The Frequency and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads

The Frequency and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue
of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads

[PP: 53-66]
Fereidoon Vahdany
Payame Noor University, Guilan, Iran
Zahra Fakher Ajabshir
Manoochehr Jafarigohar
Hassan Soleimani
Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
ABSTRACT
Collaborative dialogue proposed by Swain (2000) has been grounded on co-construction of
knowledge by L2 learners drawing upon their shared resources. The current study investigated the
collaborative dialogue produced by Iranian EFL learners while engaged in problem-solving tasks on L2
pragmatics. The purpose was to identify the effect of collaborative dialogue on acquisition of request and
apology speech acts. Moreover, the study explored whether the frequency and resolution of language related
episodes (LRE) s during collaborative problem-solving tasks differed across High-High, High-Low and Low-
Low dyads. The participants were 89 EFL learners who were assigned to High-High, High-Low and Low-
Low dyads following a pretest on L2 pragmatics. The dyads were engaged in collaborative problem-solving
tasks for seven sessions during which samples of their collaborative dialogues were audio recorded and
analyzed in terms of the frequency and outcome of LREs. Results revealed the effect of collaborative
dialogue on development of L2 pragmatics in all dyads. Also, H-H dyads were found to produce LREs more
frequently than H-L and L-L dyads. Regarding the outcome of LREs, H-H dyads resolved most of LREs
correctly while the number of incorrectly solved episodes was roughly similar in production of H-L and L-L
dyads. The findings offer pedagogical implications to EFL teachers and educators on how to best pair learners
in collaborative activities.
Keywords: Collaborative Dialogue, Language Related Episode (LRE), L2 Pragmatic Competence,
Proficiency Pairing, Sociocultural Theory (SCT)
ARTICLE The paper received on: 01/11/2016 Reviewed on: 17/11/2016 Accepted after revisions on: 20/12/2016
INFO
Suggested citation:
Vahdany, F., Fakher Ajabshir, Z., Jafarigohar, M. & Soleimani, H. (2016). The Frequency and Resolution of Language
Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads. International Journal of
English Language & Translation Studies. 4(4), 53-66. Retrieved from www.eltsjournal.org
1. Introduction processes and intra-psychological

Recent years have witnessed a shift of mechanisms involved in language
paradigm from cognitive orientation to acquisition, sociocultural theory (SCT)
sociocultural framework. While cognitive adopts an inter-personal perspective,
theory is concerned with the mental considering L2 learning as a social practice.
International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies ISSN:2308-5460
Volume: 04 Issue: 04 October-December, 2016
It rests upon the dialogic nature of proficiency of learners affects the LREs
interaction regarding language learning as a arisen throughout communicative tasks.
result of collaborative effort and co- Despite a body of evidence in theory
construction of knowledge within the and practice on the effectiveness of
interactional discourse. According to collaborative work, there is little consensus
Vygotsky (1978), under interactional on the type of proficiency pairing more
conditions, the expert can provide some conducive to L2 learning. Some studies
levels of assistance to the novice in order to (e.g., Kim, 2009; Kowal & Swain, 1994)
help him/her internalize the knowledge. argue in favor of homogeneous pairs
Fundamental to SCT is the notion of working together and acknowledge the
scaffolding or the preferred term psychological safety attached to similar
collaborative dialogue. proficiency learners working with each
Collaborative dialogue was first other. Some other studies (e.g., Karimi &
proposed by Swain (2000) suggesting that Jalilvand, 2014; Wu 2008), however, favor
output production mediates language the dialogic interaction between pairs of
learning. In collaborative dialogue, learners different proficiency levels on the grounds
draw upon their shared linguistic and that more collaboration is likely to occur
cognitive resources to solve problems and between the pairs of different proficiency
in so doing move forward in their zone of levels and the less proficient ones might
proximal development (ZPD). According to benefit from the solutions suggested by
Zeng and Takatsuka (2009), the driving their more proficient partners.
force behind the collaborative discourse is Drawing upon the SCT of Vygotsky,
not the lack of comprehension, but rather to the current study makes an attempt to
reach better and more appropriate solutions contribute to the existing debate on the type
through joint effort, hence involving both of proficiency pairing more conducive to L2
the cognitive and social aspects of learning. development. Moreover, most of the studies
Collaborative dialogue is operationalized on collaborative dialogue (e.g., Kim &
through language related episodes (LREs) McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004; Storch &
(Lapkin, Swain & Smith, 2002). LREs are, Aldosari, 2013) explored LREs during
according to Swain (2001), "any part of reconstruction and reformulation tasks
dialogue where students talk about the which mainly focused on development of
language they are producing, question their lexical and grammatical aspects of L2. To
language use, or other- or self-correct their date, few studies (e.g., Alcon, 2003) have
language production" (p. 287). specifically focused on LREs produced
Different factors may have a bearing during collaborative tasks on L2
upon the quality and quantity of LREs pragmatics. The current study fills the gap
produced during collaborative activities by examining the collaborative dialogue
amongst them the proficiency of the produced by Iranian EFL learners while
interlocutors engaged in the collaborative engaged in collaborative problem-solving
task. According to Swain (1998), learners tasks on speech acts of request and apology.
talk about the areas of uncertainty that is The purpose of the study is to explore the
those aspects of language they are not sure effect of collaborative dialogue on
about. If this is the case, LREs center on the acquisition of L2 pragmatics. Further, it
gaps in learners' interlanguage. Thus, the examines whether the frequency and
Cite this article as: Vahdany, F., Fakher Ajabshir, Z., Jafarigohar, M. & Soleimani, H. (2016). The Frequency
and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous
Dyads. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 4(4), 53-66. Retrieved from
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 54
The Frequency… Vahdany Fereidoon, Fakher Ajabshir Zahra, Jafarigohar Manoochehr & Soleimani Hassan
resolution of LREs produced by Iranian the inter-psychological mechanisms of

EFL learners during collaborative tasks scaffolding that learners are in the position
differed across High-High, High-Low and of internalizing the knowledge they co-
Low-Low (hereafter H-H, H-L and L-L) constructed through a collaborative activity.
dyads. The following research questions Hence, social interactions and collaborative
were specifically addressed: learning (or what sometimes referred to as
Research Questions cooperative learning) are paramount in
1. Does EFL learners' collaborative cognitive development and key notions
dialogue in homogeneous and upon which SCT rests.
heterogeneous dyads affect their L2 To date, the effect of collaborative
pragmatic acquisition? dialogue as a mediating tool in learner-
2. Does the frequency of LREs learner interaction has been investigated.
produced by EFL learners during Most of the studies conducted in this filed
collaborative problem-solving tasks differ focused on the effect of peers' collaborative
across different proficiency pairings (i.e., dialogue on oral skills (e.g., Edstrom, 2015;
H-H, H-L and L-L)? Swain, Brooks & Tocalli-Beller, 2003),
3. Does the resolution of LREs differ reading(e.g., Behjat, 2011; Karimi &
across different proficiency pairings when Jalilivand, 2014; Murphy, 2007), writing
engaged in collaborative problem-solving (e.g., Fernández & Blum, 2013; Memari
tasks? Hanjani &Li, 2014), vocabulary(e.g., Zarei
2. Review of the Related Literature & Keshavarz, 2011) and grammar (e.g.,
Recently, social approaches to Benghomrani, 2011; Ghorbani &
language acquisition that go beyond the Nezamoshari'e, 2012). Among the
linguistic and psycholinguistic orientations extensive body of research, however, the
have got prevalence. As an influential studies touching the role of collaborative
approach to L2 acquisition, sociocultural dialogue in L2 pragmatic development are
framework postulates that cognitive far and few between (e.g., Alcon, 2003;
development is the result of social activity Dufon, 2008; Ohta, 1995).
mediated by language (Vygotsky, 1978). Ohta (1995) investigated the
During the dialogic interactional activities, acquisition of polite request forms by two
some levels of cognitive and affective Japanese learners of different proficiency
support are provided to the novice on the levels collaborating with each other. She
part of the expert which assists the novice to argued that the learners' use of the target
accomplish the functions that cannot be language during the pair work was
performed independently. Thus, interaction extremely different form that in teacher-
assists the learners to regulate and fronted class and scaffolding provided a
restructure their already-acquired positive climate for both learners to
knowledge. progress in their ZPDs. They used language
From this perspective, collaborative for a variety of purposes including
dialogue mediates language learning hypothesis-testing about language, humor,
(Swain, 2000). Collaborative dialogue is the role paly, negotiations on here-and-now,
dialogue where linguistic knowledge is lexical experimentation, discourse
constructed by the joint effort of two or management and task regulation. Unlike
more individuals (Swain, 2000). According similar studies in which learners tended to
to Lantolf and Poehner (2014), it is through
Page | 55
pick up each other's errors, Ohta's study advanced levels. Analysis of LREs revealed
revealed evidence on peer correction. that as the proficiency of the pairs
Alcon (2002) also compared the increased, the frequency of LREs increased
effect of teacher-student versus student- as well. Moreover, high proficient leaners
student interaction on development of attended to lexical items more than the
speech act of request. Two groups of grammatical ones. High proficient learners
learners were randomly assigned to were also more likely to reach the correct
learners' collaborative-language-learning resolutions as a result of collaborative work.
condition and teacher-led interaction. Both A similar observation was reported by
groups outperformed in the posttest Leeser (2004) who examined the impact of
compared with the pretest. The nature of learner proficiency on LREs of
collaborative dialogue was analyzed in both collaborative dialogue by adult L2 learners
groups and it was found that pragmatic of Spanish enrolled in a content-based
knowledge might emerge from assisted course. He assigned the participants to H-H,
performance. H-L and L-L dyads and analyzed the
Working along similar lines, Dufon frequency, type (lexical or grammatical)
(2008) explored how the interactions and outcome (success or failure to solve
between participants taking different social problem) of LREs produced by them during
roles such as teachers, students and two different dictogloss tasks. Each dyad's
classroom guests can provide EFL learners recording of talk was transcribed and the
with opportunities to develop their L2 analysis of LREs revealed that as the overall
pragmatic competence. The interactions of proficiency of the pairs increased, the
the teacher, students and the classroom frequency of LREs increased, problems
guest were video-recorded and analyzed in solved correctly and grammatical items
terms of the request strategies. Dufon appeared to receive more attention. While
argued that in EFL contexts where learners H-H dyads focused on grammatical aspects
have very limited opportunities to achieve and solved most of the problems correctly,
the target language pragmatic norms, L-L dyads were found to focus on lexical
collaborative interactions between the aspects and left a great deal of problems
participants of different social roles are an unresolved.
essential component of interlanguage While most of the studies on
pragmatic development. collaborative dialogue adopted a between-
Included in the literature on peer-peer group comparison, Watanabe and Swain
interaction are the studies (e.g., Leeser, (2007) analyzed the LREs of four core and
2004; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Williams, eight non-core L2 Japanese learners in a
1999) that analyzed the LREs produced within-group comparison. Each core
during collaborative dialogue and focused participant was placed once with a non-core
on the relationship between proficiency, participant of higher proficiency and once
frequency and the resolution of LREs. again with a non-core participant of lower
Williams (1999) investigated the proficiency level. Each pair went through a
occurrence and resolution of LREs in the number of stages: (a) pretest which required
collaboration of eight students of four the pairs to jointly write an essay on a
proficiency levels including beginner, specific topic, (b) reformulation, that is
intermediate, high-intermediate and making a comparison between the pairs'
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 56
essays and the reformulated version of it by intermediate (henceforth, H) and low-

a NS,(c) noticing the gap between the intermediate (henceforth, L) proficiency
original text and the reformulated version of levels.
it, and (d) posttest which required the pairs 3.2. Instrumentation
to write the essay again making as many Since this study focused on the
changes as they desired so that it was participants' collaborative dialogue, the
similar to native-like texts. The pair talk of aural/oral format of the pretest and the
participants was recorded, transcribed and posttest was used. Both pretest and the
coded for LREs to find the relationship posttest included a PLT and an ODCT to
between proficiency difference, frequency assess the participants' pragmatic
of LREs as well as the patterns of knowledge prior to and following the
interactions. The analysis revealed that treatment.
core-high pairs generated LREs more Pragmatic listening test (PLT): The
frequently than core-low pairs. Also, core- PLT was adapted from the ones previously
high pairs outperformed the core-low pairs validated and used in the literature
in posttest. However, the core participants including Liu (2007) and Birjandi and
were found to get higher scores when they Rezaei (2010). It included ten situations,
worked with low proficiency partners. five situations for each of the intended
Finally, both core and non-core participants speech acts (See Appendix A for sample
produced more LREs and got higher scores PLT items). The listening prompts used for
in posttest when they worked in a the PLT were in the form of tape-recorded
collaborative pattern suggesting that dialogues. Each item included three
learners can take advantage of pair options, a correct answer and two
interaction with partners of high or low distractors. The internal consistency
proficiency provided that they act in a reliability measures for the pragmatic
collaborative manner. listening pretest and posttest were measured
3. Methodology and found to be acceptable (Cronbach's
3.1. Participants alpha= 0.81 and 0.79).
The participants of this study Oral discourse completion test
consisted of 89 (N=89) English-major (ODCT): ODCT items were chosen from
freshmen including 37 males (n=37) and 52 some previous studies (Liu, 2006; Taguchi,
females (n=52) in some branches of Islamic 2011). Prior to taking ODCT, each
Azad University in East Azarbaijan participant was given a role card including
province, Iran. Their age range was between a description of the situation as well as the
19 and 30 with the average of 21.3. All participant's role. They had approximately
participants represented three language 1-2 minutes to focus on the situations and
backgrounds, Azari, Kurdish and Persian. take notes if necessary. Following this, the
They had, on average, 6.5 years of prior teacher read each situation and the
formal English learning and none of them participants responded orally while their
had the experience of residence in English- voices were recorded. To enhance the
speaking countries. As a pretest, a reliability, the final scores of ODCTs were
Pragmatic Listening Test (PLT) and an Oral the mean scores of the researchers as well
Discourse Completion Test (ODCT) were as an external rater employing the global or
administered and based on their scores, the holistic approach and drawing upon a four-
participants were assigned to high- point rating scale previously validated by
Page | 57
Jernigan (2007). The correlation between Based on the pretest scores, the
all ratings was estimated using Pearson participants were assigned to H-H, H-L and
Product-moment Correlation yielding .82 L-L dyads and received the treatment over
for the pretest and .87 for the posttest the period of seven sessions, three sessions
representing acceptable inter-rater for each of the request and apology speech
reliabilities (See Appendix B for sample acts as well as a review session. In each
ODCT items). session, the participants were engaged in
Worksheet: A number of scenarios collaborative work following
representing speech acts of request and metapragmatic instruction.
apology were presented in the worksheet. The explicit metapragmatic
Following Brown & Levinson (1987), the instruction was started by some awareness-
scenarios enjoyed variability with respect to raising questions posed by the teacher (one
sociopragmatic elements of power, social of the researchers). She tried to raise the
distance and degree of imposition. The participants' awareness through some
items in the worksheet were adapted from questions focusing on pragmalinguistic and
among the ones used in several similar sociopragmatic aspects of speech acts. The
studies conducted before including instruction followed by presenting a
Bardovi-Harlig and Dörnyei (1998) and detailed description of request and apology
Bardovi-Harlig and Griffin (2005).Through speech acts, semantic formulas, politeness
a collaborative work, the participants were techniques, types and factors of variability
required to decide on acceptability of and strategies required for interpretation
contextualized utterances and correct the and realization of request and apologies.
problematic items. While all the items were The roles of sociopragmatic variables of
pragmalinguistically correct, some items power, social distance and degree of
included sociopragmatic deviations. imposition which lead to realization of
According to Kasper and Rose (2002), various pragmalinguistic forms in different
pragmalinguistics involves resources for contexts were also discussed.
conveying communicative acts, such as Following metapragmatic instruction,
forms or strategies used to intensify or each pair received a worksheet including
soften communicative acts. the situations with sociopragmatic
Sociopragmatics, on the other hand, refers deviations. In the case of requests, for
to the social perceptions underlying the example, the situation included an over-
performance of these forms and strategies in polite request where a moderate level of
a particular sociocultural context (See politeness was needed (e.g., in
Appendix C for sample worksheet items). supermarket) or a bare request was made
Mp3 recorder: The participants' while pragmatically more polite request
performance on ODCT pretest and posttest was demanded by situation (e.g., the student
was recorded for the researchers and an requesting his teacher). In the case of
additional rater's scoring. Also, sample apologies, the speaker avoided apologizing
LREs produced by the dyads during where apology was needed. Through
collaborative work were audio recorded for collaborative problem-solving work, the
follow-up analysis. dyads were required to draw upon their
3.3. Procedure shared resources so as to assess whether the
intended speech act was used appropriately
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 58
or not and justify their answers in cases with For the purpose of the current study,
an appropriate use of speech act. In cases an LRE focusing on speech acts was
with a pragmatically inappropriate use of operationally defined as constituting the
speech acts, they needed to underline the discourse from the point where the learner
unacceptable part and provide the started to put his/her attention on how to use
appropriate forms. In the course of action, the request or apology speech acts to the
the performance of the dyads was being point where it ended due to resolving the
monitored by the teacher. problem (correctly or incorrectly) or
Recordings of the participants' leaving it unresolved. Example 1 displays a
dialogues were made in the second fourth sample LRE from an H-L dyad. In this
and sixth sessions. While each dyad was situation, the customer is addressing the
engaged in collaborative task, their salesman in an over-polite manner. Both
interactions were audiotaped using an Mp3 learners engage with each other's ideas to
player, once for approximately 5-10 provide an appropriate alternative for the
minutes. A total of five hours recordings request form given in the worksheet.
were then transcribed by the researchers for Example1. Sample LRE (H-L dyad)
the analysis. S1: Would you be so kind as to give me a
4. Data Collection and Analysis sandwich?
The purpose of this study was to S2: Peter's answer is very….eh….. official and
explore the effect of EFL learners' …it isn't appropriate between …eh…..customer
collaborative dialogue on L2 pragmatic and salesperson.
S1:…Hm….I think so. I think……could you….
acquisition in homogeneous and S2: Also… would you…
heterogeneous dyads (research question 1). S1: Well…..Would you….could you give a
The study also investigated the frequency sandwich and yogurt please.
and the outcome of LREs produced by As mentioned earlier, apart from the
homogeneous and heterogeneous dyads frequency of LREs, a further focus of
during collaborative dialogue (research analysis was the outcome of LREs, that is
question 2 & 3). To answer the first whether they were resolved correctly,
question, the development of all dyads from incorrectly or not resolved at all. According
pretest to posttest was measured; that is the to Swain (1998), LREs are categorized in
difference between the pretest and posttest one of three possible outcomes: outcome
scores was measured and then was checked (1), when the problem is resolved correctly
for the statistical significance. either by one learner's self-correction or by
With regard to the second and third the learner answering or correcting the other
questions, drawing on similar studies learner (other-correction); outcome (2),
conducted before (Leeser, 2004; Storch & when it is left unresolved, and outcome (3),
Aldosari, 2013), the researchers identified when the problem is resolved incorrectly.
the LREs in transcriptions. They The following excerpt comes from the data
specifically focused on the LREs where a of an H-H dyad. It depicts a situation in
focus on how to make requests and which the student asks his teacher to borrow
apologies was observed. To this end, the him a book but his request is not polite. The
LREs focusing on aspects other than speech dyads needed to work out the correct form
acts including pronunciation, spelling, regarding the social variables.
lexical or grammatical forms were excluded Example 2. Correctly resolved LRE (H-H
from the analysis. dyad)
Page | 59
S1: "Ok, What's your idea"? Undoubtedly, the situation requires for
S2: I think Peter….here is talking to somebody apology and the learners needed to provide
who is lower than him…..in a lower situation the correct form of it. However, they agreed
than him….or…. on the lack of need for making an apology
S1: Yes , he thinks that teacher ….is….a kind in this situation.
of…close friend. He have…has a close
Example 4. Incorrectly resolved LRE (H-L
relationship with him. Peter thinks that he has a
close relationship with him and…..eh….asks dyad)
him like that……that language. S1: Well….. is it correct?
S2: As you said its' too informal, because when S2:….Hmm…..I think there is no problem with
you talk to your teacher,….the teacher is in a this situation. George and Peter are friends.
higher position than you….and you should use S1:.…Yes….
more formal sentences. S2: May be they're joking with each other…….I
S1: Yeah……more appropriate and more polite have no suggestion….Do you?
language……well…..would you mind giving S1: No….That's OK.
me…..? 5. Results
S2: or…can I have your book if RQ#1. Does EFL learners' collaborative
you…….ah……can I have your book if you dialogue in homogeneous and
don't need it this weekend? heterogeneous dyads affect their L2
Following Swain (1998), LREs left pragmatic acquisition?
unresolved were categorized as outcome 2. To answer the first question, the
The situation in example 3 includes two homogenous and heterogeneous dyads'
classmates (Anna and Maria). Anna pretest scores in PLT and ODCT were
borrowed a book from Maria, but forgot to compared with their scores in the posttest.
bring it. The situation demanded for Anna's Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of
apology; however, she did not apologize. the homogenous and heterogeneous dyads.
The following example comes from the With regard to the homogenous group, the
interaction of an L-L dyad who needed to mean (M) increased from 5.18 in the pretest
provide the correct form of apology; to 6.28 in the posttest of PLT. Similarly, we
however, none of the learners perceived the have a mean increase from 4.87 in the
need for making an apology in this pretest to 5.38 in the posttest of ODCT.
situation. The problem is, therefore, left Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Homogenous
unresolved. and Heterogeneous Dyads
Example 3. Unresolved LREs (L-L dyad)
S1: What do you think?
S2: Well…..I think…..I think Maria should give
an excuse (in Farsi)…like…..
S1: Like…?
S2: I don't know. Lets' go to next situation.
Those LREs not resolved correctly
fell into the third category, outcome 3. In
example 4, the situation included two
To investigate the significance of the
friends (George and Peter) who were
difference between the mean scores in L2
supposed to meet each other at 4. Peter
pragmatic pretest and posttest, paired
delayed for half an hour and when he came,
samples t-test was run. Table 2 shows the
he refused apologizing for being late.
results of this test.
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 60
Table 2: Paired Samples T-test for the Pretest and RQ#2. Does the frequency of LREs
Posttest of Homogeneous Dyads produced by EFL learners during
collaborative problem-solving tasks differ
across different proficiency pairings (H-H,
H-L and L-L)?
In order to explore whether the
frequency of LREs produced differed
across the H-H, H-L and L-L dyads, the
frequency of LREs produced by each dyad
types was measured. The total number of
As Table 2 shows, t observed in its LREs produced by dyads was 93 (N=93).
37 degree of freedom is 2.65 which exceeds However, there appeared LREs focusing on
the t-critical needed at 0.05 level of linguistic problems not targeted by the
significance (p<.005). As a result, we can tasks. Thus, for the purpose of the current
claim that the pragmatic scores of study, the researchers identified the LREs
homogeneous dyads increased form pretest (n=38) that specifically focused on speech
to posttest acts of request and apology. Table 4
With regard to the heterogeneous displays the sum, mean, range and
dyads, descriptive statistics reveal an frequency of LREs generated by three dyad
increase from 5.13 and 5.60 to 6.43 and 6.36 types.
in the PLT and ODCT scores respectively. Table 4: Comparison of Frequency of LREs across
Again, paired samples t-test was run to Dyads
investigate the significance of the
difference between the mean scores in L2
pragmatic pretest and posttest of
heterogeneous dyads (Table 3).
Table 3: Paired Samples T-test for the Pretest and
Posttest of Heterogeneous Dyads
As Table 4 displays, the largest
number of LREs was produced by H-H
dyads (n=16) followed by H-L dyads (n=
12) and L-L dyads (n=10). In other words,
of the total number of LREs, 42.1% were
produced by H-H dyads, 31.5% by H-L
dyads and 26.3% by L-L dyads. Therefore,
The t-value is 2.23, exceeding the t- it appears that proficiency pairing had an
critical needed in its 43 degree of freedom impact on the number of LREs produced by
(p<0.09).Thus, the difference between the three types of dyads. The higher the
pragmatic pretest and posttest scores is proficiency of the dyads, the more they
statistically significant. We can claim that were found to produce LREs. The table also
both the homogeneous and heterogeneous suggests that variations exist between each
dyads improved from pretest to posttest of pair in terms of the number of LREs
L2 pragmatics as a result of engagement in produced. This is implied by range.
collaborative dialogue. RQ#3. Does the resolution of LREs differ
across different proficiency pairings when
Page | 61
engaged in collaborative problem-solving effect of collaborative dialogue on

tasks? development of L2 pragmatics was revealed
A further focus of the analysis was the by the dyads' improvement of scores from
outcome or the nature of resolution of pretest to posttest. Moreover, as the
LREs, that is whether the LREs were proficiency of the dyads increased, they
resolved correctly, incorrectly or not tended to produce more LREs with the H-H
resolved at all. Table 5 shows the outcome dyads producing a high proportion of LREs
of LREs across all dyad types. followed by H-L and L-L dyads. Regarding
Table 5: LREs' Outcomes across All Dyads the outcomes, the correct resolutions in H-
H dyads outnumbered the other dyads.
Rarely, did the dyads leave the episodes
unresolved. In the case of incorrect
resolutions, L-L dyads performed rather
similarly to H-L dyads while H-H dyads
had the least number of incorrect
As revealed by Table 5, from among
resolutions.
three dyadic types, most of LREs were
The findings of this study generally
resolved correctly by H-H dyads (n=14)
support Vygotsky's SCT and the notion of
followed by H-L dyads (n=7) and L-L
collaborative dialogue. Collaborative pair
dyads (n=4). The opposite pattern was
work provides learners with chances for
observable for outcome 3, that is the
meaningful communication and involves
number of LREs which was solved
them in cognitive processes which can be a
incorrectly was higher in the case of L-L
source for L2 learning. Scaffolding
dyads (n=5) followed by H-L dyads (n=4)
grounded in social mediation and dialogic
and H-H dyads (n=1). Also, the data reveals
interaction serves as a functional and
that a very low number of LREs was left
fruitful platform for language learning and
unresolved (outcome 2) which was evident
development. According to Swain and
in the case of L-L dyads (n=2) and H-L
Lapkin (1995), during the collaborative pair
dyads (n=1). A further point is that more
work, individuals can verbalize their
than half of the LREs (65.5%) were
problems and engage in meta-talk. The
resolved correctly; 26.3% episodes were
verbalization represents a cognitive tool for
resolved incorrectly and only 7.85% were
internalizing the meaning
left unresolved by the dyads.
The improvement of all dyads from
6. Discussion and Conclusions
pretest to posttest, regardless of the type of
The purpose of the current study was
proficiency pairing, is consistent with van
to explore the effect of collaborative
Lier's argument. According to van Lier
dialogue on L2 pragmatic acquisition and to
(2004), peers can also learn by the act of
find out whether the frequency and the
teaching each other. So, peer mediation
outcome of LREs produced during
might be an alternative to teacher
collaborative problem-solving tasks on
mediation. He further argued that the
request and apology speech acts were
construct of scaffolding "must be expanded
different across dyads of different
to include not only an expert-novice
proficiency pairings (H-H, H-L and L-L).
relationship, but also an equal peer one, a
The answer to these questions is "yes". The
peer to lower level peer one, and a self-
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 62
access, self-regulated one" (p. 162). Thus, proficiency gap between the two groups.
the high proficiency learners can also learn Indeed, in the current study, the notations
from the act of teaching the weaker ones. High and Low refer to the high-
Here, mediation comes in the form of intermediate and low-intermediate
assistance to high proficiency learner to proficiency levels with none of the low
reach higher levels of complexity and proficiency participants representing a true
fluency in producing language. beginner. That is, the knowledge
The finding that the number of LREs asymmetry was not too large among L-L
as well as the correct resolutions in H-H and H-L dyads.
dyads exceeded the other dyad types This study provided some insights
substantiates the findings of some previous into the potentiality of peer-peer
studies (e.g., Kim & McDonough, 2008; collaborative dialogue EFL contexts and the
Leeser, 2004; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; effect that engagement in collaborative
Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Williams, 1999). discourse might have on acquisition of L2
In the current study, a rise in the number of speech acts. It is suggested that mediation
LREs and correct resolutions was observed does not necessarily come from the teacher,
as the overall proficiency of the dyads but peers can mediate the learning process
increased with the L-L dyads generating the as well. Given the potentiality of peer
least amount of LREs. This might be mediation, it is recommended that the
attributable to H-H dyads "developmental teachers use this possibility to empower the
readiness"(Spada & Lightbown, 1993) to students and bring about a friendly and
assimilate the information from the challenging atmosphere for L2 learning.
instruction on speech acts. They were more According to Donato (1994), co-
equipped with L2 pragmatic knowledge, construction of the knowledge is mainly
lexical and oral skills to negotiate their based on the establishment of inter-
solutions, resulting in their frequent, fluent subjectivity which is the state of shared
and more appropriate production of LREs focus and intention to progress in the ZPD.
focusing on speech acts. Due to knowledge asymmetry between the
Accordingly, the limited number of teacher and students, achieving inter-
LREs produced by L-L dyads in this study subjectivity might be cumbersome;
may be explained by their narrow L2 however, peer collaboration assists the
pragmatic knowledge and vocabulary students to arrive at inter-subjectivity and
which precluded them from negotiating shared understanding through dialogic
their ideas. Since L2 linguistic production is interaction.
contingent upon a threshold level of Finally, the results obtained from this
vocabulary knowledge, limited lexicon study should be treated with caution. The
might have not allowed the lower participants were engaged in collaborative
proficiency learners to exchange their ideas. task with partners of the same/different
This problem was compounded given their proficiency level. The results might have
poor oral skills due to lack of opportunities been different if each participant acted as a
to use L2 in their regular classes. core participant, accomplishing the task
While the number of LREs resolved twice, once with a partner of the same level
incorrectly was the least in the case of H-H of proficiency and once again with a
dyads, it was rather similar in H-L and L-L different proficiency partner. This remains
dyads which may be attributed to a limited an area of research for future studies.
Page | 63
References learning, teaching and testing (pp. 25-

Alcon, E. (2002). Relationship between 44). Bristol: Cromwell Press Ltd.
teacher-led versus learners' Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom:
interaction and the development of Interaction patterns and engagement
pragmatics in the EFL classroom. during a collaborative task. System,
International Journal of Educational 52, 26-37.
Research, 37, 359-377. Fernández, A. , & Blum, A. (2013).
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z., (1998). Do Collaborative writing in pairs and
language learners recognize small groups: Learners' attitudes and
pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. perceptions. System, 41(2), 365-378.
grammatical awareness in instructed Ghorbani, M. R., & Nezamoshari’e, M. (2012).
L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, Cooperative learning boosts EFL
233-259. students' grammar achievement.
Bardovi-Harlig K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 Journal of Theory and Practice in
pragmatic awareness: evidence from Language Studies, 2(7), 1465-1471.
the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401- Jernigan, J. E. (2007). Instruction and
415. developing second language
Behjat, F. (2011). Reading through interaction: pragmatic competence. Unpublished
From Individualistic reading doctoral dissertation, The Florida
comprehension to collaborating. State University. Retrieved October 3,
Theory and Practice in Language 2012, from
Studies, 1(3), 239-244. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewco
Benghomrani, N. (2011).The effects of ntent.cgi?article=2565&context=etd.
cooperative learning on second year Karimi, L., & Jalilvand, M. (2014). The effect
LMD students' performance in of peer and teacher scaffolding on the
English tenses (Master's thesis). reading comprehension of EFL
Retrieved from learners in asymmetrical and
http://bu.umc.edu.dz/theses/anglais/B symmetrical groups. The Journal of
EN1283.pdf Teaching Language Skills (JTLS),
Birjandi, P., & Rezaei, S. (2010). Developing a 5(4), 1-17.
multiple-choice discourse completion Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic
test of interlanguage pragmatics for development in a second language.
Iranian EFL learners. ILI Language Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
Teaching Journal (Special Issue: Kim, Y. (2009).The effects of task complexity
Proceedings of the First Conference on learner-learner interaction. System,
on ELT in the Islamic World), 6 (1), 37 (2), 254-268.
43-58. Kim, Y. J., & McDonough, K. (2008). The
Donato. R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in effect of interlocutor proficiency on
second language learning. In J. P. the collaborative dialogue between
Lantolf & G. Appel, (Eds.), Korean as second language learners.
Vygotskian approaches to second Language Teaching Research, 12 (2),
language research (pp.33-56). 211-234.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using
Dufon, M. A. (2008). Language socialization collaborative language production
theory in the acquisition of tasks to promote students' language
pragmatics. In E. Alcón Soler, & A. awareness. Language Awareness, 3,
Martínez-Flor (Eds.). Investigating 73-93.
pragmatics in foreign language
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 64
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). form in classroom second language

Sociocultural theory and the acquisition (pp. 64-81).
pedagogical imperative in L2 Cambridge: Cambridge University
education. New York: Routledge. Press.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M. (2002). Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and
Reformulation and the learning of beyond: Mediating acquisition
French pronominal verbs in a through collaborative dialogue. In J.
Canadian French immersion context. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory
Modern Language Journal, 86, 485– and second language learning (pp.
507. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and Press.
focus on form during collaborative Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: another
dialogue. Language Teaching approach to content specification and
Research, 8, 55-82. to validating inferences drawn from
Liu, J. (2006). Assessing EFL learners' test scores. Language Testing, 18,
interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: 275-302.
Implications for testers and teachers. Swain , M., Brooks, L. & Tocalli-Beller, A.
Reflections on English Language (2003). Peer-peer dialogue as a means
Teaching, 5 (1), 1, 22. of second language learning. Annual
Liu, J. (2007). Developing a pragmatics test for Review of Applied Linguistics, 23,
Chinese EFL learners. Language 171-185.
Testing. 24(3), 391-415. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in
Memari Hanjani, A., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring output and the cognitive processes
L2 writers' collaborative revision they generate: A step towards second
interactions and their writing language learning. Applied
performance. System, 44, 101-114. Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Murphy, Ph. (2007). Reading comprehension Taguchi, N. (2011). Rater variation in the
exercises online: The effect of assessment of speech acts.
feedback, proficiency and interaction. Pragmatics, 21(3), 453-471.
Language Learning and Technology, van Lier, L. (2004). The semiotics and ecology
11(3), 107-129. of language learning perception,
Ohta, A.S. (1995). Applying sociocultural voice, identity and democracy.
theory to an analysis of learner Utbildning & Demokrati, 13 (3), 79-
discourse: Learner-learner 103.
collaborative interaction in the Zone Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
of Proximal Development. Issues in development of higher psychological
Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 93-121. processes. Cambridge,
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1993). Massachusetts: Harvard University
Instruction and the development of Press.
questions in the L2 classroom. Studies Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effect of
in Second Language Acquisition, 15, proficiency differences and patterns
205-221. of pair interaction on second language
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013).Pairing learning: collaborative dialogue
learners in pair work activity. between adult ESL learners.
Language Teaching Research, 17, 31- Language Teaching Research, 11(2),
48. 121-142.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through Williams, J. (1999). Learners' generated
conscious reflection. In C. Doughty attention to form. Language
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Learning, 49 (4), 583.
Page | 65
Wu, M. Y. (2008). The impact of English

proficiency on college learner- Appendix B: Sample ODCT items
earners' meaning negotiation in a 1. You completely forget a crucial meeting at the
Chinese EFL context (MA office with your boss. An hour later you call him to
apologize. The problem is that this is the second time
dissertation, Lanzhou University).
you’ve forgotten such a meeting. Your boss gets on
Retrieved from http://mt.china- the line and asks:
papers.com/2/?p=181471 Boss : “What happened to you?”
Zarei, A., & Keshavarz, J. (2011). On the You :
effects of two models of cooperative 2. You forget a get-together with a friend. You call
learning on EFL reading him to apologize. This is really the second time
comprehension and vocabulary you’ve forgotten such a meeting. Your friend asks
learning. Modern Journal of over the telephone:
Language Teaching Methods, 1(2), Friend:” What happened? ”
39-54. You :
Appendix C: Sample worksheet items
Zeng, G., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based
Each of the following questions will provide
peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a a description of a request situation. Read the
computer- mediated learning following situations and decide whether the speaker
environment in the EFL context. has used the language appropriately. If not, provide
System, 37, 434-446. your own answers in these situations.
Appendices 1. Peter asks his teacher for a book.
Appendix A: Sample PLT items P: Mr. Gordon?
1. Suppose you have not understood what G: Yes?
the teacher has just explained about "simple past P: Borrow this book to me for the weekend if you not
tense". How do you ask for explanations about the need it.
structure of this tense? 1. Peter goes to the snack bar to get something to eat
a. Should I ask you a question? before class.
b. How can I ask you a question? F: May I help you?
c. Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question? S: Would you be so kind as to give me a sandwich
2. Suppose you have a listening class and and a yogurt please?
you cannot hear what is played on T.V. How would
you ask your teacher to turn it up?
a. I’m sorry, but I cannot hear.
b. I’ll ask you to turn it up.
c. What? Turn it up please.
www.eltsjournal.org
Page | 66

The Frequency and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Frequency and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Frequency and Resolution of Language Related Episodes in Collaborative Dialogue

of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Dyads

1. Introduction processes and intra-psychological

resolution of LREs produced by Iranian the inter-psychological mechanisms of

essays and the reformulated version of it by intermediate (henceforth, H) and low-

engaged in collaborative problem-solving effect of collaborative dialogue on

References learning, teaching and testing (pp. 25-

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). form in classroom second language

Wu, M. Y. (2008). The impact of English

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi