Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings

Mayo, Marı́a del Pilar Garcı́a; Ibarrola, Amparo Lázaro

doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001

Cited by 106 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Purdie and Oliver () analysed the self‐reported use of learning strategies by young schoolchildren (ages 9–12) learning L2 English in Australia, an acquisition context defined as naturalistic. These children exhibited a use of CSs which turned out to be lower than the rest of the strategies analysed, a finding that accords with the results in the study by Magogwe and Oliver (), but contrasts with what has been found in young EFL learners during oral production (Gallardo‐del‐Puerto, ; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, ; Martínez‐Adrián & Gutiérrez Mangado, ; Pladevall‐Ballester & Vraciu, ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Third, a comparison of these CLIL learners with non-CLIL learners would also shed more light on the effect of CLIL and, more particularly, it would help to differentiate the effects of CLIL from those of formal English learning courses. Fourth, a better comparison between our survey research findings and those of studies comparing CLIL and non CLIL learners while performing production tasks (e.g., Agustín Llach, 2009;Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010;García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015, among others) could be established. Finally, following Gao's (2007) recommendation, triangulation of the self-reported opinions analysed in this study with other linguistic behaviour measurements from the same participants would be recommendable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Some of these studies compare CLIL learners' strategy use to their mainstream EFL counterparts' use in oral and written production in secondary (Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010;Martínez-Adrián & Gutiérrez Mangado, 2015) and primary (Agustín Llach, 2009;Celaya, 2008;Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015;García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015;Martínez-Adrián, 2018;Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2017) education. The general finding is that CLIL learners produce fewer borrowings (L1 words without any morpho-phonological adaptation) in oral (Gallardo-del-Puerto, 2015; Pladevall-Ballester & Vraciu, 2017) and written (Agustín Llach, 2009;Celaya, 2008;Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010) production and tend to use the L1 as an interactional strategy to a lesser extent than EFL counterparts (García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015;Martínez-Adrián & Gutiérrez Mangado, 2015). Results in the use of foreignising (L1 words morpho-phonologically adapted to the L2), however, are somewhat contradictory, as its increased use from early stages observed in some studies (Agustín Llach, 2009;Celaya, 2008;Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010) is not confirmed by more recent studies (e.g.…”

Section: Css In Clil Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Target language proficiency and reported use of compensatory strategies by young CLIL learners

Puerto

Basterrechea

Martínez-Adrián

2019

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies investigating compensatory strategies (CSs) by means of questionnaires in English‐as‐a‐Foreign‐Language (EFL) contexts with young learners are lacking, particularly in Content‐and‐Language‐Integrated‐Learning (CLIL) environments. Three different proficiency groups of young English learners in a CLIL programme were administered a survey to explore the existence of intergroup differences regarding the amount and types of CSs used. Learners exhibited a moderately high use of CSs overall, and no differences emerged regarding the total number of CSs as a function of target language (TL) proficiency. In terms of types of CSs used, they reported using some CSs (paraphrasing) which are typical of more advanced learners. However, more proficient learners were found to draw on some non L2‐based strategies (avoidance, foreignising, miming) to a lesser extent than less proficient learners.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Css In Clil Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Target language proficiency and reported use of compensatory strategies by young CLIL learners

Puerto

Basterrechea

Martínez-Adrián

2019

Int J App Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, García Mayo and Lázaro Ibarrola () explored the use of different NoM strategies (i.e., conversational adjustments, repetitions, and first language [L1] use) of 80 Spanish EFL beginner learners in CLIL and mainstream settings and in two primary grades (third and fifth grade; 8–9 and 10–11 years old, respectively) in which the children completed a picture placement task in pairs. The researchers focused specifically on possible differences on the basis of age and instructional setting.…”

Section: Children's Negotiation Of Meaning: What Role Does Age Play?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings

Azkarai

Agirre

2015

TESOL Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on child English as a second language (ESL) learners has shown the benefits of task-based interaction for the use of different negotiation of meaning (NoM) strategies, which have been claimed to lead to second language learning. However, research on child interaction in foreign language settings is scarce, specifically research on a new prevalent methodology in Europe, content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The present study focuses on mainstream and CLIL English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' oral interaction while they completed a guessing game and a picture placement task. The researchers analysed the oral production of seventy-two 9to 12-year-old children (in age-and proficiency-matched dyads) to examine the conversational strategies that were employed in both tasks. Findings indicated that younger learners negotiated for meaning more, and mainstream learners resorted to more conversational strategies than CLIL learners. Furthermore, task-based differences in the NoM strategies seemed to depend on age and instructional setting. The results seem to indicate that age, instructional setting, and the tasks in which these EFL learners were engaged had an impact on the NoM strategies they employed in task-based interaction.

show abstract

“…It means that the interaction is modified, and which is accepted by the involved participants. The modification strategies, for example, are confirmation check, clarification request, and comprehension check (Mayo & Ibarrola, 2015).…”

Section: Negotiation Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Pedagogical Techniques in Classroom Interactions at a CELTA Training Programme

Rahman¹

2016

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study investigated the similarities and dissimilarities of using pedagogical techniques in classroom interactions, taken place whilst teaching a known language and an unknown language in a CELTA training classroom context. For this purpose, the classroom interactions in unknown and known languages were analysed according to the qualitative research method. First, the interactions were recorded; and then transcribed them by following Jefferson's transcription conventions. The interactants were one instructor (Female), and twelve trainees: seven females and five males. Usually, the CELTA has a maximum class size of tweleve. The instructor was a native-speaker of English, but the trainees were the mixture of native and non-native speakers. One was from Thailand, one from Indonesia, one from Bangladesh; two from Europe, and the rest were from the UK. Most of the trainees had teaching experience. The results of the study indicated that there exist distinctions, rather than similarities, between pedagogical strategies ued while teaching known and unknown languages. The study also suggested that all the pedagogical techniques do not fit equally with teaching both the languages; some can be used in a wider degree-some can be employed in a lesser degree.

show abstract

Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings

Cited by 106 publications

References 37 publications

Target language proficiency and reported use of compensatory strategies by young CLIL learners

Target language proficiency and reported use of compensatory strategies by young CLIL learners

Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings

Investigating Pedagogical Techniques in Classroom Interactions at a CELTA Training Programme

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About