Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:2 (2022) ► pp.480–512

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Task-modality effects on young learners’ language-related episodes in collaborative dialogue

ORCiD logo with link | Universidad de Cantabria
ORCiD logo with link | Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, UPV/EHU
Published online: 12 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20020.gal
Abstract
In adult learners’ collaborative dialogue, oral+written tasks have been found to promote a greater incidence and resolution of language-related episodes and to demand higher levels of accuracy than oral tasks thanks to the extra time learners have to reflect on their written outcome. No previous studies have tested whether asking learners to attend to accuracy in both modalities would yield similar results. The present study with 23 dyads of young English learners supports the superiority of the oral+written modality in the promotion of learning opportunities, even if learners are encouraged to focus on form in the oral modality, a result reinforced by the incorporation of target-like resolved episodes in the written product. However, the intragroup analysis reveals that young learners focus on meaning in equal terms, present low rates of target-likeness, and do not elaborate their resolutions, all of which can be ascribed to their younger age and developing metalinguistic awareness.
Resumen
Los efectos de la modalidad de la tarea en la producción de episodios relacionados con el lenguaje por parte de aprendices jóvenes durante el diálogo colaborativo
En el diálogo colaborativo se ha descubierto que las tareas orales+escritas promueven una mayor incidencia y resolución de los episodios relacionados con la lengua y demandan niveles más altos de corrección que las tareas orales gracias al tiempo extra que los aprendices tienen para reflexionar sobre el producto escrito. Ningún estudio previo ha comprobado si pedir a los aprendices que atiendan a la corrección en ambas modalidades llevaría a los mismos resultados. El presente estudio con veintitrés parejas de niños que aprenden inglés apoya la superioridad de la modalidad oral+escrita en la promoción de oportunidades de aprendizaje, incluso cuando se ha animado a los aprendices a que se fijen en la forma en la modalidad oral, resultado que se ve reforzado por la incorporación de los episodios resueltos de manera correcta en el producto escrito. Sin embargo, el análisis intragrupo revela que los aprendices jóvenes se fijan en el significado igualmente, presentan cotas bajas de corrección y no elaboran sus resoluciones, todo lo cual puede adscribirse a su corta edad y a su conciencia metalingüística aún en desarrollo.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Collaborative dialogue and LREs
    • 2.2Task modality and LREs
    • 2.3Task motivation
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Instruments
    • 4.3Data collection
    • 4.4Data analysis
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (59)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation, and noticing: Implication for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 71, 347–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form: A role for modality? ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1521, 7–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection. Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al Khalil, M. K. (2016). Insights from measurement of task-related motivation. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 243–262). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 1–116). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Azkarai, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2015). Task modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 191, 550–571. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–43). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouffard, L. A., & Sarkar, M. (2008). Training 8-year old French immersion students in metalinguistic analysis. An innovation in form- focused pedagogy. Language Awareness, 171, 3–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 58–89). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calzada, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2020). Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task: An exploratory study. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2(1), 52–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cenoz, J., & Valencia, J. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque country. Applied Psycholinguistics, 151, 195–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, W., & Yu, S. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and learning in collaborative writing. System, 821, 83–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 41, 275–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A., & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41(2), 365–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer Interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical potential (pp. 241–266). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Hidalgo Gordo, M. A. (2017). L1 Use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 671, 132–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. & Imaz Agirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 801, 165–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grabowski, J. (2007). The writing superiority effect in the verbal recall of knowledge: Sources and determinants. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & Torrance, M., van Waes, L., & Galbraith, D. (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in Writing) (pp. 165–179). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2007). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, accuracy and complexity. In S. Van Daele, A. Housen, F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 87–98). KVAB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, S., & Scott, K. (2009). Sparks 1. Richmond.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 29–42). University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 921, 114–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(2), 211–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kopinska, M., & Azkarai, A. (2020). Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: Individual vs. pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 607–630. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasito & Storch, N. (2013). Comparing pair and small group interactions on oral tasks. RELC Journal, 441, 361–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, O. P., & Maarof, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in summary writing: Student perceptions and problems. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 901, 599–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 15 (Suppl. 1), 265–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (third edition). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2017a). Tracing trajectories of young learners: Ten years of school English learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 168–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017b). The development of language awareness at the transition from primary to secondary school. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning Foreign Languages in Primary School. Research Insights (pp. 49–68). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3–4), 384–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The relationship between conversational interaction and second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 372–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Interaction Research in Honour of Sue M. Gass (pp. 135–156). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 371, 62–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payant, C., & Kim, Y. J. (2019). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(5), 614–627. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payant, C., & Reagan, D. (2018). Manipulating task implementation variables with incipient Spanish language learners: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 2(22), 169–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poupore, G. (2013). Task motivation in process: A complex systems perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(1), 91–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shak, J. (2006). Children using dictogloss to focus on form. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), 47–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shak, J., & Gardner, S. (2008). Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 387–408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7(4), 176–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 141, 355–375. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 371, 285–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Y. Watanabe. (2013). Languaging: collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp.3218–3225). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tellier, A., & Roehr-Brackin, K. (2017). Raising children’s metalinguistic awareness to enhance classroom second language learning. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 22–48). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UCLES. (2014). Key English test for schools. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 111, 121–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The Effectiveness of Spontaneous Attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolff, D. (2000). Some reflections on the importance of writing in foreign language learning. In I. Play, & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history (pp. 213–226). WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

García-Pastor, María Dolores
2025. Child EFL Learners’ Reflections About the Expression of Obligation in Collaborative Interaction. In Investigating Attention to Form and Individual Differences:Research with EFL Children [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Gutierrez-Mangado, M. Juncal & María Basterrechea
2025. Investigating the effect of task modality on the written and oral production of young EFL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching DOI logo
Iglesias-Diéguez, Kevin, María Martínez-Adrián & Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
2025. Peer-to-peer interaction in task-based learning and the development of young EFL learners’ productive vocabulary: an exploratory study. Language Awareness ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kos, Tomáš & Friedrich Zoe Lara
2025. Collaborative Writing and Learning of Reported Speech During Mixed‐Age Peer Interactions in English as a Foreign Language Classroom. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Martínez-Adrián, María & Izaskun Arratibel-Irazusta
2024. Pairing method and young learners’ use of previously known languages during task-based interaction. TASK. Journal on Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning 4:1 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo
Kos, Tomáš
2023. A teacher-researcher snapshot of task-based peer interactions in EFL secondary school classrooms in Germany. Language Teaching for Young Learners 5:2 ► pp. 170 ff. DOI logo
Gallardo-del-Puerto, Francisco & María Martínez-Adrián
2022. Task Modality Effects on the Production and Elaboration of Language-Related Episodes: A Study on Schoolchildren’s Interactions in a Foreign Language. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 306 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue