TBLT Conference Lancaster, 2009 Collaborative dialogue in task-based oral interaction: a comparison of pair and group work Ana Fernández Dobao University.

Presentación del tema: "TBLT Conference Lancaster, 2009 Collaborative dialogue in task-based oral interaction: a comparison of pair and group work Ana Fernández Dobao University."— Transcripción de la presentación:

1 TBLT Conference Lancaster, 2009 Collaborative dialogue in task-based oral interaction: a comparison of pair and group work Ana Fernández Dobao University of Washington anadobao@u.washington.edu

2 BACKGROUND

3 The sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987)  Language is a cognitive tool that mediates learning  Cognitive development occurs in social interaction

4 BACKGROUND Language-related episodes (LREs) 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: 326)  Form-focused LREs (F-LREs)  Lexical LREs (L-LREs)  Mechanical LREs (M-LREs)

5 BACKGROUND Previous research  LREs and L2 learning (Kim, 2008; Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007)  Collaborative tasks and L2 learning  Collaborative tasks versus individual tasks (Kim, 2008; Storch, 1999, 2005, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007) Limitations of previous research  Small group interaction and L2 learning (Donato, 1994)  Pair interaction versus small group interaction

6 PRESENT STUDY

7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS  Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the fluency, complexity and accuracy of the written texts produced during a collaborative writing task?  Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the amount, focus and outcome of LREs produced during a collaborative writing task?  Is pair or small group interaction more effective for L2 learning?

8 METHOD  Participants 34 intermediate level learners of Spanish ̵ 7 dyads ̵ 5 groups  Instruments and procedure Day 1:pre-test Day 2:grammar review lesson collaborative writing task Day 9: post-test

9 DATA ANALYSIS  Written text ̵ Fluency ̵ Complexity ̵ Accuracy  Oral interaction ̵ LREs

10 DATA ANALYSIS LREs ̵ Frequency ̵ Focus ̵ F-LREs ̵ L-LREs ̵ M-LREs ̵ Outcome ̵ Correctly resolved LREs ̵ Incorrectly resolved LREs ̵ Unresolved LREs

11 FORM-FOCUSED LRE L1: esquí: esquiaban?... o esquiaron? L2: como:... esquí: L3: esquiaron L2: esquiaban?... eh? L4: esquiaron... porque es un día L2: sí L4: los dos esquiaron

12 LEXICAL LRE L1: mm cómo se dice travel? L2: viajar L1: u:h... viajar... todo el mundo

13 MECHANICAL LRE L1: cer:ve:zas:? L2: efe heh heh L3: zeta L4: zeta L2: oh! zeta sí L1: cervezas! ok

14 INCORRECTLY RESOLVED LRE L1: o consultaba? L2: sí L3: consultó L2: consultó? o consultaba?... qué piensas? L4: mm con:sul:-? L1: es... indefinido porque lleva: no sé L2: pero no es: una acción com- L1: es, sí, es, no no es completa L2: creo que es consultaba? ok está bien... consultaba:

15 UNRESOLVED LRE L1: u:h... pero: antes... de:el viaje... un: fortune-teller? L2: mhm L1: cómo se dice fortune-teller? L2: no sé L1: un:... clairvoyant? un: L2: heh heh L1: no sé

16 RESULTS

17 WRITTEN TEXT: FLUENCY WordsT-unitsClauses GROUPS (n=5) 162.6018.8029.20 PAIRS (n=7) 137.1415.4324.12

18 WRITTEN TEXT: COMPLEXITY C/TDC/C (%) GROUPS (n=5) 1.5535.62% PAIRS (n=7) 1.5636.09%

19 WRITTEN TEXT: ACCURACY Errors E/wordsEFCEFC/C (%) EFTEFT/T (%) GROUPS (n=5) 27.600.1710.8036.99%4.4023.40% PAIRS (n=7) 33.570.245.7123.67%1.8612.04%

20 LREs: FREQUENCY LREsTime (min.)LREs/min. GROUPS (n=5) 47.4024.601.93 PAIRS (n=7) 24.0018.861.27

21 LREs: FOCUS F-LREsL-LREsM-LREs No.% % % GROUPS (n=5) 28.4059.92%16.4034.60%2.605.48% PAIRS (n=7) 12.2951.19%10.8645.24%0.863.57%

22 LREs: OUTCOME Correct LREs Incorrect LREs Unresolved LREs No.% % % GROUPS (n=5) 3982.28%5.6011.81%2.805.91% PAIRS (n=7) 1666.67%5.5723.21%2.4310.12%

23 COLLECTIVE SCAFFOLDING L1: recomendó que: mm ella:... es en sub- subjuntivo?... después de:... recomendó que? L2: sí sí L1: que: ella: uh... vaya? a: um:... el sur L3: pero es en el pasado entonces es: uh: L1: oh sí uh L3: que ella mm L1: mm: L2: fuera? L3: fuera L1: sí, fuera:

24 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

25 QUESTION 1 Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the fluency, complexity and accuracy of the written texts produced during a collaborative writing task?  Groups did not produce much longer texts than pairs  Groups did not produce more complex texts than pairs  Groups produced more accurate texts than pairs

26 QUESTION 2 Does the number of participants in the interaction affect the amount, type and outcome of LREs?  Groups produced more LREs than pairs  Both groups and pairs produced more F-LREs than L-LREs or M-LREs  Groups produced a higher percentage of correctly resolved LREs than pairs

27 CONCLUSIONS Groups produced more accurate written texts than pairs because:  they produced more LREs than pairs  and they were able to correctly resolve their LREs more frequently than pairs

28 QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  Is pair or small group interaction more effective for L2 learning?  Do more LREs mean more L2 learning opportunities in small group interaction?  Do all the learners in the group benefit from the LREs? Or does the learner’s role as initiator, supplier of the information or observer of the LRE have an influence on L2 learning?

29 REFERENCES Donato, R. 1994. “Collective scaffolding in second language learning”. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds.) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 33-56. Kim, Y. 2008. “The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary”. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-130. Lapkin, S., M. Swain and M. Smith. 2002. “Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context”. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507. Storch, N. 1999. “Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy”. System, 27, 363- 74. Storch, N. 2005. “Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173. Storch, N. 2007. “Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes”. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143-159. Storch, N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2007. “Writing tasks: the effects of collaboration”. In M. P. García Mayo (ed.) Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 157-177. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 1998. “Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together”. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. Swain, M. and S. Lapkin. 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. 1987. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Thinking and Speaking. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Watanabe, Y. and M. Swain. 2007. “Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners”. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121-14