Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL

Basterrechea, María; Leeser, Michael J.

doi:10.1080/09658416.2019.1606229

Cited by 27 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specific interest lies in LREs engendered by pedagogical translation tasks, as compared to monolingual writing tasks 3 . Precisely, the following research questions guided the analysis: (1) To what extent can translation tasks be exploited to foster language-related episodes (LREs) in L2 classrooms? (2) How do discussion patterns of LREs found in L1-L2 translation tasks compare with those in monolingual L2 tasks?…”

Section: Figure 1 Categorization Of Lresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, response-based LREs could be classified into six sub-categories based on their characteristics: (1) showing agreement or disagreement with peers' questions or solutions, (2) seeking for or providing clarification, (3) seeking for or providing explanations, (4) offering suggestions in response to questions or concerns raised by peers, (5) commenting on peers' solutions or opinions, and (6) commenting on peers' solutions or opinions and offering own insights, ideas or suggestions at the same time. [Some people think that celebrities who violate the law set a bad example to society].…”

Section: Finding 1b: Sub-categorization and Proportion Of Response-based Lresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language-related Episodes Patterns Engendered in L2 Classrooms: Pedagogical Translation Tasks Versus Monolingual Writing Tasks

2021

IJLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This classroom-based longitudinal study examines the language-related episodes (LREs) engendered by pedagogical translation tasks and monolingual tasks. Specifically, the study investigated the discourse features and discussion patterns of LREs yielded in discussions of the two different types of tasks in L2 classrooms. The present study was conducted in an authentic class environment and consisted of two experiments. One group participated in class discussions after being assigned L1-L2 translation tasks, while the other took part in class discussions after working on L2 writing tasks. The LREs elicited in the two group’s class discussions over ten sessions of class discussions were scrutinized. Inductive thematic analysis shows that LREs produced in the concerned experimental tasks included ‘concern-based LREs’ and six different types of ‘response-based LREs’. Striking difference was observed in LRE patterns produced by the translation group and the writing group. The findings revealed that pedagogical translation tasks engendered LREs with deeper level of engagement and more enduring discussions than L2 monolingual tasks. The concern-based and response-based LREs arisen in this study contributes to a new framework for LRE categorization.

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Categorization Of Lresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Finding 1b: Sub-categorization and Proportion Of Response-based Lresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language-related Episodes Patterns Engendered in L2 Classrooms: Pedagogical Translation Tasks Versus Monolingual Writing Tasks

2021

IJLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, learners had to carry out three dictogloss tasks (Wajnryb, 1990), where the main goal was to reconstruct a text they heard by keeping the gist of the story. Dictogloss has been claimed to be effective for focusing attention on formal aspects of language in the case of adult learners (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007), teenagers (Basterrechea & Leeser, 2019;Swain & Lapkin, 2001) and, only recently, with the underexplored population of young EFL learners (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020a;. Furthermore, collaborative dictogloss has been shown to be an enjoyable task for children, as they tend to feel less and anxious and supported by their peers when working with their peers (Calzada & García Mayo, 2020b).…”

Section: The Writing Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our case, it was the third person singular -s marker we wanted learners to focus on. This morpheme's low semantic load and phonological salience, as well as morphosyntactic redundancy, make it especially difficult to grasp for ESL and EFL learners (Basterrechea & Leeser, 2019).…”

Section: The Writing Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of proficiency and collaborative work on child EFL individual dictogloss writing

Calzada

Mayo

2021

LTYL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborative writing has been traditionally studied in terms of language-related episodes (LREs), which have been shown to be influenced by learner proficiency. Yet, the impact of collaboration on the written product has received less attention, especially regarding child EFL learners. Our study analyzes the individual reconstructions produced by 30 Spanish-Basque EFL children (aged 11–12) before and after (T1 and T3) they completed a collaborative dictogloss (T2). From the analysis of their LREs at T2, we predicted that certain areas (grammar and mechanics) could reflect more changes at T3 than others. Moreover, we wanted to determine whether those changes were moderated by the learners’ and their partners’ proficiency at T2: low (LP) or high (HP). Text-based and rubric measurements showed that only grammatical complexity improved in children’s individual writing from T1 to T3. Regarding proficiency, LP children performed significantly worse than their HP counterparts at T1 and T3 in most writing dimensions. Partner proficiency only influenced accuracy, and unexpectedly, working with an LP partner did not appear to have a detrimental effect. Our findings stress the need to carry out longitudinal studies to further determine the role of collaboration in L2 writing and knowledge development.

show abstract

“…any part of the dialogue in which students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other-or selfcorrect" (Swain, 1998, p. 70). Several studies have shown that the production of LREs may be influenced by the proficiency level of the learners (Basterrechea & Leeser, 2019;Benson, Pavitt, & Jenkins, 2005;Kim & McDonough, 2008;Kowal & Swain, 1994;Leeser, 2004;Malmqvist, 2005;Williams, 1999Williams, , 2001, gender (Ross-Feldman, 2007), or personality traits (Storch & Aldosari, 2013;Watanabe & Swain, 2007), factors that seem to affect the nature of interactional feedback, as well as the quantity, quality and outcome of LREs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language-related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners: A comparison between proficiency-matched and student-selected pairs

Basterrechea

Puerto

2020

10.14746/ssllt

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A considerable body of research within the interaction framework (Long, 1996) has centred on the language-related episodes (LREs) which occur when learners topicalize a specific linguistic item while they are engaged in meaning-focused tasks. Several studies have shown that the production of LREs may be influenced by the proficiency level of the learners (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004). Sociocultural theory (Lantolf & Appel, 1994) has also explored collaborative work and the effect that pairing learners with the same proficiency levels or different patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002) has on the production of LREs (e.g., Mozaffari, 2017; Storch & Aldosari 2013), but little research has compared the effect of the pair formation method (student-selected vs. proficiency-matched) on young learners’ production of LREs and pair dynamics. This study compares young CLIL learners (aged 10-12) in student-selected and proficiency-matched pairs in task-based interaction. Results indicate that learners produce more meaning-based than form-based LREs, regardless of their pair formation method. The percentage of meaning-based LREs which are resolved accurately is much higher in proficiency-matched dyads than in student-selected ones. As for the patterns of interaction (Storch, 2002), the dynamics of proficiency-matched dyads are of a more collaborative nature than those of self-selected pairs.

show abstract

Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL

Cited by 27 publications

References 33 publications

Language-related Episodes Patterns Engendered in L2 Classrooms: Pedagogical Translation Tasks Versus Monolingual Writing Tasks

Language-related Episodes Patterns Engendered in L2 Classrooms: Pedagogical Translation Tasks Versus Monolingual Writing Tasks

Effects of proficiency and collaborative work on child EFL individual dictogloss writing

Language-related episodes and pair dynamics in primary school CLIL learners: A comparison between proficiency-matched and student-selected pairs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About