El habla nicaragense

TBLT ConferenceLancaster, 2009Collaborative dialoguein task-based oral interaction:a comparison of pair and group work

Ana Fernndez DobaoUniversity of Washingtonanadobao@u.washington.eduBACKGROUNDBACKGROUNDThe sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987)

Language is a cognitive tool that mediates learning

Cognitive development occurs in social interaction

BACKGROUNDLanguage-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)BACKGROUNDPrevious researchLREs and L2 learning(Kim, 2008; Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007)Collaborative tasks and L2 learningCollaborative tasks versus individual tasks(Kim, 2008; Storch, 1999, 2005, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007)

Limitations of previous researchSmall group interaction and L2 learning(Donato, 1994)Pair interaction versus small group interactionPRESENT STUDYRESEARCH 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?

METHOD Participants34 intermediate level learners of Spanish7 dyads5 groups

Instruments and procedureDay 1:pre-testDay 2:grammar review lessoncollaborative writing taskDay 9: post-test

DATA ANALYSIS Written textFluencyComplexityAccuracy

Oral interactionLREsDATA ANALYSIS LREsFrequencyFocusF-LREsL-LREsM-LREsOutcomeCorrectly resolved LREsIncorrectly resolved LREsUnresolved LREs

FORM-FOCUSED LRE L1: esqu: esquiaban? ... o esquiaron?L2: como: ... esqu:L3: esquiaronL2: esquiaban? ... eh?L4: esquiaron ... porque es un daL2: sL4: los dos esquiaron

LEXICAL LREL1: mm cmo se dice travel?L2: viajarL1: u:h ... viajar ... todo el mundo

MECHANICAL LRE L1: cer:ve:zas:?L2: efe heh hehL3: zeta L4: zetaL2: oh! zeta sL1: cervezas! ok

INCORRECTLY RESOLVED LRE L1: o consultaba?L2: sL3: consultL2: consult? o consultaba? ... qu piensas?L4: mm con:sul:-?L1: es ... indefinido porque lleva: no sL2: pero no es: una accin com-L1: es, s, es, no no es completaL2: creo que es consultaba? ok est bien ... consultaba:

UNRESOLVED LRE L1: u:h ... pero: antes ... de:el viaje ... un: fortune-teller?L2: mhmL1: cmo se dice fortune-teller?L2: no sL1: un: ... clairvoyant? un:L2: heh hehL1: no s

RESULTSWRITTEN TEXT: FLUENCYWordsT-unitsClausesGROUPS (n=5)162.6018.8029.20PAIRS (n=7)137.1415.4324.12WRITTEN TEXT: COMPLEXITYC/TDC/C (%)GROUPS (n=5)1.5535.62%PAIRS (n=7)1.5636.09%WRITTEN TEXT: ACCURACYErrors E/words

EFC

EFC/C (%)EFT

EFT/T (%)GROUPS (n=5)27.600.1710.8036.99%4.4023.40%PAIRS (n=7)33.570.245.7123.67%1.8612.04%LREs: FREQUENCY LREsTime (min.)LREs/min.GROUPS (n=5)47.4024.601.93PAIRS (n=7)24.0018.861.27LREs: FOCUSF-LREsL-LREsM-LREsNo.% No.% 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%LREs: OUTCOMECorrect LREsIncorrect LREsUnresolved LREsNo.%No.%No.%GROUPS (n=5)3982.28%5.6011.81%2.805.91%PAIRS (n=7)1666.67%5.5723.21%2.4310.12%COLLECTIVE SCAFFOLDING L1: recomend que: mm ella: ... es en sub- subjuntivo? ... despus de: ... recomend que? L2: s s L1: que: ella: uh ... vaya? a: um: ... el sur L3: pero es en el pasado entonces es: uh: L1: oh s uh L3: que ella mm L1: mm: L2: fuera? L3: fuera L1: s, fuera: SUMMARY OF RESULTSANDCONCLUSIONSQUESTION 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 pairsQUESTION 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 pairsCONCLUSIONS 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 pairsQUESTIONS 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 learners role as initiator, supplier of the information or observer of the LRE have an influence on L2 learning?

REFERENCESDonato, 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. Garca 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