Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:04:17.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Child Interaction in Task-Supported EFL/CLIL Contexts

from Part V - Task-Based Language Teaching with School-Age Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
María del Pilar García Mayo
Edited by
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian  and
Michael H. Long
Mohammad Javad Ahmadian
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Michael H. Long
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, College Park
Get access

Summary

The present chapter focuses on the benefits of task-supported interaction among child foreign language learners. It reviews research carried out in English as a foreign language (EFL) and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts, and highlights the affordances of child–child interaction in settings where access to input is restricted. The chapter provides a rationale for the increasing interest in research with the underexplored population of young learners in foreign language contexts. It also features a summary of the main findings from research carried out to date within two frameworks, namely, interactionist (Long, 1996) and sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1978). The children in the studies are in the so-called middle childhood stage, a developmental stage characterized by their becoming more logical in their thinking. The studies chosen for this chapter have considered the importance of negotiation of meaning and the impact of repeating a task on interactional patterns, attention to language form, complexity, accuracy and fluency of production and the use of the first language. The contribution ends with several suggestions for further research with young learners.

Keywords

childrenCLILcognitiveEFLinteractionsocioculturaltasks.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Task-Based Language Teaching , pp. 397 - 415
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further Reading

Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enever, J. and Lindgren, E. (2017), eds. Early language learning. Complexity and mixed methods. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2017), ed. Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. A. (2014) Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. New York: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar

References

Ahmadian, M. A. and Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, fluency, and complexity of EFL learners’ oral production. Language Teaching Research, 15, 35–59.Google Scholar
Alcón Soler, E. and García Mayo, M.P., (2009), eds. Interaction and language learning in foreign language contexts. International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 47(3). Special issue.Google Scholar
Alegría de la Colina, A. and García Mayo, M.P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 325–45.Google Scholar
Antón, M. and DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–42.Google Scholar
Azkarai, A. and García Mayo, M. P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21, 480–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azkarai, A. and Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Negotiation of meaning strategies in child EFL mainstream and CLIL settings. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 844–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bret Blasco, A. (2017). A two-year longitudinal study of three EFL young learners’oral output: The development of syntactic complexity and accuracy. In García Mayo, M. P., ed. Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 176–92.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2014). Current issues in English education for young learners in East Asia. English Teaching, 6, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2017). The dynamics of motivation development among young learners of English in China. In Enever, J. and Lindgren, E., eds. Early language learning. complexity and mixed methods. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 165–85.Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. and Zheng, W. (2015). Young foreign language learners’ interactional development in task-based paired assessment in their first and foreign languages. A case of English learners in China. Education 3–13, 44(3), 292–321.Google Scholar
Bygate, M. (2018), ed. Learning language through task repetition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A. and García Mayo, M. P. (2020a). Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task: An exploratory study. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2, 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calzada, A. and García Mayo, M.P. (2020b). Child EFL grammar learning through a collaborative task. In Suzuki, W. and Storch, N., eds. Languaging in language learning and Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
Collins, L. and Muñoz, C. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 133–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., and Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U. (2007). Introduction. In Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U., eds. Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. (1999). Siblings, friends, and the development of social understanding. In Collins, W. A. and Laursen, B., eds. Relationships as social contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 231–76.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 108–25.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ellis, G. and Knagg, J. (2013). British Council signature event: Global issues in primary ELT. In Pattinson, T., ed. IATEFL 2012 Glasgow conference selections. Canterbury: IATEFL Publications, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar
Enever, J. (2018). Policy and politics in global primary english. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enever, J. and Lindgren, E. (2017), eds. Early language learning. complexity and mixed methods. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eurostats (2018). Foreign language learning statistics. Document retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Foreign_language_learning_statistics#Primary_education.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2017), ed. Learning foreign languages in primary education research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2018). Child task-supported interaction in the Spanish EFL setting. Research and challenges. International Journal of English Studies 18, 119–43.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. (2021) “Are you coming back? It was fun.” Turning ethical and methodological challenges into opportunities in task-based research with children. In Pinter, A. and Kuchah, K., eds. Ethical and methodological issues in researching young language learning in school contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp .68–83.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Alcón Soler, E. (2013). Negotiated input, output/interaction. In Herschensohn, J. and Young-Scholten, M., eds. The Handbook of second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–29.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Azkarai, A. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In Sato, M. and Ballinger, S., eds. Peer interaction and second language learning: Research agenda and pedagogical potential. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 242–66.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and García Lecumberri, M. L. (2003), eds. Age and the acquisition of english as a foreign language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Imaz Agirre, A. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics. An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44, 451–66.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Imaz Agirre, A. (2017). Child EFL interaction; age, instructional setting and development. In Enever, J. and Lindgren, E., eds. Researching the complexity of early language learning in instructed contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 249–68.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Imaz Agirre, A. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: their impact on patterns of interaction and attention to form among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–75.Google Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Lázaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P. and Villarreal Olaizola, I. (2011). The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research 27, 129–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., Imaz Agirre, A., and Azkarai, A. (2018). Task repetition effects on CAF in EFL child task-based interaction. In Ahmadian, M. A. and García Mayo, M. P., eds. Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 9–28.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. and Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In Van Patten, B. and Williams, J., eds. Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 175–99.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M. A. (2019). Differences in the task-supported negotiations of younger and older EFL children: From repair into prevention. International Review of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.og/10.1515/iral-2018-0206.Google Scholar
Hidalgo, M. A. and García Mayo, M. P. (2019). The influence of task repetition type on young learners’ attention to form. Language Teaching Research. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819865559.Google Scholar
Imaz Agirre, A. and García Mayo, M. P. (2020). The impact of agency in pair formation on the degree of participation in young learners’collaborative dialogue. In Lambert, C. and Oliver, R., eds. Using tasks in diverse contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 306–323.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. Word Englishes, 28, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, E. and Ahn, S-Y. (2014). Preschool world language learners’ engagement with language: what are the possibilities? Language Awareness, 23, 319–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopinska, M. and Azkarai, A. (2020). Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: individual vs. pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 607–30.Google Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A. and Azpilicueta Martínez, R. (2015). Investigating negotiation of meaning in EFL children with very low levels of proficiency. International Journal of English Studies, 15, 1–21.Google Scholar
Lázaro Ibarrola, A. and Hidalgo, M.A. (2017). Benefits and limitations of conversational interactions among young learners of English in a CLIL context. In García Mayo, M. P., ed. Learning foreign languages in primary school. research insights. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S. and Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Bhatia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. C., eds. Handbook of language acquisition New York: Academic Press, pp. 413–68.Google Scholar
Luquin, M. and García Mayo, M.P. (2020). Collaborative writing and feedback: An exploratory study of the potential of models in primary EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2, 73–100.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. and Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In Mackey, A., ed. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–53.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. Amterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martínez Adrián, M., Gallardo del Puerto, F., and Basterrechea, M. (2019). On self-reported use of communication strategies by CLIL learners in primary education. Language Teaching Research, 23, 39–57.Google Scholar
Mourão, S. and Lourenço, M. (2015), eds. Early years second language education. International perspectives on theory and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21, 496–516.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2006), ed. Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL:Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 20, 17–26.Google Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2019). A new look at age: young and old L2 learners. In Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A., eds. The Cambridge handbook of language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 430–50.Google Scholar
Murphy, V. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years. Trends and Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolov, M. (1999). “Why do you learn English?” “Because the teacher is short”: A study of Hungarian children’s foreign language learning motivation. Language Teaching Research, 3, 33–65.Google Scholar
Nikolov, M. and Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234–60.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In Mackey, A. and Polio, C., eds. Multiple perspectives on interaction. London: Routledge, pp. 141–62.Google Scholar
Oliver, R. and Philp, J. (2014). Focus on oral interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Nguyen, B., and Sato, M. (2017). Child ISLA. In Loewen, S. and Sato, M., eds. The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, pp. 468–87.Google Scholar
Oliver, R., Philp, J., and Mackey, A. (2008). The impact of teacher input, guidance and feedback on ESL children’s task-based interactions. In Philp, J., Oliver, R., and Mackey, A., eds. Second language acquisition and the younger learner: Child’s play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 131–47.Google Scholar
Philp, J. and Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential effects on interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 245–66.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R., and Mackey, A. (2008). Second language acquisition and the young learner. Child’s play? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (2013). From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence, and attention. An overview of theory and research on learner interaction and SLA. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez Mangado, J., and Martínez Adrián, M., eds. Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–70.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research,11, 189–207.Google Scholar
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of primary school EFL learning motivation in CLIL and non-CLIL settings. Language Teaching Research, 23: 765–86.Google Scholar
Sample, E. and Michel, M. (2014). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy and fluency in young learners’oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal 31, 23–46.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58.Google Scholar
Shak, J. and Gardner, S. (2008). Young learners perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12, 387–408.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2018). New frontiers in task-based language teaching research. In Ahmadian, M. A. and García Mayo, M. P., eds. Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. vii-xxi.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. and Coombe, C. A. (2012), eds. Task-based language teaching in foreign language contexts. Research and implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). Input-based tasks in foreign language instruction for young learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, F. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A synthesis of the Ealing research. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., and Vedder, I., eds. Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. complexity, accuracy and fluency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–220.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52, 119–58.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., eds. Principles and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 125–44.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on forma through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., eds. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–81.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E., ed. Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 471–83.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H., ed. Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it-through: Languaging as a source of learning. In Batstone, R., ed. Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–30.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Resource books for teachers: Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×