A Comparative Study of the Effect of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Collaborative Interaction on the Development of EFL Learners’ Writing Skill
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی
1 - Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch
2 - Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch
Keywords: collaboration, sociocultural theory, dyadic interaction, Table Description Task, Free Composition Task,
Abstract :
This study investigates the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous peer interaction on the development of Iranian EFL learners’ writing skill. Sixty female students of TEFL participated in the study. The participants were divided into two groups based on their English proficiency test scores. The homogeneous group consisted of 14 participants paired with partners with similar English proficiency test scores, while the heterogeneous group consisted of 16 participants who were paired with partners who had higher test scores. The pairs had interaction and peer collaboration before carrying out three types of writing tasks. The Repeated Measures ANOVA was used to compare the student writers’ pretest writing scores with their three post-test scores. The results showed that both groups, very similarly, had significantly higher post-test scores in all three writing tasks. The findings are explained based on the sociocultural theory and Vygotsky’s notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). The study offers several important pedagogical implications and suggestions for further research.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language leaming in the zone of proximal development. The Modem Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
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 leaming. 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
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.
Kinsella, K. (1996). Designing group work that supports and enhances diverse classroom work style. TESOL Journal, 6, 24-30.
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.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
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. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2. State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural source of thinking and its relevance for second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, (1), 31-33.
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. (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:
Academic Press.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, (2), 207-24.
Mishra, S., & Oliver, R. (1998). Secondary school ESL learners’ perceptions of pair work in Australian classroom. TESOL in Context, 8, 19-23.
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
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.
Pica, T. (1994). 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, 29–53.
Storch, N. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52,119–58.
Storch, N. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–22.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-73.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-73.
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: 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: OUP.
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. (2002). Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002) Peer-peer dialogue as means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–85.
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.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491-514.
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, 121-142.
Webb, N. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of educational Research, 13, 21-39.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wells, G. (1999). Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla’s “Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom”. The Modern Language Journal, 83,(2), 248-254.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.