Although the literature on language pedagogy encourages the use of pair work in the second language classroom, students sometimes seem reluctant to work in pairs, particularly on grammar-focused tasks. This study investigated the merits of pair work by comparing pair and individual work on an editing task and by analysing the nature of pair interaction. The study was conducted in four intact ESL tertiary classes. Students in class A completed the task in pairs and in class B individually. In classes C and D students were given the choice of completing the task in pairs or individually. In class A all pair talk was audio recorded. Analysis of the edited texts showed that there were no significant differences between the accuracy of tasks completed individually and those completed in pairs. Analysis of the transcribed pair talk showed that most pairs engaged actively in deliberations over language and tended to reach correct resolutions. Thus the results suggest that although pair work on a grammar-focused task may not lead to greater accuracy in completing the task, pair work provides learners with opportunities to use the second language for a range of functions, and in turn for language learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J.P.1994: Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal78: 465–483.
2.
Allwright, R.L.1984: The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics5(2): 156–171.
3.
Canale, M. and Swain, M.1980: Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics1: 1–47.
4.
DiCamilla, F.J. and Anton, M.1997: Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: a Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review53: 609–633.
5.
Donato, R. 1988: Beyond group: a psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second-language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark.
6.
Donato, R.1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G., editors, Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 33–56.
7.
Donato, R.2004: Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics24: 284–302.
8.
Doughty, C. and Williams, J.1998: Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Duff, P.A.2000: Repetition in foreign language classroom interaction. In Hall, J.K. and Verplaetse, L.S., editors, Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Bloom, 109–138.
10.
Ellis, G. and Sinclair, R.1989: Learning to learn English: a course in learner training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Foster, P. and Skehan, P.1999: The influence of sources of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research3: 215–247.
12.
García Mayo, M.P.2002: Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: a comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research37: 323–341.
13.
Goss, N., Yang-Hua, Z. and Lantolf, J.P.1994: Two heads may be better than one: mental activity in second-language grammaticality judgments. In Tarone, E.E., Gass, S.M. and Cohen, A.D., editors, Research methodology in second-language acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 263–286.
14.
Kinsella, K.1996: Designing group work that supports and enhances diverse classroom work style. TESOL Journal6: 24–30.
15.
Krashen, S.1981: Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16.
Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I.2002: The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research37: 343–358.
17.
Lantolf, J.P.2006: Sociocultural theory and L2. State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition28: 67–109.
18.
Leeser, M.J.2004: Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research8: 55–81.
19.
Leow, R.1997: Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning47: 467–505.
20.
Long, M.H.1983: Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics4(2): 126–141.
21.
Long, M.N.1996: The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W.C. and Bhatia, T.K., editors, Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. New York: Academic Press, 413–468.
22.
Long, M.H. and Porter, P.A.1985: Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly19: 207–227.
23.
McDonough, K.2004: Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System32: 207–224.
24.
Mishra, S. and Oliver, R.1998: Secondary school ESL learners' perceptions of pair work in Australian classrooms. TESOL in Context8: 19–23.
25.
Ohta, A.2000: Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In Hall, J.K. and Verplaetse, L.S., editors, Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 47–72.
Pica, T., Young, R. and Doughty, C.1987: The impact of interaction on input comprehension. TESOL Quarterly21: 737–758.
28.
Savignon, S.1991: Communicative language teaching: state of the art. TESOL Quarterly25: 261–277.
29.
Skehan, P.1998: A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
Storch, N.2005: Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing14: 153–173.
31.
Storch, N.1997: The editing talk of adult learners. Language Awareness6: 221–232.
32.
Storch, N.1999: Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System27: 363–374.
33.
Storch, N.2002: Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning52: 119–158.
34.
Storch, N. and Wigglesworth, G.2007: Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In Garcia Mayo, M.P., editor, Investigating tasks in formal language settings. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
35.
Swain, M.1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., editors, For H.G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A festschrift on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–144.
36.
Swain, M.1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64–82.
37.
Swain, M.2000: The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquistion through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.P., editor, Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114.
38.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S.1998: Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal82: 320–337.
39.
van Lier, L.1996: Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
40.
Vygotsky, L.S.1978: Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Webb, N.1989: Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research13: 21–39.
42.
Williams, J.1999: Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning51: 303–346.
43.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G.1976: The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry17: 89–100.
