Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:39:24.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learner attitudes and attention to form in peer interaction: A proposal to replicate Adams et al. (2011) and Philp et al. (2010)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2020

Masatoshi Sato
Masatoshi Sato*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile
*
Email: masatoshi.sato@unab.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research into peer interaction continues to grow and new findings with new designs have been reported. However, there remain theoretical and methodological issues that replication studies can address. In this article, I first discuss theoretical frameworks that have been used to investigate peer interaction, namely, interactionist, sociocultural, and psychological. I explain that, regardless of theoretical frameworks, peer interaction effectiveness has been at least partly accounted for by the ways in which learners temporarily shift their attention to linguistic issues during meaningful interaction, via peer feedback or language-related episodes (LREs). Current research also suggests that learner attitudes mediate this interactional behavior. To fill the gaps in this issue, I make methodological suggestions for replication research of Adams, Nuevo, & Egi (2011) and Philp, Walter, & Basturkmen (2010), including intervention materials, transcript analysis, statistical design, and internal validity control. I conclude the paper with pedagogical implications that may arise from replication studies.

Type
Replication Research
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 407 - 416
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

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

Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? Modern Language Journal, 95(S1), 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R., & Oliver, R. (2019). Teaching through peer interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballinger, S. (2015). Linking content, linking students: A cross-linguistic pedagogical intervention. In Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (Eds.), Multilingual Education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 35–60). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryfonski, L., & Sanz, C. (2018). Opportunities for corrective feedback during study abroad: A mixed methods approach. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carless, D. R. (2003). Factors in the implementation of task-based teaching in primary schools. System, 31(4), 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, P. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 102244. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In Loewen, S. & Sato, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R., & Prieto-Botana, G. (Eds.) (2019). Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
East, M. (2017). Research into practice: The task-based approach to instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 50(3), 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63–89). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Schauer, J. M. (2019). More than one replication study is needed for unambiguous tests of replication. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 44(5), 543–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(3), 549–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments in non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In García Mayo, M. P., Gutierrez-Mangado, J., & Martínez Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71–92). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(3), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 181–209). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Trofimovich, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Introducing registered reports at Language Learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning, 68(2), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, I. A., & Sippel, L. (2021). Is giving better than receiving? The effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation skills. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 7(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2000). Communicative tasks, conversational interaction, and linguistic form: An empirical study of Thai. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Short, K., Marsden, E., Heil, J., Issa, B. I. II, Leow, R. P., Mikhaylova, A., … Szudarski, P. (2018). Multisite replication in second language acquisition research: Attention to form during listening and reading comprehension. Language Learning, 68(2), 392–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peace, M. M. (2019). Noticing without negotiation? What L2 Spanish learners report hearing in peer-produced language. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, doi:10.1515/iral-2017-0116Google Scholar
Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness, 19(4), 261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using tasks for second language instruction and research. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015). Advancing quantitative methods in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porte, G. (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Porte, G., & McManus, K. (2019). Doing replication research in applied linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porte, G., & Richards, K. (2012). Focus article: Replication in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2017a). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67(2), 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2017b). Oral peer corrective feedback: Multiple theoretical perspectives. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M. (2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In Lambert, C. & Oliver, R. (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In DeKeyser, R. & Prieto Botana, G. (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 31–54). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 999–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2020). Predicting L2 learners’ noticing of L2 errors: Proficiency, language analytical ability, and interaction mindset. System, 102301. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). “I think that is a better way to teach but…”: EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sato, M., & Storch, N. (2020). Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/1362168820923582Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.Google Scholar
Sippel, L. (2019). The impact of peer corrective feedback on vocabulary development. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 595–611.Google Scholar
Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Sato, M. (2019). Comparing the same task in different L2 learning contexts: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 50–69. doi:10.1111/ijal.12263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337.Google Scholar
Tomita, Y., & Spada, N. (2013). Form-focused instruction and learner investment in L2 communication. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454–6459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J., Fan, Y., & Xu, Q. (2019). EFL learners’ corrective feedback decision-making in task-based peer interaction. Language Awareness, 28(4), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2013). Conflict between learners’ beliefs and actions: speaking in the classroom. Language Awareness, 22(4), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohoorian, Z. (2015). Motivation level: A study on the effect of an authentic context. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar