to L2 vocabulary learning.” (p.124).

Once again as consequence of the psycholinguistic lens through

which this study is viewed many aspects of interactive learning

which Storch indicated were significant were overlooked. Kim

refers to the dyad group as the collaborative group but as we

have seen learners’ interaction in dyads may not always be

collaborative, it is important to investigate the dynamics at

work in these groups.

Proficiency differences and collaborative patterns of learning

The previous studies have shown that the number of

interactively produced LREs positively affects language learning

and Storch (2002a, 2002b) indicated that the pattern of

interaction has an impact on the number and type of LREs

produced. McDonough (2004) also suggested that student beliefs

may play a role in the recognition of language opportunities. In

the following study Watanabe and Swain (2007, 2008) examined the

nature of interactive dialogue from a sociocultural theory

perspective focusing on the role of L2 proficiency and patterns

of dyadic interaction on L2 learning. The participants were 12

15

Japanese ESL learners at a Canadian university. In this novel

study three core learners engaged in a three stage task: pair

writing, pair noticing and individual writing while working once

with a more proficient peer and once with a less proficient peer.

As with Storch (2002a, 2002b), Watanabe and Swain’s (2007,

2008) findings showed that dyads working collaboratively produced

a greater frequency of LREs than non-collaborative dyads and also

produced more turns per LRE. Watanabe and Swain (2007) concluded

that “patterns of interaction rather than proficiency differences

seemed to have a more important effect on the frequency of LREs”

(p.137). The quality of LREs was this time looked at

quantitatively (as opposed to qualitatively in Storch (2002b)) by

registering the number of turns per LRE. The dyad interaction

was, however, videotaped for structured recall sessions to help

confirm the pattern of interaction and to record paralinguistic

expressions. Facial expressions and gestures are generally not

included in the accepted definition of a LRE, even though they

could be construed as invitations for clarification, a request,

16

acknowledgement or agreement or disagreement, signifying

attention.

Findings on individual achievement also, generally, supported

Storch’s (2002a, 2002b) data with learners in collaboratively

orientated dyads achieving higher post-test scores than learners

in non-collaboratively orientated dyads. However, when there was

a large variance in proficiency the novice in an expert/novice

dyad benefitted less, contrary to Storch’s findings. This may

have been due to inappropriate scaffolding or the novice not

being developmentally ready. Interestingly, the highest post-test

scores were achieved by those in a collaborative dyad or were the

expert in an expert /novice pair. Three of the highest post-test

scores were produced by experts in expert/novice groups, with

Watanabe and Swain (2007, 2008) observing that participants

learned more when working with lower proficiency learners than

with higher proficiency learners, providing evidence that under

certain conditions peer teaching has, perhaps, more benefits for

the expert than the novice.

17

Kim and McDonough (2008) in their study of Korean EFL students

also investigated the effect of proficiency levels and pair

dynamics and although employing different methodology, the data

and findings were similar to Watanabe and Swain (2007, 2008). Kim

and McDonough found that more LREs occurred and more were

correctly resolved when interacting with a more advanced

interlocutor than with one of a similar level of proficiency and

that more LREs occurred when pairs interacted in a collaborative

manner. Kim and McDonough also found that the type of individual

participation changed. Learners participating with more advanced

partners had a tendency to become less confident about their

language ability and exploited opportunities to participate,

less, hence, a dominant partner in a same proficiency pairing

would adopt a more collaborative pattern of interaction and

previously collaborative participants would adopt a novice or

passive role. Data in Watanabe and Swain (2007, 2008) supports

these observations. Considering the significance of patterns of

interaction Kim and McDonough suggested that there is a need for

teachers to prepare their students to encourage a collaborative

pattern of interaction and those teachers should monitor

18

pair/group interactions so as to avoid the occurrence of dominant

patterns of interaction.

Pre-task modelling and instruction

The following studies explore ways to encourage collaborative

patterns of interaction and the use of collaborative language by

investigating the effectiveness of pre-task modelling and

instruction. One such study involved 44 female Korean

intermediate EFL students, where Kim and McDonough (2011)

examined the effect of pre-task modelling on the occurrence of

LREs and the promotion of collaborative pair dynamics. Half the

students were shown short video clips of two interlocutors both

being collaboratively engaged in raising and solving language

issues. Each video clip focused on one of the three tasks the

students were to perform, a dictogloss task, a decision-making

task and an information gap task.

The findings suggested that pre-task modelling led to the

occurrence of more LREs and that more of those LREs were

correctly resolved. Moreover, a greater number of pairs in the

pre-task modelling group adopted a collaborative pattern of

19

interaction and also that these groups used English more often.

The number of pairs adopting a collaborative pattern in the pre-

task modelling (PTM) group and the control group was not static,

different tasks produced a different number of collaborative

pairs, both in the PTM group and the control group. It can

therefore be deduced that pre-task modelling is not the only

influential factor, but also the nature of the task, a factor

also noted in Watanabe and Swain (2007, 2008).

A number of ambiguities surfaced in the data, which due to the

focus of the study were not discussed. The control group produced

more collaborative pairs as a group, (seven collaborative to four

non-collaborative, 7:4) in the information gap task, the task

which seemed to promote the highest level of learner engagement

in terms of pair dynamics, but during this task the control group

produced less LREs than in the other two tasks. On the other

hand, the PTM group had the least number of collaborative pairs

(7:4) in the dictogloss task but produced the highest number of

LREs. Moreover, the information gap task which elicited the most

collaborative interactions produced the least LREs. One would

20

expect, according to the previously cited studies that a higher

number of collaborative groups would produce a higher number of

LREs. Thus, the occurrence of LREs, that is learning

opportunities, is evidently a complex matter not solely dependent

on collaborative interaction. The type of collaboration taking

place has been shown to play a role and it can be supposed that

other factors are also significant, not least researchers’

understandings of terms and situations concerning collaboration

and LREs. There is a strong case for the adoption of a more

sociocultural approach, to complement analysis with data from

interviews to shed light on the perceptions and beliefs of

learners.

A study by Naughton (2006) observed the effects of interactive

strategy coaching on 45 Spanish intermediate EFL learners at a

university in Spain. The students were divided into two groups a

control group and an experimental group and then subdivided into

groups of three; both groups took part in a pretest discussion

task. The experimental group was then given eight hours of

coaching, involving explanation and practice in the use of

21

interactive strategies. These strategies included using follow-up

questions, requesting and giving clarification, self or other

repairs and requesting or giving help. Both groups then

participated in the post-test – a similar discussion task to the

pretest.

The findings of the study showed that although participation in

the experimental groups increased, it was not statistically

significant. However, with regard to the above mentioned

interactive strategies, analysis of the results showed that there

was a significant increase in the experimental groups’ use of

these strategies whereas in the control groups changes were

slight, indicating that such strategies are unlikely to be

adopted by learners without instruction. Naughton (2006) found

that the experimental groups adopted to a much greater extent the

use of follow-up questions and requesting and giving help

strategies, techniques uncommon in the pretest, the latter

usually linked to a teacher/student relationship. However, the

requesting and giving clarification and self or other repair

strategies were adopted only to a minor extent. Naughton suggests

22

that the first of these strategies may be considered unnecessary

or inauthentic in a monolingual EFL context where the L1 can be

used to resolve misunderstandings and the use of the second to be

inhibited by socio-affective factors, such as the acceptability

of correcting a partner. That the findings are based on one post-

test task recorded immediately after the interactive strategies

coaching does tend to limit the study. The premise of this study

is that it may be possible to teach at least some interactive

strategies, but whether they can be learnt and employed on a long

term basis invites more research on this matter.

A study by Sato and Ballinger (2012) also examined pre-task

modelling, analyzing and discussing empirical data from two

distinct learning contexts, which would best be examined

separately. One hundred and twenty nine Japanese university

students in three classes with a high level of grammatical

knowledge but poor speaking skills participated in study 1. All

three classes received coaching to raise their awareness of peer

interaction and its potential; two of the classes were also

instructed through modelling and practice in the use of

23

corrective feedback (CF). The study took place over ten weeks and

the analysis of the data showed that the occurrence of corrective

feedback (both other and self) increased significantly over this

period, with the classes who received instruction in CF

outperforming the class which received no instruction in CF. It

can be seen from the data that the increase in the use of CF by

the class which received no instruction in CF was negligible,

indicating, and supporting Naughton (2006), that the adoption of

such strategies benefit from instruction. Employing a

pre-test/post-test methodology, it was observed that the CF

instructed classes also outperformed the non CF instructed

classes with regard to L2 development, that is, accuracy in

speaking.

Study 2 had a similar focus, but observed young learners from two

grade three/four French immersion classes from two schools in

Canada with learners whose L1 was either French or English.

Similar to study 1 the learners were coached to interact in the

L2, recognize learning opportunities and strategies in seeking or

giving language help. Pairs were formed with students with

24

different L1s who became linguistic experts or novices depending

on the language (French or English) of the task. Four pairs were

audiotaped and two were analyzed in the paper. Sato and Ballinger

(2012) found on examining the quantitative and qualitative data,

that the pair with the greatest amount of task interaction and

provision of CF, also participated in an unequal pattern and the

interaction was characterized by rejection of feedback and

conflict, which according to Storch (2002a) would indicate a

dominant/dominant pattern. Moreover, the only pair to act in a

collaborative pattern was slightly less interactive and provided

significantly less CF. Thus, it can be seen once again that the

relationship between collaborative patterns of interaction and

the production of LREs is complex. One factor that calls for more

research is the age of the learners involved and their ability

and willingness to talk about language as well as recognize and

respect their partners as linguistic resources.

Sato and Ballinger (2012) observed that “that trust and respect

in conversation partners mediate the ultimate effectiveness of

peer CF” (p.172). Here, effectiveness is defined as noticing and

25

uptake. In contrast to study 1, it is difficult to ascertain the

effectiveness of pre-task modelling in this study, with only one

of the four pairs analyzed adopting a collaborative pattern of

interaction and the provision of CF ranging from 44 instances to

eight per pair. Despite the limits of these studies - size of

sample in study 2 and lack of follow-up interviews - a number of

issues are raised for further research. First, Sato and Ballinger

argue that the balance of LREs and interpersonal factors such as

trust and respect are important indicators or determiners of

collaborative interaction, echoing the mutuality and equality

continuums outlined in the arguments of Storch (2001, 2002a,

2002b).The significance of trust and respect in promoting

collaboration and group cohesion (Dörnyei, 1997), or its role in

the internalization of resolved LREs (McDonough & Sunitham,

2009), although commonly acknowledged, has been the subject of

little detailed research in language learning contexts. Second,

it can be considered that the two studies touch on the impact of

willingness and ability discussed in Kessler and Bikowski (2010)

with regard to collaborative, autonomous learning. In study 1 the

learners, who had not received modelling in the use of CF, had

26

the grammatical ability to assist their partners but perhaps were

unwilling to do so. This may be due to the lack social

acceptability in correcting others (Naughton, 2006) or error

acceptability, that is, if the meaning is not impeded, students

may perceive no need for correction (Kessler, 2009) or the

importance of task goals (McDonough, 2004; Fernández Dobao,

2012b). In study 2, the participants perhaps lacked the ability –

metalinguistic skills, ability to recognize learning

opportunities, collaborative engagement skills (see also Early

and Marshall, 2008, on the need for young learners to learn the

language of negotiation) - and in some cases the willingness, to

take advantage of learning opportunities arising in a

collaborative interaction, or even participate in such a pattern

of interaction. More research is required into how we can improve

a learner’s ability and willingness to interact in a

collaborative pattern and increase their language awareness.

Third, study 2 reaffirms the need for qualitative data, not just

recordings of interaction, but interviews to gain insights into

the learners’ perspective of how and why learners interact as

they do (Mackey, 2002; Watanabe, 2008).

27

We have seen that research has indicated that when students

work collaboratively it has a beneficial impact on language

learning; the process of collaborative interaction can lead to

more noticing, awareness, uptake and internalization, and a

better end-product. However, we have also seen that this is not

always the case and that some pairs or groups do not adopt a

collaborative pattern and hence do not reap the benefits

associated with more collaborative patterns. From a pedagogical

point of view teachers must try to create an environment where

the greatest number of students can benefit.

My teaching context

I teach in a small privately owned English language centre.

These centres, which are ubiquitous in Greece, operate in the

afternoon/evening and teach Greek school aged children, who also

receive English instruction at school from grade three, but there

is a general low level of confidence in the efficacy of state

education. Moreover, the concept of learning though tasks and an

interactive approach is largely alien to the Greek state

education. Usually, I would expect to teach a student

28

continuously over a period of seven to eight years so, as Wilhelm

(1997) recommends, I have a thorough knowledge of the students. I

consider my classroom to be communicative with much pair and

small group activity, in some tasks form is the focus and in

others meaning – both to differing extents involving

metalinguistic discourse.

I teach in an EFL context with students sharing the same L1.

As Naughton (2006) noted breakdowns in communication are rare due

to easy recourse to the L1, even though there is an emphasis on

students using the L2 to complete tasks and in discussion,

generally. Researchers have noted, however, that L1 use in

collaborative interaction is not necessarily detrimental with

respect to certain aspects of language learning (Storch &

Wigglesworth, 2003; Early & Marshall, 2008).

Naughton (2006) argued that in EFL classes, requests and

clarification or engaging in repair was rare because the learners

are of similar proficiency levels but in any class there will

always be more adept students able, but perhaps not always

willing to repair and clarify. In my classes wide differences in

29

proficiency can accrue over the years, however, as studies

examined in this paper have shown different levels of proficiency

may not be as significant as collaborative patterns of

interaction. The observations and findings of the studies

detailed in this paper have indicated the benefits of

collaborative interaction and identified a need for the learners

to be made aware of these benefits. The use of pre-task modelling

leading to the adoption of certain strategies has been shown to

encourage learners to participate in a collaborative pattern

during task interaction.

I have employed pre-task modelling in many guises but not its

application as a metalinguistic tool, nor have I consciously or

methodically modeled ways to interact. If learners understand

that it is acceptable even desirable to repair and be repaired

then there may be no, or less, avoidance of this technique on

grounds of social acceptability. Naughton (2006) considers that

“students can be made aware of the learning opportunities

inherent in interactive situations so they realize that, at

times, it may be beneficial to replace the prevailing axioms of

30

conversational behavior with rules that allow them to maximize

their learning potential” (p. 179). However, teachers need to be

aware of the significance of the authenticity of tasks (Pica,

2006) and how encouraging strategies to discuss language may

affect this authenticity. Moreover, as the last study indicated,

pre-task modelling has to be finely attuned to learners’ needs

abilities, especially in the case of very young learners.

My classes are very small, usually not more than six to

eight students, so I can easily observe them working, from an

unobtrusive distance, and can understand if students are working

collaboratively and participating. I can either interject online,

at that moment, or discuss it during any reflection on the task –

where in the past, students have not really been forthcoming, but

once again there is a necessity for modelling and scaffolding to

show the students how to do this, what this entails and why it is

beneficial. A teacher should be aware of the relationships

between learners when partaking in interactive tasks and change

partners to facilitate a collaborative pattern of interaction.

Conclusion

31

In this paper I have examined how interacting in pairs and

groups can have a positive influence on language learning in the

classroom. The main focus of this paper has been on the quality

of collaboration and interaction within pairs during a task and

the effect this collaboration has on the production of language

learning opportunities and how these opportunities can be

exploited and new language learnt or at least reaffirmed. The

significance of collaborative learning and the resultant

production of LREs has led to research into the possibilities and

usefulness of making learners aware of the benefits and coaching

learners to notice and exploit learning opportunities. This paper

has examined the relationship between group dynamics and the

production of LREs and pre-task modelling as a method of

encouraging collaborative interaction; however, this is only one

aspect in the study of collaborative learning. As an English

teacher it is my job to assist students in achieving their full

potential as language learners and members of society. I consider

that interacting collaboratively is integral to both language

learning and learning skills that will be useful outside the

classroom and outside the sphere of language learning. Finally,

32

collaborative learning is affected by many factors, including

affective factors, authorship, authenticity, the role of the

teacher and the task itself. Studies which approach the

complexities of collaborative learning from a sociocultural

perspective would seem to be more apt, considering the many

social factors that may be influential. Moreover, technology is

changing the way we communicate, the way we collaborate and from

a sociocultural perspective the way we learn another language.

Thus, it can be considered that research into collaborative

learning is also still evolving.

33

References

Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three

approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational

Research, 58, 9-19.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language

learning. In J. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian

approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative

language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. The Modern

Language Journal, 81, 482-493.

Early, M., & Marshall, S. (2008). Adolescent ESL students'

interpretation and appreciation of literary texts: A case study

of multimodality. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 377–397.

Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2

classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of

Second Language Writing 21, 40-58.

34

Fernández Dobao, A. (2012b). Collaborative dialogue in learner–

learner and learner–native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics,

33, 229–256.

Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and Interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. H.

Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-

based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13,

79-95.

Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative

autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language

learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space.

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 41-58.

Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual

tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language

Journal, 92, 114-130.

35

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, 211–234.

Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to

encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching

Research, 15, 183-199.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by

reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The

Modem Language Journal, 73, 440-64.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use

from a chaos/ complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch

(Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological

perspectives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second

language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia

(Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition, volume 2: Second language

acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.

36

Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: learners’ perceptions about

interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research

37, 379–394.

McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair

and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32,

207–224.

McDonough, K., & Sunitham, W. (2009). Collaborative dialogue

between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer

activities. Tesol Quarterly, 43, 231-254.

Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral

interaction: Enhancing small group communication in the language

classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 169-184.

Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in

peer interaction: A cross- context, cross-methodology

examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179.

Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary

students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29-53.

37

Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work.

Language Learning, 52, 119- 158.

Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction

and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational

Research, 37, 305–322.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the

cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second

language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language

learning: Two adolescent French immersion students. The

Modern Language Journal 82, 320-337.

van Lier, L. (2001). Constraints and resources in classroom talk:

Issues of equality and symmetry. In C. N. Candlin, & N. Mercer

(Eds.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (pp. 90-

107). Routledge: London.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38

Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer interaction between L2 learners of

different proficiency levels: Their interactions and

reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605-635.

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency

differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language

learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners.

Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner

proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL

learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners.

Language Awareness 17, 115-130.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual

writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language

Testing 26(3), 445-466.

Wilhelm, K. (1997). Sometimes kicking and screaming: Language

teachers-in-training react to a collaborative learning model.

The Modern Language Journal, 81, 527–542.

39

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in

problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

40