School of Languages and Linguistics - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6
-
ItemInvestigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2007-04)Although the literature on language pedagogy encourages the use of pair work in the second language classroom, students sometimes seem reluctant to work in pairs, particularly on grammar-focused tasks. This study investigated the merits of pair work by comparing pair and individual work on an editing task and by analysing the nature of pair interaction. The study was conducted in four intact ESL tertiary classes. Students in class A completed the task in pairs and in class B individually. In classes C and D students were given the choice of completing the task in pairs or individually. In class A all pair talk was audio recorded. Analysis of the edited texts showed that there were no significant differences between the accuracy of tasks completed individually and those completed in pairs. Analysis of the transcribed pair talk showed that most pairs engaged actively in deliberations over language and tended to reach correct resolutions. Thus the results suggest that although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to greater accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides learners with opportunities to use the second language for a range of functions, and in turn for language learning.
-
ItemLEARNERS' PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING Case Studies(CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS, 2010-06)The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.
-
ItemLearners' use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2010-10)One of the concerns foreign language teachers may have about using small group (and pair) work is that students will use their shared first language (L1) instead of the target language. This study investigated the effect of learner proficiency pairing and task type on the amount of L1 used by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in pair work and the functions that the L1 served. Learners in this study ( n = 15 pairs) formed three proficiency groupings based on the teacher’s assessment of their second language proficiency: high—high (H—H), high—low (H—L), and low—low (L—L). All pairs completed three tasks — jigsaw, composition and text-editing — and their talk was audio-recorded. The transcribed pair talk was analysed for the quantity of L1 used (L1 words and L1 turns), and the functions the L1 served. The study found that overall, there was a modest use of L1 in pair work activity and that task type had a greater impact on the amount of L1 used than proficiency pairing. L1 was mainly used for the purpose of task management and to facilitate deliberations over vocabulary. When used for task management, L1 tended to reflect the kind of relationship the learners formed. When used for vocabulary deliberations, L1 was used not only to provide explanations to peers but also for private speech.
-
ItemPair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2009-07)The assessment of oral language is now quite commonly done in pairs or groups, and there is a growing body of research which investigates the related issues (e.g. May, 2007). Writing generally tends to be thought of as an individual activity, although a small number of studies have documented the advantages of collaboration in writing in the second language classroom (e.g. DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Storch, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Particularly in university contexts, group or pair assignments are widely used in many disciplines. In addition, collaborative writing could be used in second language classroom assessment contexts as formative assessment. However, research which compares texts produced by learners collaboratively to texts produced individually, and the implications of this for assessment practices, is rare. This study is a first step in the investigation of using collaborative writing in second language contexts and comparing the performance of two groups of second language learners: one group worked individually, and the other group worked in pairs. When writing in pairs, each pair produced a single text. All participants completed one writing task: an argumentative essay. The performances of the individuals (N = 48) and the pairs (N = 48) were compared on detailed discourse analytic measures of fluency, complexity and accuracy. This comparison revealed that collaboration impacted positively on accuracy, but did not affect fluency and complexity. A detailed analysis of the pair transcripts recorded during the writing activity provides insights into the ways in which pairs work together, and the foci of their endeavour. The implications of these findings for in-class assessment of second language writing are discussed.
-
ItemUsing activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class(CANADIAN MODERN LANGUAGE REV, 2004-03)Variations in how L2 learners work in pairs/groups have been noted by a number of researchers. However, explanations for such variations are often made in terms of differences in L2 proficiency or culture. What has often been overlooked is the participants' orientation to an activity and, in particular, their motives and goals. The importance of human motives and goals in explaining human behaviour is encapsulated in activity theory (Leont'ev, 1981). It is this theoretical perspective that guided the study reported in this article. The study attempted to explain variations found in the ways students interacted in pairs in a university ESL class. The data consist of interviews with eight participants who formed four case study pairs, each case exemplifying a distinct pattern of dyadic interaction. The findings suggest that patterns of dyadic interaction can be traced to the nature of the participants' goals and to whether or not members of the dyad share these goals.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableIs there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting?(WILEY, 2003-01-01)