No abstract

This study investigated the nature of dyadic interaction in an adult ESL classroom. The study was longitudinal, classroom based, and examined the nature of interaction between 10 pairs of adult ESL students over a range of language tasks and over time (a semester). Four distinct patterns of dyadic interaction were found. These patterns are distinguishable in terms of equality and mutuality (Damon & Phelps, 1989). More importantly, the findings suggest that certain patterns of dyadic interaction are more conducive than others to language learning. These findings are explained by reference to Vygotsky's theory of cognitive development.The use of group and pair work is widespread in education. The nature of group interaction has been the topic of extensive research in social psychology and general education. In education, for example, there is a large volume of research on cooperative groups (see reviews by Johnson & Johnson, 1990Sharan, 1990;Slavin, 1990). This research has identified the essential elements of cooperative groups, the merits of cooperative learning, and how learners relate to each other within the groups and factors-such as academic status or gender-that affect these relations (e.g., Cohen, 1994).

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.

No abstract

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.