Peer assistance among mixed-age pairs in mixed-age EFL secondary school classrooms in Germany

Tomas Kos

doi:10.1515/eujal-2017-0013

Article

Peer assistance among mixed-age pairs in mixed-age EFL secondary school classrooms in Germany

Published/Copyright: August 18, 2017

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal European Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 7 Issue 1

Abstract

Drawing from a sociocultural framework, this paper reports a study which investigated peer assistance among 10 mixed-age pairs (n=20) in mixed-age English as a foreign language (EFL) secondary school classrooms in Germany which are simultaneously mixed-ability classrooms. Mixed-age is increasingly used (Kallery and Loupidou 2016; Kuhl et al. 2013; Thurn 2011), but is under-researched in language classrooms. Although some research has been conducted in L2 mixed-proficiency settings, there has been no study conducted on peer-interactions within mixed-age groups/pairs in L2 contexts. This study aims to lay the foundations for future research of peer interactions among M-A second language learners. Results show that mixed-age pairs assisted one another in ways similar to those found in teacher-learner interactions, while some in ways which resemble to what Donato (1988, 1994) called collective scaffolding. However, the extent that this assistance benefited learning varied across learners. The findings also suggest that rather than age, the relationship between learners seems to be one of the major factors mediating the extent and quality of assistance.

Keywords: mixed-age; peer assistance; second language development; classroom tasks; sociocultural theory

References

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 (Eds.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Allwright, Dick & Bailey, Kathleen, M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. Search in Google Scholar

Antón, Marta & Frederick, J. Dicamilla. (1999). Socio-Cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 83(2). 233–247. 10.1111/0026-7902.00018Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Ann L. & Palincsar, Annemarie S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning, and individual Knowledge acquisition. In Lauren Resnick (eds.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glasser 393–451. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 10.4324/9781315044408-13Search in Google Scholar

Charkova, Krassimira D. & Halliday, Laura J. (2011). Second- and Foreign-Language Variation in Tense Backshifting in Indirect Reported Speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(1). 1–32.10.1017/S0272263110000513Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Hyunsik & Iwashita, Noriko. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In Masatoshi Sato & Susan Ballinger (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45.05choSearch in Google Scholar

Coughlan, Peter & Duff, Patricia. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In James Paul Lantolf & G. Appel (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research 173-193. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Daniels, Harry (2015). Mediation: An expansion of the socio-cultural gaze. History of the Human Sciences 28(2). 34–50. 10.1177/0952695114559994Search in Google Scholar

Davin, Kristin J. & Donato, Richard (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals 46(1). 5–22. 10.1111/flan.12012Search in Google Scholar

De La Colina, Ana Alegria & Mayo, Maria Del Pilar Garcia.(2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 325–345.10.1515/iral.2009.014Search in Google Scholar

DiCamilla, Frederik. J. & Antón, Marta. (1997). Repetition in the Collaborative Discourse of L2 Learners: A Vygotskian Perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review 53(4). 609–633.10.3138/cmlr.53.4.609Search in Google Scholar

Donato, Richard. (1988).Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware.Search in Google Scholar

Donato, Richard. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In James Paul Lantolf & Gabriela Appel (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research 33–56. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Donato, Richard. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 284–302. 10.1017/S026719050400011XSearch in Google Scholar

Dörnyei, Zoltan. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Duran, David & Monereo, Carles. (2005). Styles and sequences of cooperative interaction in fixed and reciprocal peer tutoring. Learning and Instruction 15(3).179–199. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.04.002Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford: University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Foster, Pauline. & Ohta, Amy S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics 26. 402–430.10.1093/applin/ami014Search in Google Scholar

Gagné, Nathalie & Parks, Susan. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research 17(2). 188–209.10.1177/1362168812460818Search in Google Scholar

García Mayo, M., & Alegria de la Colina, A. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In: M. García Mayo (eds.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, 91–116. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M. & Varonis, Evangeline Marlos. (1985). Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7. 37–57.10.1017/S0272263100005143Search in Google Scholar

Gerard, Maureen. (2005). Bridging the Gap: Towards an Understanding of Young Children’s Thinking in Multiage Groups. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 19(3). 243–250. 10.1080/02568540509595068Search in Google Scholar

Hartup,Willard. (2005). Peer interaction: What causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33. 387–394.10.1007/s10802-005-3578-0Search in Google Scholar

Hattie, John A. C. (2002). Classroom composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research 37. 449–481.10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00015-6Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, Jo. (2003). Multiage teachers’ beliefs and practices. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 18(1). 5–17.10.1080/02568540309595019Search in Google Scholar

Kalaoja, Esko & Pietarinen, Janne (2009). Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network. International Journal of Educational Research 48. 109–116.10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin & McDonough, Kim. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12(2). 211–234. 10.1177/1362168807086288Search in Google Scholar

Kim, YouJin & McDonough, Kim (2011). Using pre-task modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research 15(2). 183–199. 10.1177/1362168810388711Search in Google Scholar

Koerrenz, Ralf. (2011). Schulmodell: Jena-Plan. Grundlagen eines reformpädagogischen Programms. Paderborn.10.30965/9783657772285Search in Google Scholar

Kowal, Maria & Swain, Merrill. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845Search in Google Scholar

Kowal, Maria & Swain, Merrill. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In: Johnson, Robert Keith & Swain, Merrill (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives, 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524667.022Search in Google Scholar

Kucharz, Diemut & Wagener, Matthea. (2007). Jahrgangsübergreifendes Lernen. Eine Empirische Studie zu Lernen, Leistung und Interaktion von Kindern in der Schuleingangsphase 3rd ed. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren. Search in Google Scholar

Kuhl, Poldi; Felbrich, Anja; Richter, Dirk; Stanat, Petra; Pant, Hans A. (2013). Die Jahrgangsmischung auf dem Prüfstand: Effekte jahrgangsübergreifenden Lernens auf Kompetenzen und sozio-emotionales Wohlbefinden von Grundschülerinnen und Grundschülern. In Alexander Schulze & Rolf Becker (eds.), Bildungskontexte: Strukturelle Voraussetzungen und Ursachen ungleicher Bildungschancen, 299–323. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-531-18985-7_11Search in Google Scholar

Laging, Ralf. (2010). Altersmischung – eine pädagogische Chance zur Reform der Schule. In Altersgemischtes Lernen in der Schule, edited by Ralf Laging, 3rd ed., 6–29. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James Paul. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James Paul & Aljafreh, Ali. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research 23. 619–32.10.1016/0883-0355(96)80441-1Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James. Paul & Poehner, Mathew. E. (2008). Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages. London: Equinox Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Lantolf, James Paul & Thorne, Steven. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leeser, Michael. J. (2004). Learner Proficiency and Focus on Form during Collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research 8(1). 55–81. 10.1191/1362168804lr134oaSearch in Google Scholar

Lindström, Elly & Ann & Lindahl, Erica. (2011). The Effect of Mixed-Age Classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 55(2). 121–144.10.1080/00313831.2011.554692Search in Google Scholar

Little, Angela W. (1995). Multigrade Teaching: A Review of Research and Practice, Education Research 12. London: Overseas Development Administration.Search in Google Scholar

Little, Angela W. (2001). Multigrade teaching: Towards an international research and policy agenda. International Journal of Educational Development 21. 481–497.10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00011-6Search in Google Scholar

Little, Angela W. (2007). Education for all and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities. Springer: Dordrecht. Search in Google Scholar

Lockhart, Charles & Ng, Peggy (1995). Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions and Content. Language Learning 45. 605–651.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.xSearch in Google Scholar

Long, Michael, & Porter, Patricia, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19. 207–28.10.2307/3586827Search in Google Scholar

Lourenço, Orlando (2012). Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances, and a crucial difference, New Ideas in Psychology 30(3). 281–295. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research 14. 397–419. 10.1177/1362168810375364Search in Google Scholar

Ohta, Amy Snyder (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6. 93–121.10.5070/L462005219Search in Google Scholar

Ohta, Amy Snyder (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In: J. P. Lantolf (eds.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, 51–78. Oxford: Oxford University.Search in Google Scholar

Ohta, Amy Snyder (2001). Peer interactive tasks and assisted performance in classroom language learning. In: Amy Snyder Ohta, Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese, 73–128. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410604712-9Search in Google Scholar

Ohta, Amy Snyder (2005). Confirmation Checks: A Discourse Analytic Reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature 39(2). 383–412. 10.2307/30038905Search in Google Scholar

Panagiotopoulou, Argyro 2004. Kinder lernen von Kindern. Zur Einführung von SchulanfängerInnen in die interne Schriftkultur einer jahrgangsübergreifenden Klassen. In Argyro Panagiotopoulou and Ursula Carle (eds.) Sprachentwicklung und Schriftspracherwerb. Beobachtungs-und Fördermöglichkeiten in Familie, Kindergarten und Grundschule, 133–146. Baltmansweiler: Schneider Hohengehren. Search in Google Scholar

Philp, Jenefer, Adams, Rebecca Jane & Iwashita, Noriko. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9780203551349Search in Google Scholar

Piaget, Jean. (1932). The language and thought of the child (2^nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.10.4324/9780203992739Search in Google Scholar

Robinson, Debbie, Schofield, Janet & Steers-Wentzell, Katrina. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review 17(4). 327–362.10.1007/s10648-005-8137-2Search in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal 97(3). 611–633. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi & Ballinger, Susan. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness21(1–2). 157–179. 10.1080/09658416.2011.639884Search in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi & Ballinger, Susan. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Masatoshi Sato & Susan Ballinger (eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45.01intSearch in Google Scholar

Sato, Masatoshi, & Viveros, Paula. (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 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Smit, Robbert & Engeli, Eva (2015). An empirical model of mixed-age teaching. International Journal of Educational Research 74. 136–145. 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.05.004Search in Google Scholar

Smit, Robbert,Hyry-Beihammer, Eva Kaisa & Raggl, Andrea. (2015). Teaching and learning in small, rural schools in four European countries: Introduction and synthesis of mixed-/multi-age approaches, International Journal of Educational Research 74. 97–103. 10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.007Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52(1). 119–158.10.1111/1467-9922.00179Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness.17.95–114.10.1080/09658410802146644Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Aldosari, Ali. (2010). Learners’ Use of First Language (Arabic) in Pair Work in an EFL Class. Language Teaching Research 14(4). 355–375.10.1177/1362168810375362Search in Google Scholar

Storch Neomy & Aldosari Al. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research 17(1). 31–48.10.1177/1362168812457530Search in Google Scholar

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In: H. Byrnes (eds.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Haliday and Vygotsky,95–108. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In: R. Batstone (eds.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning, 112–130. Oxford: Oxford Univesrity Press.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill. (2011). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching. 46(2). 195–207. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/S0261444811000486Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill, Brooks, Lindsay & Tocalli-Beller, Agustina. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of secondlanguage learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 22, 171–185.10.1017/S0267190502000090Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Miccoli, Laura S. (1994). Learning in a content-based, collaboratively structured course: The experience of an adult ESL learner. TESL Canada Journal. 12(1). 15 –28.10.18806/tesl.v12i1.641Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 16(3). 371–391.10.1093/applin/16.3.371Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82. 320–337.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.xSearch in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon. (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, 99–118. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill & Lapkin, Sharon. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research. (37). 285–304.10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5Search in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill, Sharon Lapkin, Ibtissen Knouzi, Wataru Suzuki & Lindsay Brooks. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal 93. 5–29.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.xSearch in Google Scholar

Thurn Susanne. (2011). Individualisierung ernst genommen. Englisch lernen in jahrgangsübergreifenden Gruppen (3/4/5). Bad Heilbrunn.Search in Google Scholar

Topping, Keith, Campbell, Jean, Douglas, Walter & Smith, Andrea. (2003). Cross-age peer tutoring in mathematics with 7 & 11 year olds: Influence on mathematical vocabulary, strategic dialogue and self-concept. Educational Research. 45(3). 287–308. 10.1080/0013188032000137274Search in Google Scholar

Topping, Keith & Bryce, Angela. (2004). Cross‐age peer tutoring of reading and thinking: Influence on thinking skills. Educational Psychology 24. 595–621.10.1080/0144341042000262935Search in Google Scholar

Topping, Keith. (2005). Trends in Peer Learning. Educational Psychology 25(6). 631–645. 10.1080/01443410500345172Search in Google Scholar

Topping, Keith, Miller, David, Thurston, Allan, McGavock, Karen, & Conlin, Nora. (2011). Peer Tutoring in Reading in Scotland: Thinking Big. Literacy 45(1). 3–9.10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00577.xSearch in Google Scholar

van Compernolle, Rémi, A., & Williams, Lawrence. (2011).Thinking with your hands: Speech–-gesture activity during an L2 awareness–-raising task. Language Awareness. 20(3). 203–219. 10.1080/09658416.2011.559244Search in Google Scholar

van de Pol, Janneke, Volman, Monique. & Beishuizen, Jos. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research, Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–297.10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6Search in Google Scholar

Veenman, Simon. (1995). Cognitive and Noncognitive effects of multigrade and multiage classes: a best-evidence synthesis, Review of Educational Research10.3102/00346543065004319Search in Google Scholar

Villamil, Olga S. & de Guerrero, Maria, C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing 5(1). 51–75.10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky Lev Semyonovich. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vygotsky Lev Semyonovich. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Watanabe, Yuko. (2008). Peer-Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64(4). 605–635.10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605Search in Google Scholar

Watanabe, Yuko & Swain, Merrill. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research 11(2). 121–142.10.1177/136216880607074599Search in Google Scholar

Watanabe, Yuko & Swain, Merrill (2008). Perception of Learner Proficiency: Its Impact on the Interaction Between an ESL Learner and Her Higher and Lower Proficiency Partners. Language Awareness 17(2). 115–130.10.1080/09658410802146651Search in Google Scholar

Webb, Noreen M. & Mastergeorge, Ann. (2003a). Promoting Effective Helping Behavior in Peer-Directed Groups. International Journal of Educational Research 39(1). 73–97.10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00074-0Search in Google Scholar

Webb, Noreen M. & Mastergeorge, Ann. (2003b). The Development of Students’Helping Behavior and Learning in Peer-Directed Small Groups. Cognition and Instruction 21(4). 361–428. 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_2Search in Google Scholar

Wells, Gordon. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605895Search in Google Scholar

Wells, Gordon. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In: C. D. Lee, C.D. & Smagorinsky P. (eds.), Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy Research, 51–85. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wertsch, James. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.10.2307/j.ctv1pncrndSearch in Google Scholar

Williams, Jessica (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4). 583–625.10.1111/0023-8333.00103Search in Google Scholar

Young, Amy I. & Tedick, Diane. (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. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.45.06youSearch in Google Scholar

Yule, George & Macdonald, Doris. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40. 539–556.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00605.xSearch in Google Scholar

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Interview questions (original in German)

Tell me about pair work with ..... What is it like working with him/her? How did you feel during pair work?
Tell me more. What was it like working with your partner for the unit of work?
Do you think the pair work went well? Why? Why not?
How do you think it worked?
How do you work together – is one of you the boss?
Did you help one another? How?
What do you like about working with your partner?
Anything you dont like?
What kinds of things did you learn from pair work? What about in terms of English? What else? Anything else?
Did you like the activities? What did you like about them? Why not?
How did you contribute to the pair work?
How do you think your partner contributed?
Who do you think contributed more?
Would you prefer to work individually?
Would you prefer to do the task with a same age (same grade) partner? Why? Why not?
Do you think that you benefit from learning with older/younger partner? If so, how? If not, why not?
What is important for you when choosing a partner for your English assignment?
Who do you ask when you need help?

Appendix B

Comic task 1a

Appendix C

Comic task 1b

Appendix D

Comic task procedure

Table

Comic task procedure

1. Read the comic. (pre-task, pair/group work)

2. Rewrite the following sentences about the comic. (pre-task, pair/group work)

Example:

Jaden tells the gang that he has a date.

Jaden told the gang that he had a date

3. Write the comic as a story and read your story to the class. (task, pair/group work)

4. Read the comic again and answer the questions. (post-task, individual work/next lesson)

Example:

Why did Jaden have to leave?

Jaden had to leave because he had a date.

5. Complete the sentences.

Example:

First of all, she asked me how old I was. (post-task, individual work/next lesson)

Appendix E

Example of students’ writing on the Comic task

Appendix F

Text-reconstruction task

Appendix G

Looking for help task 1A

Appendix H

Looking for help task 1B

Appendix I

Grammatical exercise Phrasal verbs

Appendix J

Individual achievement test including Comic task

Appendix K

Chilling-out task

Appendix L

Examples of tasks

– Comic – Students were asked to jointly read the comic and work out the meaning of the story. Then, they jointly completed a grammar exercise (pre-task phase) in order to practice the backshift of tenses (see appendices B-E) before engaging in the main task. The main task was to write the comic as a story and read their story to the class. In the subsequent 45-minute lesson (post-task phase) learners were given a grammar exercise eliciting the same linguistic feature but used in a different context. They were asked to complete this exercise individually. This task took about 135 minutes (one 90-minute and one 45-minute lesson) to complete (see Table in the appendix D). These lessons were spread over two days. The first 90-minute lesson consisted of a pre-task and a task, which were completed jointly. The task elicited a targeted linguistic feature, namely back shifting from present simple into past simple in indirect reported speech. The Comic task served as a tool to search for evidence of independent use of a targeted linguistic feature (RQ2).

– Text-reconstruction task (a cloze task) – Students carried out this task towards the end of the unit. This task required student learners to jointly identify and fill in the missing targeted linguistic features. Later, they were asked to replace the identified features with different words. Research (Nassaji & Jun Tian, 2010) suggests that a cloze task promotes LREs as learners’ attention is very much drawn to the blank space which is demanding missing words or text. The task took about 40 minutes to complete (see also appendix F).

– Looking for help? – Students carried out this task in the middle of the unit. They were asked to jointly read a text concerning a teenager looking for help and three replies of agony aunt or uncle who are online experts, providing a confidential advice and guidance. Then, they were asked to sum up the main text, determine the replies and talk about what they would do in a similar situation. The task took about 30 minutes to complete (see also appendices G-H).

– Grammar exercises – Students carried out these exercises throughout the unit. They jointly completed several grammatical exercises in order to practice and consolidate their knowledge of linguistic features such as phrasal verbs and infinitive with/without to. The exercises took about 45 minutes to complete (see also appendix I).

In general, Looking for help, Comic and Text-reconstruction tasks aimed at encouraging students to think about language in the context of a meaning-focused activity (Willis & Willis, 2007, p.116), while the grammar exercises were merely aimed at a practice oflinguistic features. The Comic and Text-reconstruction tasks were convergent tasks that is, task “in which all speakers are working to a joint agreed outcome” (Ellis, 2003, p.123). In addition to this, the Text-reconstruction task is one of the most commonly used tasks to generate LREs (Alegria de la Colina and García Mayo 2007; García Mayo and Alegria de la Colina 2007; Storch 1998, 2008). The Looking for help task was a task, which required a joint agreed outcome only to a certain extent, allowing also for divergent solutions. All three tasks combined reading, speaking and writing. Research suggests that using writing/speaking tasks, rather than speaking tasks alone, would increase the amount of engagement with a language form while learners’ attention is also directed to meaning (Alegria de la Colina & García Mayo 2007; Nassaji and Jun Tian 2010; Storch 2008). It has to be noted, however, the Comic task lacked its sole focus on meaning as it contained a grammar exercise in the pre-task phase in order to raise students’ awareness of the targeted linguistic form before engaging in the task. However, this was a pedagogical step suggested by the designers of the text-book.

Appendix M

Table 2

Assistance/definitions of codes/examples from data

Request for confirmation	*Requesting assistance* A request seeking confirmation of correct understanding (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p.410).	A: Hast du has to oder had to gesagt? [Did you say has to or had to?] E: that she had to stay...to stay
Request for information	A request eliciting lexis, morpho-syntax or spelling. (Storch, 2001a)	L: What means fortführen? E: to continue
Request for explanation	A request eliciting responses such as explanations or opinions.	J: Kannst du mir bitte sagen, was wir hier Machen sollen? [Can you tell me what are we supposed to do here, please?] L: Na, klar. [Yes, sure.]
Co-construction	Providing assistance “The joint creation of an utterance, whether one person completes what another has begun, or whether various people chime in to create an utterance.” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 420)	L: Well, look is not an irregular verb E: So then, looked L: (repeats and writes the sentence down). L: Sandy told others that the mural ... (saying while writing the sentence down). E: looked great
Other-correction	An utterance which “involves a peer correcting his or her partner.” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p. 420)	L: Sandy tells others ... E: told! L: yes
Explanation	Refers to instances, during which learners explain language related or task related issues. Explanations also include justifications of their linguistic choices. They may be solicited; given in response to requests” or unsolicited; offered as an elaboration on a suggestion. (Storch, 2001a)	G: That’s great! This is clear but why do we need it here? It does not matter that he let them down. J: He let them down and that is why they are mad at him.
Suggestion	Refers to instance during which one learner puts forward an idea or plan related to the task at hand, morphosyntax, lexis, or spelling for his/her partner’s consideration This can be done upon or without request. (Storch, 2001a)	L: called the other gangs gang he gang and told them that... E: that Jaden finished the mural? L: Yes.
Other-repetition	A repetition of other’s utterances with or without some type of expansion or modification	A: Later in a cafe Jaden felt (reading) E: guilty A: guilty but his lovely girl wasn't too impressed.
Teacher-like assistance	Continuer; is an “instance where an interlocutor takes an interest in the speaker’s utterance and encourages him/her to continue” (Foster & Ohta, 2005, p.420). Continuers may also occur when a speaker indicates to the interlocutor that the utterance is incomplete by rising intonation (Gagné & Parks, 2013, p.207) Active listening; a listening strategy where trained learners become skillful partners in giving feedback by using verbal/non-verbal methods of active participation in conversation, such as back-channeling and the use of “wh” questions to help the speakers to continue (what?, where?, who?, when?, why?). (Fujii & Mackey, 2009). See also the notion of assisting questions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989).	E: But Jaden explained that he... that he....that he... S: had? E: Yes, yes, great. Le: So we have done the first task and now we’re going to do the next one. I’m going to read it. „What makes a person friend for you? What qualities are important?” Li: What does this mean Le? (sounding as a teacher). Le Na ja was ein Freund für dich ausmacht. (translates into German). Li: Exactly! (sounding as a teacher) Was ist für dich wichtig? (adds a translation of the next question)

Published Online: 2017-08-18

Published in Print: 2019-02-28

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0013

Keywords for this article

mixed-age; peer assistance; second language development; classroom tasks; sociocultural theory