In:Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda
Edited by Masatoshi Sato and Susan Ballinger
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 45] 2016
► pp. 113–134
4. Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work
Published online: 10 March 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.05cho
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.05cho
Building on empirical studies investigating the relationship between interlocutors’ proficiency and learning opportunities in pair work, this chapter examines how group members’ proficiency affected the occurrence and outcome of language related episodes (LREs) and also how their proficiency level affected their perception of working within a small group. Two low-proficiency ESL learners engaged in three small group discussion tasks. For each task, the two learners were grouped into one of three proficiency levels: high-proficiency dominant, low-proficiency dominant, and low-proficiency. The interactional data of the three groups was analysed in terms of the types and outcomes of LREs. While the occurrence and outcome of LREs appeared to be dependent on the interlocutors’ proficiency levels, their perceptions of and contributions to group work were largely dependent on the interlocutors’ attitudes toward sharing ideas in completing the task.
References (43)
Adams, R. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
Ballinger, S. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 131–148.
Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going for the zone: The social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in classroom conversations. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 29–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ewald, J. (2008). The assumption of participation in small group work: An investigation of L2 teachers’ and learners’ expectation. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 16, 151–174.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 267–301.
Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–199.
Lantolf, J., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23, 619–632.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Psyllakis, P. (2010). The role of languaging in creating zones of proximal development: A long-term care resident interacts with a researcher. Canadian Journal on Aging, 29, 477–490.
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ohta, A. (2000). Re-thinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2013). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Rance-Roney, J. (2010). Reconceptualizing interactional groups: Grouping schemes for maximizing language learning. English Teaching Forum, 1, 20–26.
Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A, & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611–633.
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 157–179.
. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sato, M., & Lyster R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.
Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration?: The proficiency effect on group work in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language education: An introduction through narratives. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 605–635.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 1–22.
. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower proficiency partners. Language Awareness, 17, 115–130.
Young, A., & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cited by (22)
Cited by 22 other publications
Pladevall-Ballester, Elisabet & Alexandra Vraciu
Spinelli, Franciele
Calzada, Asier & María del Pilar García Mayo
2023. Do task repetition and pretask focus on form instruction impact
collaborative writing performance?. In L2 Collaborative Writing in Diverse Learning Contexts [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 59], ► pp. 80 ff.
Tajabadi, Azar, Moussa Ahmadian, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi & Hooshang Yazdani
Tosun, Sibel & Nuray Alagözlü
Bédard, Vincent, Véronique Fortier & Suzie Beaulieu
Kirchhoff, Natalie
Kirchhoff, Natalie
Kirchhoff, Natalie
Trofimovich, Pavel, Kim McDonough, Phung Dao & Dato Abashidze
Feng, Ruiling, Kyunghee Pyun, Wenzhong Zhang & Rafael Márquez Flores
Iwashita, Noriko & Phung Dao
McDonough, Kim, Pavel Trofimovich, Phung Dao & Dato Abashidze
Nguyen, Bao Trang Thi & Jonathan Newton
Leeming, Paul
Leeming, Paul
Ziegler, Nicole & Lara Bryfonski
Sato, Masatoshi
Fernández-Dobao, Ana
2016. 1. Peer interaction and learning. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 33 ff.
Kikuchi, Hisayo
Philp, Jenefer
2016. New pathways in researching interaction. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 377 ff.
Young, Amy I. & Diane J. Tedick
2016. 5. Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 45], ► pp. 135 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
