The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners' collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads

Abstract

Previous peer interaction research has shown that proficiency not only plays a role in how second language (L2) learners talk about language form, but also influences their pair dynamics (Leeser, 2004; Williams, 1999). The current study focuses on peer interaction involving mixed-proficiency dyads, specifically whether task role affects the nature of L2 learners' discussions or their pair dynamics. Sixty English L2 learners at a Vietnamese university were assigned to mixed-proficiency dyads to carry out a story retell task. Task role was manipulated by assigning either information holder or information receiver status to the lower-proficiency learner. After retelling the story, the learners worked together to create a story ending and then collaboratively wrote the entire story. Audio-recordings of their interactions were transcribed and analyzed in terms of the amount, type, and resolution of language-related episodes (LREs) and pair dynamics. The results indicated that the learners produced more LREs and engaged in interactions with greater mutuality when the lowerproficiency learner had the task role as information holder. The findings shed light on ways to promote attention to language form and collaborative interactions when L2 learners from different proficiency levels carry out communicative tasks.

Negotiation of meaning by mixed‐proficiency dyads in face‐to‐face and synchronous computer‐mediated communication

“…However, the high‐proficiency learners may not spontaneously take on that role. As a result, it may be conducive to encourage interactions in which high‐proficiency learners take an advisory and collaborative role when interacting with their low‐proficiency peers (Dao & McDonough, ). Second, because learners are required to type in SCMC, it would be a great platform for teachers to enrich learners’ writing skills by encouraging them to focus on their dictation and grammatical rules as well as negotiation for meaning.…”

Identifying Linguistic Markers of Collaboration in Second Language Peer Interaction: A Lexico‐grammatical Approach

“…For example, previous research has explored whether task type (picture description versus dictogloss) and task role (information holder versus receiver) affect learners’ pair dynamics during peer interaction. Using Storch's () categories of pair dynamics, researchers have found that information‐exchange tasks tend to generate interaction with higher mutuality (e.g., greater engagement and reciprocity) than dictogloss or decision‐making tasks (Kim & McDonough, ) as does giving lower proficiency partners the task role as information holder as opposed to the role of information receiver (Dao & McDonough, ). Qualitative coding has revealed these patterns, but an important follow‐up question is whether the lexico‐grammatical features associated with high‐ and low‐collaboration interactions identified here are also influenced by task features.…”

Learner proficiency and EFL learning through task rehearsal and performance

“…sending information), they tended to negotiate meanings more and successfully solve linguistic problems. Similarly, in a recent study with Vietnamese EFL learners by Dao and McDonough (2017), lower proficiency learners when acting as information holders discussed more LREs and were more engaged in task interaction than when they worked as information receivers.…”

“…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).…”