This study examined the opportunities that pair and small group interaction offer for collaborative dialogue and second language (L2) vocabulary learning. It compared the performance of the same collaborative writing task by learners working in groups of four (n = 60) and in pairs (n = 50), focusing on the occurrence of lexical language-related episodes (LREs). Findings indicate that groups produced more lexical LREs than pairs and were able to solve correctly a higher percentage of these LREs. Although opportunities for individual learners to contribute to the conversation were more limited in small groups, the number of participants did not have a negative impact on learners’ rate of retention of the lexical knowledge co-constructed in interaction. The pretests and posttests showed that learners benefited from the LREs they initiated or resolved, as well as from observing their peers’ collaborative problem-solving activities. As a result, small group interaction resulted in significantly more instances of L2 vocabulary learning than pair interaction.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Alegría de la ColinaA.García MayoM.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
3.
AllwrightR. (1980). Turns, topics and tasks: Patterns of participation in language teaching and learning. In Larsen-FreemanD. (Ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 165–187). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
4.
AntónM.DiCamillaF. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314–342.
5.
DelaFuenteM. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 81–112.
6.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
EllisR.HeX. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301.
8.
EllisR.TanakaY.YamazakiA. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
9.
Fernández DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
10.
García MayoM.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.
11.
GassS.Alvarez TorresM.J. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 1–31.
12.
González SáinzT. (1999). Juegos comunicativos: Español lengua extranjera [Communicative games: Spanish as a foreign language]. Madrid: Ediciones SM.
13.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
14.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
15.
LaPierreD. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
16.
LapkinS.SwainM.SmithM. (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 485–507.
17.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
18.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–41.
19.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press
20.
ManchónR.M. (Ed.). (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
21.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
22.
NationI.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
NationI.S.P.WebbS. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.
24.
NewtonJ. (1993). Task-based interaction among adult learners of English and its role in second language development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
25.
OhtaA.S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
OhtaA.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ShekaryM.TahririanM. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. Modern Language Journal, 90, 557–573.
29.
SlimaniA. (1989). The role of topicalisation in classroom language learning. System, 17, 223–234.
30.
StorchN. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363–374.
31.
StorchN. (2001a). Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different classroom tasks. RELC Journal, 32, 104–124.
32.
StorchN. (2001b). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.
33.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
34.
StorchN. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.
35.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
36.
StorchN. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
37.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.
38.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
39.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
SwainM. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44–63.
42.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: Continuum.
43.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
44.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In BygateM.SkehanP.SwainM. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). London: Longman.
45.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,285–304.
46.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume I: Thinking and speaking. New York: Plenum.
48.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
49.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
50.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
51.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
52.
WoodD.BrunerJ.RossG. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100.
53.
ZengG.TakatsukaS. (2009). Text-based peer-peer collaborative dialogue in a computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446.
