Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work

Language Teaching Research2014, Vol. 18(4) 497 –520

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1362168813519730

ltr.sagepub.com

LANGUAGETEACHINGRESEARCH

Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work

Ana Fernández DobaoUniversity of Washington, USA

AbstractThis study examined the opportunities that pair and small group interaction offer for collaborative dialogue and second language (L2) vocabulary learning. It compared the performance of the same collaborative writing task by learners working in groups of four (n = 60) and in pairs (n = 50), focusing on the occurrence of lexical language-related episodes (LREs). Findings indicate that groups produced more lexical LREs than pairs and were able to solve correctly a higher percentage of these LREs. Although opportunities for individual learners to contribute to the conversation were more limited in small groups, the number of participants did not have a negative impact on learners’ rate of retention of the lexical knowledge co-constructed in interaction. The pretests and posttests showed that learners benefited from the LREs they initiated or resolved, as well as from observing their peers’ collaborative problem-solving activities. As a result, small group interaction resulted in significantly more instances of L2 vocabulary learning than pair interaction.

KeywordsCollaborative tasks, language-related episodes, pair and small group interaction, vocabulary learning

I Introduction

Since the 1980s a considerable amount of research has accumulated on the effect of learner–learner interaction on second language (L2) learning, supporting the use of both pair and small group activities in the classroom. Most of this research has been con-ducted from an interactionist perspective (Long, 1983, 1996), which emphasizes the role

Corresponding author:Ana Fernández Dobao, University of Washington, Spanish and Portuguese Studies, Box 354360, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.Email: [email protected]

519730 LTR0010.1177/1362168813519730Language Teaching ResearchFernández Dobaoresearch-article2014

Article

498 Language Teaching Research 18(4)

of noticing and attention in language acquisition, and analyses conversational interaction focusing on negotiation for meaning, modified output, and negative as well as positive feedback. An alternative, and relatively more recent, line of research looks at L2 interac-tion as an opportunity for learners to collaborate in the solution of their language-related problems, scaffold each other, and co-construct new language knowledge (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001; Swain, 2000). The present study builds on this latter research to examine the opportunities that pair and small-group task-based interaction offer for peer collabora-tion and L2 vocabulary learning.

The study of L2 interaction focusing on collaboration draws on the sociocultural claim that learning is a socially situated activity. Higher cognitive functions appear first on the intermental or social plane and, only later, on the intramental or psychological plane (Vygotsky, 1978). The learner, a ‘novice’, carries out new functions first in col-laboration with a more capable individual, an ‘expert’. The graduated assistance pro-vided by the expert so that the novice can perform beyond his or her actual level of development is known as ‘scaffolding’ (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Learning occurs through a gradual process of internalization, as the learner moves from assisted to inde-pendent performance, that is, becomes able to do independently what originally he or she could only do with the help of others.

The novice–expert relationship was originally described as a fixed and unidirec-tional relationship between a child and an adult. In L2 learner interaction, however, the role of expert is dynamic. Because no two learners share the same weaknesses and strengths; when working together they can act as both novices and experts (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001). L2 research has shown how same-level learners can provide scaf-folded assistance to each other and, pooling their individual knowledge and resources, achieve a level of performance that is beyond their individual level of competence (e.g. Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

Research conducted from this perspective supports the use in the L2 classroom of tasks that encourage learners to work together and collaborate in the solution of their language-related problems. Some researchers have specifically argued for the use of col-laborative tasks, in which two or more learners have to produce one jointly written text (Swain, 2000, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). The shared responsibility over the final text pushes learners to talk about the language they are using and pool their individual resources to solve the linguistic problems they encounter. To this end, they engage in language-mediated cognitive activities such as, for instance, formulating and testing hypotheses, offering and assessing new input, or correcting themselves or others. Using language as a tool to think and talk about language, learners are able to create new lan-guage knowledge. This dialogue, in which speakers engage in joint problem-solving and knowledge-building, is referred to as ‘collaborative dialogue’ (Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Collaborative dialogue constitutes a form of ‘languaging’, described by Swain as ‘the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language’ (Swain, 2006). Swain argues that languaging is a major source of learning. From a sociocultural perspective, the knowledge socially constructed in col-laborative dialogue can be internalized by the learner and transformed into individual

Fernández Dobao 499

knowledge. On this basis, Swain claims that languaging in the form of collaborative dialogue mediates L2 learning (see Swain, 2000, 2006; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

The concept of collaborative dialogue has been operationalized through language-related episodes (LREs), defined as ‘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, p. 326). A distinction is usually made between grammati-cal LREs, in which learners’ attention is focused on grammar, and lexical LREs, in which learners talk about lexis and collaborate to solve vocabulary-related problems.

The study of LREs has confirmed that collaborative writing tasks, such as dictogloss, jigsaw, text reconstruction, or composition tasks, encourage learners ‘to language’, that is, to talk about the language they are using. This research has shown that collaborative tasks can draw learners’ attention to both grammar and vocabulary. While meaning-ori-ented tasks such as dictogloss and jigsaw tasks tend to elicit more lexical than grammati-cal LREs, more structured tasks such as text reconstruction and cloze tasks seem to favor learners’ attention to form (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007; García Mayo, 2002; Storch, 2001a; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). Similarly, Williams (1999, 2001) found that in meaning-focused classrooms learners tend to concentrate on lexis and, as a result, lexical LREs are far more frequent than grammatical LREs. However, attention to gram-mar can be enhanced by grammar review lessons or activities presented prior to the col-laborative writing task (e.g. Leeser, 2004; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Other factors affecting the frequency of both lexical and grammatical LREs, as well as their resolution, are pair dynamics (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Storch, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), learners’ proficiency level (Leeser, 2004; Williams, 1999), and the mode of communication, face-to-face or online (Shekary & Tahririan, 2006; Zeng & Takatsuka, 2009).

Evidence has also been obtained that the collaborative dialogue occurring in these LREs ‘is language learning in progress’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 321). A number of studies have explored the relationship between LREs and learning by administering post-tests specifically designed to trace learners’ independent use of those lexical and gram-matical forms previously discussed in interaction. LaPierre (1994), one of the very first studies of this kind, identified 140 episodes in which students collaborated to solve lin-guistic problems encountered while completing a dictogloss task in pairs. Using a tailor-made dyad-specific posttest to examine whether the resolutions reached in these episodes were remembered by the individual learners one week afterwards, she found that learners retained 80% of the correct solutions co-constructed in interaction and approximately 70% of the incorrect ones. Swain and Lapkin (1998) analysed the collaborative dialogue generated by 12 pairs of French immersion students while completing a jigsaw task. They found a positive relationship between the number of LREs produced by each pair of learners and their scores on a posttest. The microgenetic analysis of the dialogue between one of the pairs illustrated how the LREs they generated created opportunities for learning both grammar and vocabulary. Following studies, conducted across a variety of languages and pedagogical contexts, have confirmed that learners tend to retain the knowledge co-constructed through collaborative dialogue (e.g. Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002; Shekary & Tahririan, 2006; Storch, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Williams, 2001; Zeng & Takatsuka, 2009).


Several studies have further investigated the benefits of peer collaboration by com-paring collaborative and individual tasks, that is, the same tasks completed by learners working in pairs and individually. This research has found that the LREs generated by the learners working in pairs have a direct influence on task performance. Pairs tend to produce linguistically more accurate texts than individual learners (Storch, 1999, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). Evidence has also been obtained that collaborative tasks may create more language learning opportunities, and in particular more vocabulary learning opportunities, than individual tasks. Kim (2008) compared the effect of pair and individual work on the acquisition of 15 pre-selected vocabulary items included in a dictogloss task. Thirty-two Korean L2 learners completed the task, half of them in pairs and the other half alone while thinking aloud. Learners working in pairs participated in twice as many LREs as learners thinking aloud and found a correct solution to a considerably higher percentage of their LREs. As a result, they performed significantly better on both an immediate and a delayed vocabulary posttest.

However, Nassaji and Tian (2010) failed to obtain clear evidence of the benefits of collaborative tasks over individual ones for L2 vocabulary learning. In this study, 26 English L2 learners completed two cloze tasks and two text-editing tasks focused on the use of English phrasal verbs. One of the two versions of each task was performed in pairs and the other one individually. All learners increased their knowledge of English phrasal verbs, as measured by a vocabulary pretest and posttest. In fact, learners working col-laboratively improved more than those working individually, but the differences observed were not statistically significant. Nassaji and Tian argued that the lack of significant dif-ferences between the two conditions could be related to the difficulty of learning phrasal verbs as well as the students’ limited collaborative skills. Most of the LREs were quite brief and limited, and possibly not rich enough to facilitate the acquisition of the target forms.

It should also be noted that research conducted from an interactionist perspective has obtained similar results. Overall, the findings of this research show that interac-tion, either between learners (e.g. Adams, 2007; Newton, 1993) or between a learner and a teacher (e.g. de la Fuente, 2002; Ellis & He, 1999; Ellis, Tanaka & Yamazaki, 1994; Gass & Alvarez Torres, 2005), facilitates vocabulary learning. However, studies comparing the benefits of interactive and non-interactive activities have also produced some contradictory findings. These results suggest that further research needs to be conducted on the factors mediating the relationship between interaction and L2 vocab-ulary learning.

The studies of collaborative dialogue reviewed here have focused almost exclusively on dyads, paying little attention to interaction between more than two learners. This research has conceptualized collaborative tasks as tasks completed in pairs and therefore compared learners’ performance of the same tasks individually and in dyads (for an exception, see Fernández Dobao, 2012). No study has specifically compared the oppor-tunities that pair and small group interaction may offer for collaborative dialogue and L2 learning. Therefore, an issue that needs yet to be investigated is how the number of par-ticipants in the interaction may affect not only the occurrence and resolution of LREs, but also the L2 learning occurring in these episodes.


From a sociocultural perspective, a larger number of participants represents more knowledge and linguistic resources to share. This means a higher probability to find a correct solution to the language-related problems encountered (see Fernández Dobao, 2012). However, possibilities for individual learners to contribute to the interaction and get actively involved in the resolution of these problems are inevitably more limited in small groups than in dyads, which could negatively affect the relationship between LREs and learning. The present study investigates this issue. It compares the performance of the same collaborative writing task by learners working in pairs and in groups of four, and analyses the effect that the number of participants in the task may have on the occur-rence of lexical LREs, and also on learners’ retention and later independent use of the vocabulary discussed in these LREs. The aim is to find an answer to the following two questions:

1. Does the number of participants in the task, two versus four, influence the fre-quency and nature of lexical LREs?

2. Does the number of participants in the task, two versus four, influence the oppor-tunities that lexical LREs offer for L2 vocabulary learning?

II Method

1 Participants

The participants in this study were 110 learners of Spanish as a foreign language, enrolled in six different classes of the same intermediate-level course offered for credit at a large public university in the USA. There were 78 females and 32 males, with an average age of 20. All of them were English native speakers or had a native-like com-mand of English.

The learners had been placed in this second-year, intermediate-level course after suc-cessful completion of the previous level class, or on the basis of their score on either the university placement test or the Advanced Placement Spanish exam. Because most of them had taken Spanish language classes before entering the university, they had been studying Spanish for an average of three and a half years.

In each class approximately half of the students worked in small groups and the other half in dyads. All the groups had four students, so that they would be big enough to be clearly different from the pairs, but at the same time small enough to offer adequate opportunities for participation. A total of 60 learners worked in groups and 50 in pairs. Therefore, there were 15 groups and 25 dyads.

2 Collaborative task

A collaborative writing task, based on a visual prompt, was designed for the purposes of the study. Each group and pair of students was given a set of 15 pictures and asked to rearrange them in order to create a story (see Appendix 1). The pictures had no pre-established order. Learners had to decide how to sequence them, build their own story, and write it down. Each group and each pair had to produce one jointly written text.


Although the present study focuses exclusively on lexical LREs, the task was intended to create both lexical and grammatical problems. The description of the pictures demanded the use of some uncommon vocabulary, such as lawnmower, fortune-teller, or gas mask, while the learners were explicitly instructed to set their stories in the past, using preterit and imperfect verb forms, a common difficulty for English-speaking learn-ers of Spanish. Before the task, all learners received a 15-minute grammar review lesson on Spanish past-tense morphology, but no specific vocabulary instruction.

3 Pretest and posttest instruments

Two different testing instruments were developed to assess learning: a vocabulary task and an individual writing task. Both tasks were intended to test learners’ produc-tive knowledge of the vocabulary discussed in their LREs, more specifically, learners’ ability to use individually those lexical items previously used in collaboration with their peers.

The vocabulary task tested learners’ knowledge of 20 lexical items (see an extract in Appendix 2). A first version of the task was administered as a pretest and a second ver-sion, including exactly the same items but in a different order, as a posttest. This design was used to observe learners’ development, as they moved from an incorrect to a correct response from the pretest to the posttest.

Because it is impossible to predict what different learners will be talking about during an open-ended collaborative activity, like the one in the present study, the vocabulary task could only be expected to include a subset of the lexical items discussed by the learners in their LREs. To lessen this problem, the collaborative writing task was piloted in a class with 24 intermediate-level learners. The oral interactions between these learn-ers were analysed, and those words that created frequent linguistic difficulties and elic-ited repeated lexical LREs were included in the vocabulary task. It was expected that some of these words would also be unfamiliar for the learners in the main study and therefore discussed in their LREs.

Given the number of participants, it was not possible to elaborate tailor-made post-tests based on the LREs generated by each group and each dyad. Instead, learners were asked to complete an individual writing task intended to function as an individualized posttest. One week after the collaborative writing task, each learner was again given the 15 pictures used as a prompt for this task, but rearranged in the order jointly established by their group or pair the week before. They were instructed to write individually the same story they had previously written collaboratively. The resulting texts were expected to provide evidence of learners’ independent use of the vocabulary knowledge previ-ously co-constructed in collaboration with their peers.

4 Procedures

All of the tasks were performed in the class, administered by the teachers as part of the regular course work. Data was collected in weeks seven and eight of a 10-week course, so that learners would be familiar with each other and used to working together in groups, a very common practice in these classes.


On the first day all learners completed the vocabulary pretest individually. On the next day they received the grammar review lesson and immediately afterwards the instruc-tions for the collaborative writing task. Students could choose to work in pairs or in groups, self-selecting their partners. But teachers made sure there was a balanced num-ber of pairs and groups, and also that all groups consisted of four learners.

Pairs and groups were allowed the same amount of time to perform the task, approxi-mately 30 minutes. Students were free to organize their work and to decide who would write their text. They were specifically instructed not to use a dictionary or any other kind of reference materials. Teachers made sure that students followed the instructions and stayed on task, but offered no linguistic help. The oral interactions as students col-laborated to complete the collaborative writing task were audio-recorded.

One week later, the learners completed the posttest activities: the second version of the vocabulary task and the individual writing task. They were given as much time as needed. Eleven of the 110 students who completed the collaborative writing task were not present in class on that day. Therefore, data was obtained from a total of 99 students; 55 of them had worked in groups and 44 in pairs.

5 Data coding and analysis

a Language-related episodes. The oral interactions between the pairs and the groups were transcribed and coded for LREs. Since the present study focuses exclusively on vocabulary, only lexical LREs were identified. Following Swain and Lapkin (1998), lexical LREs were defined as segments of interaction in which learners talked about or questioned their vocabulary use. These include segments in which they collaborated to clarify the meaning of a word, to search for new vocabulary, to choose between alterna-tive lexical items, or to determine the correct spelling and pronunciation of the words they were using.1

The LREs thus identified were classified as correctly resolved, unresolved, or incor-rectly resolved. Example 1 illustrates a correctly resolved lexical LRE. In the first turn, Larry uses the word rascacielos (skyscraper), which Jenny does not recognize. In turn 4, Larry provides the meaning of this word and, in turns 9 and 10, we see Jenny and Ruth agreeing on the use of the word rascacielos.

Example 1:

1. Larry: uh: entre dos rascacielos, grandes (between two big skyscrapers) 2. Ruth: dos (two) 3. Jenny: qué es? (what is it?) 4. Larry: skyscrapers 5. Jenny: rascacielos? oh! (skyscrapers?) 6. Ruth: rascacielos rascacielos (skyscrapers skyscrapers) 7. Jenny: look at you


8. Larry: sí (yes) 9. Jenny: rascacielos (skyscrapers)10. Ruth: okay

In Example 2, Ellen and Nina are not able to find a solution to the lexical problem encountered. They want to say ‘to crash’ in Spanish, but neither of them knows or is able to recall the word chocar (to crash). The LRE is left unresolved.

Example 2:

1. Ellen: y: … el avión, … cómo se dice cr- to crash? (and the plane, how do you say to crash?)2. Nina: um … yo pienso: crash es (I think crash is)3. Ellen: uh:4. Nina: no recuerdo (I don’t remember)

Example 3 presents an incorrectly resolved LRE. David and Suzie agree on the use of ciclar, but neither ciclar nor biciclar are correct Spanish terms. The expression these two learners are looking for is ir en bicicleta (to bike/cycle).

Example 3:

1. David: ci-? biciclar? o: ciclar? (to bike? or to bike?)2. Suzie: creo biciclar (I think to bike)3. David: biciclar! él biciclaba … todo: … el día (to bike! he used to bike all day)

LREs were also analysed for length, measured by the number of turns. Each time a learner spoke, from the moment the lexical problem was raised until it was solved or until the conversation moved to the next topic, was counted as a turn. As seen in the examples above, each LRE dealt with one lexical problem. Sometimes learners discussed the same problem on several occasions during the same conversation, but this was still counted as one single episode. Following these guidelines, a trained independent coder and I coded all the data, discussing any discrepancies until complete agreement was reached.

b Vocabulary learning and retention. The vocabulary task administered before and after the collaborative writing task was analysed for evidence of L2 learning. I compared learners’ responses to the first and second version of the task for those items that had been discussed in their LREs. Correctly and incorrectly resolved LREs were analysed independently. Unresolved LREs were left out of the analysis. Since in unresolved LREs there was no agreed lexical item to be retained, changes from the pretest to the posttest could not be traced back to the episode.


Learners’ responses were classified into three categories: learning new knowledge, consolidation of existing knowledge, and missed opportunity for learning. Those instances in which a learner changed his or her response from the pretest to the posttest to incorporate the knowledge co-constructed in the LRE were coded as learning. When the lexical item discussed in the LRE was retained in the posttest but had already been used in the pretest, an instance of consolidation was noted. Following previous research, this consolidation of previously acquired knowledge is also considered part of the learn-ing process (see Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Storch, 2008). Finally, when the learner’s response in the posttest could not be traced back to the LRE, a missed opportu-nity for learning was identified.

Thus, in the following LRE, Becky and Tim are gaining new knowledge of the word barco (ship). The change in their responses from the pretest to the posttest suggests that, as a result of their participation in the LRE, they have become able to use the word barco. John is consolidating his previous knowledge of this word, but Sally’s performance on the posttest shows that she has not retained the word barco and has therefore missed an opportunity for learning.

Example 4:

1. Becky: oh! no sé la palabra para ship (I don’t know the word for ship)2. John: barco (ship)3. Tim: barco? (ship?)4. Becky: barco? (ship?)5. John: barco (ship)6. Sally: um

Learning a word is a long and complex process. Repetitive input and several opportu-nities for use are normally needed before a word can be ‘fully known’ (for a detailed discussion on what it means to know a word, see Nation, 2001; Nation & Webb, 2011; Read, 2000). Learners cannot be expected to acquire all the different aspects of a word after encountering it on just one occasion; it is more realistic to expect them to acquire a degree of partial knowledge of the word (Read, 2000, p. 48). The vocabulary pretests and

Learner Pretest Posttest Analysis

Becky bote grande(big boat)

barco Learning new knowledge

John barco barco Consolidation of existing knowledgeSally bargo

(non existent word)bargo Missed opportunity for learning

Tim barca(boat)

barco Learning new knowledge


posttests used in the present study were not designed to evaluate different degrees of lexical knowledge. But in order to recognize the complexity of the vocabulary learning process, when a learner changed his or her response from the pretest to the posttest to incorporate a lexical item discussed in an LRE, but made a minor spelling or grammati-cal error, I considered that the learner had acquired partial knowledge of the word and was therefore learning.

The texts written individually one week after the collaborative writing task were also analysed for evidence of retention. A learners’ independent use of a word previously dis-cussed in an LRE was considered as an instance of retention, whereas lack of retention was noted when the learner made reference to the same idea, but using a different word.

In Example 5, learners correctly agree that the Spanish verb tomar (to take) can be used with the meaning of ‘taking a plane’. The analysis of the individual texts reveals that Julie and Mary have retained this use of the verb tomar, but Erika, who incorrectly writes usó el avión (she used the plane) instead of tomó el avión (she took the plane), has not retained it. Because there is no pretest for the item, we cannot know whether Julie and Mary are consolidating existing knowledge or acquiring new lexical knowledge.

Example 5:

1. Julie: tomar un avión? … is that to take? like tomar is that the correct verb? (to take a plane?)2. Mary: mmhmm3. Katie: oh! avión I forgot we were gonna do that (plane)4. Julie: tomar un avión (to take a plane)

Although most of the stories written by the individual learners were relatively close to the original collaborative ones, they did not include contexts of use for all the forms discussed in the LREs. Here, for instance, Katie did not mention the idea of ‘taking a plane’ or ‘taking a ship’ in her story. Therefore, there is no evidence to know whether or not the learner has retained the knowledge built in the LRE.

The non-parametric Independent-samples Mann–Whitney U-test was used to com-pare LRE frequency, outcome, and length between pairs and groups, as well as learning and retention between those learners who had previously worked in pairs and in groups. Alpha was set at .05.

Learner Individually written text Analysis

Erika usó el avión(she used the plane)

Lack of retention

Julie tomar un barco(to take a ship)

Retention

Katie – No mentionMary tomar un avión

(to take a plane)Retention


III Results

1 Number of participants and LREs

The first question of the study concerned the relationship between the number of partici-pants in the interaction and the frequency and nature of lexical LREs. To answer this question, I analysed the oral interactions between the groups and the pairs as they com-pleted the collaborative writing task, and compared the lexical LREs identified in terms of frequency, length, and resolution.

Table 1 presents the results of the frequency analysis. It shows that learners working in groups of four focused their attention on lexis more often than learners working in pairs. The 15 groups produced a total of 322 lexical LREs, with an average of 21.47 per group, whereas the 25 pairs produced a total of 394 lexical LREs, with an average of 15.76 per dyad. The Independent samples Mann–Whitney U-test confirmed the statisti-cal significance of this difference (U = 110.5, p = .031).2

Variation occurred not only between groups and pairs, but also within each condi-tion. The minimum number of episodes produced by the groups was seven and by the pairs two. Despite this variability, also documented in previous similar research (e.g. Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), most of the groups produced a higher number of lexical LREs than the pairs.

In Table 1, we can see that LREs were not only more frequent in small group interac-tion but they were also longer. The episodes produced by the groups had an average of 7.41 turns, whereas those by the pairs had 5.18 turns. This difference was statistically significant (U = 58, p < .001).

The analysis of the outcome of the LREs revealed that learners working in groups of four were considerably more successful at solving lexical problems than learners work-ing in dyads. As shown in Table 2, groups resolved correctly a mean of 15.73 LREs, whereas pairs reached a correct solution for an average of 9.56 LREs. This means that 73% of the lexical LREs produced by the groups were correctly resolved, whereas pairs solved correctly only 61% of their problems. The Mann–Whitney U-test confirmed the statistical significance of the differences observed in the number (U = 85.5, p = .004) as well as the percentage (U = 64.5, p = .001) of correct LREs.

The percentage of unresolved LREs was quite similar between the groups and the pairs, 12% versus 13%, but the proportion of incorrectly resolved LREs was higher for the pairs than for the groups, 26% versus 15%. This difference was also of statistical significance (U = 306, p = .001).

Table 1. Frequency and length of lexical language-related episodes (LREs).

Groups (n = 15) Pairs (n = 25)

N M SD N M SD

Lexical LREs 322 21.47 8.33 394 15.76 6.57Turns/lexical LRE 7.41 1.69 5.18 1.35


From a sociocultural perspective, groups of four are more likely than pairs to reach a correct solution to their language-related problems because they have more resources, since up to four different learners can pool their individual knowledge to solve the lin-guistic problems encountered. The qualitative analysis of the lexical LREs identified in the present study confirmed that, when working collaboratively and combining their L2 vocabulary knowledge, learners in small groups shared more lexical resources than learners in pairs. The following examples illustrate how four learners working together were sometimes able to solve problems that two of those same learners working in a pair would not have been able to solve.

In Example 6, Tom is searching for the Spanish equivalent of the English verb ‘to sail’ (turns 1 and 3). Ann cannot help him because she does not know this word either, but in turn 4 Bob offers the word navegar (to sail). The lexical problem that the first two learn-ers, Tom and Ann, were not able to solve is finally solved with the help of a third learner, Bob.

Example 6:

1. Tom: eh: en el mismo tiempo en el mar: el Titánico uh: … … sailed (at the same time, at the sea, the Titanic sailed)2. Ann: sailed3. Tom: sailed … sailed4. Bob: navegar (to sail)5. Ann: navegar! al a los Estados Unidos (to sail! to the United States)

In Example 7, Pat is asking for the Spanish expression to convey the meaning ‘to take a train’. Alice offers andar en tren (turn 2), but this is actually an erroneous use of the word andar (to walk). A third learner, Chris, identifies the error and corrects it (turn 3). The group correctly agrees on the use of the expression tomar un tren.

Example 7:

1. Pat: um … cómo se dice take the train? (how do you say take the train?)2. Alice: andar en tren? (to walk by train?)

Table 2. Outcome of lexical language-related episodes (LREs).

Groups (n = 15) Pairs (n = 25)

N M SD % N M SD %

Correct LREs 236 15.73 6.46 73% 239 9.56 5.04 61%Unresolved LREs 38 2.53 1.30 12% 50 2.00 1.41 13%Incorrect LREs 48 3.20 1.74 15% 105 4.20 2.10 26%


3. Chris: toma (he takes)4. Pat: toma (he takes)5. Pat: to:maron un … un tren (they took a train)

Example 8 illustrates a collaborative knowledge-building process similar to what Donato (1994) referred to as collective scaffolding. Four learners pool their incom-plete vocabulary knowledge to scaffold each other and produce ‘performance that is of a higher level than that of any individual involved’ (Ohta, 2001, p. 74). In turn 1, Mary does not know how to say ‘to meet someone’ in Spanish. In turn 2, Jason offers the verb encontrar (to find), but he immediately realizes this is an error. In turn 3, a third learner, David, offers saber (to know), also an error. But David’s use of the word saber, triggers Mary’s use of the word conocer, which in Spanish is a synonym for saber and also the equivalent to the English verb ‘to meet’. David realizes now that conocer is the word they are looking for (turn 5). Mary questions the accuracy of the word conocer, but she finally accepts it when a fourth learner, Donna, confirms that the same word can be used in Spanish with these two different meanings, ‘to meet’ and ‘to know’ (turn 10). In turn 13, Mary correctly uses the word conocer to express the mean-ing ‘to meet someone’.

Example 8:

1. Mary: deben: meet allí, no sé la palabra para meet? (they should meet there, I don’t know the word for meet?) 2. Jason: uh like encontrar, no, that’s to find, right? (to find) 3. David: uh: es heh … creo que es saber um (it’s, I think it’s to know) 4. Mary: conocer? (to meet?) 5. David: conocer! (to meet!) 6. Mary: but that’s like to know that 7. David: sí pero: (yes, but) 8. Jason: like you’re familiar or 9. Mary: es, también es (it’s it’s also)10. Donna: es la: es igual para: … meet y: know (it’s the, it’s the same for meet and know)11. Mary: oh!12. David: sí, … sí, conoce, creo que está conocer (yes, yes, she meets, I think it’s to meet)13. Mary: okay, … creo que ella: debe conocer … a él, en el barco, (I think she should meet him on the ship)


In Example 8, four different learners contribute to the LRE. In Examples 6 and 7, however, not all the learners get actively involved in the dialogic resolution of the problem encountered. One of the four members of the group acts as a silent partici-pant, who observes the other learners’ interaction without contributing a single turn. A further analysis of the number of learners who contributed at least one turn to each LRE revealed that, although in pair interaction 89% of the lexical LREs identified were interactively solved by the two members of the dyad, in small group interaction only 25% involved turns from all the participants; 40% involved turns from three dif-ferent learners and 24% from only two learners. Although the observer’s role was fluid and changed from one LRE to another, this raises the question of whether the lexical LREs produced in small group interaction were as beneficial for learning as those in pair interaction; in other words, whether learners benefited from the higher number of LREs occurring in small group interaction, even though in some of them they participated only as observers of their peers’ work. This issue was addressed by the second question of the study.

2 Number of participants and L2 vocabulary learning

The second research question focused on the influence of the number of participants in the interaction on the opportunities this creates for L2 vocabulary learning. Two different sources of data were examined to answer this question: learners’ responses to the pretest and posttest vocabulary task, and their performance of the individual writing task.

Table 3 presents the results of the analysis of the vocabulary task. The results obtained for correctly and incorrectly resolved LREs are presented separately. As previously dis-cussed, this test could only provide evidence of learning for a subset of items: those lexi-cal items included in the task that were also discussed by the learners in their LREs; 25% of the lexical LREs produced by the groups and 25% of those produced by the pairs were focused on a word included in the vocabulary task.

Table 3. Vocabulary task: Evidence of learning and consolidation.

Learners in groups (n = 55)

Learners in pairs (n = 44)

N M SD % N M SD %

Correct language-related episodes

Learning new knowledge 72 1.31 1.12 30 33 0.75 0.99 32Consolidation of existing knowledge

96 1.75 1.40 40 47 1.07 1.15 45

Missed opportunity for learning

73 1.33 1.53 30 24 0.55 0.82 23

Incorrect language-related episodes

Learning new knowledge 19 0.35 0.52 35 22 0.50 0.76 33Consolidation of existing knowledge

5 0.09 0.29 9 9 0.20 0.40 14

Missed opportunity for learning

30 0.55 0.57 56 35 0.80 0.93 53


The analysis of this subset of items revealed that, when learners worked in small groups, they learned new knowledge in 30% of the correctly resolved LREs analysed, consolidated existing knowledge in 40%, and missed an opportunity for learning only in 30%. The results obtained for the learners working in pairs were very similar. There is evidence of learners gaining new knowledge in 32% of the correct LREs analysed, con-solidating previous knowledge in 45%, and missing an opportunity for learning only in 23%. The Mann–Whitney U-test confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups and the pairs on any of these three measures.

However, the total number of words learnt by the learners in the two conditions was significantly different. The vocabulary task provided evidence of learners acquiring new knowledge of a total of 72 words, a mean of 1.31 words per learner, when they completed the collaborative writing task in groups, and only 33 words, a mean of 0.75 words per learner, when they completed the task in pairs. Learners working in groups also consoli-dated their previous knowledge of a higher number of words: 1.75 versus 1.07 words on average per learner. Both differences were statistically significant (U = 853, p = .008 and U = 841, p = .007).3

Since the number of LREs varied not only between groups and pairs, but also within each condition, there was a considerable degree of variation in the number of words learnt by each individual learner. The number of items in the vocabulary task showing some evidence of learning ranged from zero to eight for the learners working in groups and from zero to five for those working in pairs. Even with this variation, the results obtained indicate that, overall, small group interaction resulted in signifi-cantly more instances of both learning new knowledge and consolidation of previ-ously existing knowledge than pair interaction. These findings were confirmed by the analysis of the individual texts written by the learners one week after the collabora-tive writing task.

The individual texts made it possible to examine learners’ retention and independent use of those lexical items previously discussed with their peers, but only when a context of use for these items was created in the text. Learners in the small group condition attempted to use in their individual texts 45% of the vocabulary items discussed in their LREs, and learners in the dyad condition 57%.

Table 4 shows that learners retained the solutions reached in 78% of the correctly resolved LREs analysed. No difference was observed between the learners working in

Table 4. Individual writing task: Evidence of retention.

Learners in groups (n = 55)

Learners in pairs (n = 44)

N M SD % N M SD %

Correct language-related episodes

Retention 305 5.55 3.05 78 186 4.23 2.83 78Lack of retention 85 1.55 1.50 22 53 1.20 1.05 22

Incorrect language-related episodes

Retention 48 0.87 0.90 58 64 1.45 1.34 63Lack of retention 35 0.64 0.82 42 38 0.86 1.02 37


groups and those working in pairs. However, when looking at the actual number of words retained, evidence was obtained for a total of 305 words, a mean of 5.55 per student, for the learners in the small group condition, and only 186 words, a mean of 4.23 per student, for those in the pair condition. Again, the number of words retained varied between individual learners, as indicated by the standard deviation values, but the overall difference observed between the groups and the pairs was statistically sig-nificant (U = 929, p = .046).

Taken altogether, the findings reported in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that lexical LREs produced in small group interaction were as beneficial for learning as those produced in pair interaction, even though, as seen in the previous section, opportunities to speak and contribute to the solution of the problems encountered were inevitably more limited. The qualitative analysis of the data confirmed that learners participating as observers could also benefit from the LREs.

In Example 9, Amy observes the interaction between the other three learners in her group without contributing a single turn to the LRE. This does not mean, though, that she is not participating in the episode. She participates as an observer and benefits from the LRE, which allows her to change her incorrect answer in the pretest, bota (boot), to a correct response in the posttest, barco (ship).

Example 9:

1. Sue: barca (boat)2. Dan: una barco (a ship)3. Mark: un barco (a ship)4. Sue: un barco (a ship)5. Dan: tomar un barco … barco (to take a ship, ship)

There were obviously occasions in which the learner participating as an observer did not retain the word discussed in the LRE. But there were also examples like the follow-ing, where we see Jack, an observer, changing his response from the pretest to the

Learner Pretest Posttest Individually written text

Amy bota(boot)

barco tomó un barco(she took a ship)

Dan barco barco un avión y un barco(a plane and a ship)

Mark barco barco tomó un barco(she took a ship)

Sue barco barco viajaba por barco(she travelled by ship)


posttest to incorporate the word discussed in the LRE, while Emma, who seems to have a more active role in the episode, is unable to produce this same word.

Example 10:

1. Karen: para tomar … … crucero? así? haha (to take cruise? like this?)2. Emma: no sé (I don’t know)3. Karen: da igual, da igual (it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter)4. Cindy: no tengo mejor palabra pero haha (I don’t know a better word but)5. Karen: para pa- para tomar para tomar el crucero. (to, to take, to take the cruise)

Finally, it should be noted that learners retained the solutions reached not only in their correctly resolved LREs, but also in their incorrectly resolved ones. However, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the rate of retention for these LREs was considerably lower. The analy-sis of the vocabulary task revealed that, when learners were working in groups, 56% of the incorrectly resolved LREs analysed, versus 30% of the correctly resolved ones, resulted in a missed opportunity for learning. When they were working in pairs, learners missed an opportunity for learning in 53% of the incorrectly resolved LREs versus 23% of the correctly resolved ones. Similarly, the analysis of the written texts showed that learners in the small group condition failed to retain the lexical items discussed in 42% of their incorrect LREs, versus 22% of their correct ones. Learners in the pair condition did not retain the solutions of 37% of their incorrect LREs, versus 22% of their correct ones. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups and the pairs on any of these measures. This means that learners were less likely to retain the knowl-edge co-constructed in their incorrectly resolved LREs, regardless of the condition in which they were working.

IV Discussion

The present study was set to investigate the influence of the number of participants in a collaborative writing task on the opportunities this may offer for peer collaboration and L2 vocabulary learning. To this end, it compared the performance of the same task by learners working in pairs and in groups of four.

Learner Pretest Posttest Individually written text

Cindy crucero crucero tomó un crucero(she took a cruise)

Emma barco(ship)

cruza(he crosses)

No mention

Jack un barco hermoso(a beautiful ship)

crucero No mention

Karen – crucero No mention


The analysis of the data confirmed that the collaborative writing task designed for the purposes of this study encouraged learners to focus their attention on lexis, discuss their vocabulary use, and collaborate in the solution of their vocabulary-related problems. The lexical LREs thus generated resulted in L2 vocabulary learning, understood as both the acquisition of new lexical knowledge and the consolidation of previously existing knowl-edge. Evidence was obtained of learners in the two conditions remembering the lexical knowledge built in collaboration with their peers. Although only a subset of the vocabu-lary items discussed in the LREs were analysed for learning, the testing instruments designed for the study made it possible to observe actual change and lexical develop-ment, as well as learners’ independent use in their own written production of the vocabu-lary discussed in the interaction. These findings support those of previous research establishing a direct relationship between LREs and L2 learning (e.g. Kim, 2008; Lapkin et al., 2002; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Watanabe & Swain 2007; Williams, 2001).

The comparative analysis of pair and small group interaction revealed also significant differences between the two conditions, suggesting a positive impact of the number of participants on the occurrence of lexical LREs and the subsequent acquisition of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Learners working in groups of four produced more lexical LREs than those workings in pairs and were also significantly more successful at solving them. These results are in line with those of a prior study comparing not only lexical, but also grammatical and mechanical LREs produced by dyads and small groups (Fernández Dobao, 2012). The qualitative analysis of the LREs showed that groups were more likely to achieve a correct solution to their problems because they shared more lexical knowl-edge, since up to four different learners could pool their individual knowledge and resources to solve each problem. These findings support the sociocultural argument that, when working collaboratively, learners can contribute their strengths to the group and, because no two learners share the same knowledge and strengths, the group can achieve a level of performance that is beyond each individual learner’s level of competence (see Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001).

Although a larger number of participants represents more resources, it also means fewer opportunities to speak. In L2 classrooms, many teachers tend to favor pair over small group work on the grounds that it forces participation and offers more opportuni-ties for language use. In the present study, the analysis of LREs confirmed that in small groups not all learners contributed to the dialogic resolution of all the lexical problems encountered. LREs were relatively often solved by two or three of the members of the group while the others participated as observers. However, this did not have a significant impact on learners’ rate of retention of the lexical knowledge co-constructed in the LRE. The pretest and posttest activities administered before and after the collaborative writing task showed that, on average, learners working in small groups were as likely to retain the lexical items discussed in their interaction as those working in pairs. Since groups produced significantly more lexical LREs than pairs and, in particular, more correctly resolved LREs, this means that overall small group interaction resulted in more instances of L2 vocabulary learning than pair interaction.

The LREs produced by the groups were significantly longer than those by the pairs. Learners writing in groups often engaged in lengthy negotiations and detailed


deliberations over a specific vocabulary item before agreeing on its use. As illustrated in the examples above, this means multiple repetitions of input and extensive engagement with the new vocabulary. Previous research has found that LREs eliciting this sort of elaborate engagement are more facilitative of learning than those involving limited engagement (see Storch, 2008; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010).

A further analysis of the data confirmed that lack of contribution did not necessarily mean lack of participation. Examples 9 and 10 illustrate how learners in small groups benefited from observing their peers’ work in LREs in which they did not speak. These learners might seem passive, but were in fact actively involved in the LRE, as listeners and observers. Research on teacher–learner interaction has provided plenty of evidence showing how learners can benefit from feedback and modified input addressed to other learners (Allwright, 1980; Ellis et al., 1994; Slimani, 1989). In fact, some studies have found that sometimes the quietest students in the class are actually the ones who benefit the most from classroom discourse, precisely because they can take advantage of the extra attentional resources available to them when freed from the cognitive load of out-put production (see Allwright, 1980). The findings of the present study suggest that future similar research on the role of the silent observer in learner–learner interaction could add new insight to our understanding of both collaborative dialogue and small group interaction.

As already discussed, learning is a complex process. It is ‘not a one-time shift from wrong to right’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 330), but a cumulative, ongoing, non-linear process that involves regressions and variable performance. The evidence obtained here does not guarantee learners’ long-term retention of the vocabulary discussed in their LREs. Similarly, learners’ failure to use this vocabulary in their posttest activities does not necessarily mean that they have no knowledge of these words. They may have devel-oped receptive knowledge of these words, but the potential impact of the LREs on this dimension of knowledge was not measured within the limits of the present study. Learning was here conceptualized as moving from being able to do something with the help of others to being able to do it independently (Vygotsky, 1986). The goal was to obtain evidence of learners’ independent use of those lexical items previously used in collaboration with their peers. Therefore, attention was focused only on productive knowledge. Further research using a variety of instruments to assess vocabulary devel-opment along multiple dimensions, as well as different levels of lexical knowledge, is needed to deepen our understanding of the impact of collaborative dialogue on L2 vocab-ulary learning. This research should also provide new light on the role that LREs may have not only as a source of new lexical knowledge but also as an opportunity to consoli-date previously existing knowledge, an aspect of the vocabulary learning process that certainly deserves further exploration.

The collaborative writing task used in the current study was not designed to target a specific set of vocabulary items. In open-ended tasks, like the one used here, learners ‘talk about what they need to talk about’ (Swain, 1998, p. 73). The analysis of LREs showed how learners talked about those lexical items that posed a problem for some or all of the members of the group. They created their own vocabulary learning opportunities, which varied from group to group and from pair to pair. These findings illustrate the value of collaborative writing activities as an opportunity not just for ‘learning to write’ but also


for ‘writing to learn (language)’ (see Manchón, 2009), and support the use of collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom. However, when implementing this type of tasks, teach-ers need to take into account that same level learners cannot always help each other as desired. In the present study, learning did not always occur in the ‘desired direction’ (Storch, 2002). As already documented in previous research, learners remembered the solutions of their correctly resolved LREs, as well as their incorrectly resolved ones. Both groups and pairs produced a considerably lower number of incorrect LREs and, more importantly, learners were less likely to retain the lexical knowledge co-constructed in these episodes. Still, these results highlight the need, in the L2 classroom, of opportunities for teachers’ feedback on learners’ collaborative work (see Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

Finally, it should also be noted that although, overall, learners working in groups of four benefited from the higher number of LREs occurring in small group interaction, not all learners benefited equally from the task. Differences were noticed in the number of lexical LREs produced by each group and each pair, as well as in the amount of learning observed for each individual learner. Previous research on dyads has observed this same variation and noticed that collaborative problem-solving activities tend to occur when the two learners in the dyad adopt a collaborative attitude and are willing to share ideas and knowledge. When one of the learners adopts either a dominant or a passive attitude, LREs become less frequent (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Storch, 2001b, 2002, 2004; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). In groups of four learners things seem to be different, since we have seen that problems can get collaboratively solved even when one of the learners remains silent. Further research is therefore needed on the complexity of group dynam-ics, as opposed to pair dynamics, so that teachers can understand the impact that different groupings of students and patterns of interactional behavior may have on the opportuni-ties that collaborative activities offer for collaborative dialogue and L2 learning.

V Conclusions

The findings of the present study support the use in the L2 classroom of collaborative tasks performed not only in pairs, as documented in previous research (e.g. Kim, 2008; Storch, 2008; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), but also in small groups. Whereas pair interaction offers more opportunities for individual learners to con-tribute to the conversation, learners working in small groups can benefit from a larger pool of knowledge and linguistic resources. At least in the context of this study, a larger number of participants in the task meant more lexical LREs, more resources to find a correct solution to these LREs and, subsequently, more opportunities for L2 vocabulary learning.

The study expands on previous research comparing pair and individual work (e.g. Kim, 2008; Storch, 2005; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007), and at the same time contributes to our understanding of the nature of collaborative dialogue and its role in L2 learning. The analy-sis of small group interaction showed how learners can benefit not only from the LREs they initiate or resolve, but also from observing other learners’ collaborative problem-solving activity. Future research adopting a more qualitative approach will need to examine how the learner’s role, either as observer, initiator, or solver of the LRE, interacts with other aspects, such as the length and level of engagement involved in the episode, to shape the opportunities that learner–learner interaction offers for L2 learning.


Finally, it should be noted that here attention was focused on one single group of stu-dents and their performance on one collaborative task; therefore, much research is still needed to explore small group interaction across a variety of task types, proficiency levels, and pedagogical contexts. This research should also pay attention to those factors known to have an influence on the nature of peer collaboration, such as group dynamics and patterns of interaction. Such research should provide new insights into the differ-ences observed not only between pairs and groups, but also across individual dyads and groups, and in this way shed new light on the conditions teachers need to create in the classroom to maximize the effectiveness of peer collaboration.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. Although some LREs focused on pronunciation and spelling, the great majority dealt with word meaning and word choice problems. Thus, for the purposes of quantitative analysis, no distinction was made based on the focus of the LRE.

2. Most LREs focused on lexical items that were incorporated to the collaboratively written texts, although learners also discussed some words that, in the end, did not appear in their texts. The impact of the LREs on the nature and quality of the written texts was examined in Fernández Dobao (2012).

3. Since only a subset of lexical LREs were analysed for learning, neither the figures on Table 3 nor those on Table 4 represent the total number of words learnt or retained by the learners as a result of their participation in the collaborative writing task. This explains the relatively low numbers for learning and retention displayed in these two tables.

References

Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Allwright, R. (1980). Turns, topics and tasks: Patterns of participation in language teaching and learning. In D. Larsen-Freeman (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165–187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.

De la, & Fuente, M. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.

Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.


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.

García Mayo, M.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL peda-gogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.

Gass, S., & Alvarez Torres, M.J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.

González Sáinz, T. (1999). Juegos comunicativos: Español lengua extranjera [Communicative games: Spanish as a foreign language]. Madrid: Ediciones SM.

Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.

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.

LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.

Leeser, M.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.

Long, M.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of com-prehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.

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. 413–468). New York: Academic Press

Manchón, R.M. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learn-ing English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I.S.P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.Newton, J. (1993). Task-based interaction among adult learners of English and its role in second

language development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Ohta, A.S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online

chat. Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573.Slimani, A. (1989). The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System,

27, 363–374.Storch, N. (2001a). Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different classroom

tasks. RELC Journal, 32, 104–124.


Storch, N. (2001b). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in

an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for

language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative

writing. In M.P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.

Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: Continuum.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (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. (1986). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York: Plenum.

Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair inter-action on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, com-plexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.

Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-

mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446.


Appendix 1. Collaborative writing task.

Appendix 2. Extract of the vocabulary task.

Me gustan mucho los deportes al aire libre. Me gusta mucho ___________________ (to ski) y también ___________________ (to bike). Pero cada vez hay más ___________________ (pollution) y eso me preocupa. Si no hacemos nada pronto tendremos que llevar ___________________ (gas masks) para salir a la calle.

Source. González Sáinz, 1999.

Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work

Documents

Transcript of Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work