An investigation into the frequency of Language Related Episodes in the EFL learners’ Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyadic Interaction
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی
1 - Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Keywords: sociocultural theory, dyadic interaction, Language Related Episodes,
Abstract :
This study attempted to compare the relative frequency of the occurrence of Language Related Episodes (LREs) in the dyadic talks of pairs who were homogeneous and heterogeneous in terms of English proficiency. LREs are those parts of the conversations where the interlocutors explicitly focus on linguistic form. The study was carried out with 60 Iranian university students of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) who were divided into two groups of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairs based on their scores in a standardized English proficiency test (FCE). The pairs were required to collaborate and talk to carry out nine writing tasks. The participants’ talks while they were doing the pair work were recorded and transcribed, and the relative frequency of LREs for each pair talk was found. The frequency values for the two groups were compared through the independent samples t-test, and it was found that the heterogeneous pairs had significantly more LREs in their dyadic interactions. The results of the study were explained in relation to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, and several pedagogical implications were finally offered.
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interaction with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modem Language Journal, 78, (4), 465-483.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative. Language Awareness 11, 1–13. de Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
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.
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. J, & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching research, 12, (2), pp. 211-234.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students' language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, (2), 73-93.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygoskian perspectives on second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-24
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leeser, M. J.(2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch, (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions and content. Language learning, 45, 605-655.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-41.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia, (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Acadenic Press.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
Nunan, D. (1989). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on input comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737–58.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 2, 363-74.
Storch, N.(2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, (1), 29–53.
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, (1),119–58.
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–22.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research,11, ( 2), 143-159
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge: CUP.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.(1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–38.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251–274.
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 in 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.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Socio-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-59). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (ED.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
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.
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Eeducational Research, 13, 21-39.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System 29, 325–40.