Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition

Abstract

The use of group work in classroom second language learning has long been supported by sound pedagogical arguments.Recently, however, a psycholinguistic rationale for group work has emerged from second language acquisition research on nonnative speaker/non-native speaker conversation, or interlanguage talk. Provided careful attention is paid to the structure of tasks students work on together, the negotiation work possible in group work makes it an attractive alternative to the teacher-led, "lockstep" mode, and a viable classroom substitute for individual conversations with native speakers.* Revised version of a paper presented at the 18th annual TESOL Convention, Houston, Texas, March 6-11, 1984 In all probability, one of the main reasons for low achievement by many classroom SL learners is simply that they do not have enough time to practice the new language. This is especially serious when teaching large classes in those EFL settings in which students need to develop aural-oral skills, but is relevant in the ESL context, too.From observational studies of classrooms, we know that the predominant mode of instruction is what might be termed the ~lockstep•, in which one person (usually the teacher) sets the same instructional pace and content for everyone, e.g. by lecturing, explaining a grammar point, leading drill work, or asking questions of the whole class. The same studies show that when lessons are organized in this manner, a typical teacher of any subject talks for at least half, and often for as much as two thirds of any class period (Flanders, 1970). In a fifty-minute lesson, that potentially leaves 25 minutes for the students.Since five minutes are usually spent on administrative matters, however, (getting pupils in and out of the room, calling the role, collecting and distributing homework assignments, etc.), and (say) five minutes on reading and writing, the total time available to students is actually more like 15 minutes. In an EFL setting, in a class of (say) 30 students in a public secondary The lockstep limits not only the gyanti~2 of talk studenta can engage in, as indicated above, but also its g.ualj~:l· This is because teacher-fronted lessons favor a highly conventionalized variety of conversation, one rarely found outside courtrooms, wedding ceremonies and classrooms. In it, one speaker asks a series of •known information", or •display" questions, such as 'Do you work in the accused's office at 27 Sloan Street?', 'Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?', and 'Do you come to class at nine o'clock?' -questions to which there is usually only one correct answer, already known 106 to both parties. The second speaker responds ('I do'), and, in the classroom, then typically has the correctness of the response confirmed ('Yes•, 'Right', or 'Good'). Only rarely is genuine communication taking place. (For further depressing details, see, e.g. Fanselow, 1977; Boetker and Ahlbrand, 1969;Long, 1975;Long and Sato, 1983;Mehan, 1979.) An unfortunate but hardly surprising side-effect of...

Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition

“…Certainly, group work offers potential advantages (Long & Porter 1985) and supports Brown's (2007) assertions around the promotion of meaningful, authentic exchanges and interpersonal negotiation. However, over-application of this principle can lead to a learner-centredness that downplays other instructional and interactional patterns.…”

Group Work: A Way towards Enhancing Quality Learning

“…In this regard, lots of studies and researches are being conducted to find out whether group work can be an effective technique to engage the students in learning in the classroom. For example, Long and Porter (1985) discussed about how group work can be a beneficial tool to engage, involve and motivate the learners in the class. Harmer (2001) argued that group work facilitates learning as it creates a positive and interactive environment for the learners.…”

A Case Study of a Distance Degree Program in Vietnam

“…During the pre-seminar, the students work together to complete an assignment based on the lecture, which generally consists of application of theory to linguistic data. Group work has been shown to have pedagogical value (Bhattacharya and Chatterjee, 2000;Long and Porter, 1985;Shaban and Head, 2003) and places learning in a social context (Vygotsky, 1978). Long and Porter (1985) also suggest pedagogical arguments for the use of group work in second language learning; this can certainly be applied to the VNU students as speakers of English as a foreign language.…”

“…Group work has been shown to have pedagogical value (Bhattacharya and Chatterjee, 2000;Long and Porter, 1985;Shaban and Head, 2003) and places learning in a social context (Vygotsky, 1978). Long and Porter (1985) also suggest pedagogical arguments for the use of group work in second language learning; this can certainly be applied to the VNU students as speakers of English as a foreign language. Group work has furthermore been found to be conducive to collaborative learning (Apple, 2006;Huang, 2002;Kitade, 2000), an important principle of social constructivism, where learning is viewed as a natural outcome of negotiation and interaction with other people (Bonk and Cunningham, 1998;Jonassen, 1994;Petraglia, 1998).…”