Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in Child EFL Mainstream and CLIL Settings

Abstract

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.

Agency and technology-mediated task repetition with young learners

“…García Mayo and Lázaro Ibarolla (2015) compared mainstream and CLIL classrooms (8-9 and 10-11 year olds) and found that CLIL groups used more clarification requests and repetition and relied less on L1 than the mainstream learners. Azkarai and Imaz Agirre (2016), building on the previous study and conducting research with the same group of children a year later, found, somewhat surprisingly, that all children negotiated meaning but the older children employed significantly fewer strategies than the younger children. The authors concluded that the tasks were probably too easy for the older groups thus their interactions required fewer negotiation moves.…”

Review of Child Second Language Acquisition (SLA): Examining Theories and Research

“…They also found CLIL learners used their L1 to a lesser extent than mainstream learners. Azkarai and Imaz Agirre (2016) argued that the difference between their study and García Mayo and Lázaro Ibarrola's (2015) study could be because in their study they considered two tasks, whereas García Mayo and Lázaro Ibarrola considered only one.…”

“…Yet it has been shown that just as differences exist between adults and children, so do differences between younger and older child learners. Age differences for children have been found in interaction studies (e.g., in ESL settings: Oliver, 1998, 2002, 2009; in EFL settings: Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016; Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2016; Butler & Zeng, 2014, 2015; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015), particularly in relation to task use (e.g., in ESL settings: Oliver, 1995, 1998, 2002; in EFL settings: Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2016) and task repetition (e.g., in ESL settings: Mackey et al, 2007; in EFL settings: Azkarai & García Mayo, 2016; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2016).…”

“…For others, the goal was to determine which type of negative feedback was more useful (e.g., Bouffard & Sarkar, 2008; Choi & Li, 2012; Lyster, 2004; Lyster & Mori, 2006; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Tedick & Young, 2016). Another line of research investigated age differences in interaction, including the provision and use of negative feedback (e.g., Azkarai & Imaz Agirre, 2016; García Mayo & Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015; Mackey & Philp, 1998; Mackey & Oliver, 2002; Mackey, Oliver, & Leeman, 2003; Pinter, 2006).…”

Pluriliteracies Teaching for Learning: conceptualizing progression for deeper learning in literacies development

“…Astonishingly, even though there are indications that strategy use affects language learning success and despite claims that learner strategies are key to learner autonomy and knowledge construction in content and integrated learning (Wolff: 2004), research on the effect of learner strategies on successful CLIL learning and performance is very sparse. There are only a few intervention studies (Azkarai & Agirre 2015, Jaekel: 2015, Lorenzo & Moore 2010, Meyer 2013; Ruiz de Zarobe & Zenotz 2015) published to date. However, here seems to be a growing consensus that what is needed to assess the effect of instructed strategy use on learner performance is a reconceptualization of the construct of learner strategies not as traits but as techniques which can be taught and learned, and which are accessible to reflection and subsequent modification so that they can be used deliberately and purposefully and thus become learner strategies for individual learners (Schmenk 2009: 84/85).…”