A considerable body of research within the interaction framework (Long, 1996) has centred on the language-related episodes (LREs) which occur when learners topicalize a specific linguistic item while they are engaged in meaning-focused tasks. Several studies have shown that the production of LREs may be influenced by the proficiency level of the learners (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004). Sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994) has also explored collaborative work and the effect that pairing learners with the same proficiency levels or different patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002) has on the production of LREs (e.g., Mozaffari, 2017; Storch & Aldosari 2013), but little research has compared the effect of the pair formation method (student-selected vs. proficiency-matched) on young learners’ production of LREs and pair dynamics. This study compares young CLIL learners (aged 10-12) in student-selected and proficiency-matched pairs in task-based interaction. Results indicate that learners produce more meaning-based than form-based LREs, regardless of their pair formation method. The percentage of meaning-based LREs which are resolved accurately is much higher in proficiency-matched dyads than in student-selected ones. As for the patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002), the dynamics of proficiency-matched dyads are of a more collaborative nature than those of self-selected pairs.
Adams, R. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7-34.
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp. 243-267). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language-related episodes. In E. Alcón & P. Safont (Eds.), Discourse and language learning across L2 instructional settings (pp. 249-278). Amsterdam: Rodopi
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) during ollaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Basterrechea, M., & Leeser, M. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28(2), 97-113.
Benson, C., Pavitt, J., & Jenkins, M. (2005). The use of dictogloss to encourage discussion of language use. Edinburgh Working Papers, 14, 1-17.
Butler, Y. G., & Zeng, W. (2015). Young learners’ interactional development in task-based paired-assessment in their first and foreign languages: A case of English learners in China. Education, 43, 292-321.
Cambridge University Press. (2008). Key English test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donato, R. (1998). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark, USA.
Gallardo-del-Puerto, F., & Basterrechea, M. (in press). The role of proficiency and pair formation method in language-related episodes: A study of young CLIL learners’ interaction. Language Teaching Research.
García Mayo, M. P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156-175.
García Mayo, M. P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323-341.
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction in second language learning (pp. 241-266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Aguirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165-175.
House, S., & Scott, K. (2009). Sparks 1: Teacher’s book. London: Richmond. Retrieved from https://www.guiassantillana.com/ingl%C3%A9s/sparks/
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.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 258-329.
Mackey, A. (1994). Targeting morpho-syntax in children’s ESL: An empirical study of the useof interactive goal-based tasks. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 10, 67-88.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Malmqvist, A. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output? Language Awareness, 14(2-3), 128-141.
Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496-516.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-141.
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384-402.
Payant, C. (2018). Effects of L3 learner proficiency and task types on language mediation: A sociocultural perspective. In M. Ahmadian & M. P. García Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 99-120). Boston: De Gruyter.
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. K. (2017). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 614-627.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261-279.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, M. (2010). The formation of effective work groups within a FE classroom. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 20, 286-305.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119-158.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31-48.
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: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337.
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.
Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303-346.
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 17, 89-100.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.