Keywords
time
proficiency pairing
language
How to Cite
Number of views: 987
Number of downloads: 773
Abstract
Child peer interaction in English as a foreign language (EFL) settings has recently received increasing attention with respect to age, instruction type and first language (L1) use, but longitudinal studies remain scarce and the effects of proficiency pairing and language choice on meaning negotiation strategies are still rather unexplored. Within a primary school EFL context, this paper aims to explore the amount and types of meaning negotiation, and the effects of time, proficiency pairing and language choice in a spot-the-differences task. Forty Catalan/Spanish bilingual children were paired into mixed and matched proficiency dyads, and their oral production was analyzed twice over the course of two years (i.e., 9-10 and 11-12 years old). The analysis included conversational adjustments, self- and other-repetition and positive and negative feedback in the learners’ L1 and second language (L2). Our data show that the amount of meaning negotiation is low, although L2 meaning negotiation is higher than L1 meaning negotiation, and all the strategies are present in the data except for comprehension checks. Time effects are hardly observed. However, proficiency pairing and language effects are more generally found, whereby mixed proficiency dyads tend to negotiate for meaning more than matched dyads and meaning negotiation instances are more frequent in the L2 than in the L1.
Funding
The research group EFLIC (2017SGR752) at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Alexandra Vraciu is a Serra Húnter Fellow at the Facultat de Ciències de l’Educació (Universitat de Lleida)
References
Alcón, E. (2002). Relationship between teacher-led versus learners’ interaction and the development of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 359-377.
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. (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.
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2009). 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.
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 550-571.
Azkarai, A., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50(4), 844-870.
Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 133-147.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 160-188.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1-23.
García Mayo, M. P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form‐focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 156-175.
García Mayo, M. P. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings: Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119-143.
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44(4), 451-466.
García Mayo, M. P., & Hidalgo, M. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132-145.
García Mayo, M. P., & Imaz Agirre, A. (2017). Child EFL interaction: Age, instructional setting and development. In J. Enever & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Researching the complexity of early language learning in instructed contexts (pp. 249-268). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P., & Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40-54.
García Mayo, M. P., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed?. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 38(1), 35-58.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19(1), 3-17.
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross‐Feldman, L. (2005). Task‐based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611.
Hartup, W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44(2), 120-126.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in non-native interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29(2), 267-287.
Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of pretask modeling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 8-35.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 343-358.
Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2015). Investigating negotiation of meaning in EFL children with very low levels of proficiency. International Journal of English Studies, 15(1), 1-21.
Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.
Long, M. (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). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 85-110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 285-312.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Transcription format and programs (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32(2), 207-224.
Muñoz, C. (2007). Age-related differences and second language learning practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 229-255). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. 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.
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 372-386.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair work. Language Learning, 50(1), 119-151.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 97-111.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2008). Child’s play. Second language acquisition and the younger learner in context. In J. Philp, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition and the Younger Learner. Child’s Play? (pp. 3-23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3-4), 245-266.
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: Child versus adult interactions. System, 34(4), 615-630.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer–peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 189-207.
Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pladevall-Ballester, E., & Vraciu, A. (2017). Exploring early EFL: L1 use in oral narratives by CLIL and non-CLIL primary school learners. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 124-148). Multilingual Matters.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016).Understanding peer interaction. In M., Sato, & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1-30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355-375.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.
Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In E. Alcón Soler & M. P. Safont Jordá (Eds.), Discourse and learning across L2 instructional contexts (pp. 53-78). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Vraciu, A., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2020). L1 use in peer interaction: Exploring time and proficiency pairing effects in primary school EFL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1767029
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(2), 121-142.
License
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.