Effect of Proficiency Pairing on L2 Learners’ Language Learning and Scaffolding in Collaborative Writing

Niu, Ruiying; Lin, Jiang; Deng, Yuan

doi:10.1007/s40299-018-0377-2

Cited by 21 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that when lower proficiency learners worked together, they discussed significantly more LREs than higher proficiency learners. This broadly corroborates Niu et al’s (2018) findings with an IELTS graph writing task, and Nassaji’s (2010) study, in which his ESL beginner class initiated more focus on form than intermediate and advanced classes, although the context here was teacher-learner interaction. However, the result strikingly contrasts with other studies (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Williams, 1999) which found more LREs with higher proficiency learners.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…These studies indicate that pairing higher proficiency learners with other higher proficiency interlocutors seem to be most useful. In contrast, in a recent study with an IELTS graph writing task (Niu, Jiang, & Deng, 2018), Chinese EFL dyads with lower proficiency discussed more LREs than higher proficiency learners. However, in line with the above research, they were less successful at resolving their language issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…However, he posits that ‘future research could use a variety of more ‘objective’ or standardized proficiency measures, in addition to instructors’ ratings, to obtain a more ‘concrete’ evaluation of learners’ proficiency’( p.75). In the current study, the learners’ scores from school English assessments were used in combination with the teachers’ evaluation (also see Niu et al, 2018; Storch & Aldosari, 2013). The higher proficiency learners were students who scored from 9.0−10.0 (and rated excellent according to the school system) for the English performance in the previous semester and their lower proficiency learners from 6.5 to 7.9 (and rated quite good).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, research suggests that although proficiency has a consistent effect on how students resolve their LREs (with higher proficiency dyads being more successful), its impact on the frequency of LREs and subsequent learning outcomes has been inconclusive. Of note is that these studies have mainly used collaborative writing tasks (Dao & McDonough, 2017; Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004; Niu et al, 2018; Storch, 2001; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe & Swain, 2007) or a wide range of activities (Williams, 1999, 2001). Other studies that address proficiency in the context of oral communicative tasks have largely been descriptive in nature (Choi & Iwashita, 2016; Fernández Dobao, 2012; Kowal & Swain, 1997; Yule & Macdonald, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance

Nguyen

Newton

2019

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the impact of learner proficiency on the occurrence and resolution of language-related episodes (LREs) in rehearsal of interactive speaking tasks and on the subsequent use of language items from LREs during performance of the same tasks in front of the class. Forty-eight learners from six intact English as a foreign language (EFL) classes at a Vietnamese high school were divided into three proficiency groups, each consisting of eight dyads. Group 1 was higher proficiency (HH) dyads; Group 2 consisted of mixed proficiency dyads (HL) and Group 3 was lower proficiency (LL) dyads. All the pairs rehearsed and then consecutively performed a problem-solving task and a debate task in two separate classroom lessons. The total data included 48 rehearsals and 48 corresponding performances collected during normal classroom hours. The results show that, overall, LL dyads encountered more language problems (more LREs) in rehearsal than HH dyads and they were less likely to resolve them successfully. However, they were able to use a majority of the correct resolutions in the performance as well as their higher proficiency counterparts. The lower proficiency learners were also found to employ memorizing and local rehearsing strategies to retain ideas and language items as they rehearsed for the upcoming performance. These findings have pedagogical implications for teaching and learning through tasks in EFL contexts and beyond.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance

Nguyen

Newton

2019

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most recent decade has witnessed a gradual gaining of the importance of student talk in writing pedagogical practices and research studies, especially after China’s National English Curriculum Standards reformed its EFL curriculum by emphasizing students’ abilities involving both the proficiency in English and the capability of critical thinking ( Jin and Fan, 2011 ). Relevant research aligning within this context mainly focused on the exploration of student talk in pairs or groups either during collaborative writing tasks when students co-authored their written texts ( Li and Zhu, 2013 , 2017 ; Chen, 2018 ; Niu et al, 2018 ; Chen and Yu, 2019 ; Zhang, 2019 ), or in peer feedback interactions for revision after writing ( Xu and Kou, 2011 , 2017 , 2018 ; Xu and Cao, 2012 ; Yu, 2015 ; Yu and Lee, 2015 , 2016 ; Xu, 2016 ). Other studies that have addressed planning before writing have largely targeted individual planning by probing the effects of planning time, condition, language proficiency level, or task complexity on learners’ written texts ( Ellis and Yuan, 2004 ; Ong and Zhang, 2010 , 2013 ; Xing, 2015 ; Yi and Ni, 2015 ; Rahimi and Zhang, 2018 , 2019 ; Wang and Zhang, 2019 ), rather than on examining leaners’ talk during collaborative planning activities together with its benefits to subsequent L2 individual writing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small-Group Student Talk Before Individual Writing in Tertiary English Writing Classrooms in China: Nature and Insights

Zhang

Parr

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When exploring the nature of small-group student talk in English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) individual writing in terms of what students are talking about, previous studies have mainly linked it to students' writing and focused more on students' written texts than their talk. Consequently, the analyses have largely been text-oriented rather than talk-oriented and have failed to reveal a complete picture of such talk and the socially negotiated nature of the interaction. To fill up the literature gap, we designed a study to investigate the nature of prewriting small-group student talk in Chinese tertiary EFL writing classrooms. Specifically, we examined what students were talking about when engaging in argumentative writing tasks prior to individual writing. Eight hours of audio recordings of student talk from eight small groups in two classes (N = 48) were collected during their prewriting small-group discussions. They were analyzed and interpreted in six categories: Content talk, language talk, task-management talk, organization talk, affective talk, and phatic talk. Major findings show that small-group student talk: (1) enabled students to generate content, language, and organization for their proceeding individual writing; (2) provided them with opportunities to facilitate collaborative linguistic problem-solving and the deliberate use of the first language (L1) for requesting and clarifying information; (3) allowed them to organize the group and scaffold each other collectively to manage the ongoing process of the task; and (4) assisted them to share their emotions and maintain group harmony at a surface level but did not help generate direct positive or negative affective expressions. Pedagogical insights into L2 writing instruction are also discussed.

show abstract

Collaborative Writing

Storch

2021

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative writing activities involve the production of a single text by two or more co‐authors. These activities require the co‐authors to communicate as they compose the text, either via speaking in face‐to‐face collaborative writing or via chats in a computer‐mediated collaborative writing. This chapter begins by defining collaborative writing and then presents the theoretical and empirical reasons to implement collaborative writing activities in the language classroom. It discusses some of the factors which have been found to impact on the opportunities for learning associated with collaborative writing and concludes by offering some research‐informed advice on successfully implementing collaborative writing activities.

show abstract

Effect of Proficiency Pairing on L2 Learners’ Language Learning and Scaffolding in Collaborative Writing

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance

Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance

Small-Group Student Talk Before Individual Writing in Tertiary English Writing Classrooms in China: Nature and Insights

Collaborative Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About