Effect of Proficiency Pairing on L2 Learners’ Language Learning and Scaffolding in Collaborative Writing

Regular Article

Abstract

In L2 pedagogy, collaborative writing has been employed as a task for facilitating language learning, and language proficiency is often taken as a primary yardstick for pairing learners. Yet studies about the effect of proficiency pairing on language learning in pair writing have obtained mixed findings, and few studies have examined how proficiency pairing affects learners’ scaffolding strategy use. The present study, following a sociocognitive approach, investigated the effects of proficiency pairing on Chinese EFL learners’ language learning and scaffolding strategy use in pair writing. The study recruited three groups, respectively, including four high–high pairs, four high–low pairs, and four low–low pairs. An analysis of the 12 dyads’ dialogues elicited from pair writing revealed that low–low pairs produced more language-related episodes (LREs) and resorted to more scaffolding strategies than high–high and high-low pairs did while high–high and high-low pairs successfully resolved more LREs than low–low pairs did. The findings were discussed with reference to such mediating variables as task nature, interaction pattern, and task orientation. Pedagogical implications were drawn in the conclusion.

Keywords

Collaborative writing Proficiency pairing Language learning Language-related episodes Scaffolding strategy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers’ insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. We also appreciate the participants’ willingness to attend the study and Ms. Peiwen Shan’s help with the statistical work. The study has been supported by the Ministry of Education Project of the Centre for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and the Bilingual Cognition and Development Lab, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS), China, as well as funded by the GDUFS Teaching Reform Program of the Year 2017 (GWJY2017008) and the GDUFS International Language-service-oriented Foreign Language and Literature Creative Construction Program (No. 101-GK17GS52).

References

  1. Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, L. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26(3), 367–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villami, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZDP: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  7. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gagné, N., & Parks, S. (2013). Cooperative learning tasks in a Grade 6 intensive ESL class: Role of scaffolding. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 188–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–199). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Hulstijn, J., Young, R., Ortega, L., Bigelow, M., DeKeyser, R., Ellis, N., et al. (2014). Bridging the gap: Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lantolf, J. (2010). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 163–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Leeser, M. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li, M. (2013). Individual novices and collective experts: Collective scaffolding in wiki-based small group writing. System, 41, 752–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communicative task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shin, S.-Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effect of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text-reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Storch, N. (1998). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7(4), 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 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

Copyright information

© De La Salle University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Guangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Hunan Normal UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Faculty of English Language and CultureGuangdong University of Foreign StudiesGuangzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations